hasiuk@trwspp.UUCP (09/24/84)
>> 3. Dirty Harry operates in complete contempt of the law. He'll get >> the bad guys any way he can; if he has to break some laws to >> do it, tough luck. Fans of these films would say he prefers >> justice to law. Opponents say that what's really operating >> is revenge. > >Harry follows the letter of the law, and what he sees as the >spirit - to protect the public. Note that where Harry >transgresses is against court decisions that view a trial as a >technical exercise in detail, not a search for truth. > >In the first movie, Harry let the bank robber fire at him *first* >before he fired back. There are very few officers who would've >given a man with a shotgun that much of an opportunity. How can you claim that Harry follows the letter of the law. Do you remember the end of Dirty Harry? Why was it that the city couldn't prosecute Scorpio? They found the murder weapon where he lived, but they couldn't use it as evidence because Harry obtained it _illegally_! Harry also used torture to find out what happened to the kidnapped girl. Lee Hasiuk
lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (09/28/84)
#R:trwspp:-58400:uokvax:3900066:000:1242 uokvax!lmaher Sep 27 18:35:00 1984 >/***** uokvax:net.movies / trwspp!hasiuk / 6:51 pm Sep 25, 1984 */ >>Harry follows the letter of the law, and what he sees as the > >How can you claim that Harry follows the letter of the law. Do you >remember the end of Dirty Harry? Why was it that the city couldn't >prosecute Scorpio? They found the murder weapon where he lived, but >they couldn't use it as evidence because Harry obtained it >_illegally_! Harry also used torture to find out what happened to the >kidnapped girl. > >Lee Hasiuk The exclusionary rule (which caused the rifle to be tossed out as evidence) is not a law passed by the legislature, but just a ruling by a court. Harry doesn't see why a little girl has to die for our judicial system to survive. But this discussion *DEFINITELY* does not belong in net.movies, so let's move it to net.politics or net.flame, whereever you're comfortable. Some might argue that there is no difference between the Law and the rulings of courts. Some might care to point out why Dred Scott was reversed without a new law being passed. Feel free to do so, but in net.politics, please. I'm just pointing out how Dirty Harry feels about the matter, I don't necessarily agree with him. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher