Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 20 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Have we sunk to such a level that this is considered entertainment? I'm sick of this reality crap. Bring back Wagon Train or Bonanza.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
I haven't watched it but have fielded several questions from my non-leo friends. Have to remind them that this is a documentary showing one side of a complicated story that was heard by a jury of this man's peers.

Again, I haven't watched it but I am certain that if I did and I believed all that was presented as it was presented I may feel the guy was railroaded too. Pretty sure that's the point of it, it implies in the title that this guy was "made" into a murderer, implying he wasn't truly one.

I'm glad we get to have 2 sides present their case in court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
^good point.

Lot's of Netflix shows (SoA, Narcos, etc) focus on the perp side of the equation and the net effect is almost akin to empathy - as if they had no choice to break the law; they were dealt a **** hand in life or had to "do what they had to do" to survive - all excuses.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I'm glad we get to have 2 sides present their case in court.
That doesn't mean much if the justice system didn't work properly in this case.

Maybe the show seems one sided because the defendant actually was treated unfairly in reality. :therapy:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
^good point.

Lot's of Netflix shows (SoA, Narcos, etc) focus on the perp side of the equation and the net effect is almost akin to empathy - as if they had no choice to break the law; they were dealt a **** hand in life or had to "do what they had to do" to survive - all excuses.
Do you see it as a problem if a show is clearly one sided in favor of law enforcement? Does that make the show less good and less worthy of watching?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Do you see it as a problem if a show is clearly one sided in favor of law enforcement? Does that make the show less good and less worthy of watching?
It's all on how the evidence lands. We are all at the mercy of evidence - the just and unjust alike. Shows are rarely unbiased; you always see things through someone else's lens.
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
65,470 Posts
The OP managed to name 2 things I sure as heck would not be tempted to watch, so my advice probably doesn't count.
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
65,470 Posts
It's all on how the evidence lands. We are all at the mercy of evidence - the just and unjust alike. Shows are rarely unbiased; you always see things through someone else's lens.
It's all on how the evidence is presented. As in this show - what is played up, or down, or completely left out, to result in a pro-defense view.

The lefty filmmaker's excuse? "It would be impossible for us to include all the evidence that was presented in the trial," Ricciardi said. "That's called a trial. What we made was a documentary."

More like, what they made was defense-advocacy fiction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
The thing about our justice system is that you have a right to appeal, if you think it broke down you can take it to a higher court and present those things- in the defendant's case- free of charge. Our system allows for such appeals on those very grounds.

My point, that you have obviously missed as have so many others that believe everything on tv or internet, is that this documentary is ENTERTAINMENT. Drama, controversy and (especially in today's society) painting the police as corrupt and inept is entertaining.

I have not testified at a hearing or trial yet where the defense didnt try to portray me as inept. There is a public defender that at every drug hearing attacks the expiration dates of the drug tests we use, despite the fact that they don't expire- he has been doing this for years and I go to hearings against him at least once a month. If the prosecutor doesn't remember to ask me if they actually expire, the court notes would reflect that I used expired tests and my arrest was false. Good thing there was someone to actually present evidence and the other side of my investigation to the jury. This happens in nearly every case.

Again, that is why our justice system is set up how it is. If this case is as broken down and mishandled as all the masses believe it is he should have numerous appeals that are potentially able to go to the highest court in the land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
It's all on how the evidence is presented. As in this show - what is played up, or down, or completely left out, to result in a pro-defense view.

The lefty filmmaker's excuse? "It would be impossible for us to include all the evidence that was presented in the trial," Ricciardi said. "That's called a trial. What we made was a documentary."

More like, what they made was defense-advocacy fiction.
I've never seen the show, but I think "defense-advocacy fiction" would well sum up my opinion based upon what I've read and seen online. Might as well be a Michael Moore flick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,889 Posts
It


is surprising that you say that. the directors said that they did not take a position on guilt or innocence with respect to the second murder.
Really? Did we watch the same show? Granted, I could only stomach six or so episodes.

You do realize he was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers?

You do realize he has the opportunity to be granted a new trial through the appeals process. Up to, and including, SCOTUS?

How did the appeals go?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,889 Posts
They left out days, and days, and days of the damning prosecution side of the argument and cherry picked certain points of testimony to go after. Hardly the face of honesty!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
One sided agenda driven portrayal. Fiction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,357 Posts
It


is surprising that you say that. the directors said that they did not take a position on guilt or innocence with respect to the second murder.
What they say and what they do are two different things. This was biased. They intentionally left out evidence to his guilt, had his lawyers constantly comment on the evidence without a real counter. Or they make excuses for his behavior.

Like when the defendant pulled a woman out her car at gun point- something he admits to.

They left out the fact Avery was found in possession of a gun ( in his house) on the first search in violation of the law because he is a convicted felon from an unrelated case.

The film makers hint that the victim was a afraid of someone and made it look that a third person was stalking her. Like strange phone calls, etc. They intentionally fail to tell the viewer, the caller was Avery.


They demean cops and when the evidence shows that the cop they disparaged is "vindicated" by the evidence, the lawyer excuse is, his suffering is nothing compared to their clients (not a mark against the film makers themselves) . But they did do is play up that the cop "intentionally " withheld evidence and it wasn't for a few episodes until the trial reveals he simply answered the phone, heard what the other cop had to say, and transferred the call to the detectives on the case. That was the extent of his involvement in the original case.

They had an agenda to go after the legal system of which they admitted was their agenda when they started filming.

They want to appear that they are not biased to give their view "creditably " that they would not have if they were blatant about it.
 
1 - 20 of 84 Posts
Top