Boston Legal (merged threads)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is that gun even legal to own in Massachusetts?

I know lots of pistols have been banned there
 
You call disregarding the law and deliberately shooting to torture someone and hanging yourself out on the line in an attempt to get a law overturned doing everything right? He should have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

What exactly do you think would be the WRONG thing to do in that situation?
 
You call disregarding the law and deliberately shooting to torture someone and hanging yourself out on the line in an attempt to get a law overturned doing everything right? He should have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...

First, the show is "over-the-top," so in a way it can't be taken seriously.
Second, Shatner's character could not be charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" for DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM AN ARMED ROBBER WITH A GUN. The robber, if anyone, should be the the one charged.
Third, having said that, fault can be found. It's called "deadly force" for a reason. In Denny Crane's situation, he was being threatened with deadly force. It doesn't really wash to say "he should have just given it up," because people who have done that have still been shot. Crane should have shot center-of-mass. The Annie Oakley business of the kneecap and feet is good TV drama in a "over the top" show, but bad defensive technique. The BG, while writhing in pain to the dramatic delight of the viewing audience, was still capable and possibly could still have posed a threat.
IMHO morally Shatner was in the right. Remember, the law and morality are not the same thing. Yes, Shatner's character was violating the law. And if you saw the end, Crane's near Machiavellian scheme to get the case to SCOTUS backfired when he won it.

In the end, it's only a TV SHOW.
 
Last edited:
Haven't watched the episode yet but intend to here in a bit. I agree with the shoot COM vs. knee, foot, foot making people have a skewed view of the way things happen or should happen. Medical shows burn me the same way as it gives patients and families the wrong impression of the medical community and more often than not makes my job harder on occasion. But we have to remember that TV is TV. A good example is Arnold.
 
Denise Bowman.

Oh, and the show is sometimes pretty funny, occasionally thought provoking. I recently finished law school, and my 2d year watched this show semi-regularly along with some classmates. They get a lot of things right about legal-world absurdities :)

timothy
 
I had a criminal law professor (who was also a prosecutor) use bits from TV shows to demonstrate points, usually precedents like Rodriguez v Illinois, Mostly from L&O, a few from The Practice, and I think one from BL. It was good for a giggle, but she was also quick to point out that if it was easy as they make it look on TV, most of the legal world would be out of a job. On BL the only bigger buffoons than Denny Crane are the judges.

And yes, over the last few seasons, they have regrettably gutted the supporting cast of eye candy. (I know I'm terrible.)
 
He could be charged if his intent was clearly to inflict pain, rather than halt the actions of the robber. It is not any more correct morally than it it is legally.
Click to expand...

His intent was self-defense. If his intent was to inflict pain, then he could have simply emptied the magazine into the thief. It is improper defense technique to NOT shoot center of mass. BTW, shooting center of mass would not necessarily result in an instant death, or lack of pain.
Look, as I said, this is an over-the-top show. It's meant to be what it is. But I think you're reading too much into Denny Crane's action.
 
Tommygunn - I sorta agree with you. Of course, I've seen two clips and am working on the second episode of the first season.

Still, humans don't always act towards singular purpose. I buy a motorcycle to save gas - and to have fun.

Arguably speaking - he had the right to self defense. During the course of it, he choose to satisfy multiple needs and desires - the need for self defense, security,vs the desire to cause a criminal pain.

In the course of that, the criminal got off relatively lightly - most of us would have killed him. Yes, he probably suffered more pain via that method - but mostly because he was still alive to feel it.

In the 'Over the Top' sense of the show I'm getting, his actions make sense. I mean, the very first show we find out Crane's sleeping with the wife of one of his friends/clients, and said client ends up pointing a gun at Crane's head, with Crane urging him to shoot.
 
Okay, then, given that his motives might be complicated, does it follow that he
1.) Shot the BG in self defense.
-or-
2.) Shot to inflict pain.

In other words are these mutually exclusive in terms of trying to obtain a jury verdict?
IMHO, as long as it can be said he was shooting in self defense, as a member of said jury, I'd vote "not guilty." A prosecutor would have to convince me that self defense was unnecessary -- and given the situation in question I don't think that is possible.

Look, this is, as I said, a TV show. If I found myself in Crane's situation, would I shoot kneecap and both feet?
No @#^$#% way.
I would shoot center of mass.
I am not a TV show and there is no director to yell, "CUT! PRINT!" in real life.
And the reality is, aside from whatever personal feelings and/or beliefs I have with regards to this issue, mljdeckard has one good valid point buried in his argument as I see it; in a real world scenario, there are juries in America who would find Denny Crane guilty in this because they would ignore the self-defense angle, and despise the seeming onanistic glee Crane expressed in shooting the BG ... and we all "know" guns are evil ... and bad guys are "misunderstood."
It would be simple self-protection to shoot COM, nothing less, nothing more.
 
Argh. Nimoy must have been doing TREK when he did that, as he had the famous Starfleet sideburns and the hairline he wore then. Forty years ago. Must have looked good in 1967.

Things sure change ......:eek:
 
I don't think those writers could ever write one line that a gun owner in the Boston area wouldn't lose their suspension of disbelief over.
 
OK--Shatner's character is a caricature of a "Gun Nut" and tactically speaking you should go COM against an armed opponent at that range, but...

OUTSTANDING use of deception/distraction to gain that sliver of an edge allowing him to draw and shoot, and

"Watch...Wallet...Gun...Knee...Right Foot....Left Foot"
I had to wipe the tears from my eyes I was laughing so hard. I know it's anti-social and legally inadvisable but damn he pulls off being a wingnut so well.
 
A few things to note:
1) The show, and Shatner's character in particular, is supposed to be funny. Dead bad guy isn't funny. Wounded bad guy whining about getting righteously kneecapped is funny.

2) CC with a permit is legal in MA, and if you don't live in Boston, Cambridge, or Worcester, is actually not all that difficult, compared to NY or CA. And a permit from another town is valid in all towns. Shatner's character probably had a LTC at one point, but it was probably revoked when he shot the child rapist.

3) The "banned" pistols are only illegal to sell at a gun shop. Private sales are not affected.
 
Darn! Now I've got to practice my COK and COF shooting, too!

Darn!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Great Gun Moment on Boston Legal
Replies
12
Views
3K
Diamondback6
D
S
  • Locked
Bill Oreilly anti view
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
hso
hso
I
  • Locked
Crazy road rager pulls gun
Replies
5
Views
832
Justin
Justin
F
  • Locked
A Policeman does it Right
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
4K
gym
G
P
  • Locked
Great video of CCW in action, stopping road rage
Replies
3
Views
793
Bruce333
B
Back
Top