Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>>The two lead cops. Jeffrey Donovan looks like a college prof, he's been
>>a scene dominator since "Burn Notice." He's good.

>He did dominate his scenes. The character was beneath an actor of his worth.

>The script was stupid. That nonsense about being imperious with the
>teenage boy who then didn't want to speak to the cops was horrid.

>The confession scene... I knew the defense would object because she
>wasn't Mirandized.

Hey! I just found "Real Lawyer Reacts to Law & Order" video on YouTube!
He reviewed the reboot episode of Law & Order!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCXHvP78CS8

On Feb 10, 2023 at 2:54:01 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The two lead cops. Jeffrey Donovan looks like a college prof, he's been
>>> a scene dominator since "Burn Notice." He's good.
>
>> He did dominate his scenes. The character was beneath an actor of his worth.
>
>> The script was stupid. That nonsense about being imperious with the
>> teenage boy who then didn't want to speak to the cops was horrid.
>
>> The confession scene... I knew the defense would object because she
>> wasn't Mirandized.
>
> Hey! I just found "Real Lawyer Reacts to Law & Order" video on YouTube!
> He reviewed the reboot episode of Law & Order!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCXHvP78CS8

Okay, so he makes the point about the actor being a stand-in for Bill Cosby
which gets his video instantly demonetized.

Then why did I have to watch a commercial when it started and a solar panel ad
and a gun-grabbing appeal mid-video?!?!

Does 'demonetized' in YouTube World mean the video *maker* just can't make any
money off it; that YouTube itself will still slap ads on it and make money
themselves, they'll just deny it to the person who actually made the content?

I'm going to reiterate my observation that Jamie Ross had a helluva nice
office for an ADA. Unless you're Jack McCoy himself, that's a private practice
office, not a government employee office.

During the controversy over Cosgrove mentioning the confession on the stand,
we suddenly went from Price voluntarily choosing not to use a legally obtained
confession to it being treated as something that violated the rules of
evidence or the Constitution and which had been ruled inadmissible. How the
frak did that happen?

And even if it *had* been previously ruled inadmissible, the defense attorney
made it admissible again when she kept telling Cosgrove had no evidence
linking her client to the crime and that he had "no idea" the hoodie was the
same one in the picture. She opened the door to her client's confession. She
can't reference things that have been ruled inadmissible knowing a witness
can't talk about them as a way to make the witness seem less credible. If she
does that, it all comes back into evidence again.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 19:11:42 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Feb 10, 2023 at 2:54:01 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The two lead cops. Jeffrey Donovan looks like a college prof, he's been
>>>> a scene dominator since "Burn Notice." He's good.
>>
>>> He did dominate his scenes. The character was beneath an actor of his worth.
>>
>>> The script was stupid. That nonsense about being imperious with the
>>> teenage boy who then didn't want to speak to the cops was horrid.
>>
>>> The confession scene... I knew the defense would object because she
>>> wasn't Mirandized.
>>
>> Hey! I just found "Real Lawyer Reacts to Law & Order" video on YouTube!
>> He reviewed the reboot episode of Law & Order!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCXHvP78CS8
>
>Okay, so he makes the point about the actor being a stand-in for Bill Cosby
>which gets his video instantly demonetized.
>
>Then why did I have to watch a commercial when it started and a solar panel ad
>and a gun-grabbing appeal mid-video?!?!
>
>Does 'demonetized' in YouTube World mean the video *maker* just can't make any
>money off it; that YouTube itself will still slap ads on it and make money
>themselves, they'll just deny it to the person who actually made the content?

Yes, that is exactly what it means. Youtube will still run ads on
de-monetized vides and keep all the money earned for themselves. It's
why there's been such an uproar about their recent changes where using
offensive terms or showing violence in the first 8 or 15 seconds (they
seem to use both values in different places) can cause a video to be
demonetized. Though what really ticked people off is they just
announced and implemented the change with no advance warning and even
went through everyone's back catalog of videos and started flagging
many of them.

>I'm going to reiterate my observation that Jamie Ross had a helluva nice
>office for an ADA. Unless you're Jack McCoy himself, that's a private practice
>office, not a government employee office.
>
>During the controversy over Cosgrove mentioning the confession on the stand,
>we suddenly went from Price voluntarily choosing not to use a legally obtained
>confession to it being treated as something that violated the rules of
>evidence or the Constitution and which had been ruled inadmissible. How the
>frak did that happen?
>
>And even if it *had* been previously ruled inadmissible, the defense attorney
>made it admissible again when she kept telling Cosgrove had no evidence
>linking her client to the crime and that he had "no idea" the hoodie was the
>same one in the picture. She opened the door to her client's confession. She
>can't reference things that have been ruled inadmissible knowing a witness
>can't talk about them as a way to make the witness seem less credible. If she
>does that, it all comes back into evidence again.
>