Seinfeld DVD Complete Series Box Set

Seinfeld Script Search:

Series Finale Question

Author Message
Keith Hernandez

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 12:58 AM 

As we all know, "the gang" were arrested under the good samaritan law for not assisting a robbery victim and ended up in the pokie.

But really, how is it that Kramer's video of the robbery didn't help the police identify the robber? That's helping, isn't it?

Bob Sakamano

Posts: no

Reply: 1

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 1:42 AM 

it's about as exculpatory as the gang's not knowing whether the thief posed harm to the gang, which was an exception to the good samaritan's law.

a better question: why didn't kramer ever go forward with his idea of putting ketchup and mustard in the same bottle?

Keith Hernandez

Posts: 20

Reply: 2

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 2:54 AM 

I disagree. Not knowing whether the thief posed harm to the gang is open to interpretation. Catching the robber on videotape is direct evidence linking him to the crime, and thus helpful to the investigation. Chiles blew it!

I think you actually agree but just wanted to say "exculpatory". How long have you been waiting to use *that* word in a sentence? Laughing

Bob Sakamano

Posts: no

Reply: 3

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 4:10 AM 

the proposition that the thief might have posed harm to the gang is exactly the subject that chiles should have argued. the threat of harm is a nebulous (there's another one for you) disctinction, which is probably one reason why the good samaritan law protects the person helping and not so much the person helped.

you were asking, though, whether videotaping the crime could be considered helping the victim. insofar as latham's enforcement of the good samaritan law required the gang to help the victim as long as the perpetrator posed no threat to those who could aid, the act of videotaping a crime does not help the victim during the act of the crime itself. unless videotaping directly leads to and is the reason for the criminal discontinuing is crime, again, i don't see how videotaping the event could be construed in compliance with the fictive law.

a decent attorney would have successfully argued that the gang reasonably believed that the perpetrator would have posed harm had they intervened. surely, chiles would have brought up kramer's run-in with the street toughs. are there any other episodes during which one or more members of the gang were subjected to a criminal activity? living in new york city surely could sensitize (or desensitize) an individual to street crime.

well, that was fun. giddy up!

Wealthy Industrialist

Posts: 473

Reply: 4

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 10:02 AM 

Let's face it, they deserved to go to jail.

"You would think the weightlifting and sodomy is enough. Hey, anyone here from cell block D?"

Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 5

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 11:08 AM 

Kramer also got mugged when he had to take a crap after auditioning for "Jerry"

Wealthy Industrialist

Posts: 473

Reply: 6

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 11:15 AM 

"Mr. Costanza, you're under arrest for aiding and abetting a known fugitive."

Even though it wasn't George who answered the door in this particular, it doesn't change the fact that he was under arrest...


Posts: 3

Reply: 7

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 4:47 PM 

I want to be in jail with Elaine Wink

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 8

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 5:05 PM 

that's kooky talk.

Bubble Boy

Posts: 360

Reply: 9

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 8:03 PM 

Let's not forget Jerry and George's guilty convictions of public urination.

I believe Cosmo and Newman were also nabbed for dog-napping.

"I got this shirt at Rudy's!" and "What took you so long?"

George got arresting for bootlegging, and probably should have at least been questioned about the death of his fiance.

I'll let Krmaer's serial killer stint slide, as he was eventually released ... "How'd you know about the guy in the park?"

Finally, Jerry was found guilty of mail fraud! "There will be a small fine."

Newmans Sock

Posts: 7

Reply: 10

PostPosted: February 11, 2005 8:41 PM 

Hey George had nothing to do with Susans death... I mean it's not like he knew at any point that the envelopes were poisonous... Rolling Eyes just that the adhesive wasn't very good... but heck, Susan should just have gotten some moistener or something... licking 200 envelopes is just stupid... Smile

Join the discussion:

Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys

Copyright ©2003, Mark Carey.