|
Post by qb on Mar 30, 2005 10:32:17 GMT -5
Good, imho. Well, not “good” per se but the right thing to do. People don’t learn unless you’re a hard ass and teach them straight away what the rules are and how you intend to apply them. An act of mercy would have guaranteed future testing of the rules and caused Vic/the Barn to lose respect for Rawling. As a woman, she’s got to be twice as tough as any man in her position.
I wasn’t moved by the plight of the two kids, as Rawling appeared to be. Was the entire episode only about the plight of the disadvantaged…or, how they exploit the system by refusing to act responsibly? I bet liberals see it one way and conservatives the other!
|
|
|
Post by fju2112 on Mar 30, 2005 11:34:18 GMT -5
I thought it was a good thing. Her son still bought the house with drug money, and tehy simply can't allow that to happen. The mother said, "you don't know how it is here", but the fact is, Rowling is trying to change things. She wsa right to take the house and begin implementing her new policy right away instead of being lenient and not giving people the impression she couldn't back up what she said. I liked how she made the comparison to what Aceveda would have done.
This must have been the first episode in a quite a while, if ever, that we never see Aceveda at all!
|
|
|
Post by thekyoteh on Mar 30, 2005 22:57:00 GMT -5
Good, imho. Well, not “good” per se but the right thing to do. People don’t learn unless you’re a hard ass and teach them straight away what the rules are and how you intend to apply them. An act of mercy would have guaranteed future testing of the rules and caused Vic/the Barn to lose respect for Rawling. As a woman, she’s got to be twice as tough as any man in her position. I agree. And backing down from the threat would NOT have been good. You make the threat, you had better stand behind it, no matter how awful it may be. Rawlings made the threat, she had to back it up. And she made the policy as well and you can't just pick and choose who you enforce a policy with and who you don't. I wasn’t moved by the plight of the two kids, as Rawling appeared to be. Was the entire episode only about the plight of the disadvantaged…or, how they exploit the system by refusing to act responsibly? I bet liberals see it one way and conservatives the other! [/quote] I wondered if there isn't something the writers haven't told us about Rawlings yet. The way she reacted when she was thinking about how she was going to send the kids to the street, esp. after being yelled at and had the comment about her not having kids thrown at her. Does she have kids? Did she lose them? Did she want them and was unable to have them? Or was she out on the street at a young age? That comment combined with the action she was taking can trigger a lot of things! Ky
|
|
|
Post by chemikalman on Apr 5, 2005 20:30:24 GMT -5
I wondered if there isn't something the writers haven't told us about Rawlings yet. The way she reacted when she was thinking about how she was going to send the kids to the street, esp. after being yelled at and had the comment about her not having kids thrown at her. Does she have kids? Did she lose them? Did she want them and was unable to have them? Or was she out on the street at a young age? That comment combined with the action she was taking can trigger a lot of things! Ky I agree with all of the above. My favorite part of that scene was the way Rawling put her shades on as she walked away after signing the seize order ... the way her facial expression turned hardass. There was some heavy body language there ... even the way she walked-- with firm , measured strides ... she was literally "walking the walk" after she talked the talk. She really reminded me of Vic. I'll bet the director told her that's what he wanted. Or maybe she's just such a professional actor she didn't have to be told. That's an interesting point, Ky, that there might be something we don't know yet about Rawling with regard to kids or her own childhood. You could very well be right -- let's see.
|
|
deputy
The Shield Rules...
Posts: 26
|
Post by deputy on Apr 7, 2005 10:49:13 GMT -5
taking the house is the right thing to do...
a few years back, in NY , under mayor koch's reign
if you are caught buying drugs, in your car, they take your car,,,,,,,
definately, would make you think twice,,,, before buying drugs.....
plus drugs is a BAD..... no one should profit by it,,,
|
|
|
Post by lemgirl on Aug 28, 2006 14:32:29 GMT -5
I think it was the right thing to do but was very sad that the mother lost her house.
I feel you should lose your house, car and anything else you buy with drug money.
|
|
|
Post by ShootFirst on Sept 14, 2006 17:48:24 GMT -5
Damned if you do damned if you don't. She knew either way was going to have ramifications. I for one agree with the siezure policy.
|
|
|
Post by tsarina on Sept 15, 2006 0:43:18 GMT -5
I am trying like hell to think of a reason to argue here. No, it was not a good thing, but I don't have a good argument to put with it.
|
|
|
Post by ISaidWhoaDangIt on Sept 18, 2006 10:53:50 GMT -5
I am trying like hell to think of a reason to argue here. No, it was not a good thing, but I don't have a good argument to put with it. What about if a druggie buys a house for his mother and she has no idea that he used drug money to buy said house?
|
|
|
Post by tsarina on Sept 18, 2006 13:36:23 GMT -5
I think it scares me because I am an occasional user. I'm not a dealer, but the seizure policy scares the hell out of me. It seems like a fine hair to be splitting, remember, they took Maurice Webster's(wasn't that his name? the guy with the three plants?) house for three plants. It is not such a big crime so as to punish someone to that extreme. The punishment should be parallel to the crime.
|
|
|
Post by lemgirl on Sept 18, 2006 14:15:05 GMT -5
Here's my #twocents# rather you are an occasional user or small time user vs big time user or seller, you are still doing drugs and should suffer the consequences of it. My sister did drugs for most of her life and was heading straight to jail or the grave until she turned her life around. The mother knew her son didn't have a job but he had all this money. I think deep down inside she knew where it was coming from.
|
|
|
Post by tsarina on Sept 18, 2006 15:00:28 GMT -5
I agree with that much, that the mother knew. Your boy isn't working a regular job, where is the money coming from in such an amount as to be able to buy a house? She at least knew as much. And doing drugs being illegal, yes...the consequences should not be as huge as the seizure policy would have. Dealing, maybe. Simply using should not carry a huge sentence or cost you everything you have. You'll do that all by yourself.
|
|
|
Post by ISaidWhoaDangIt on Sept 18, 2006 15:09:17 GMT -5
Wasnt the point of Monica's seizures to target the dealers and not the users? I remember her spill in 4.2 about how they were targeting "gangs and dealers" not the users when she was talking to David.
|
|
|
Post by tsarina on Sept 18, 2006 15:20:04 GMT -5
Yes, but the Maurice Webster thing...where Dutch went behind Claudette's back and made the apology deal with the DA, in return for their prosecution of Maurice Webster? The guy with three plants? They seized his house. (I'm re-watching season 4 right now) That still makes me sick to my stomach. That whole deal.
|
|
|
Post by lemgirl on Sept 18, 2006 15:24:48 GMT -5
Okay I'll agee with that....using will cost you everything you have.
|
|
|
Post by tsarina on Sept 18, 2006 15:30:55 GMT -5
Some people are actually able to use and not kill themselves...some people are trying to die every time they pick up a pipe. Some others are able to work and lead productive lives and pay their taxes and be otherwise upstanding citizens...they aren't the ones who make the news. The ones who are trying to die are the ones we hear about from Bill Kurtis and the like.
|
|
|
Post by ISaidWhoaDangIt on Sept 18, 2006 15:31:38 GMT -5
Yes, but the Maurice Webster thing...where Dutch went behind Claudette's back and made the apology deal with the DA, in return for their prosecution of Maurice Webster? The guy with three plants? They seized his house. (I'm re-watching season 4 right now) That still makes me sick to my stomach. That whole deal. IMO, that is a little obsurd. But then again, that's just like Dutch. He did what he did to get back in the DA's good graces to quit getting the poo end of the stick. And I too am rewatching S4. I'm on 4.3 right now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tsarina on Sept 18, 2006 15:39:42 GMT -5
That's what I mean! I'm not talking about the big dogs who go down, I'm talking about the little guy that falls through the system's cracks. It is that angle of the seizure policy that makes me worried. The little guys. Dealing drugs, the bigger the amount, people know what the cost of doing business is. It is when the people in power use the Maurice Websters as examples.
|
|
|
Post by lemgirl on Sept 18, 2006 15:43:35 GMT -5
Some people are actually able to use and not kill themselves...some people are trying to die every time they pick up a pipe. Some others are able to work and lead productive lives and pay their taxes and be otherwise upstanding citizens...they aren't the ones who make the news. The ones who are trying to die are the ones we hear about from Bill Kurtis and the like. My sister was the type who could not function in society. She lost everything.....
|
|
|
Post by tsarina on Sept 18, 2006 15:47:59 GMT -5
I'm sorry to hear that, it does happen a lot in drug addiction. The harder drugs, the more progressively people fail. It is practically impossible to function in society on hard drugs. The people I talk about who are trying to die are the ones who abuse the hard stuff. The ones I know who function are pot smokers by evening.
|
|