CSI 4/10/2008 (S08E13) "A Thousand Days on Earth"

[Graymalkin]

So does the indecent exposure guy have a legitimate point?

Should Megan's Law lump indecent exposure (under the influence) or two 15-year-old kids having sex together with sexual molestation of children?

Did Catherine go overboard?

[justen_m]

So does the indecent exposure guy have a legitimate point?

Should Megan's Law lump indecent exposure (under the influence) or two 15-year-old kids having sex together with sexual molestation of children?

Did Catherine go overboard?

Did she have all the details behind his original conviction? I don't think she did. I agree that this is a problem with the laws.

Somewhat related, it shows how a mere accusation can ruin someone's life. Look at the Duke Lacrosse players (maybe not the best example, but the closest I can think of off the top of my head). The media today publishes a person's photo, lists there names, etc, as soon as they are arrested but before any real finding of guilt. A mere accusation can lead to the loss of a job, house, etc.

ObTV: I wonder if we'll see this guy again.

[Edit] I think they did go overboard in that they arrested him without sufficient evidence. I think this was a TV artifice. In real life, it seems like it takes a long time for police to get a warrant to arrest someone unless they are caught in the act (DUI, burglary, assault, etc).

[philw1776]

Megan's Law does need to make such distinctions assuming that it does not. Although I'm poles apart from those who constantly vex themselves over the unfortunate criminal class I thought that this dark episode succeeded well in showing another viewpoint.

Catherine WAS a blonde Nazi bitch. :eek:
But he said that like it was a bad thing. :D


Too bad the ex-con father made such bad life choices like shooting at the cops and holding people hostage.

[mike_k]

Too bad the ex-con father made such bad life choices like shooting at the cops and holding people hostage.

Did he ever shoot at the cops? I don't remember for sure, but it seems like the cops did the only shooting, killing the wife when she fell and broke the window. Seemed like there were some trigger happy cops on the scene.

[philw1776]

Did he ever shoot at the cops? I don't remember for sure, but it seems like the cops did the only shooting, killing the wife when she fell and broke the window. Seemed like there were some trigger happy cops on the scene.

My memory may be at fault but I recall someone saying he'd taken a shot at the cops. And yes the SWAT cops were shown as trigger happy and undisciplined.

Notice the iRobot product placement?

http://irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=171

[newsposter]

was he technically breaking the law if he did have a residence with his real name (i forget if he had a job) and was reporting to his PO or whatever?

i guess no expectation of privacy at a public memorial...sneaky camera play

So can there be a wrongful death suit since they shot the woman instead of the guy?

[Graymalkin]

I did notice the iRobot placement. Was that a PackBot or a PackBot 510? (http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=109)

[grant33]

I thought this episode made the cops and the crime lab look pretty bad (and possibly the writers too). They rushed to judgement on the megan's law guy based on circumstantial evidence and screwed up his life. They shot the wife after a window broke even though he had let all the hostages out. It seemed strange that the writers didn't address the screwups by the authorities. Maybe that's coming in future eps.

[steve614]

(and possibly the writers too).

I'm sure they wrote this episode that way on purpose to accentuate the inconsistencies of Megan's Law.