+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Episode Discussions (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Episode-Discussions)
+---- Forum: Season 3 (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Season-3)
+---- Thread: S03E02 - PTZD (/Thread-S03E02-PTZD)
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - HellJacket - 11-04-2013
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: Why does it have to be a Wesen-based zombie drug? Why cant they just claim its some kind of experimental psychotropic drug that was given to Nick in an extremely concentrated dose by the mysterious malefactor, Thomas Chirac?It can be any drug, but you have to prove the drug actually exists. If it's no longer in Nick's blood stream, where is your evidence? If the drug is not known to science (as a wessen-based zombie drug likely would not be), then the drug is not known. So, yeah, where's your evidence that he was drugged at all?
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: You have the testimony of maybe ten officers that were cleaning up the "zombie farm" at the storage yard. You have the testimony of all the zombies themselves that were cured and had no memory of their actions while under its effects.You have not connected Nick's actions in the bar (which happened many miles away from that riot) with the "zombie farm." Until you do, that is all irrelevant. Now, it's possible you could do that, but the only witness you have is the Baron and Nick's friends. The Baron is dead. In regard to Nick's friends, well, I'd love to be the prosecutor that got to cross-examine them. Most of what they would say in Nick's defense would be inadmissable.
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: You have Rosalie, who could at least give some testimony as to its general pharmacology.I doubt Rosalie has a relevant scientific degree or any such experience. What she has is a bunch of wessen books and stuff her parents told her. Inadmissable hearsay. She's an easy witness to eliminate. And if you don't have her, what evidence of the drug is left? The Baron is dead. You pretty much need to track down another Cracher-Mortel.
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: The existence of _a_ drug is clearly established, the problem only lies in describing the nature of the drug (magical vs pharmaceutical) - but, really, that's immaterial as far as the case against Nick...he wouldn't have to determine what the drug is, only demonstrate what it does.No, it is not. All you have is a bunch of people who rioted. If a toxicology screen (that was even able to identify the drug) was not administered to any of them after the riot, you have no evidence connecting their condition with Nick.
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote: Burden of proof is on the prosecution, after all, and I think all that is more than enough to establish reasonable doubt - I don't think the DA would even seek to indict in a case like this, especially not with a cop of Nick's stature, with absolutely no motive to try and argue for.Based on the above, I don't believe you are a lawyer. Let me explain what "burden of proof" entails. It's actually describes two different concepts.
1. Burden of Persuasion (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt) - this is the legal standard given the jury in deciding a particular fact (i.e., the guilt of the defendant)
2. Burden of production - this is the side (i.e., the prosecution or the defendant) which has the obligation to put forth evidence for that position.
All the prosecution has to do to convict Nick is show a) he killed someone b) with malice aforethought (i.e., it wasn't an accident). Being under the zombie drug is likely going to be an affirmative defense. The way an affirmative defense works, even if the prosecutor proves everything he needs to prove, the affirmative defense gets the defendant completely off. Unlike in civil trials, the prosecutor usually has to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt (e.g., the prosecutor has to prove the murder wasn't in self-defense).
The problem is, as I show above, there is really no evidence that Nick could put forward about the zombie drug given how the wessen world is outside the realm of science. Going back to the burden of production above, even though the prosecution has to disprove that Nick was under the spell of the zombie drug, his entire evidence for this defense is his own personal testimony. If I'm on the jury, I convict Nick.
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - hot schade - 11-04-2013
(11-04-2013, 07:30 AM)Lou Wrote: I actually agree with you Droid, and I think the writers did make too big a deal of this. But I will point out a few things in the writers defense.
At the time, before he saw the video, he didn't know that guy came at him with a knife. He must have thought he killed an innocent bystander.
Up until now I think most of the guys he killed was while he was in cop-mode. He killed them because they were resisting arrest or in self defense. (The BIG exception to this was when he had Monroe lure those guys out of the hotel so that he kill them. He didn't ask for them to surrender and the only crime they were guilty of was beating up Monroe. so that was not only poorly justified but mostly him acting like a Grimm and killing "bad" wesson.)
Most if not all the people he has killed were "bad" wesson. And we know that dealing with the Grimm side of him and the cop side has been a challenge to him.
This death sort of fell out of the normal range for him. He wasn't acting as a cop, he wasn't acting as a Grimm, the victim wasn't a bad wesson or resisting arrest or anything. He did all that crazy stuff while he was a Zombie. A good lawyer could get him off - its just that the trial and testimony would be really really crazy.
Not taking responsibility and having everyone involved in the cover - up was totally the "right" thing to do. It just goes against Nick's "cop nature".
i totally agree, this is how i saw things too.
this guy was kinda innocent if you think of it, he had a knife but he was using it, i guess you could argue in self-defence and that maybe what the prosecution would say, IMO!
Quote:Yeah, his being a Grimm already was a problem for Baron Samedi, and then Nick was dosed twice ... and no one knows what that means.
To be fair to Juliette, the last thing anyone thinks of in a situation like that is being gentle. You definitely want your loved one to "wake up".
its actually not a gentle way of waking someone its just not violent LOL! if you tap your collarboan its really annoying. i was wondering that the zombie thing might be a sensory overload and that in their "drugged-up" state didn't know how to deal with the overload other then to lash out in a violent way. it would explain why he turned grey/dead while listening to juliet.
@helljacket: i think you are totally right, it wasn't strange to me that he wanted to turn himself in but why he didn't turn himself in. that guy was actually innocent, nick was so crazed that a guy with a gun was terrified of him. nick really has no defence.
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - grimmfreak - 11-04-2013
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote:(11-04-2013, 11:04 AM)HellJacket Wrote: The problem remains that you have to prove the existence of the zombie drug, and without the Baron, that is unlikely to happen in the court of law (everything Rosalee knows about the drug is hearsay for instance, and I doubt she'd pass the legal standard for an expert witness).
Why does it have to be a Wesen-based zombie drug? Why cant they just claim its some kind of experimental psychotropic drug that was given to Nick in an extremely concentrated dose by the mysterious malefactor, Thomas Chirac?
You have the testimony of maybe ten officers that were cleaning up the "zombie farm" at the storage yard. You have the testimony of all the zombies themselves that were cured and had no memory of their actions while under its effects. You have Rosalie, who could at least give some testimony as to its general pharmacology. The existence of _a_ drug is clearly established, the problem only lies in describing the nature of the drug (magical vs pharmaceutical) - but, really, that's immaterial as far as the case against Nick...he wouldn't have to determine what the drug is, only demonstrate what it does.
Burden of proof is on the prosecution, after all, and I think all that is more than enough to establish reasonable doubt - I don't think the DA would even seek to indict in a case like this, especially not with a cop of Nick's stature, with absolutely no motive to try and argue for.
I think you're 100% right... I mean how many times do we see cops kill people outright and get off... In many cases wrongly. There's no way the DA would push this... If anything they might want to put him under a psychiatric hold until they were sure any after effects of the drug had worn off.
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - HellJacket - 11-04-2013
(11-04-2013, 06:31 PM)grimmfreak Wrote: I think you're 100% right... I mean how many times do we see cops kill people outright and get off... In many cases wrongly.I'm not even going to touch this.
(11-04-2013, 06:31 PM)grimmfreak Wrote: There's no way the DA would push this...Nonsense. There are twenty something witnesses who saw Nick walk into a bar and indiscriminately attack people (and kill one of them). This is an open and shut case against Nick. His only defense is a drug that may be unknown to modern science, and which he probably could not even prove he ingested.
Remember, it's not about what we saw as an omniscient member of the Grimm audience. It's what you can prove in the court of law. Proving Nick committed a bunch of crimes is easy with this evidence. Proving his defense is damn near impossible.
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - pale boy - 11-04-2013
(11-04-2013, 01:46 AM)droid327 Wrote: It just seemed like a huge hole in character development for them to dwell on that fact so much, at this point in the series.
First off, hello and welcome to the Forum.
I just wanted to chime in on this bit of your great post. The bar fight victim is a bit different than all the other people we've scene killed on screen by Nick. Most of them were Wesen (and I can't actually recall any non-Wesen, but that doesn't mean there haven't been some). All of them attacked Nick first or threatened him or other people. This time, he was the one who started the fight and he attacked a roomful of humans (and then a houseful). Plus, we could see that he did remember just a little of it. Though it was technically self-defense, under-the-zombie-influence Nick did create that situation where he could be attacked in the first place.
Taken together, I think that's why they're dwelling on this particular case. With Wesen, he's a match in a fight, but with humans he is completely dangerous. Given his job, he knows that being drugged really isn't an excuse against this crime.
And, on some level, I think that Wesen on this show always rate a "little less than human" to the human characters. (Heck, even some Wesen are entirely unsympathetic to the plight of other Wesen.) They're monstrous, other, so their pain doesn't register as badly as those of the normals (unless they've been rendered as explicitly "good" characters).
Either that or he needed something to angst over.
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - Lou - 11-04-2013
Some interesting point of views here. Actually I think we mostly seem to agree on most of it. but this is almost philosophy, Grimm or cop ethics, "Good" Grimms would work undercover and not even admit to being there. " Good" Cops would turn themselves in and trust the justice system.
Anyway, I was listening to last weeks (s3 e1) Grimm Podcast, and they were discussing the bar fight and they brought up somethings interesting. Nick was violent towards Samdi but not the pilots. And when he first went into the bar he was passive. It was only till people started threatening him that he got violent. And the heightened senses, maybe that how all the Zombies are so that EVERYTHING is annoying them so they can so easily be provoked into violence. Of course that doesn't even start to explain the poor family in the house. But its something to think about.
Also, I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I'm really happy with the Juliette character. She is upset about Nick, angry at the Captain, helpful to Rosalee, and vengeful along with Monroe. I always like her character and I'm so glad she is being taken off the shelf and shined up.
(11-04-2013, 04:16 PM)droid327 Wrote:(11-04-2013, 11:04 AM)HellJacket Wrote: The problem remains that you have to prove the existence of the zombie drug, and without the Baron, that is unlikely to happen in the court of law (everything Rosalee knows about the drug is hearsay for instance, and I doubt she'd pass the legal standard for an expert witness).
Why does it have to be a Wesen-based zombie drug? Why cant they just claim its some kind of experimental psychotropic drug that was given to Nick in an extremely concentrated dose by the mysterious malefactor, Thomas Chirac?
You have the testimony of maybe ten officers that were cleaning up the "zombie farm" at the storage yard. You have the testimony of all the zombies themselves that were cured and had no memory of their actions while under its effects. You have Rosalie, who could at least give some testimony as to its general pharmacology. The existence of _a_ drug is clearly established, the problem only lies in describing the nature of the drug (magical vs pharmaceutical) - but, really, that's immaterial as far as the case against Nick...he wouldn't have to determine what the drug is, only demonstrate what it does.
Burden of proof is on the prosecution, after all, and I think all that is more than enough to establish reasonable doubt - I don't think the DA would even seek to indict in a case like this, especially not with a cop of Nick's stature, with absolutely no motive to try and argue for.
I think they have some of the drug "in evidence". Didn't the medical examiner already identify it as some various forms of natural stuff. (that would be the in for Rosalee to be involved and being able to figure out the antidote. but still this all is best kept out of the harsh light in a court room.
and speaking of drugs. It occurred to Monroe that the Zombies could smoke the antidote. I hope I'm not offending anyone from Oregon when I say, that seems like a typical Portland attitude.
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - HellJacket - 11-04-2013
(11-04-2013, 08:10 PM)Lou Wrote: I think they have some of the drug "in evidence". Didn't the medical examiner already identify it as some various forms of natural stuff. (that would be the in for Rosalee to be involved and being able to figure out the antidote. but still this all is best kept out of the harsh light in a court room.If you could repeat the "zombie syndrome" (i.e., turn a person into a zombie, have them go crazy, and then cure them with Rosalee's cure), I think you could easily get Nick off in a court of law. The problem is, I'm not sure if you could do that based on the details in the past few episodes, I'd need to rewatch the last two episodes of last season to see what the episode said.
But using eye witness testimony alone, I don't think there's enough for Nick's defense.
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - droid327 - 11-05-2013
(11-04-2013, 05:03 PM)HellJacket Wrote: You have not connected Nick's actions in the bar (which happened many miles away from that riot) with the "zombie farm." Until you do, that is all irrelevant. Now, it's possible you could do that, but the only witness you have is the Baron and Nick's friends. The Baron is dead. In regard to Nick's friends, well, I'd love to be the prosecutor that got to cross-examine them. Most of what they would say in Nick's defense would be inadmissable.
Inadmissible why? All you need to do is establish that Nick was there at the 'zombie farm', and then made his way from there to the bar, once he was himself 'zombified'. That's actually what happened, so the timeline would work, and if all that Hank and Wu and Renard had to do was testify that "yes he was there at the storage yard on that night", how are you going to break that down in cross?
(11-04-2013, 05:03 PM)HellJacket Wrote: I doubt Rosalie has a relevant scientific degree or any such experience. What she has is a bunch of wessen books and stuff her parents told her. Inadmissable hearsay. She's an easy witness to eliminate. And if you don't have her, what evidence of the drug is left? The Baron is dead. You pretty much need to track down another Cracher-Mortel.
All you have is a bunch of people who rioted. If a toxicology screen (that was even able to identify the drug) was not administered to any of them after the riot, you have no evidence connecting their condition with Nick.
These were not angry anarchists that got turned back with water cannon. They were people with no connection to each other, most likely with no history of violence or antisocial behavior, who would all testify that they have no memory of how they got there or what they did. And you have the testimony of all the policemen there, who saw them attacking them like raving animals (just like Nick did), falling off a two story stack of shipping containers and then just getting right back up.
As for Rosalie, you cant argue with results - she worked with the PPD and successfully cured all the zombies. Since its a pufferfish toxin, it makes sense that an apothecary (someone with expertise in natural pharmacology) would be versed in its effects. I think the prosecution would be hard-pressed to find any other expert witness with credibility in zombie biochemistry to refute her testimony
(11-04-2013, 05:03 PM)HellJacket Wrote: Based on the above, I don't believe you are a lawyer.
No, I'm a scientist...
But that's why we have juries of our peers, and not just juries of lawyers...(11-04-2013, 05:03 PM)HellJacket Wrote: The problem is, as I show above, there is really no evidence that Nick could put forward about the zombie drug given how the wessen world is outside the realm of science.
If I'm on the jury, I convict Nick.
Not really, see below...
And that doesn't seem like you have much faith in the justice system, since Nick was innocent from the "omniscient viewer" point of view
Its not like there aren't real world parallels here. Things like PCP or, famously, bath salts can make people behave like this. If someone dosed me with bath salts and I tried to eat someone's face off, you're saying I'm guilty of assault?
(11-04-2013, 08:10 PM)Lou Wrote: I think they have some of the drug "in evidence". Didn't the medical examiner already identify it as some various forms of natural stuff. (that would be the in for Rosalee to be involved and being able to figure out the antidote. but still this all is best kept out of the harsh light in a court room.
Yeah it was, funny enough, a variation on pufferfish toxins. Really, except for Hexenbiester and the odd case like the Coins, there's been no "magic" on the show, its all just a play on biochemistry. Its not mind control, its pheromones. Even the fire-breathing dragon did so using special glands.
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - Lou - 11-06-2013
Thank you Droid for you well thought out comments.
RE: S03E02 - PTZD - Secret Keeper - 11-09-2013
When I was watching, I was under the impression that Nick wasn't the aggressor at the bar. A guy confronted him, he fought back, then someone else in the bar came after him, he fought back, and so on. I was pretty confused when he went after the family because that was when I first saw him going after anybody who didn't attack first. Maybe I need to rewatch.