Recap: This episode took a harrowing real-life case and gave it a twist, a double-backflip, and a roller-coaster ride. Hang on tight SVU fans. Curves ahead. (Learning Curves. Ba dum bum.)
Tonight’s show started with a brutal crime landing right on Ice-T’s doorstep. His son, Ken, announces that he’s engaged to marry a hot young hunk name Alejandro. Before Ice-T even finishes his hilarious scowl of surprise, Alejandro is abducted by a bunch of thugs who stuff him into a van, take him to a dingy apartment, and beat and sodomize him with a baseball bat while yelling gay-bashing insults.
Ice-T is outraged, but the top brass take him off the case. (Good call, top brass). Of course, Ice-T goes rogue and keeps investigating. Amanda (who apparently has a considerable bad-girl streak of her own) goes with him to a suspect’s apartment. Although they don’t have a warrant, they barge into the house. The hugely pregnant resident demands that they leave – but Amanda blocks the woman into the kitchen while Ice-T goes to her bedroom and rifles through underwear drawers. Bad cops! No donut! Ice-T finds an unregistered gun, which Nick then uses to strong-arm the pregnant woman’s boyfriend into confessing that he and a bunch of his gang friends assaulted Alejandro. SVU arrests all of the gang members involved.
Case closed, right? Of course not. We’re not even at the second commercial break.
Another man is soon abducted, pulled into a van, assaulted and gay-bashed. Our second victim is played by Tony Hale, the actor known for his hilarious portrayal of Buster Bluth on Arrested Development. (Hale tweeted: “Going to be on Law & Order tonite. I’ve heard it’s my best comedic performance to date.”)
Our detectives scratch their collective heads. With all the gang-bangers locked up, who assaulted Buster? We soon learn it was the pugnacious grocer father of a student at the school where Buster taught. But why? Well, that gets complicated. The grocer’s teenage son, Luca, reported that Buster molested him. But Luca can’t keep his story straight. Soon, he’s saying a different, mousy brunette female teacher was the one who molested him. But it’s not her either. After a quick chat with Martha Stewart (convincing as a prim and proper headmistress), our detectives learn that Luca was having sex with his curvaceous blond biology teacher. He made up the other allegations to cover for their illicit relationship.
Luca doesn’t want to file charges against this blond teacher — he wants to run away with her. But the biology teacher doesn’t. So Luca goes to her classroom and slits her throat with the least-frightening weapon of the season, a tiny frog-dissecting scalpel. We close with Nick convincing the blood-soaked boy to drop the scalpel rather than commit suicide with it.
Verdict: B
What they got right:
I find it remarkable that SVU ran this episode about gay marriage and hate crimes on the same day that President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. This season, SVU has had a near-psychic ability to run episodes at exactly the right time — sometimes even scooping the real news. (Like the Joe Paterno/ Jerry Sandusky case, where the fictional SVU episode aired before the real-life case broke.) It’s a little spooky. SVU creators, what kind of dark magic are you working over there in the writers room?
There really was a case involving a man who was allegedly kidnapped, tortured, and sodomized by a gang of young men in Brooklyn. In real life, the 30-year-old man was apparently targeted by the “Latin King Goonies” because he was gay and had sex with some 17-year-olds who were known to the gang members. The man was invited to a “party,” but when he showed up, the thugs allegedly beat him, sodomized him with a toilet plunger, and made one of his lovers burn him with cigarettes on his genitals.
Hate crimes against members of the lesbian, gay, bi and transgender community are on the rise – and tend to spike in response to gay marriage initiatives. Hate crimes were up 13% in 2010 – and 50% of hate-crime victims don’t even make police reports. Minorities and transgender victims are the least likely to come forward. In response to the President’s announcement tonight, we will unfortunately probably see an uptick in violent crimes against the LGBT community.
What they got wrong:
My favorite line tonight was the pregnant girl who said, “I’ve seen TV – I know my rights!”’ Oh sister, you need to check out this blog. Any semi-competent lawyer would’ve gotten that gun suppressed, and there would have been no leverage to elicit her boyfriend’s confession. Ice-T and Amanda violated that woman’s Fourth Amendment rights, which guard against unreasonable searches and seizures, by barging into her home and searching without a warrant. And the boyfriend’s resulting confession was “fruit of the poisonous tree” – meaning, the cops never would have gotten the confession without the bad search in the first place. Everything would have been suppressed.
I like a good confession as much as the next prosecutor. But this wasn’t a good one. Ice-T’s actions could have torpedoed the entire case, and the guy could have walked … if he or his girlfriend actually did know their rights. That’s what happens when you get your legal advice from TV shows!
(Editor’s note: this blog is for fun and does not give legal advice.)
The gruesome ending, where the boy killed his seductive blond biology teacher, was just a thin excuse to close with the requisite SVU gore. There have been plenty teenagers who declared their love and eternal devotion for the teacher who committed statutory rape by having sex with them. Those students never end up killing the teacher.
One of the most notorious cases of teacher/student statutory rape was that of Mary Kay Letourneau, the 35-year-old teacher who had an affair with her 13-year-old student, Vili Fualaau. She was prosecuted and jailed, but every time she got out, she returned to Fualaau. She had two of his babies while in jail. After her sentence was served, she married him, took the name Mary Kay Fualaau, and now seems to spend a fair amount of time giving interviews to glossy magazines.
Unlike the kid in tonight's SVU, Fili Fualauu responded with an engagement ring and People magazine interviews rather than killing his teacher/sexual assailant
One final “wrong” – I hear Martha Stewart didn’t bring home-baked cookies for the cast and crew when she guest-starred. Boo!
What do you think, SVU fans? Is the world actually being run by a cabal of SVU writers who are orchestrating real-life events to coincide with their episodes? Should Ice-T be punished for going off the rails or commended for being such a caring dad? And when a lifestyle guru shows up for her TV cameo, shouldn’t she bring some tasty treats for the crew? Leave your comments!
TokoBali says
10 May, 2012 at 11:57 amMy guess: a deeply corrupt judge ruled the gun admissible, on the basis of his own love for hip hop.
I was just disappointed they didn’t show the conversation between Ice T and Alejandro’s father. That could have been a cool, meaningful scene.
James Pollock says
10 May, 2012 at 5:17 pm“I was just disappointed they didn’t show the conversation between Ice T and Alejandro’s father. That could have been a cool, meaningful scene.”
What conversation? Ice walks in, glares at the dad, and he runs away, diving through a window to get away.
Allison Leotta says
17 May, 2012 at 1:53 amHa! TokoBali, James, I love it. TokoBali, I agree, that scene would have been really good to see.
James Pollock says
10 May, 2012 at 12:42 pmIf the guy didn’t live in that apartment (which is not made clear) then his rights were not violated, and the gun could be used as evidence against him, and his confession would stand. Besides which, the confession is NOT fruit of the poisonous tree… the beating of Alejandro was entirely unrelated to the gun. Finally, there’s the obvious point that the judge would not have the same footage to watch that we did, and would be faced with a situation where the woman claims the cops barged in, and searched without a warrant, while the two cops claim that they were invited in, and saw the gun in plain sight, negating the need for a warrant (OK, it probably wouldn’t come to that… they didn’t really want to get her on anything, including the gun… but it’s easy to fall into the trap of assuming that because we, the viewers see the action and know what happened, it will be easy to establish in court..
Allison Leotta says
17 May, 2012 at 2:08 amYou make a good point, James. But Amanda and Ice-T couldn’t keep their stories straight, externally or internally. They would have been KILLED on the stand.
Rob says
10 May, 2012 at 12:49 pmI don’t know much about the law, so I appreciate this blog muchly- what I do know is about midway through the secondary (main) plot, I realized that it’s almost exactly like the plot to the movie Notes on a Scandal (with Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett). Almost exactly.
Allison Leotta says
17 May, 2012 at 1:54 amRob, you’re right! I watched that movie this week, based on your comment. Great call.
Alenna says
10 May, 2012 at 8:00 pmI knew it!! The minute I saw the blonde teacher “Natalie” I knew she was guilty….of something. I didn’t know of what yet, but we all know that (according to SVU writers) pretty blonde chicks are always criminally responsible. You might want to be careful Allison, because you’re a prime suspect. You know that L&O SVU was renewed for a 14th season, and they are probably already writing an episode about a blonde ex-prosecutor-blogger-authoress who is also a serial killer. 🙂
This story started out really well – with uncanny timing about a gay hate crime. It was an important issue that they should have stuck with, but instead they lurched off the tracks and into another wacko B-story about evil women and a poor wrongly-accused man (how many times have we seen that this year?). And of-course the requisite hostage-taking ending. Seems to me like lazy writing – to always kill-off your criminal in the end.
I was wondering what happened to the gang from the beginning part of the story? Did they all go to trial for a Hate Crime? I really miss the courtroom scenes from previous SVU years; seems to me that they are concentrating too much on the “Order” and not enough on the “Law”.
James Pollock says
11 May, 2012 at 1:01 amThe game members got federal prosecution for hate crimes, which means longer sentences than they would have gotten for the batteries alone. You didn’t see it because there aren’t any federal prosecutors in the cast, and a courtroom scene means lots of people with speaking parts which is expensive.
Alenna says
12 May, 2012 at 11:59 amPerhaps in the “real world” the gang members would have been convicted. In the “SVU world” they would have all gotten off, because the SVU detectives would have discovered that their mothers were all part of a secret, religious, underground, anti-gay, vampire cult, and the young gang members (as children) were all forced to participate in some ritualistic anti-gay behavior on a yearly basis (right before Mother’s Day). The mothers would be put on trial and the gang members would all go into counseling. Mothers are ALWAYS ultimately responsible, after all.
BTW, Happy Mother’s Day!
James Pollock says
13 May, 2012 at 1:23 am“Perhaps in the “real world” the gang members would have been convicted.”
It’s what they said on the show. Granted, it’s only a couple of lines out of a packed 42 minutes, but that’s what Fin says on the subject.
Allison Leotta says
17 May, 2012 at 1:56 amAlenna, I can’t wait for my cameo as a secret, underground vampire! 🙂
Happy mother’s day to you too!
Greg says
10 May, 2012 at 10:23 pmEr, read a few of these ‘what they got right’ comments and wondering if you knew the writers of SVU base their stories on actual events, so to state ‘there was something similar in the news’ has no merit. Its like rating tv news based on the similar newspaper stories.. Just sayin
James Pollock says
11 May, 2012 at 1:56 pmSVU writers basing their scripts on real events is like noting that “Catch-22” was based on WWII, or “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” was based on Arthurian legend.
Allison Leotta says
17 May, 2012 at 1:57 amAmen, James. Greg, I hear you, but I find it interesting to parse which parts of these stories are actually based in fact and which are made up. Sometimes the truth is stranger than the fiction.
Michelle Cunin says
11 May, 2012 at 2:17 pmI don’t think the search would’ve been good in this one. If it was discovered that the boyfriend didn’t live there, then the search would’ve been tossed out. This same issue came up in “Starved” when the girlfriend gave them permission to search only to find out she didn’t live there to truly be able to give permission.
Although this episode had a reverse twist, but it felt like “Conned”.
James Pollock says
11 May, 2012 at 10:10 pmOther way around. If the boyfriend DID live there, the search that turned up the gun would have been thrown out, and anything the cops learned as a result of having the gun would be “poisonous fruit of the tree”. However, if the boyfriend DOESN’T live there, then HIS rights haven’t been invaded, the gun can be used as evidence against him, and the “poisonous fruit” isn’t poisonous any more.
The girlfriend has a valid 1983 lawsuit either way, but probably won’t find a lawyer who’ll take it.
Michelle Cunin says
12 May, 2012 at 9:33 amSo, it should have happened like that in “Starved”, too, but they just made the evidence get tossed out for the sake of the storyline?
James Pollock says
13 May, 2012 at 1:31 amI don’t remember. The general rule is that the exclusionary rule is only effective for the person whose rights are invaded by the police. You can’t claim the exclusionary rule because someone else’s rights were invaded. In this case, the ploy worked because the boyfriends had a guilty conscience and agreed to plead guilty (and almost definitely gets a reduced sentence in return for testifying against the other gang members.) If you plead guilty, the state doesn’t have to put on any evidence against you. (The net result of all this is that if the police don’t actually care about making a case against you, there is little keeping them from ignoring the fourth amendment. It is possible to sue for a violation of your civil rights by the police, but it is fairly hard to actually win those cases.)
Allison Leotta says
17 May, 2012 at 2:03 amPer the Supreme Court case of Minnesota v. Carter, a short-term visitor doesn’t have 4th Amendment privacy rights in a home. But per Minnesota v. Olson, someone who is a regular overnight guest does. So a lot would depends on this guy’s status in the house. I got the impression he was at least an overnight guest, if not more.
John Burgess says
11 May, 2012 at 8:38 pmWouldn’t Amanda also be open to a charge of false imprisonment by keeping the girlfriend in the kitchen while the illegal search was going on?
James Pollock says
13 May, 2012 at 1:34 amYes, probably, and there’s definitely a case for battery, too, and maybe assault. But, as I noted before, having a valid case and being able to win it are two different things. When the only evidence available is the plaintiff’s testimony for the plaintiff and the cops’ testimony for the defense, you tend to get judgment for the defense. Unless the plaintiff can subpeona the SVU footage, it seems unlikely that a lawyer would take the case, much less actually file it.
Allison Leotta says
17 May, 2012 at 2:06 amI think the fact that Amanda couldn’t tell an internally consistent story, and Amanda and Ice-T couldn’t keep their stories straight, boded badly for any future cases in which they might have to testify.
Every jurisdiction has its own version of false imprisonment but in New York it appears that civil lawyers won’t take the case unless a person has actually been imprisoned or brutalized by the police. Doesn’t suggest a promising outcome for the pregnant lady’s civil suit.
quatisha brown says
17 January, 2025 at 2:21 amI just want the whole world to know about this spell caster I met two weeks ago,I cannot say everything he has done for me and my family I was going through online when I meant this wonderful man’s testimony online how he won a lottery through the help of dr Ose I decided to just give it a try and my life is back to me now after i lost my job due to covid he gave me a winning numbers to play lottery and i won 5000usd for my first play since then i have been working with him and he has been giving me numbers to play my lottery i can not write everything he has done for me if you need a lottery spell today contact him on oseremenspelltemple@gmail.com www.facebook.com/Dr-odion-spell-temple-110513923938220
whatsapp +2348136482342