View Full Version : Should crime pay in EE?
parkerman
10-09-2005, 13:23
Although some people on here (myself included!) would like to see Chrissie get away with murder (literally) the script is being written in such a way that we are made to think it is wrong for her to get away with it and that she ought to pay for her crime. Crime doesn't pay and all that!
Now, what about Dennis and Jack Dalton or Johnny Allen and Jake and Andy Hunter. Should they be allowed to get away with their crimes?
Yes :thumbsup: or no :thumbsdow ?
Mind you, I prefer Jack Dalton as Peter Baxter anyway! :)
xXxJessxXx
10-09-2005, 13:58
It is a very good point. i'd life to see Chrissie go down for murder but then aagin i wouldnt want Dennis to go to jail for murdering dalton. Maybe beacsue i like his hcaracter a whole lot more than Chrissie's.
But if oen goes down then i think its nly fair they all do. i'd love to see Jonny go down for killing Andy. I dont like Jonny one bit! I think everyone who commits a crime should go down for it.
but i does depend on the circumstances which my opinion is based. Like i would have wanted chrissie to get away wiht it if she hadnt told all these lies and framed sam and being all chummy with sharon etc as after all it was self defence wasnt it! but's she's been playing on it too much. and denis i think his was self defence werent it so it lets him off a bit.
I think Dennis and Chrissie are already paying for their crimes. not nesarceraly (cant spell) by going to jail but chrissie has been scared by the police and everyone around her who knows the truth, Dennis has been haunted by his past as he was saying to sharon months ago when she first found out. i think they are paying already for what they've done. so i'm not sure what i think... weather they should go down or not. i want chrissie to but then its not fair saying she should pay but no one else! :hmm:
Although some people on here (myself included!) would like to see Chrissie get away with murder (literally) the script is being written in such a way that we are made to think it is wrong for her to get away with it and that she ought to pay for her crime. Crime doesn't pay and all that!
Now, what about Dennis and Jack Dalton or Johnny Allen and Jake and Andy Hunter. Should they be allowed to get away with their crimes?
Yes :thumbsup: or no :thumbsdow ?
Mind you, I prefer Jack Dalton as Peter Baxter anyway! :)
And it seems that phil is going to get away with his crimes
in ee they all get away with murder literally.
.:Kitz:.
10-09-2005, 14:36
true, ee seems to have one set of rules for one character and differnt one's for another. lol, its confusing!! :D
alkalinetrio
10-09-2005, 14:38
you on about dennis killing jack dalton murder being self defence? to jess
littlemo
10-09-2005, 14:52
I definetely think it depends on the circumstances, and why they committed the crime in the first place. And if you are made to feel empathy for the characters, you can't help but want them to get away with it.
You can't really call Dennis murdering Dalton self defence because it was in cold blood, but much like Sharon I can understand why he did it. Dalton was an evil man, who nobody cared about, he had supposedly killed his dad (Den), and Phil had been sent to kill Dennis for Dalton. If he hadn't of killed him he could have been dead himself by the morning, and I suppose that is self defence in a way. But the police wouldn't see it in that way. But his character was 'so called' justified in doing what he did, which is why he was allowed to get off with his crime.
I don't like Chrissie's character, but I agree that if she hadn't manipulated Zoe, Sam and now Sharon and the rest of the square, she may have been seen in a different light entirely.
A wife striking out at a cheating husband, it would go down well in jail! lol. Maybe she could be used in the next production of Chicago! EE style.
xXxJessxXx
10-09-2005, 14:57
you on about dennis killing jack dalton murder being self defence? to jess
Yeah... beacsue Dalton was going to get Phil to kill Dennis, so Dennis had to kill Dalton to survive and thats what self defence was. Dalton didnt have a good reason for wanting dennis dead but dennis did... because he would have died him self otherwise. ok it wasnt direct self defence, dalton wasnt beating him up or strangling him or anything but its the same thing really.
angelblue
10-09-2005, 15:03
The difference between chrissie and dennis is the fact that chrissie is becoming evil in the way she manipulating everyone and not showing any remorse and swanning an around like butter wouldnt melt
:)
littlemo
10-09-2005, 15:08
The difference between chrissie and dennis is the fact that chrissie is becoming evil in the way she manipulating everyone and not showing any remorse and swanning an around like butter wouldnt melt
:)
Yes that's true and Dalton was an outsider. EE is all about families sticking together, and trusting one another. Remember the EE motto 'look out for your own'. I don't like Chrissie's manipulating ways, the very fact that she is using Dennis and Sharon for her own personal gain is horrible. She doesn't have a heart.
angelblue
10-09-2005, 15:13
I always liked chrissie character but i dont like the fact she is using their grief to manipulate them for her own personal use she making out she cares and on some level i truly think she does care but i think it past that stage she is just trying to survive :D
Yeah... beacsue Dalton was going to get Phil to kill Dennis, so Dennis had to kill Dalton to survive and thats what self defence was. .
It was still pre-meditated murder what way you look at it not what spin is put on it
It makes it really unrealistic when they all get away with it. Thats my opinion anyways
xXxJessxXx
10-09-2005, 15:56
The difference between chrissie and dennis is the fact that chrissie is becoming evil in the way she manipulating everyone and not showing any remorse and swanning an around like butter wouldnt melt
:)
exactly, thats what i hate about her. thats what makes me think she should go down for it. where as dennis was genually messed up bout killing dalton he was genuinaly worried, scared and felt a bit of guilt i think. All chrissie is worried about is bedding Jake, getting away form the vic wiht her money and leaving it all behind. she doesnt care about den or anyone who did.
xXxJessxXx
10-09-2005, 15:58
It makes it really unrealistic when they all get away with it. Thats my opinion anyways
i agree. i mean the dalton thing, he had a hole in his head, someone had to of shot him (Unless it was suicide) but you dont just let it go, you'd investigate it a lot further than they did. the same wiht andy. could have been self defence but they should have taken it more seriously in case he was murdered (Which we know he was ) in case the killer is still out there killing more people. its not right...
angelblue
10-09-2005, 15:59
exactly, thats what i hate about her. thats what makes me think she should go down for it. where as dennis was genually messed up bout killing dalton he was genuinaly worried, scared and felt a bit of guilt i think. All chrissie is worried about is bedding Jake, getting away form the vic wiht her money and leaving it all behind. she doesnt care about den or anyone who did.
exactly but i still like her character :)
callummc
10-09-2005, 17:00
chrissy and johnny should pay for their crimes,so should dennis but in a lesser degree cos he really had no choice,but to make ee more realistic at least 2 of the criminals should get their cummupance,we all hear of murders in real life going unsolved,but not 4 out of 1 small community,dalton,paul,andy and den,all unsolved-totaly unrealistic
littlemo
10-09-2005, 20:56
i agree. i mean the dalton thing, he had a hole in his head, someone had to of shot him (Unless it was suicide) but you dont just let it go, you'd investigate it a lot further than they did. the same wiht andy. could have been self defence but they should have taken it more seriously in case he was murdered (Which we know he was ) in case the killer is still out there killing more people. its not right...
Yes it's true that the police seemed to forget Dalton's murder quite quickly, but I'm sure if new evidence comes to light they would reopen the case.
I'm not very experienced with the underworld but I get the impression that when a gangland killing takes place they don't put as much effort into getting the criminal than if it was just a person off the street. I think the impression is that if they lived that kind of life, they were asking for it.
xXxJessxXx
10-09-2005, 21:32
Yes it's true that the police seemed to forget Dalton's murder quite quickly, but I'm sure if new evidence comes to light they would reopen the case.
I'm not very experienced with the underworld but I get the impression that when a gangland killing takes place they don't put as much effort into getting the criminal than if it was just a person off the street. I think the impression is that if they lived that kind of life, they were asking for it.
yeah i think you might be right there. i think it all comes down to the situation as to how much detail they go into. like i know this is off the topic but when i was watching that casualty @ holby the other week about organ doners it got me and my mum talking that say if there were two people in an accident and one was a doner and the other werent they would try harder to save the none doner than the doner beacuse if the doner died their organs could be used for someone else so they try less harder to save them if ya get me. a bit random but its the same wiht the police and murderers. its like if the person who has been murdered is bad they give up beacsue they desereve it. or so it seems in eastenders any way
Johnny Allen
10-09-2005, 22:27
chrissy and johnny should pay for their crimes,so should dennis but in a lesser degree cos he really had no choice,but to make ee more realistic at least 2 of the criminals should get their cummupance,we all hear of murders in real life going unsolved,but not 4 out of 1 small community,dalton,paul,andy and den,all unsolved-totaly unrealistic
Having said that Dennis did still murder someone in cold blood, it wasn't self defence he just felt he had no other option, if you ask me everyone that commits murder in the show should recieve their comeuppance.
pops110874
11-09-2005, 00:07
I think in the crazy, madcap world of ee, it seems that gansta crimes are allowed but general run of the mill killings/beatings etc are not.
lol
callummc
11-09-2005, 00:27
murders permitted but petty crime isn't
in my opinion no-one should get away with a crime...it sends out the wrong messages to the British public...that you can do what you want, frame it on someone else, and get away with it and live a normal life.
Regardless of whether we like a character and dont wont to see them leave our screens, they must pay for their crimes.
Put it this way we all love Chrissie, but if you were in Sharon's shoes how would you feel if someone had killed your father? You'd want them to pay for their crimes.
I dont like the way that they get away with it withouyt no suspicion, jonny and chrissie have 100% got away with it! (so far) and its just wrong, and they porttray it as tough they were doing good to do it
if people in ee didnt get away wth crime the whole square would be in the nick.
BlackKat
11-09-2005, 11:00
I think they should do what the storyline demands. That's all I really care about. I think Chrissie managing to escape and Sam going down for it would be a fantastic end for both characters.* If a storyline of the murderer going to prison would be a good one, then they should do that.
Give the public a bit more credit. I really doubt that there's a mass of people out there thinking "Oh, I'll just murder my husband, put the blame onto someone else and then escape to Argentina with my new boyfriend. After all, it worked for Chrissie."
*I actually think Sam should go insane, and the last shot we see of her is her restrained to a bed screaming "It was Chrissiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeee"
if people in ee didnt get away wth crime the whole square would be in the nick. how true your statement is,I think they some times they should get away with it, as lets face it,it can happen in real life, so it should happen on EE
For some reason, and i'm not sure why, i would really like chrissie to get away with Dens murder!
if people in ee didnt get away wth crime the whole square would be in the nick.
:rotfl: lol!
littlemo
11-09-2005, 15:29
if people in ee didnt get away wth crime the whole square would be in the nick.
Yes they would! lol There are very few people who haven't commited a crime in EE. Even the nicest people who you think couldn't hurt a fly like Little Mo (but I commend her, I have to say). It's something they should do for EE Revealed, Criminals, they may have done it already but I think it would be great.
Little Mo-tried to kill her husband with an iron (prison)
Kat- Assaulting a police officer (prison)
Big Mo- Fraud, all sorts (prison)
Chrissie-Killed her husband (out)
Dennis- Killed Dalton (out)
Martin- run over Jamie (prison)
Den- Arson (prison)
Phil- Robbery (prison)
Sam- falsely accused of murder (prison)
Grant- assaulting a police officer (prison)
Dot- shoplifting, she was also arrested for the possesion of Cannabis (prison)
Pat- death by drink driving (prison)
Johnny- Killied Andy (out)
Billy- All sorts of dodgy dealings with the Mitchells.
Alfie- Fraud (prison)
There are so many more. It seems not as many as we think get away with it. And I think it definetely depends on the circumstances of a crime as to whether somebody should get off with it or not.
xXxJessxXx
11-09-2005, 16:04
It's something they should do for EE Revealed, Criminals, they may have done it already but I think it would be great.
Dennis- Killed Dalton (out)
There are so many more. It seems not as many as we think get away with it. And I think it definetely depends on the circumstances of a crime as to whether somebody should get off with it or not.
After reading that long list of names i remeber Dennis arrived in the square after coming out of prison after being there for three yeasr for GBH. Funny how he then just a couples of months after kills... Murderes Dalton and gets away with it! lol seems like it should be the other way round or he should have gone down for both! lol
Police obviouly take GBH more seriously than Murder in albert square! lol
I definately want Chrissie to go down for murdering Den - I dislike her more and more each episode right now. If Sam goes down as well I think Zoe should too though.
i just cant believe that she would stoop so low to let sam take the blame surely she would have cracked by now.
There are quite a few murderers on the loose in albert square isnt there. Dennis, Jonny, Chrissie.
I wouldnt want to live there.
parkerman
11-09-2005, 18:03
Yes they would! lol There are very few people who haven't commited a crime in EE. Even the nicest people who you think couldn't hurt a fly like Little Mo (but I commend her, I have to say). It's something they should do for EE Revealed, Criminals, they may have done it already but I think it would be great.
Little Mo-tried to kill her husband with an iron (prison)
Kat- Assaulting a police officer (prison)
Big Mo- Fraud, all sorts (prison)
Chrissie-Killed her husband (out)
Dennis- Killed Dalton (out)
Martin- run over Jamie (prison)
Den- Arson (prison)
Phil- Robbery (prison)
Sam- falsely accused of murder (prison)
Grant- assaulting a police officer (prison)
Dot- shoplifting, she was also arrested for the possesion of Cannabis (prison)
Pat- death by drink driving (prison)
Johnny- Killied Andy (out)
Billy- All sorts of dodgy dealings with the Mitchells.
Alfie- Fraud (prison)
There are so many more. It seems not as many as we think get away with it. And I think it definetely depends on the circumstances of a crime as to whether somebody should get off with it or not.
Poor old Arthur Fowler was one who didn't get away with it.
Janine's was probably the best though, arrested for a murder she didn't commit but not for the one she did.
What's happened to her by the way? When's her trial?
littlemo
11-09-2005, 18:05
After reading that long list of names i remeber Dennis arrived in the square after coming out of prison after being there for three yeasr for GBH. Funny how he then just a couples of months after kills... Murderes Dalton and gets away with it! lol seems like it should be the other way round or he should have gone down for both! lol
Police obviouly take GBH more seriously than Murder in albert square! lol
Dennis was questioned when Dalton was murdered though, he was one of the prime suspects. Sharon gave him an alibi and Dennis is very good at talking himself out of things, much like Chrissie. I suppose if you have an alibi it eliminates you from their enquiries, or at least they don't suspect you so much.
littlemo
11-09-2005, 18:10
Poor old Arthur Fowler was one who didn't get away with it.
Janine's was probably the best though, arrested for a murder she didn't commit but not for the one she did.
What's happened to her by the way? When's her trial?
Janine's trial is in December and Mike Reid is coming back for it (sorry bit of a spoiler). I did feel a bit sorry for Janine, I know she was responsible for Barry's death, but some people could argue it was accidental. I don't think it was justified that she went to prison for a murder she didn't commit (Laura's). No matter how bad a person she was.
I felt very sorry for Arthur, he was such a sweet man, who didn't deserve what Wily Roper (con man) did to him.
Yes they would! lol There are very few people who haven't commited a crime in EE. Even the nicest people who you think couldn't hurt a fly like Little Mo (but I commend her, I have to say). It's something they should do for EE Revealed, Criminals, they may have done it already but I think it would be great.
Little Mo-tried to kill her husband with an iron (prison)
Kat- Assaulting a police officer (prison)
Big Mo- Fraud, all sorts (prison)
Chrissie-Killed her husband (out)
Dennis- Killed Dalton (out)
Martin- run over Jamie (prison)
Den- Arson (prison)
Phil- Robbery (prison)
Sam- falsely accused of murder (prison)
Grant- assaulting a police officer (prison)
Dot- shoplifting, she was also arrested for the possesion of Cannabis (prison)
Pat- death by drink driving (prison)
Johnny- Killied Andy (out)
Billy- All sorts of dodgy dealings with the Mitchells.
Alfie- Fraud (prison)
There are so many more. It seems not as many as we think get away with it. And I think it definetely depends on the circumstances of a crime as to whether somebody should get off with it or not.
How would you feel if you or some of your family were victims of some of the crimes you have listed
Yes they would! lol There are very few people who haven't commited a crime in EE. Even the nicest people who you think couldn't hurt a fly like Little Mo (but I commend her, I have to say). It's something they should do for EE Revealed, Criminals, they may have done it already but I think it would be great.
Little Mo-tried to kill her husband with an iron (prison)
Kat- Assaulting a police officer (prison)
Big Mo- Fraud, all sorts (prison)
Chrissie-Killed her husband (out)
Dennis- Killed Dalton (out)
Martin- run over Jamie (prison)
Den- Arson (prison)
Phil- Robbery (prison)
Sam- falsely accused of murder (prison)
Grant- assaulting a police officer (prison)
Dot- shoplifting, she was also arrested for the possesion of Cannabis (prison)
Pat- death by drink driving (prison)
Johnny- Killied Andy (out)
Billy- All sorts of dodgy dealings with the Mitchells.
Alfie- Fraud (prison)
There are so many more. It seems not as many as we think get away with it. And I think it definetely depends on the circumstances of a crime as to whether somebody should get off with it or not.
Dont forget Derek! He got aressted for possesion of canabis didnt he?!?
parkerman
11-09-2005, 18:54
And Matthew for a murder he didn't commit, but not Steve for one he did...even thpough it was self-defence.
littlemo
11-09-2005, 19:35
How would you feel if you or some of your family were victims of some of the crimes you have listed
I don't know how i'd feel, I can't really put myself in that position, but a soap is different to real life. Depending on how the writers intepret a situation, we either feel sympathy or hate for the criminal.
If you were a member of Dalton's family, you might feel sad, but that is because you wouldn't be able to see the criminal (Dennis's) side of the story. If something bad happens to somebody you care about you tend to just see one side of the story. A soap gets you to see both sides. Your able to make an informed decision, rather than just going on emotion, because your not involved.
Dont forget Derek! He got aressted for possesion of canabis didnt he?!? Also as mentioned Dot got arrested too,for serving up for herb (cannibas) tea, .I thought thats was so funny, Dot is hardley a crimal
I don't know how i'd feel, I can't really put myself in that position, but a soap is different to real life. Depending on how the writers intepret a situation, we either feel sympathy or hate for the criminal.
If you were a member of Dalton's family, you might feel sad, but that is because you wouldn't be able to see the criminal (Dennis's) side of the story. If something bad happens to somebody you care about you tend to just see one side of the story. A soap gets you to see both sides. Your able to make an informed decision, rather than just going on emotion, because your not involved.
How can there be any informed decisdion on murder other than its WRONG
littlemo
11-09-2005, 23:05
How can there be any informed decisdion on murder other than its WRONG
Yes but it's not always as simple as that. There are cases of self defence. I think soaps give us the opportunity to look at things in a different way.
Yes but it's not always as simple as that. There are cases of self defence. I think soaps give us the opportunity to look at things in a different way.
Hardly self defence when you take out a firearm with the intention of killing another as Dennis did with Dalton
littlemo
11-09-2005, 23:33
Hardly self defence when you take out a firearm with the intention of killing another as Dennis did with Dalton
I don't think the police would see it as self defence, it wasn't directly. But Dennis felt he had no choice, Dalton had sent somebody to kill him, it was either him or Dalton. And he had supposedly killed his father. It was a question of kill him, or be killed.
parkerman
11-09-2005, 23:43
Dennis could have reported Dalton and Phil Mitchell to the police of course instead of taking matters in to his own hands.
angelblue
11-09-2005, 23:47
Yeah but that would of made things potentially worse then he would be known as a grass in the underworld no would trust him and he would still had people on his back but i suppose things couldnt of got any worse then they did
Yeah but that would of made things potentially worse then he would be known as a grass in the underworld no would trust him and he would still had people on his back but i suppose things couldnt of got any worse then they did
Better to be a grass than a murderer
littlemo
11-09-2005, 23:54
Yeah but that would of made things potentially worse then he would be known as a grass in the underworld no would trust him and he would still had people on his back but i suppose things couldnt of got any worse then they did
I agree, you don't want to get on the wrong side of a gangland boss. Dennis had to do what he did to protect himself from danger.
angelblue
12-09-2005, 00:01
He did what he had to do it was him or dalton
I agree, you don't want to get on the wrong side of a gangland boss. Dennis had to do what he did to protect himself from danger.
How can anything justify what was a cold blooded killing now if he had have killed him in a struggle then he may have got away with manslaughter
Richie_lecturer
12-09-2005, 00:11
I agree, you don't want to get on the wrong side of a gangland boss. Dennis had to do what he did to protect himself from danger.
Oy! No bleedin' heart liberals in this thread merci. :nono:
angelblue
12-09-2005, 00:12
How can anything justify what was a cold blooded killing now if he had have killed him in a struggle then he may have got away with manslaughter
He did what he had to do either way if he did go to the police were they going to take him seriously at that moment either way dalton would of got him but dennis got their first
He did what he had to do either way if he did go to the police were they going to take him seriously at that moment either way dalton would of got him but dennis got their first
-
So he goes out and kills him -- no matter what gloss or spin you put on it it is Murder
angelblue
12-09-2005, 00:31
-
So he goes out and kills him -- no matter what gloss or spin you put on it it is Murder
You are right alan45 it murder what ever way you look at it :)
At last we agree. Of course Im not saying Dalton didnt deserve it but thats another argument for another day :)
angelblue
12-09-2005, 00:46
But yes dalton did deserve it but dennis had no choice in the matter but i am not sure if dennis deserves to go to prison :(
But yes dalton did deserve it but dennis had no choice in the matter but i am not sure if dennis deserves to go to prison :(
That of course would be for a jury to decide
callummc
12-09-2005, 01:41
I'm in agreement,EE should not allow people to get away with murder,if they do the crime,they should do the time,EE should be sending out a message that crime does not pay,not gloryfying MURDER
Richie_lecturer
12-09-2005, 01:46
I'm in agreement,EE should not allow people to get away with murder.
Well that didn't stop them hanging onto Louise Berridge did it? :searchme:
kckinsmcg
12-09-2005, 05:31
true, ee seems to have one set of rules for one character and differnt one's for another. lol, its confusing!! :D
Yeah a lot like life, huh?
kckinsmcg
12-09-2005, 05:47
I'm in agreement,EE should not allow people to get away with murder,if they do the crime,they should do the time,EE should be sending out a message that crime does not pay,not gloryfying MURDER
I assume you mean all crime, yes? Let's face it murder is murder, but oh by the way...the whole square of full of other crimes. Where do we stop or should it only be murder that deserves justice? Mo is always buying items that are possibly stolen and certainly not legal. Shouldn't she be punished for buying hot items stolen from someone's house or business? It is a soap...it is meant to show slices of life in a dramatic way. I myself know someone who commited a very serious crime and did not get the punishment deserved and others who recieved punishment, which did not fit the crime. Again, a little like life, yeah? Of course on the show whoever the viewers like the most gets away with it the longest. Pat should be in jail for railroading Jeannine, but Jeannine did commit a crime. A crime that could not be proven, so we feel she deserved to go to jail for killing Laura when she hadn't. Where is the justice in that? But everyone hated Jeannine so off she goes, while we cheer! Martin went to prison for an accident. It was not drink driving or reckless endangerment, but he still got jail time without a previous record. Why, because Jaime was gorgeous and Martin had messed Sonia over. So let's think about that the next time we get all holier than thou and start deciding who goes to jail and who does not. Let's let it play out like the soap opera that it is, which is sometimes a gross caricature of life. Maybe those instances in which we feel justice was not served can help ensure it is in life.
kckinsmcg
12-09-2005, 06:03
How can there be any informed decisdion on murder other than its WRONG
Try this one on...my sister in law is beaten for years...she leaves finally and he tries to talk his way back in months later using his LOVE as a lever...she decides to try to make it work for the kids and takes him back...of course he goes back to his old ways, so one day she blows his head off. By your account she has committed murder and should go to prison. Murder? Or self defense? Unfortunately the truth of this story is that he does come back only this time he kills her in front of their 3 children by stabbing her to death while they try to pull him off of her. She should have killed him. He deserved it. Yet there she lays and he is in prison living off our tax dollars, getting fat, getting an education, watching TV and lifting weights all day. So much for justice, huh?
JustJodi
12-09-2005, 09:12
I have to admit kck is right there are just too many people confusing self defense and cold blooded murder.. here is a link related to something that occured in the USA back in the late 70's..
http://www.umich.edu/~clemency/clemency_manual/manual_chapter04.html
Francine Hughes was 29 yrs old she was an abused wife with 3 small kids, she was beaten so many times, and she like KCK's sis in law took the idiot back,, but she took the law into her own hands and burned the SOB in bed,, so is this SELF DEFENSE or COLD BLOODED MURDER ???
Granted this is the American court system me and KCK are talking about, but wouldn't the same apply for English courts as well ???
janine "got away" with murder ( Barry ) but was taken down for Lauras murder, Dennis killed Dalton..Johnny killed Andy.Now we have 3 women,, 1 did the first glancing blow, the 2nd one did the deed, the 3rd stood there watching,, Who should go down for it ??? Will EE try to do it right ????or will they do a soap opera fantasty story line that lets the murderess /or murderer go off in the sunset ??? I think EE would do abit better if they would go a bit closer to REALITY.. will make the story line a bit more beliveable... this is just my 2 euro cents worth :confused:
parkerman
12-09-2005, 09:13
It is still not right to murder anyone. She should have gone to the police. Otherwise where does the justification for cold-blooded murder end? If you feel your life is in so much danger that you feel the need to kill before you get killed, get out, report it.
RealityGap
12-09-2005, 10:03
this is a hard question really - yes the soaps seem to be full of people commiting crimes left right and centre and getting away with it - I guess the story lines would all be a little boring if they all got caught and sentenced
EE seems to be a very dangerous place to live - full of people ready to murder you!!
I have to admit kck is right there are just too many people confusing self defense and cold blooded murder.. here is a link related to something that occured in the USA back in the late 70's..
http://www.umich.edu/~clemency/clemency_manual/manual_chapter04.html
Francine Hughes was 29 yrs old she was an abused wife with 3 small kids, she was beaten so many times, and she like KCK's sis in law took the idiot back,, but she took the law into her own hands and burned the SOB in bed,, so is this SELF DEFENSE or COLD BLOODED MURDER ???
Granted this is the American court system me and KCK are talking about, but wouldn't the same apply for English courts as well ???
janine "got away" with murder ( Barry ) but was taken down for Lauras murder, Dennis killed Dalton..Johnny killed Andy.Now we have 3 women,, 1 did the first glancing blow, the 2nd one did the deed, the 3rd stood there watching,, Who should go down for it ??? Will EE try to do it right ????or will they do a soap opera fantasty story line that lets the murderess /or murderer go off in the sunset ??? I think EE would do abit better if they would go a bit closer to REALITY.. will make the story line a bit more beliveable... this is just my 2 euro cents worth :confused:
If three people are there it does not matter who strikes the final blow. They set out on a common purpose so are equally culpable. Similarly to the case of Derek Bentley. Bentley did not fire the fatal shot which killed the policeman but he was the only one over age and therefore he was convicted of murder and received the death penalty
this is a hard question really - yes the soaps seem to be full of people commiting crimes left right and centre and getting away with it - I guess the story lines would all be a little boring if they all got caught and sentenced
EE seems to be a very dangerous place to live - full of people ready to murder you!!
Wjat message does that send out to young impressionable people watching the show or any soap for that matter. Im not saying they all would feel its ok to rush out and murder someone but these shows trivialise petty crime such as shoplifting and when people see the chavish millers getting away with things like shoplifting etc and treating it as a big joke.
JustJodi
12-09-2005, 10:24
this is a hard question really - yes the soaps seem to be full of people commiting crimes left right and centre and getting away with it - I guess the story lines would all be a little boring if they all got caught and sentenced
EE seems to be a very dangerous place to live - full of people ready to murder you!!
And what message is it giving the younger set???,,, HEY SO AND SO GOT AWAY WITH IT ON EE so I can too,, a real hard slap of reality sets in when they find out crime DOES NOT PAY. yea RG ( waving at ya ) I would be afraid to live in Walford cos a crime could be committed and the baddie gets away with it !!!!
on another note,,, a trial would be interesting,, cos remember when lil Mo went to court for banging Trevor over the head..and when she went to court with the rape case ,, if they focused more on the court setting, I think it would be great ( who likes JOHN DEED ??? :searchme: )
JustJodi
12-09-2005, 10:29
If three people are there it does not matter who strikes the final blow. They set out on a common purpose so are equally culpable. Similarly to the case of Ian Bentley. Bentley did not fire the fatal shot which killed the policeman but he was the only one over age and therefore he was convicted of murder and received the death penalty
Alan I tried googling ian Bentley,, I couldn't find any thing on his case.. I am a big fan of crime and punishment,,can u send me to the right direction :) thanks
Alan I tried googling ian Bentley,, I couldn't find any thing on his case.. I am a big fan of crime and punishment,,can u send me to the right direction :) thanks
Sorry it should have been Derek Bentley. Its a very famous case and only last year the conviction was upheld following a futher investigatiion using techniques not available in the 1960s
JustJodi
12-09-2005, 10:46
Sorry it should have been Derek Bentley. Its a very famous case and only last year the conviction was upheld following a futher investigatiion using techniques not available in the 1960s
Thanks Alan,, i printed it out going to take it on the plane to read .. since the movies are not in subtitles,,I will be reading if not sleeping LOL:p
littlemo
12-09-2005, 16:30
It is still not right to murder anyone. She should have gone to the police. Otherwise where does the justification for cold-blooded murder end? If you feel your life is in so much danger that you feel the need to kill before you get killed, get out, report it.
Yes but sometimes the police can't protect you from these things. They can give you some security, but in the end we are all responsible for ourselves. If somebody hasn't actually committed a crime, just made threats, it's not easy to prove to the police. It's just one word against another. And it's easy to say, 'just get out' but I imagine it's very difficult, when your that scared.
The Little Mo case is a prime example. Trevor was an abusive husband who she couldn't get away from, she lived in fear, but because she loved him so much she felt she had no choice but to put up with it. When she finally reached the end of her tether and struck out at him, she was jailed for it. That is wrong.
JustJodi
12-09-2005, 16:36
For little Mo it should have been self defense ?? she didn't kill him.. she got jail time,, NO it was not fair, but that is how the courts are set up to punish some one who committed a crime,, weither or not it was self defense,, as u said its hard to prove,, however you said,, the cops can only do so much, we are left to take care of ourselves,, so does that mean we can take the law into our own hands ??
parkerman
12-09-2005, 16:36
But she always had a choice. She could have gone home to her family.
In the end though it was different when she did hit him because that was more a case of immediate self-defence unlike the Dennis/Jack Dalton killing.
JustJodi
12-09-2005, 16:40
But she always had a choice. She could have gone home to her family.
In the end though it was different when she did hit him because that was more a case of immediate self-defence unlike the Dennis/Jack Dalton killing.
And Johnny and Andy... theres another one,, ahhhhhhh what about Paul.. he was murdered too,, forgot about him,,, it was Johnnys bunch who did Paul in. Patrick always held Andy responsible for Pauls death
littlemo
12-09-2005, 16:49
For little Mo it should have been self defense ?? she didn't kill him.. she got jail time,, NO it was not fair, but that is how the courts are set up to punish some one who committed a crime,, weither or not it was self defense,, as u said its hard to prove,, however you said,, the cops can only do so much, we are left to take care of ourselves,, so does that mean we can take the law into our own hands ??
Some good points. That's a difficult question to answer. I don't believe anybody should set out to hurt someone else, but I think there are certain circumstances (like the case of Little Mo) where people are pushed into corners. Little Mo isn't a bad person, she was just desperate.
The Little Mo case is a prime example. Trevor was an abusive husband who she couldn't get away from, she lived in fear, but because she loved him so much she felt she had no choice but to put up with it. When she finally reached the end of her tether and struck out at him, she was jailed for it. That is wrong.
Totally different set of cicumstances. Mo struck out in the heat of the moment not cold bloodedly like Dennis. Mo should have used Marcus the Superbrief and she woul have not had to do any time
littlemo
12-09-2005, 19:01
Totally different set of cicumstances. Mo struck out in the heat of the moment not cold bloodedly like Dennis. Mo should have used Marcus the Superbrief and she woul have not had to do any time
I agree about Marcus, Mo's trial was before he stitched up the Mitchells, it would have been great! I would have loved to have seen the look on Trevor's face, for the tables to be turned on him. Although Mo had her revenge in the end!
Dennis and Little's Mo situation were different. But you could understand both of their reasons for doing what they did. They were both pushed into a corner.
xXxJessxXx
12-09-2005, 19:07
Dennis and Little's Mo situation were different. But you could understand both of their reasons for doing what they did. They were both pushed into a corner.
Yea, i'd say Little mo deffinatly didnt deserve to go to prison, but on the other hand i do get why they were suspicious of her, i mean she didnt just struck him once, not twice but three times, she wanted him dead and there is no excuse not matter what he did, i believe that oif she'd hit him once and knocked him out that was enough to keep her safe as he couldnt do anything more to her. But it was in the heat of the moment unlike Dennis.
I dont think dennis should go to jail though, he wouldnt have killed him if he didnt have to. which is the same with little mo (Though he didnt die but suppose he did) Little mo's was more of the typical self defence than Dennis's but i htink it was still a little self defence as he did that to save him self which is self defence. i think mo's was a little different beacuse she didnt go out with a gun to kill trevor liek dennis did, it was completly spur of the moment to hit him to get him off her.
parkerman
12-09-2005, 19:32
I dont think dennis should go to jail though, he wouldnt have killed him if he didnt have to.
He didn't have to. He should have gone to the police.
xXxJessxXx
12-09-2005, 19:37
He didn't have to. He should have gone to the police.
suppose, but i dont think phil would have let him, i mean he had a gun to his head, he was supposed ot kill him so i dont think he'd let him go. if dennis did get away and got to the police something woukd have been done for him but eventually Dalton would have cuaght up with him himself or got one of his thugs to do it. there was no escaping dalton, not when he wanted you dead!
I dont think dennis should go to jail though, he wouldnt have killed him if he didnt have to. .
Of course he should
kckinsmcg
13-09-2005, 20:02
It is still not right to murder anyone. She should have gone to the police. Otherwise where does the justification for cold-blooded murder end? If you feel your life is in so much danger that you feel the need to kill before you get killed, get out, report it.
She did...time and time again. Restraining order was the final straw. He took it as a personal insult and waited until 5 in the morning while she was asleep and broke in to "talk." He didn't like what she had to say, which was "Get out, we're thru. The kids (14, 12, 10) and i can't live like this anymore." His reply was, "You'll leave me in a box." Forty-seven stabs wound later her 14-year-old son cradled her in his arms while she bled to death. Her last words were, "Hold mommy, Joey. I think I'm dying." Good thing she got that restraining order, huh? I am not advocating murder in any way, shape, or form, but let's face it...she did the right thing, got out, reported it as you so easily stated she should have done, but who ever thinks they will be killed by someone they love, until it happens? Do you honestly think Den thought Chrissie was capable of killing him? But she did and her reason was not abuse, she had been humiliated and wanted him to pay for it...as well as keep the Vic. So no matter how horrible Den was then, Chrissie had absolutely no justifiable reason at all to kill him, bury him and then steal from him...She deserves to be put in jail, but as I stated before, life does not always work where the guilty pay for their crimes. While my brother in law sits in jail perhaps he does not have his freedom, but he has his life and he goes on everyday while 3 kids have been orphaned and an entire family is wounded for the next 100 years. Remember that all of you who think Sharon has no right to wonder what Chrissie is doing with Jake. Sharon is a victim too and Chrissie is a cold-hearted witch. A murder leaves behind more victims than just the one in the funeral parlor.
kckinsmcg
13-09-2005, 20:13
He didn't have to. He should have gone to the police.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but what world do you live in that you believe the police can actually prevent these things from happening? Did you know that when an abused woman finally leaves or goes to the police she become more likely to be injured or killed? These animals that prey on people weaker than themselves have no fear of the police in the moment. My brother in law thought he was justified because his wife was leaving him. He thought she had no right to kick him out of his house. He was the king of his castle and unless you can get the police there 2 seconds before one of these animals snap, then you are on your own. The police themselves will tell you they cannot do anything unless there is an actual crime commited. I don't know about the UK, but in the US the police cannot lock you up for what you might do. So if you think someone is capable of hurting you and your are afraid of them, unless they act upon that the police have no legal ability to arrest or detain that person. What do you think would have happened if the police were called by Dennis to report Dalton threatening him? Give us a call if he throws the first punch, mate! It would be a wonderful world if the police could keep us all safe and protect us from the evil people in the world, but it just isn't the way it is. Sometimes you have to be prepared to defend yourself.
kckinsmcg
13-09-2005, 20:24
Of course he should
Okay let's try this...say someone were to molest Peter or Lucy, is Ian justified in hurting the piece of garbage who did it?
How about this...Demi is raped by someone in the square, like a Graham-type person. He gets away with it because there is not enough evidence, what should Keith do?
Or this one...Phil finds out that Ben is kidnapped and killed by a pedophile. No one can find this person to report him to the police. However, some of his underworld cronies get the information about the killer and tell Phil. Without any proof that could link him to the crime, except he tells someone while in prison with him on a robbery charge that he commited the crime, there is still not enough evidence to link him to it. Is Phil wrong for tapdancing on his head until he dies a miserable death?
The point I am trying to make is that in soaps, as in life, there are many gray areas. If something were to happen to my child, I would not rest until I saw the person responsible punished, but many crimes go unsolved. Now if information came to me about who might be responsible and the police did not have enough evidence to arrest him, should I just sit back and wait for the wheels of justice to catch up or take the law into my own hands? Is there ever a time when street justice should be used?
Okay let's try this...say someone were to molest Peter or Lucy, is Ian justified in hurting the piece of garbage who did it?
How about this...Demi is raped by someone in the square, like a Graham-type person. He gets away with it because there is not enough evidence, what should Keith do?
Or this one...Phil finds out that Ben is kidnapped and killed by a pedophile. No one can find this person to report him to the police. However, some of his underworld cronies get the information about the killer and tell Phil. Without any proof that could link him to the crime, except he tells someone while in prison with him on a robbery charge that he commited the crime, there is still not enough evidence to link him to it. Is Phil wrong for tapdancing on his head until he dies a miserable death?
The point I am trying to make is that in soaps, as in life, there are many gray areas. If something were to happen to my child, I would not rest until I saw the person responsible punished, but many crimes go unsolved. Now if information came to me about who might be responsible and the police did not have enough evidence to arrest him, should I just sit back and wait for the wheels of justice to catch up or take the law into my own hands? Is there ever a time when street justice should be used?
I understand where you are coming from but two wrongs do not make a right.
I had an uncle who was murdered, due to insufficiebt evidence no-one was prosecuted - i know who killed him - but i have no desire to kill them,
parkerman
14-09-2005, 10:22
Yes, and we've seen all sorts of cases where people have taken the law in to their own hands and actually got the wrong person.
It's a very very dangerous road to go down exacting personal revenge.
Here's an example. Four Muslim Yorkshiremen believe that the British Government is responsible for murdering thousands of their fellow Muslims in Iraq. Ultimately they hold the British people responsible for this because they elected the Government. Are they right to then go and blow up three underground trains and a bus to exact their revenge?
Of course I know what your answer to that will be. The same as mine - they are not justified. However, the problem is by using the argument that a person should take personal revenge you are in fact legitimising their argument as well.
kckinsmcg
14-09-2005, 19:29
Apples and oranges...political and religious beliefs spawn many a 2-headed monster. What I am talking about is when you have been personally hurt. I have an intense desire to see Osama Bin Laden dead, but it is not the same as it would be if my child were hurt by someone i could actually get to. Many innocent people are killed in the name of war, but we as a society generally accept that as a necessary evil when trying to protect everyone as a whole. yes, people will be killed and it is sad. I feel terrible for the innocent people being killed in the middle east over issues I barely understand, but if someone were to enter my life somehow by killing or hurting someone that I love, I would not stand idly by. You hope the police can do something, but if they can't I will take my chances. That being said I do not expect that I would be let off due to the circumstances, but I would rather be tried by a jury of my peers and take my chances than to let a guilty person walk free. There is sometimes a justifiable reason for killing, but not what Chrissie did. Even though it was accidental because he attacked her and she had to hit him again, which killed him, she could have told the police about that and again, taken her chances with a jury understanding that it was a sort of self-defense. What she has done now is killed and lied about it to save her own skin. If I had to be put in that situation I would not lie about it after. She may have actually gotten off fairly easily if they all explained what had happened, but now she has committed murder in order to take what was Den's.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.