I don't think that was the point of the scene. I took it as more of a Robin Hood type thing. They took the money to support their community.
Copper
- Thread starter Alidar Jarok
- Start date
^I think they took the money because they weren't paid very much and most of the loot would end up in the Captain's pocket, anyway. Notice that they talked about spending time collecting "payments" for the Captain; The high-ranking officers pulled up and loaded up all the money into the Captain's cart, announcing that he would "personally" return the money to the bank while Corcoran and his men rolled their eyes. The entire system back then was corrupt. It was chaos. But Corcoran, in one episode, has shown that he actually cares about the street kids and doesn't think the rich should be exempt from justice. He didn't want to see the poor henchman hang for a crime he didn't commit; yes, he does some bad things but I think he's clearly a good, brave man in a very bad situation.
We dvr'd it, but haven't had time to watch.
We did see a PBS show about the old western tv shows. The ones who had great input from the stars...there were a lot more morality storylines.
"Top Shot" is an interesting reality/competition show about shooting various weapons. Very interesting. But it shows how difficult accurate shooting is, even with some modern weapons. I suppose that's why gunslingers were so rare back then...being able to shoot consistently accurate must have been unusual.
The Sharpe series of TV movies (based on the books by Bernard Cornwell and set during the Napoleonic Wars) adopt this approach. They work on their own level, but do face the problem of lacking the scale of the battles described in the books and which occurred in the wars. Of course, British TV budgets are lower than US ones, and there wasn't effective CGI around then either to help with scale either.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that you could do an effective Civil War series with TV budgets. I mean, Band of Brothers worked as a WWII series, albeit an expensive one.
The "coppers" didn't just take the money. They pre-emptively shot to kill, before the robbers began firing back, before they even gave the robbers a chance to surrender. That means they murdered the robbers in cold blood, as if they were no more than just another gang of thugs.
Band of Brothers wasn't just expensive; it was very expensive. At $125 million ($12.5 million per episode) it was the most expensive miniseries ever made at the time it was released (The Pacific has since topped that). That's not even close to a sustainable budget for weekly television.
And it's worth pointing out that WWII is more popular and marketable than the Civil War. A Civil War tv series runs the huge risk of alienating half the United States and would be uninteresting to the rest of the world (and to those who generally think WWII is "cooler").
Curiously in the Behind the scenes special they were congratulating themselves on being more realistic and not having the characters spray bullets because of misfires and once that revolver emptied it took a lot of time to reload. It reminded me of Hell On Wheels background special when they went on about their accurate weapons and then everybody from private soldiers to the poorest railroad worker showed up with a Henry rifle
It is different but then Folye's War worked
There's nothing realistic about a gunfight scene where almost every shot is instantly lethal. In real life (at least, based on what I've read -- I mercifully have no direct knowledge of the subject and hope I never do), it's possible to survive most gunshot wounds if you get the bleeding stopped in time. Generally it takes a trained sniper with an accurate rifle and a clear shot to guarantee an instant kill shot. In a running gun battle where you're shooting wildly, it's far less likely to happen. Some people have even survived being shot by dozens of bullets in a single battle. Between that, the inaccuracy of 19th-century firearms, and the limited medical science of the era, the majority of shooting deaths would result from infection days after the gunfight.
The thing is: the police were pretty much thugs back then
- Police corruption became widespread shortly after the formation of the first American police departments in the mid 1800’s. During this time, political parties ran the municipal government and agencies. Employment could be assured if you followed the directives of the political parties which often required protecting illicit activities conducted by members of the political elite. This environment of accepted corruption further led to practices that monetarily benefited individual officers or their departments. Officers accepted bribes to ignore criminal activity, such as prostitution and demanded money to not report criminals such as pickpockets and con men. Reform efforts began towards the end of the 19th century. The Progressives, upper-middle class educated Protestants who opposed the political control of police agencies instigated the establishment of police commissions, the use of civil service exams and legislative reforms. Though wide-spread corruption declined, it was still a large problem.
Okay, kudos for the historical accuracy (on that point at least), but it still doesn't mean I want to watch it.
^I do. I'm going to give at least a few more episodes.
For what it's worth, it's quite possible that bank robbery was a hanging offense, so the robbers might be more inclined to shoot back (increasing the likelihood of the police shooting first and asking questions later).
That hardly justifies it. There's no excuse for shooting at someone who poses no clear and present danger, and who is running away from you. What happened there was murder -- committed by the "heroes" of the show, and evidently motivated not by self-defense but by the desire to kill the robbers in order to take the money away from them. Which makes it aggravated murder, since it was a killing committed in service to a crime.
I don't think they were running away. I saw them holing up in an area that could be better defended.
I don't think it justifies it either, just that it wasn't necessarily inconsistent historically.
I don't think it justifies it either, just that it wasn't necessarily inconsistent historically.
Well, the second episode was great.
A little revenge (OK--not a little, A LOT) for the little girl and the plot thickens for Corcoran.
But the leg-breaking----*shudder.* That made me actually wince.
We're still not entirely sure of the rich son's motives; he certainly got Winnie out of Dad's favor and made himself look good in the process. But does he have Corcoran's best interests at heart?
But the leg-breaking----*shudder.* That made me actually wince.
We're still not entirely sure of the rich son's motives; he certainly got Winnie out of Dad's favor and made himself look good in the process. But does he have Corcoran's best interests at heart?
Yeah, he's a bit hard to get a read on. He seems to respect Corcoran because of the past, but it's hard to tell if he cares about anyone but himself if forced to.
Much better episode. I was a bit concerned at the beginning because the repeating locket speech made me think I was thinking of the other episode (although they did make it clear that he constantly repeats the speech). Good overall.
Much better episode. I was a bit concerned at the beginning because the repeating locket speech made me think I was thinking of the other episode (although they did make it clear that he constantly repeats the speech). Good overall.
Actually, back then, I think the law allowed police to shoot fleeing felony suspects, whether they were armed or not.
Most of the limits on the police we enjoy today are products of mid to late 20th century legal precedents and the US Supreme Court extending the Bill of Rights protections to the states.
For another example, Corcoran walking into the rich guy's house and basically stealing the cane as evidence was allowed under state law until, I think, the 20s or 30s. It was only prohibited on federal cases. In fact, the feds used to get around it by asking local cops to obtain the evidence and then turn it over.
The Fourth Amendment was applied to the states in 1948 (Wolf v. Colorado). However, it lacked any teeth whatsoever until Mapp v. Ohio in 1961.
Likewise, as this was pre-14th amendment, there were no federal constitutional restrictions on police officers. I can't speak for New York law at the time, however, it was not uncommon to consider bank robbers outlaws who could be shot to regain what had been stolen (keep in mind they were fleeing, they weren't surrendering).
Likewise, as this was pre-14th amendment, there were no federal constitutional restrictions on police officers. I can't speak for New York law at the time, however, it was not uncommon to consider bank robbers outlaws who could be shot to regain what had been stolen (keep in mind they were fleeing, they weren't surrendering).
Similar threads
