Ah, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I wonder if Malcolm is going to make a re-appearance and possibly even help Oliver to defeat Slade, surely he has to come back some point soon.
Arrow - Season 2
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Ah, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I wonder if Malcolm is going to make a re-appearance and possibly even help Oliver to defeat Slade, surely he has to come back some point soon.
My guess is he'll be back next season. To have him fight Slade would lead to dramatic confusion because it doesn't make sense in the plot narrative of good vs. bad.
If she knows Oliver is the Arrow, she might also clue in that Sarah is the Masked Blonde.
As for the charges against Lance, it's going to be interesting to see where they go with them.
The basis was that bringing Slade Wilson over Thea's kidnapping and the man presents albi evidence thus it's false arrest at the behest of the vigilantes.
However now Thea's rocked up at the precinct and named Wilson as her kidnapper.
To be fair, the allegation is just that he's furthering a criminal conspiracy (i.e., that he's working with the Arrow). Legally, it doesn't matter whether the Arrow pointed to the correct person or not.
He clearly is working with the Arrow. The actions involving Frank Bertinelli, at a minimum, make him part of the conspiracy. However, it's not entirely clear what they know and what they can prove. A police officer following a particular line of investigation that requires him to work with people who also commit crimes doesn't normally make you part of the conspiracy. I think they'd have difficulty proving that he did something more than what one would do in a normal investigation.
But this isn't about a wrongful arrest. Whether he got the right guy or not is completely irrelevant to the charge.
He clearly is working with the Arrow. The actions involving Frank Bertinelli, at a minimum, make him part of the conspiracy. However, it's not entirely clear what they know and what they can prove. A police officer following a particular line of investigation that requires him to work with people who also commit crimes doesn't normally make you part of the conspiracy. I think they'd have difficulty proving that he did something more than what one would do in a normal investigation.
But this isn't about a wrongful arrest. Whether he got the right guy or not is completely irrelevant to the charge.
Oliver killed more than 40 goons in the first season.
(Great drinking game!)
The police's interest in his identity is more than a passing fad.
If Lance can't figure out that Oliver is the Arrow even though he knows that Sarah is the Canary, then maybe Laurel can't figure out that Sara is the Canary, even though she knows that Oliver is the Arrow?
Beautiful women, you might be tempted to #### one of them, but for gods sake don't have their children unless you want to raise a knuckle dragging dimwit.
(Great drinking game!)
The police's interest in his identity is more than a passing fad.
If Lance can't figure out that Oliver is the Arrow even though he knows that Sarah is the Canary, then maybe Laurel can't figure out that Sara is the Canary, even though she knows that Oliver is the Arrow?
Beautiful women, you might be tempted to #### one of them, but for gods sake don't have their children unless you want to raise a knuckle dragging dimwit.
This is TV so procedure and law is going to be bent.
That said, they can't throw Lance in jail without evidence, and they have no evidence that he was working with the Arrow. Do they have witnesses to clandestine conversations? Wire taps? Written letters? Did they obtain anything with a warrant, would make it admissible?
Cops get tips from gang members who may be wanted on other charges. There is nothing Lance did that was really unusual in front line police work that can be proven. All they have is a verbal admission that he got a tip.
He could lose his badge, and that would actually probably further the plot and characterization more. I can't see realistically that he would be jailed, but I thought the Moira trial was pretty poor too, so who knows.
That said, they can't throw Lance in jail without evidence, and they have no evidence that he was working with the Arrow. Do they have witnesses to clandestine conversations? Wire taps? Written letters? Did they obtain anything with a warrant, would make it admissible?
Cops get tips from gang members who may be wanted on other charges. There is nothing Lance did that was really unusual in front line police work that can be proven. All they have is a verbal admission that he got a tip.
He could lose his badge, and that would actually probably further the plot and characterization more. I can't see realistically that he would be jailed, but I thought the Moira trial was pretty poor too, so who knows.
They have circumstantial evidence for probable cause - certainly to the level of an arrest.
They know that he arrested a suspect who had been shot by a tranquilizer arrow, presumably from the vigilante and they have a sort of adoptive admission of the fact that he knew he was arresting someone because the arrow told him to (the "I can explain" line). We also have an admission that he had been working with him previously in an investigation (last season, the reason he's no longer a Detective). We also know that the police department does not approve of working with the Arrow and that Lance knows this. This is all circumstantial evidence that he's working to further the same criminal conspiracy.
Is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not. I think there's a really good defense argument that he was conducting an investigation and the Arrow was an investigatory lead, at no time did he share the same intent, etc. But that's for a jury to decide. I think there's enough to go to trial.
And, for what it's worth, I think he's guilty when it came to kidnapping Frank Burtinelli. That was an overt act that clearly placed him inside the conspiracy (not that a conspirator needs to commit an overt act). Once you do that, you're responsible for all actions within the scope of the conspiracy, not just those you personally agreed to. I just don't know if they know his involvement in that.
They know that he arrested a suspect who had been shot by a tranquilizer arrow, presumably from the vigilante and they have a sort of adoptive admission of the fact that he knew he was arresting someone because the arrow told him to (the "I can explain" line). We also have an admission that he had been working with him previously in an investigation (last season, the reason he's no longer a Detective). We also know that the police department does not approve of working with the Arrow and that Lance knows this. This is all circumstantial evidence that he's working to further the same criminal conspiracy.
Is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not. I think there's a really good defense argument that he was conducting an investigation and the Arrow was an investigatory lead, at no time did he share the same intent, etc. But that's for a jury to decide. I think there's enough to go to trial.
And, for what it's worth, I think he's guilty when it came to kidnapping Frank Burtinelli. That was an overt act that clearly placed him inside the conspiracy (not that a conspirator needs to commit an overt act). Once you do that, you're responsible for all actions within the scope of the conspiracy, not just those you personally agreed to. I just don't know if they know his involvement in that.
Again, this is TV and I don't expect perfection.
You cannot arrest someone because of a suspicion. You can make an arrest because of fact. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to bring a matter to trial. It is rarely evidence to make an arrest. It is at best evidence to obtain a warrant.
An arrest, of course, does not mean a crime has been committed. It means there is a fact obtained that a crime may have been committed.
Fact may be an officer's actual observations, or witness report, or video, or DNA. It cannot be supposition.
The only "fact" is hearsay of Lance receiving a "tip." That is all he admitted to and all that can be brought to a DA. They can hold Lance temporarily until a DA decides there is enough evidence press charges. A professionally responsible DA would only press charges if there was sufficient evidence to expect a conviction.
That's not remotely true. Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient for an arrest, it's sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. You can base a conviction solely on circumstantial evidence.
People are arrested in the United States based upon probable cause, which is evidence that would cause a cautious and prudent person to believe a crime has been committed and the person suspected committed it. It doesn't even require that it be more likely than not that a person committed it. Moving away from the United States briefly, in the UK, they actually say "you are under arrest for suspicion of _____," so to say that you aren't arrested based on suspicion seems even more wrong once that's accounted for.
And my source here is my law degree and work experience, so I'm not talking out of my ass. I'm also not one to shy away from the show for flaws in its legal procedure. I criticized it last week. I just don't find this one to be implausible.
People are arrested in the United States based upon probable cause, which is evidence that would cause a cautious and prudent person to believe a crime has been committed and the person suspected committed it. It doesn't even require that it be more likely than not that a person committed it. Moving away from the United States briefly, in the UK, they actually say "you are under arrest for suspicion of _____," so to say that you aren't arrested based on suspicion seems even more wrong once that's accounted for.
And my source here is my law degree and work experience, so I'm not talking out of my ass. I'm also not one to shy away from the show for flaws in its legal procedure. I criticized it last week. I just don't find this one to be implausible.
Dude. You can arrest someone for almost no reason, it's just a question of if "they" let you keep your job when the case goes to trial and it fails terribly. Maybe you meant to say is that you shouldn't arrest someone without evidence, because you can, it's just a stupid and selfdestructive thing to do.
If the case is bad, then the prosecutor should refuse to try it, because if s/he loses too many cases, then they get fired, and his lawyer should be able to get that sorted out almost immediately...
Oh Gods.
Is Laurel going to be forced to prosecute her own father?
(I'd forgotten that she just got her job back.)
I wonder if the Union will step in?
If the police go on strike because of this, wouldn't that make Blood's army so much more effective when it finally strikes?
If the case is bad, then the prosecutor should refuse to try it, because if s/he loses too many cases, then they get fired, and his lawyer should be able to get that sorted out almost immediately...
Oh Gods.
Is Laurel going to be forced to prosecute her own father?
(I'd forgotten that she just got her job back.)
I wonder if the Union will step in?
If the police go on strike because of this, wouldn't that make Blood's army so much more effective when it finally strikes?
Conflict of interest or HILARIOUS!?
They sent her after Moira despite almost being her daughter in law at one point.
Starling City Hall is full of immoral dickwads.
They sent her after Moira despite almost being her daughter in law at one point.
Starling City Hall is full of immoral dickwads.
She absolutely won't be. I don't think the show would get that ridiculous. There's a good argument the whole office should be disqualified, but I don't think that'll happen either. I'm not sure the case could handle another whole court room drama before the end of the season, so I imagine it'll be resolved through some sort of back channel means.
Dudes, both of you....
Yes, police officers arrest people daily with little or no evidence. I am not arguing that, so let's take it off the table.
Without evidence, charges end up being dropped. If you want to argue that with me, please provide some supporting evidence.
Charges cannot be brought forward without factual evidence. Charges would otherwise be dropped at first appearance. If you believe otherwise, please provide examples.
Circumstantial evidence is NOT sufficient to convict. Please. How many cases in addition to O. J. Simpson do you want me to cite? Maybe you can do some homework and provide an example where circumstantial evidence ALONE was sufficient?
The Starling City Police can arrest whomever the hell they want. They cannot bring Lance to trial with what they have without collusion with the DA and completely bullshitting their evidence.
Yes, police officers arrest people daily with little or no evidence. I am not arguing that, so let's take it off the table.
Without evidence, charges end up being dropped. If you want to argue that with me, please provide some supporting evidence.
Charges cannot be brought forward without factual evidence. Charges would otherwise be dropped at first appearance. If you believe otherwise, please provide examples.
Circumstantial evidence is NOT sufficient to convict. Please. How many cases in addition to O. J. Simpson do you want me to cite? Maybe you can do some homework and provide an example where circumstantial evidence ALONE was sufficient?
The Starling City Police can arrest whomever the hell they want. They cannot bring Lance to trial with what they have without collusion with the DA and completely bullshitting their evidence.
Regardless of whether or not they can sustain a conviction, his time as a police officer in Starling City is over. It is now well known he is working with the Arrow, proven factually or not. The Blue wall is going to shut him out. Things are going to be extremely unpleasant for him.
I imagine they will ask him to resign, in exchange for not prosecuting. Yea they all know it can't stick, but his career is done. He could be more helpful as a private investigator at this point. Also, the comics Larry Lance was a private investigator at the time of his death, that job is probably the future of the character.
I imagine they will ask him to resign, in exchange for not prosecuting. Yea they all know it can't stick, but his career is done. He could be more helpful as a private investigator at this point. Also, the comics Larry Lance was a private investigator at the time of his death, that job is probably the future of the character.
Agreed. The question at this point is if someone with a law degree, years of experience as a lawyer and working in the DA office would feel that her father was so at risk of a conviction that she would react emotionally and expose someone who had save her life on multiple occasions.
[ETA: I'm changing the example. While it's a good example, it's a pending case, so it's best not to use it. I'm sorry]
I'll use this example. It's a triple homicide in Green County, VA. The suspect knows the three people. There's DNA in the car (unlike the OJ Simpson case below, this is circumstantial evidence because it's just from sweat that could have come at any point). The car was found transported from the scene of the murders to within ten minutes of the suspect's mother's house. That's pretty much the entire case. There might have been some evidence suggesting he met up with them earlier that night, but that's about it. Not only did that case result in a trial, it resulted in a conviction. I think the evidence against Detective Lance is just as strong. It includes him having the vigilante's cell phone number, admitting to communicating with the vigilante on multiple occasions, and arresting someone who had been apprehended by the vigilante without anything suggesting a prior investigation or that he had any knowledge of why he was arresting that suspect except the obvious inference (that he did not deny) that the vigilante told him to do so.
Here is a model jury instruction drawn from Virginia:
It is not necessary that each element of the offense be proved by direct evidence, for an element may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. You may convict the defendant on circumstantial evidence alone, or on circumstantial evidence combined with other evidence, if you believe from all the evidence that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
When the Commonwealth relies upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence. It is not sufficient that the circumstances proved create a suspicion of guilt, however strong, or even a probability of guilt.
The evidence as a whole must exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.
OJ Simpson wasn't a normal case. Also, DNA evidence is usually considered direct evidence (her blood on his clothes), not circumstantial evidence. I'll use an example of a case involving entirely circumstantial evidence:
Victim Victor is seen walking into a house. Two minutes later, Defendant David walks into the house. Witness Walter hears gunshots fired. David leaves the house. Walter enters the house and sees Victor has been shot dead. David absolutely can be convicted of murder even though there is only circumstantial evidence.
Last edited:
Wow, that's hideous. Hope it looks better in motion. Love the knee mounted gun.
(yeah, it obviously slipped there, I know)
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
