Doesn't Anyone Think they Went to Jail for a Stupid Reason?

	Just one thing about the final episode that just didn't sit right
with me.  How were they to know about the stupid law?  They're from New
York, and probably never heard a thing about a new law in Massachusetts
(hope I spelled it right).  If I was in their situation, I wouldn't make
fun of the guy but I surely wouldn't have done anything about it (I would
be running).  It just seems like they should have came up with something
else to get them in jail.
	Other than this, the last episode was okay.  It didn't come
close to beating last week's episode, which I thought was really funny.
It didn't seem like a Seinfeld episode either.  Something just wasn't the
same.  Oh yeah, best quote in that episode (in my opinion) was, "How could
you pay $12 million dollars for Hideki Irabu?"  I've wondered that for a
long time.

Michael Kelly wrote:

I was wondering: Didn't they actually do something to help? They videotaped the crime, a rare and useful tool in capturing the perpetrator. We don't know if the criminal was ever caught, but few "bystanders" would go to the extreme effort of fighting crime as to actually videotape the crime, expecially when the criminal is armed with a deadly weapon.

They all deserve a medal.

This may be lame, but who is actually going to help someone being robbed at GUNPOINT? That's a gun, I say... What were they to do anyway?

ernsign wrote in article ...

KidPlug wrote in message ...

Jerry had a cell phone, he could have called the police. Then they would have been helping.

On Sat, 16 May 1998 05:16:50 GMT, "Eric Cartman" wrote:

I thought Elaine was carrying the phone.

Chris A. Calone wrote in article ...

call

the

In all fairness, picking up a phone and calling the cops on someone who's standing right in front of you with a gun, may not always be the smartest thing to do. In the old days, a crook would just cut or yank the phone line; with a cell phone, someone who has a gun has more limited options.

On 16 May 98 19:50:23 GMT, "Dixon Hayes" wrote:

The point to me is that when the stolen car drives away, it drives RIGHT BY the policeman. He has no bitch at anyone for "not helping" because he should have made the arrest himself. You could argue he's arresting them to make up for missing a much bigger bust.

Jerry should have called Superman. But knowing Superman, if the carjacker THREW the gun at him he would have ducked and he carjacker would have gotten away.

KidPlug wrote in article ...

at

with

OH HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Police can trump up charges on anyone if they want to you ignorant nit.

Chris A. Calone wrote in article ...

call

the

robbed at

sit

from

wouldn't

(I

few

to

armed with

Yeah and Kramer really would have had a talk show in his apartment and George really would sleep under his desk at work and Kramer really would go swimming in the East river. The show was based on absurd plots from the beginning. Why is this any different.

Chuck Ungar wrote in message >Michael Kelly wrote:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The thing I thought was missing is why do it in Massachusetts? Why didn't they get to Paris, see a crime THERE, and come under the new "Samaritan" law? IMHO, I think the comic potential would have been there... a whole "Midnight Express" kinda parody... I would say, that for a final episode, it left a lot of things unanswered, but overall, I thought the show was brilliant and wished it had stayed on for many more years...

The jail part was irrelevant. It wasn't realism. Larry David just wanted to show how evil and meaningless the characters were.

Those characters weren't the same ones we've known for years. Supposedly Larry David wrote the script but he must have been on some heavy medication for something. A very lame plot was thrown together, then it looks like the characters were just assembled in a courtroom and told: Just don't say anything and we'll just work the show around you. Nothing original, nothing funny, boring, boring, SUCKY, TERRIBLE, WAY WAYYYY BELOW STANDARDS. About as entertaining as a funeral.

Leigh Emshey wrote in message ...

I really don't think they are evil.

what wasn't the same was that there was only one storyline... instead of at least 3 going on at the same time.

Iconoclast wrote:

It's called dark comedy.

In the United States, people do not usually been able to get away with a crime simply by saying that they didn't know that what they did was illegal. Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for breaking the law in most courts.

No. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, The NY Four broke no law. You cannot jail someone for not helping another in the process of being assaulted and/or robbed. Vigilantism is often expressly against the law anyway. The Good Samaritan law should not be about helping someone being robbed, when helping clearly has the possibility of endangering the good samaritan. The Good Samaritan laws should be about helping injured people after an incident, or rescue when there is no clear chance of the rescuer being endangered.

No. 1 rule of any rescue situation: If a rescuer can be lost, back off and find another way to rescue the victim. Don't kill the lifeguard to rescue the swimmer.

Having said that, let me thank the real life New Yorkers who came to my Grandmother's aid when she was mugged several years ago. They chased the mugger away even though he could have been armed.

Cheers, Steve