# "The Rookie"--I actually enjoyed it



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Caught "The Rookie" last evening and I actually enjoyed it. I thought many of the performances were pretty good, and I appreciated Nathan Fillion's (even though I'm not one of his groupies). Something in it popped it out of the "yet another dr./lawyer/cop show" mold for me--perhaps the "fish out of water" aspect of it, showing another angle of life? It will be interesting seeing if they can keep it up.


----------



## jasrub (May 9, 2008)

I enjoyed it as well.. Then again I like most things Nathan Fillion is in


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Good to hear. I will be watching it tonight.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

jasrub said:


> I enjoyed it as well.. Then again I like most things Nathan Fillion is in


I had stopped watching "Castle" at some point, because it was starting to fall into a stereotype of a show for me, and so had somewhat forgotten how well Nathan Fillion can perform. It was a pleasant surprise last night.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

The verdict is still out for me. I’m too used to Castle’s cerebral solving of mysteries but this is a lot of Paul Greengrass-style action that’s hard to distinguish from other cop shows other than Fillion being one of them. The interpersonal relationships and banter amongst cops might save it though.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I thought it was a good pilot. I'm in.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Yeah, I liked it. Some interesting takes like using a body cam view in some scenes.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Great show. :up:


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I’m in as well. I enjoyed it.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

I enjoyed it also. I wonder if the writers will do like they did with Castle and bring in some Firefly bits.
Another show I watched last night was the reboot of Good Eats. I think it will be another good show.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

RGM1138 said:


> Yeah, I liked it. Some interesting takes like using a body cam view in some scenes.


I enjoyed it, but hope they cut back on the dash & body cam shots. I found the cuts jarring.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Flop said:


> I enjoyed it, but hope they cut back on the dash & body cam shots. I found the cuts jarring.


I imagine they probably will, over time.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I enjoyed it too, but I found the story of the son of the cop a little cliche...

And I looked up Melissa O'Neil after watching the show---I knew her from _Dark Matter_ (and her appearance on _iZombie_), but I hadn't realized that she was a singer...in fact, she won the third season of Canadian Idol...


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I enjoyed it. I like Nathan Fillion so that's a big plus. 

The only thing that bugs me is the relationship bit. Oh well.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I enjoyed it as well. It is light stuff that allows for multitasking.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Liked it enough to keep my OnePass. A little too... speechy? Preachy? I don't know the right word. But is Fillion going to bamboozle perps with his words every episode?

And is this the official discussion thread? Are spoilers allowed?


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Body camera footage :thumbsdown:
Animosity from roll call leader :thumbsdown:
Otherwise enjoyable.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

DouglasPHill said:


> Body camera footage :thumbsdown:
> *Animosity from roll call leader :thumbsdown:*
> Otherwise enjoyable.


And, potentially illegal under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act . . . .


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I liked it but could do without the complicated love interest.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

I kept getting the woman trainer cop mixed up with the woman rookie cop. They looked similar in their unis and hats.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I know the female rookie from other shows, so I'm not confused...


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Howie said:


> I kept getting the woman trainer cop mixed up with the woman rookie cop. They looked similar in their unis and hats.


They have tried showing them with different hair all the time. The TO has hers French braided and the rookie has hers in a bun.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Agatha Mystery said:


> They have tried showing them with different hair all the time. The TO has hers French braided and the rookie has hers in a bun.


The TO was in the tv show, Zoo.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Beryl said:


> The TO was in the tv show, Zoo.


Ray Donovan, too.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Agatha Mystery said:


> They have tried showing them with different hair all the time. The TO has hers French braided and the rookie has hers in a bun.


I guarantee that many men have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand the difference.


As someone who's very familiar with Melissa O'Neil and somewhat familiar with Alyssa Diaz, I had trouble telling them apart for the first 15-20 minutes.

Still going to keep watching though.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

Overall, I liked it. A little disappointed with the overwhelmed rookie, the cop's druggie wife, and the relationship between rookies. What are the odds that 2 of the 3 would be involved?

I'm just wondering how much of it is dramatic license versus the true story it is supposedly based on. Is it just the premise that is true (i.e. middle aged rookie) or are some of the other characters and situations they portray based on that rookie's life?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

rharmelink said:


> Overall, I liked it. A little disappointed with the overwhelmed rookie, the cop's druggie wife, and the relationship between rookies. What are the odds that 2 of the 3 would be involved?
> 
> I'm just wondering how much of it is dramatic license versus the true story it is supposedly based on. Is it just the premise that is true (i.e. middle aged rookie) or are some of the other characters and situations they portray based on that rookie's life?


I didn't realize that it was based on a true story. Although the idea of an older worker joining a workforce isn't particularly unique.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I didn't NOT like it. 
I agree about the body cam/dash cam footage being annoying.
I also agree about the animosity from the roll call leader is going to get old quickly.
He's been around for ever - wasn't he the assistant to Amy on Judging Amy - he also looks like he's put on 20 or 30 pounds!

As far as the relationship - So he's 40-ish and she's what? 25-ish? 
Yeah. I buy that.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Cainebj said:


> As far as the relationship - So he's 40-ish and she's what? 25-ish?
> Yeah. I buy that.


Yeah, it's not as if one sees that in the real world.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

He's Nathan Fillion! Not a stretch at all. 

I was a little disappointed when he started out in Pa. somewhere (?) and then of course ended up in California. Do we always have to be in LA or NY?


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Mikeguy said:


> Yeah, it's not as if one sees that in the real world.


Not when the forty-ish has an entry-level salary, but good for him.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

It was completely unexpected, but I read one receiver who said that they been told in advance of a relationship with someone half his age - I don't really see that. I was actually a little surprised Melissa O'Neil just turned 30, I actually thought she was closer to 35 (I mean, she's been a spaceship Captain and all), but even so, there's no way Fillion looks 60. Since he dropped that weight he put on behind his "writer" vest he actually looks pretty close to his actual age.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Looking at some of the advance 'hint clips' of the rest of the season, it looks like Nathan has dropped a few more pounds between shooting the pilot and shooting the season. The pilot was shot in March. I'm betting Nathan did some work to get fit for the role after the pilot was picked up.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I guarantee that many men have no idea what you are talking about and don't understand the difference.


Exactly. Yeah, they both have hair, so they look identical!


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Looking at some of the advance 'hint clips' of the rest of the season, it looks like Nathan has dropped a few more pounds between shooting the pilot and shooting the season. The pilot was shot in March. I'm betting Nathan did some work to get fit for the role after the pilot was picked up.


An incentive always helps.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Although both are nice looking women, Nathan definitely moved up as far as girl friends are concerned (compared to Castle)


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I enjoy Nathan Fillion, so I'll keep with it for now, but the show itself is pretty weak. If it starred a no-name, I'd be out already.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

This last ep was much better. Not sure which ep it was since I may be behind in my watching. It looks like damaging the squad cars is going to be an ongoing joke.
The reason for not including all of the video footage was classic and well done. Looks like JLH has minimal face time in the show and they are just using her name.
Still need to stop with the body cam footage.


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

DouglasPHill said:


> This last ep was much better. Not sure which ep it was since I may be behind in my watching. It looks like damaging the squad cars is going to be an ongoing joke.
> The reason for not including all of the video footage was classic and well done. Looks like JLH has minimal face time in the show and they are just using her name.
> Still need to stop with the body cam footage.


Who is "JLH"?


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

wedgecon said:


> Who is "JLH"?


Just a guess here, but maybe it's Jennifer Love Hewitt (who isn't on this show at all)?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

That *is* minimal face time!


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Senior moment, wrong forum.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

The show is starting to catch on with me. Something that is fun to watch and enjoy with out having to try to figure the secret plots like a show like LOST.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Still enjoying the show, but tiring of the TO calling their partner "Boot"


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> Still enjoying the show, but tiring of the TO calling their partner "Boot"


Not partner. Training Officer and rookie. (Nathan Fillion's character caught himself saying partner, then immediately corrected himself.)

Partner suggests they're equals. They're not, and that's part of the reason behind the T.O. calling the rookie "boot" - it's a way of reinforcing the hierarchy by mildly hazing the rookie.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Still, tired of "boot"


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> Still, tired of "boot"


Whatever, boot.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> Still, tired of "boot"


I'm with you!

Then again, I've always hated the concept of hazing at any level. If my high school Cross-country team, Wrestling team, or Track team had any kind of hazing like the Football team did, I wouldn't have even tried out for them.

You want me on your team? Fine. But I'm not pushing a golf ball across the locker room floor with my nose, or singing "I'm a little teapot" in front of the team. If you call me by a silly name, I'm not answering. If you want to pull that crap, then you don't get me on your team. I'll be fine.

A coworker insists that it builds morale and helps players bond, since they all went through it. How about we bond by realizing how stupid it is and NONE of us going through it?


----------



## tigercat74 (Aug 7, 2004)

scooterboy said:


> I'm with you!
> 
> Then again, I've always hated the concept of hazing at any level. If my high school Cross-country team, Wrestling team, or Track team had any kind of hazing like the Football team did, I wouldn't have even tried out for them.
> 
> ...


Our hazing on the football team when we were freshmen in high school was cleaning the locker room.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Calling someone boot (since they just got out of *boot* camp is hazing? 

Millennials.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I guess I wouldn't mind it as much if it wasn't all three TO's always calling them boot. I don't recall if they ever used their name (although they must have a few times)

Anyway, I do enjoy the show.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

wprager said:


> Calling someone boot (since they just got out of *boot* camp is hazing?
> 
> Millennials.


LOL And thank you for the explanation--I thought they were saying Boo, and then I accidentally had CC on this week and realized it was Boot, and still had no idea why. I'm an idiot.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

stellie93 said:


> ...I thought they were saying Boo, and then I accidentally had CC on this week and realized it was Boot, and still had no idea why. I'm an idiot.


I also thought they said "Boo" in the 1st ep. Needed to turn on cc. (old ears )


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Whatever, boot.


Quiet; get back in the shop.


----------



## Skyler (Oct 9, 2002)

Is calling their police cars "shop" really a thing? I've never heard of that before and my Google searches couldn't find any references to it.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Skyler said:


> Is calling their police cars "shop" really a thing? I've never heard of that before and my Google searches couldn't find any references to it.


Yes, but it's an LA thing, like NYPD calls an ambulance a "bus" and malefactors "perps".


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Another enjoyable episode.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

It's one of the few shows I look forward to watching. Actually I'm recording a surprisingly low number of shows, lately. Mostly watching Netflix and Prime. Waiting for Discovery and Outlander and Counterpart to return.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Skyler said:


> Is calling their police cars "shop" really a thing? I've never heard of that before and my Google searches couldn't find any references to it.


Calling @RonDawg. What do you call your vehicle?


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> Yes, but it's an LA thing, like NYPD calls an ambulance a "bus" and malefactors "perps".


I always thought they were calling perpetrators "perps"...


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

cstelter said:


> I always thought they were calling perpetrators "perps"...


Perpetrators are called "males".


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> Perpetrators are called "males".


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> Yes, but it's an LA thing, like NYPD calls an ambulance a "bus" and malefactors "perps".


Never heard that reference on Southland, one of the most "LA" of cops shows based in LA.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'm watching this show, even though the September-May romance annoys me. Every male TV executive's fantasy.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

phox_mulder said:


> Never heard that reference on Southland, one of the most "LA" of cops shows based in LA.


Every police car in the LAPD has a "shop number" for inventory and identification purposes; the last three digits are painted on the roof. I presume that's where the term came from.

I can't speak to any deficiencies in the work of the writers of "Southland"; I remember it as a very well written program. Just because they missed a bit of LAPD jargon is no reason to criticize the show.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Melissa McBride is 30 (she looks more mature than that) and he's supposed to be 40. I'm watching Mozart in the Jungle now and the lead is supposed to be 26 and had a thing with Dermot Mulroney (at the time, I think that was a couple seasons ago, he was around 30 years her senior). That's May-September. This is more like June-August.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I'm not defending this, by the way. But it's supposedly based on a true story and if there was a relationship there with a member of the same class then it would have been a similar she difference.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

wprager said:


> Melissa McBride is 30 (she looks more mature than that)


She certainly does!!


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

She looks more like 53 to me.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Whoops! You know whom I meant.

O'Neil, McBride - the Irish confuse me.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> I can't speak to any deficiencies in the work of the writers of "Southland"; I remember it as a very well written program. Just because they missed a bit of LAPD jargon is no reason to criticize the show.


That wasn't meant as criticism, more praise that they showed LA policing pretty accurately, at least to a non Angelino such as myself.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

phox_mulder said:


> That wasn't meant as criticism, more praise that they showed LA policing pretty accurately, at least to a non Angelino such as myself.


Their sense of geography was absurd. Half the time they'd say they were going somewhere, and then you'd see them driving in the opposite direction. And they's say they were someplace and actually be on the other side of town. It drove me a little crazy at times.

So I guess what you meant was that "shop" is not correct jargon for a police car, since you say that "Southland" was an accurate depiction of LAPD. I will correct my cop friends the next time they make that mistake.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Don't these shows use retired officers as story consultants?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

_The Rookie_ gets full-season order at ABC


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I enjoyed last evening's episode. 

Better said, I enjoyed the opening escape room segment, and thought it was clever; and then was shaken by the rest of the episode, by the shooting and its aftermath. I still feel affected by it.


----------



## jasrub (May 9, 2008)

Fillion did a great job acting in the wake of the shooting..


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

When I was watching the show, I was surprised when the chief said that no one in her division had shot someone before....I guess I watch too many cop shows where people are shot all the time.

But I looked it up---all of the LAPD has only had 31 officer-involved shooting reports so far this year...


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> When I was watching the show, I was surprised when the chief said that no one in her division had shot someone before....I guess I watch too many cop shows where people are shot all the time.
> 
> But I looked it up---all of the LAPD has only had 31 officer-involved shooting reports so far this year...


Did she say no one was SHOT, or that no one in her division shot AND KILLED someone? Because, after all, we've had multiple episodes where bullets were flying all over the place.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Amnesia said:


> When I was watching the show, I was surprised when the chief said that no one in her division had shot someone before....I guess I watch too many cop shows where people are shot all the time.
> 
> But I looked it up---all of the LAPD has only had 31 officer-involved shooting reports so far this year...


Most cops never fire their weapon in the line of duty.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> Most cops never fire their weapon in the line of duty.


Really.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Mikeguy said:


> Really.


Could you please expand on your argument? Are you saying that Amnesia has supplied incorrect information, that the LAPD is under-reporting their shootings, or that Los Angeles is an unusually law-abiding city?

Shooting at someone is a big deal for a cop. There is a ton of paperwork, you are the subject of a painful investigation, it automatically puts your career at risk, and if you hit what you are shooting at, you are very likely to be hit with a civil suit by the target or his heirs.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Enjoyed the ep.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

MikeCC said:


> Did she say no one was SHOT, or that no one in her division shot AND KILLED someone? Because, after all, we've had multiple episodes where bullets were flying all over the place.


When Commander West talked to the captain, he asked "Is this the first officer under your command to take a life?" She replied "Yes"


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> Could you please expand on your argument? Are you saying that Amnesia has supplied incorrect information, that the LAPD is under-reporting their shootings, or that Los Angeles is an unusually law-abiding city?
> 
> Shooting at someone is a big deal for a cop. There is a ton of paperwork, you are the subject of a painful investigation, it automatically puts your career at risk, and if you hit what you are shooting at, you are very likely to be hit with a civil suit by the target or his heirs.


I was expressing my surprise at the statement that most police never fire their weapon in the line of duty (I was not trying to make a nefarious comment). I would have thought, based on news reports, life nowadays, and simply the number of contacts that an officer has over a lifetime of service, that matters would be otherwise.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

BTW, most NY based police shows refer to ambulances as buses. 

Don’t know how that got started.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

I think they might be referring to smaller towns when they say most officers have never fired their gun. I know in my town officers has only fired a gun once in the past 10 years. That was at a man who was locked in a house after killing his neighbor.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

There are 9,000 LAPD officers on duty and with officer involved shootings usually being less than 50 a year, you can see why a lot of officers never have to fire the weapons in the line of duty.

TV of course, likes to show shootings because it makes things more exciting but it's not reality.

Just like the motel that Bradford's wife went to isn't anywhere near the airport.
(Or any airport, it's in Hollywood.)


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

JYoung said:


> Just like the motel that Bradford's wife went to isn't anywhere near the airport.
> (Or any airport, it's in Hollywood.)


Yes, that scene in front of the motel gave me a moment of disorientation. For a plane to be taking off behind them from LAX, unless it was raining, they would have had to be on the dunes behind Dockweiler beach. (You know, from the first scene of "Lost" S5E1.)


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

JYoung said:


> There are 9,000 LAPD officers on duty and with officer involved shootings usually being less than 50 a year, you can see why a lot of officers never have to fire the weapons in the line of duty.


My impression was that the "officer-involved shooting" numbers only count when people are hit, not when cops fire their weapons.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Amnesia said:


> My impression was that the "officer-involved shooting" numbers only count when people are hit, not when cops fire their weapons.


Nope:

"Although no national or standard definition exists, an officer involved shooting (OIS) may be defined as the discharge of a firearm, which may include accidental and intentional discharges, by a police officer, whether on or off duty. In some cases OIS datasets only include instances in which an officer discharged a firearm at a person and may not include discharges directed into or at a vehicle, animal, etc."


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

This all is eye-opening for me, as to the limited number of police gun shootings. E.g., from "Newsweek" last December:


> New York City's police officers have shot fewer people than ever this year, according to new figures, at a time when criticism of police conduct is continuing after several high-profile cases of shootings of African-American civilians.
> 
> As of the end of November, New York City police had shot 18 people, half of those being fatal incidents. At the time of writing, those numbers had increased to 23 incidents so far this year.
> 
> ...


NYPD officers shot the lowest number of people ever in 2017


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

It was jarring to see Nolan go from police officer to suspect so quickly. Is this a Los Angeles thing? Was it realistic?
All the cop shows I’ve ever seen assume an incident is a good shoot until proven otherwise. 
Fillion did a fantastic job in this episode.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

I wasn't crazy about their use of the word "suspect", but the ensuing investigation seemed pretty standard. Keep in mind there was no witness in the room with him - and in the prevailing climate these days I'm sure ALL police-involved shootings are under stricter scrutiny than ever before.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

ADG said:


> I wasn't crazy about their use of the word "suspect", but the ensuing investigation seemed pretty standard. Keep in mind there was no witness in the room with him - and in the prevailing climate these days I'm sure ALL police-involved shootings are under stricter scrutiny than ever before.


No witness but a body cam.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Gunnyman said:


> All the cop shows I've ever seen assume an incident is a good shoot until proven otherwise.


Surprisingly enough, TV dramas are not a reliable source of information about the actual practice of law enforcement.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> Surprisingly enough, TV dramas are not a reliable source of information about the actual practice of law enforcement.


Duh.
I've just never seen it handled like that on tv before.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

eddyj said:


> No witness but a body cam.


Yeah, I understand that due diligence had to be done but the body cam should have shown that they suspect turned with his weapon raised and pointed.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm curious if the body cams they are using on the show are actually functional and actually recording the footage we're seeing. I'd almost think that they are, since it'd be tricky to go back and replicate the footage with an actual television camera... but I'd also think that there'd be the risk of inadvertently capturing stuff like boom mikes, lighting equipment, etc. on the footage as well.

I did notice on one set of footage in the last episode, they had the data stamp in the corner wrong; they had it listed as "T. NOLAN" instead of "J. NOLAN." I haven't gone back to see if they goofed up any others.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Maui said:


> Yeah, I understand that due diligence had to be done but the body cam should have shown that they suspect turned with his weapon raised and pointed.


And it did. They should have quickly cleared him of wrongdoing and just concentrated on the effects the shooting had on him, which was the interesting part. Since we know they are not going to kick him off the force.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

eddyj said:


> And it did. They should have quickly cleared him of wrongdoing and just concentrated on the effects the shooting had on him, which was the interesting part. Since we know they are not going to kick him off the force.


They have to go through the whole system to determine if the use of force was appropriate. Hence the questions of whether the victim fired his weapon, whether Nolan had opportunity to find cover of concealment, and whether Nolan had opportunity to use his less lethal options.

I think the next episode is depict the investigation focusing on Nolan's mindset at the time of the shooting, and whether his on-again off-again relationship with his fellow rookie had anything to do with it, which is certainly going to be difficult to hide at this point.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> I'm curious if the body cams they are using on the show are actually functional and actually recording the footage we're seeing. I'd almost think that they are, since it'd be tricky to go back and replicate the footage with an actual television camera... but I'd also think that there'd be the risk of inadvertently capturing stuff like boom mikes, lighting equipment, etc. on the footage as well.


They probably are filming---might as well, right? But it's probable that they do several takes of each scene and may do one specifically to get the most out of the body cam...


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I hate these "investigate the main character" story lines, since you know they are not going to do anything substantive to the main protagonist. But going into how he reacts to the shooting and how it affects him and those around him is a much better story line, IMO.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> They probably are filming---might as well, right? But it's probable that they do several takes of each scene and may do one specifically to get the most out of the body cam...


Duh, of course, film the scene with the body cam, without all the lighting and audio stuff present. Yeah, you're probably right.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I live in a small town in rural Ohio, and just yesterday we had a police shooting that accidentally killed a suspect. He was aiming for his arm, but it ricocheted or something. Just odd since this thread has been telling us how this rarely happens, even in big cities.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Trying to wound somebody is legally problematic in itself. Generally the law is that you feared for your life (or someone elses) so you killed the perp. Trying to wound might indicate you weren't fearing for your life.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Gunnyman said:


> Duh.
> I've just never seen it handled like that on tv before.


There was an episode of Adam 12 in the (I think) first season where rookie Jim Reed shot and killed a man in self defense.
It was his first shooting and they outlined the entire procedure that Reed was going to go through in the usual Jack Webb style.
And they did indicate that Reed was struggling with the fact that he killed another human being (although not in the depth this show is).


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

eddyj said:


> And it did. They should have quickly cleared him of wrongdoing and just concentrated on the effects the shooting had on him, which was the interesting part. Since we know they are not going to kick him off the force.


I don't know--Hitchcock got rid of Janet Leigh.  (Yeah, I know--but just think of the sensation that it would cause.)


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

eddyj said:


> I hate these "investigate the main character" story lines, since you know they are not going to do anything substantive to the main protagonist.


Well, it is called "The Rookie;" there are 2 others!  Perhaps one per season?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Regina said:


> Well, it is called "The Rookie;" there are 2 others!  Perhaps one per season?


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

FYI on shootings, as of this morning reported on local news in Phoenix, there have been 42 officer involved shootings as of today which they reported is double than last year.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

type_g said:


> FYI on shootings, as of this morning reported on local news in Phoenix, there have been 42 officer involved shootings as of today which they reported is double than last year.


People get testy in the Phoenix heat. As versus in the laid-back attitudes and ocean breezes in L.A.


----------



## jebbbz (Sep 7, 2007)

DouglasPHill said:


> Trying to wound somebody is legally problematic in itself. Generally the law is that you feared for your life (or someone elses) so you killed the perp. Trying to wound might indicate you weren't fearing for your life.


In our CCW class in the 90's we were told we do not shoot to wound or to kill but rather to stop the target from imminently threatening death or great bodily harm to ourselves or another innocent party. Shooting to only wound was seen as a tacit admission that the threat was insufficient, or not truly imminent, to justify the use of deadly force. Of course, unless one missed altogether, wounding or death were natural outcomes of shooting to stop.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> I live in a small town in rural Ohio, and just yesterday we had a police shooting that accidentally killed a suspect. He was aiming for his arm, but it ricocheted or something. Just odd since this thread has been telling us how this rarely happens, even in big cities.


If he was aiming at his arm he's a liar or an idiot. All police forces train their recruits to aim for center mass and "double-tap" (squeeze the trigger twice in rapid succession). You do NOT shoot at someone with the intent to injure - if you shoot, you intend to stop the person - period. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to hit a moving target with a handgun? And if the person isn't moving but is creating enough of a danger to you or someone else that you have to shoot, you count yourself lucky and double-squeeze for center mass and hope you hit your target. Down or down and dead - either one accomplishes the goal.


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

ADG said:


> If he was aiming at his arm he's a liar or an idiot. All police forces train their recruits to aim for center mass and "double-tap" (squeeze the trigger twice in rapid succession). You do NOT shoot at someone with the intent to injure - if you shoot, you intend to stop the person - period. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to hit a moving target with a handgun? And if the person isn't moving but is creating enough of a danger to you or someone else that you have to shoot, you count yourself lucky and double-squeeze for center mass and hope you hit your target. Down or down and dead - either one accomplishes the goal.


I only know of one case and it was pre-tasers. Man with mental health issues and a knife. State troop put one through his arm.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

RickyL said:


> I only know of one case and it was pre-tasers. Man with mental health issues and a knife. State troop put one through his arm.


If the trooper was aiming for the arm, the trooper was stupid. And reckless. And likely disciplined for his actions.

If the bullet missed the arm, which is more probable than hitting it, where then does the bullet go? Across the street into a bystander? Ricochet off a wall into another officer? Shatter the windshield of a parked car? That bullet has massive kinetic energy and could cause lethal damage who knows where if the shot missed. That's yet a very good reason they aim at the largest part of the suspect: center mass. Less chance of a miss if a shot is necessary.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

MikeCC said:


> If the bullet missed the arm, which is more probable than hitting it, where then does the bullet go? Across the street into a bystander? Ricochet off a wall into another officer? Shatter the windshield of a parked car? That bullet has massive kinetic energy and could cause lethal damage who knows where if the shot missed. That's yet a very good reason the aim at the largest part of the suspect: center mass. Less chance of a miss if a shot is necessary.


And yet, when the shooting starts, police often shoot many bullets in the direction of the person/car they are shooting at. Many, if not most, will miss the intended target, from what I read.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

My point about the shooting in my county was just that it's so rare, yet a few days after reading this, it happened in a small town. I thought the article said he was trying to shoot the gun out of his hand, but I may have misunderstood it. Sorry.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Here in MA earlier this week there were (I think two) officers shooting at a suspect who crashed a car they were chasing, and the officers believed he had a gun (I haven't heard if a weapon was actually recovered). However, the main aspect of the news was showing all the bullet holes in cars, houses, garages, etc. People said bullets came right through the plaster in their living rooms, etc.

It was kind of hard to believe that they were shooting up the neighborhood, and I can't understand why they'd keep firing away. It looked like one of those movies where people try using a machine gun for the first time and just spray everywhere.

Maybe it was just bad reporting or the video was not edited in a way that made it clear what really happened. But, yikes!


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

stellie93 said:


> My point about the shooting in my county was just that it's so rare, yet a few days after reading this, it happened in a small town. I thought the article said he was trying to shoot the gun out of his hand, but I may have misunderstood it. Sorry.


If that's what was reported, you have no reason to apologize. If that's not what it said, next time please read more carefully before reporting.

I have no trouble believing a cop shot to wound. The one police I knew personally who shot and killed someone in the line of duty told me he was confident he could have shot the gun out of the guy's hand and he felt he probably should have done so, but he knew that the guy was a real scumbag. (By the way, he was probably the first cop to point out to me that most officers never fire their weapon on duty.)

Although the investigation cleared him, he left the force not long afterwards and took up drinking as a serious hobby.


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

MikeCC said:


> If the trooper was aiming for the arm, the trooper was stupid. And reckless. And likely disciplined for his actions.
> 
> If the bullet missed the arm, which is more probable than hitting it, where then does the bullet go? Across the street into a bystander? Ricochet off a wall into another officer? Shatter the windshield of a parked car? That bullet has massive kinetic energy and could cause lethal damage who knows where if the shot missed. That's yet a very good reason they aim at the largest part of the suspect: center mass. Less chance of a miss if a shot is necessary.


As I said it was pre-taser days. 2 State trooper respond to a man with a knife that is alone on the edge of a populated area. They tried to talk him down for a while but when he started heading toward the populated area, one trooper maneuvered his position for a clear back ground and yes, tried and succeeded to hit the guy in his arm.

This is a very rare circumstance that allowed the officers the opportunity to try it and would not be handled the same in the age of tasers.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Since we seem to keep talking about the incident I mentioned, I looked it up. The man was waving a gun around threatening suicide. He had previously done this in his home and threatened family members. (I know, why is he still free and holding a gun?) He was surrounded by 3 or 4 officers. The officer who shot hit the arm holding the gun successfully, but the bullet also hit his chest and the man died. So far they are saying the officer acted correctly.


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

I loved this short on YouTube -- "Uncharted":






Stars both Nathan Fillion and Mircea Monroe from The Rookie.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I just got caught up on the most recent episode. I like the show, but I really, REALLY wish they'd ditch the whole surreptitious relationship between Nolan and Chen. They're going to so much effort to have it *almost* come out but then not, that it's really becoming quite contrived. It's by far and away the worst thing on this show.

I like watching the cop stuff, dislike the interpersonal relationship stuff.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

rharmelink said:


> I loved this short on YouTube -- "Uncharted":
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know that's a take on a video game, right?


----------



## rharmelink (Dec 1, 2015)

DavidTigerFan said:


> You know that's a take on a video game, right?


Yup. Doesn't mean it isn't fun.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> I just got caught up on the most recent episode. I like the show, but I really, REALLY wish they'd ditch the whole surreptitious relationship between Nolan and Chen. They're going to so much effort to have it *almost* come out but then not, that it's really becoming quite contrived. It's by far and away the worst thing on this show.
> 
> I like watching the cop stuff, dislike the interpersonal relationship stuff.


Finally watched the latest couple of episodes last night. Could not agree more about Nolan & Chen. I'm almost equally annoyed by Bradford and his wife. I know this whole show is not exactly cutting-edge television, but both these story lines are so hackneyed it nearly ruins what I think is otherwise a pretty good effort.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Dawghows said:


> Finally watched the latest couple of episodes last night. Could not agree more about Nolan & Chen. I'm almost equally annoyed by Bradford and his wife. I know this whole show is not exactly cutting-edge television, but both these story lines are so hackneyed it nearly ruins what I think is otherwise a pretty good effort.


I have the exact opposite opinion of you and LoadStar. I think the interpersonal relationships help define the characters, and give us a clue about how they will deal with things both on and off the job.

A show that sticks strictly with cop procedures, with the arrest of the week, while it could be made very authentic, seems like it could be _very_ limiting. There's only so many traffic stops we can watch before we begin to lose interest. Give me a framework, an evolving storyline, through which I can watch and learn about these characters, and I'm much happier.

Besides, Chen is a hottie. Anything to give Melissa O'Neil more screen time is okay in my book. I've loved her since _Dark Matter_.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

I don't mind the idea of showing the interpersonal relationships, per se. My problem is that we've seen the secret-romance-between-coworkers and cop-with-troubled-family-member subplots a bajillion times.

The whole show (as with most network TV) walks the line of cliche, and for the most part they handle it very well. They just miss the mark on those two points, IMO.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I somewhat agree on the secret romance thing, but the troubled family member has a direct comment on the state of the opioid epidemic. Even an ex narcotics detective can become a junkie and flush her life away. Can the husband save her?


----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

Dawghows said:


> I don't mind the idea of showing the interpersonal relationships, per se. My problem is that we've seen the secret-romance-between-coworkers and cop-with-troubled-family-member subplots a bajillion times.
> 
> The whole show (as with most network TV) walks the line of cliche, and for the most part they handle it very well. They just miss the mark on those two points, IMO.


Trope, not cliche... until it's painful.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

My biggest problem with the Secret Relationship trope is when they have the plot development where it *almost* gets discovered, but something at the last minute prevents that from happening. It is severely cliched.


----------



## mlsnyc (Dec 3, 2009)

The Law & Order franchise downplayed or outright ignored the personal and interpersonal aspects of its characters. They were successful and I liked them enough, so the approach can work. But that's not the character of this show and so far for me it hasn't detracted much from its main premise. To put it another way, the relationships don't interest me. But they don't bother me right now and aren't taking away from my enjoyment of the show... yet.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

What happened to the cat?

--Carlos "turduken tragedy" V.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

Unbeliever said:


> What happened to the cat?
> 
> --Carlos "turduken tragedy" V.


I hope we find out the answer


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

SNJpage1 said:


> I hope we find out the answer


I hope we don't


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Weird episode, not as good as normal but still entertaining.


Spoiler



Loved it when Nolan volunteered the other rookie to ride with the roll call leader.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

mlsnyc said:


> The Law & Order franchise downplayed or outright ignored the personal and interpersonal aspects of its characters. They were successful and I liked them enough, so the approach can work. But that's not the character of this show and so far for me it hasn't detracted much from its main premise. To put it another way, the relationships don't interest me. But they don't bother me right now and aren't taking away from my enjoyment of the show... yet.


yes, if anything the interpersonal relationships were there for the super-fan who watches years and years of the show and just knew the little tidbits of how the characters related or about their personal lives, but was certainly never part of the show.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Afton Williamson (who played Talia Bishop) has decided not to continue with the show for season 2. She alleges racial discrimination and sexual harassment. Story from Deadline is here.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Afton Williamson (who played Talia Bishop) has decided not to continue with the show for season 2. She alleges racial discrimination and sexual harassment. Story from Deadline is here.


No, no, no, dangit (on many fronts)! I wish that she would reconsider, I wish that the producers would convene/evaluate/regroup/remediate, I wish that Nathan Fillion would mediate (if he can fulfill that role)--heck,_ I'll_ mediate.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Afton Williamson (who played Talia Bishop) has decided not to continue with the show for season 2. She alleges racial discrimination and sexual harassment. Story from Deadline is here.


Agreed-that sucks on so many levels-of course, bullying and harassment should never be tolerated-but dang it, she is a great actress and her character was complex and fascinating. BOO HISS!


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

It's kind of mind boggling that the head of the hair department (who knew there even was such a thing?) was not fired right on the spot if there was indeed evidence of bullying and harassment by that person.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Oh FFS. Hawley (the showrunner) is who should be fired. I know he's also the creator and was involved with Castle etc. I'm sure his contract would make it tricky but surely there has to be some sort of dereliction clause in the contract. Regardless of anything else, not passing along these kinds of allegations in this day and age shows you're just not ready for that kind of responsibility.

Firing him would be an excellent start to righting that ship. Clearly, if harassment was allowed to go on all season until an actual _assault_ at the wrap party resulted in someone being fired, Hawley was not in control of that set the way he should have been.

I wonder which "recurring guest star" they are talking about. You'd assume it would be someone whose character interacted more with Bishop.

It sure will be interesting to see what happens next.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Agreed that the show-runner should be turfed.

There are two recurring (male) actually I can think of. Jackson's dad and Fillion's friend/landlord.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

She will be missed.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Hearing that Alexi Hawley was allegedly informed but didn't even let HR know or begin an investigation is inexcusable. Hawley really should be dismissed for that. His dismissive response, "It's not really my place to get into her personal decision," is also inexcusable.

Unfortunately, there are some people online that are also attributing some blame to Fillion, given his role as an EP. Now, some might say that the EP title was a vanity credit, but others would say that as the show was envisioned entirely as a star vehicle for Fillion, the EP credit is possibly less of a vanity credit than on some other shows, and that Fillion did have some "oversight" role on this show, and should have known about the issue.

I really hope that it really is just a vanity credit, that he really didn't know about the issue.


wprager said:


> Agreed that the show-runner should be turfed.
> 
> There are two recurring (male) actually I can think of. Jackson's dad and Fillion's friend/landlord.


The latter didn't really have any significant scenes with Williamson that I can recall, but the former certainly did.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

To tell the truth, I didn't really even know what a show runner was. Google set me straight on that. The person that runs the show. Duh. HMFIC.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

To all the people saying that Hawley should be fired: remember that we're only hearing one side of this. I wouldn't be surprised if Hawley didn't see things in a different light...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

DouglasPHill said:


> She will be missed.


She has been one of the reasons I watch the show. And she is a role model. Sigh.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Unfortunately, there are some people online that are also attributing some blame to Fillion, given his role as an EP. Now, some might say that the EP title was a vanity credit, but others would say that as the show was envisioned entirely as a star vehicle for Fillion, the EP credit is possibly less of a vanity credit than on some other shows, and that Fillion did have some "oversight" role on this show, and should have known about the issue.
> 
> I really hope that it really is just a vanity credit, that he really didn't know about the issue.


From the Deadline story and Williamson's own statement:



> "The only time I was asked to participate in an investigation was after a meeting I called in June following our Season 2 announcement. This meeting included the Showrunner and two other producers as well as my agent and SAG-AFTRA Union Rep. It was clear to all present in the meeting that the Showrunner had not shared my reports with the any of the producers."


It sounds to me like no one on the production team including Fillion knew besides Hawley.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Everybody should be fired. They knew, or should have known, all of them including Fillion. EDIT: Harassment and bullying are about _power_ and nobody has more power over the second lead star in a TV series than the hairdresser (a woman BTW). Nobody associated with this show (other than the victim of the hairdresser) should ever work again in this business. Also their families and friends should be banned. (apparently I was originally under the top).

Hopefully the actor involved will land on her feet. She certainly had made an impact with this series, was widely noticed, and her stock went way up, and perhaps she will get a job or jobs paying better than her contract with this show. Wouldn't it be absolutely wonderful if her agent had _already_ received offers that had to be turned down (temporarily) because of that pesky contract. What a good resolution of a bad situation.


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

This is what will happen...
Afton will never work again in a major role
Alexi will continue to be the show runner and will simply replace her character
Nathon will say nothing and do nothing and will go with whatever changes Alexi come up with and pretend nothing is wrong
This is Hollywood after all

I use "Bull" as evidence on what will happen, in that case CBS publicly admitted that what Michael did was wrong but their old viewers don't care and the show makes money, this will be no different.


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

wprager said:


> Agreed that the show-runner should be turfed.
> 
> There are two recurring (male) actually I can think of. Jackson's dad and Fillion's friend/landlord.


There was Detective Kevin Wolfe who was in 5 episodes, who mainly dealt with Rookie and Bishop.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Edmund said:


> There was Detective Kevin Wolfe who was in 5 episodes, who mainly dealt with Rookie and Bishop.


That's who I thought it might be too. But really, I don't want to speculate much about this as it's a crappy thing to be accused of if you didn't do it.

I get that we're hearing only one side. But the fact that the Hawley didn't do anything about it, even notify people that the issue had been raised, says a lot. These kinds of things have to be investigated by neutral outside parties and that's how you resolve it. Ignoring them is definitely not the answer.

But, I don't agree that "everyone should be fired" or that it's anyone's responsibility other than Hawley's. The idea that "everyone should have known" is IMO not right. It's definitely not hard for people to hide that sort of thing if they're careful.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

There are two sides to every story. The show is great and the character played by the actress is great. Is she telling the truth? how would any of us know? Regardless, I will miss the character on the show. If you do not know this show, find season 1 and enjoy.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

Doesn't Fillion have a history of bullying on the last seasons of _Castle_?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

We don't really know what went down on the Castle set. 

Unfortunately I agree with Wedgecon.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

madscientist said:


> I get that we're hearing only one side. But the fact that the Hawley didn't do anything about it, even notify people that the issue had been raised, says a lot.


Yeah, Hawley didn't do anything, *according to that one side that we've heard from*.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

dtle said:


> Doesn't Fillion have a history of bullying on the last seasons of _Castle_?


The rumor mill said that Fillion and Katic developed a significant personality clash, particularly in the latter seasons. I don't know that I'd call it bullying... and by all reports, it seemed to be a two-sided clash. She didn't like working with him, and he didn't like working with her.

Because Fillion was, frankly, the star (can't really have "Castle" without Castle), there was talk that if the show would have been renewed, it would have eliminated Katic's character, as a way to resolve that clash.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Because Fillion was, frankly, the star (can't really have "Castle" without Castle), there was talk that if the show would have been renewed, it would have eliminated Katic's character, as a way to resolve that clash.


The last season or two, I could see it moving that way. Focusing more on Castle PI, and maybe replacing the female lead with the Brit PI who appeared in a bunch of episodes: From Hayley Shipton "*Hayley Shipton* is a very free-spirited independent investigator who used to a cop for the Metropolitan Police Force and an insurance company security investigator who ends up working for Castle and his daughter Alexis at Castle's PI agency."

I hope Fillion didn't know. I'm a fan, from Buffy, Firefly, Castle, The Rookie, and numerous guest appearances, like Modern Family, he's always entertaining. Looking at his roles, I have to admit he doesn't seem to have much range. His characters are fairly similar.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

justen_m said:


> ...
> Looking at his roles, I have to admit he doesn't seem to have much range. His characters are fairly similar.


Slightly polished Jim Rockford.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

justen_m said:


> Looking at his roles, I have to admit he doesn't seem to have much range. His characters are fairly similar.


yeah he's one of those guys who's basically always the same.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I just finally finished up the season tonight. Bummed she is not going to be back.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Edmund said:


> There was Detective Kevin Wolfe who was in 5 episodes, who mainly dealt with Rookie and Bishop.


She has now named him as the one who allegedly harassed her.


__
http://instagr.am/p/B0zUPdrFxaq/


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

The detective was the one that I was thinking maybe it was. Their vibe on the show was weird.


----------



## jcondon (Jul 9, 2003)

"and Sexually Assaulted by Hair Department Head Sally Nicole Ciganovich".

Seems she did even worse then then Demetrius Grosse. He "only" harassed her. The hairdresser head assaulted her?

Am I reading that right?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Yes, that's what she's saying.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

jcondon said:


> "and Sexually Assaulted by Hair Department Head Sally Nicole Ciganovich"


Her name is Sallie. Nominated for an Emmy (part of team) for So You Think You Can Dance. Career probably destroyed by this; more makeup artists than TV stars around.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

I don't understand how a female hair stylist harmed the actress.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Wow. I hope that she comes through well, come what may, and thrives.

If true, I don't understand how the show's management could not have started an investigation immediately, upon a claim being made; that HR 101. That's a major screw-up.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

DouglasPHill said:


> I don't understand how a female hair stylist harmed the actress.


Racially-based bullying and discrimination, and unwelcomed sexual touching. The details behind this have not been publicly released.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

DouglasPHill said:


> I don't understand how a female hair stylist harmed the actress.


The Instagram post in the Deadline article Amnesia posted states what happened.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Allanon said:


> The Instagram post in the Deadline article Amnesia posted states what happened.


Sorry, but there are no details in that article at all about the interactions between the hairdresser and the series costar, just the charged words: bullying, harassment, inappropriate comments.


----------



## Allanon (Nov 2, 2005)

Wil said:


> Sorry, but there are no details in that article at all about the interactions between the hairdresser and the series costar, just the charged words: bullying, harassment.


Did you read the update and Instagram post?


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Allanon said:


> Did you read the update and Instagram post?


I read it when it came out (disclaimer: I have 2nd/3rd degree of separation knowledge of Sallie and my initial reaction was stunned disbelief). I will check on updates.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

The Instagram post was updated and a lot more details were added than were there initially, when the article was written.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

laria said:


> The Instagram post was updated and a lot more details were added than were there initially, when the article was written.


Thanks. I have just looked. I wouldn't call it updating as much as retroactive editing, but I still see no details of the specific acts Sallie is charged with. "Sexual assault" is still just the _name_ of a charge, for example. But I do see, on more widely looking around, that I am on the wrong side of the momentum on this issue and I expect the "updates" to further ratchet up. I have no facts to back up my instinctive disbelief of these charges, so Sallie is guilty until proven innocent. I will retreat in disorder.


----------



## MizzouJames (Jul 15, 2019)

Wil said:


> Thanks. I have just looked. I wouldn't call it updating as much as retroactive editing, but I still see no details of the specific acts Sallie is charged with. "Sexual assault" is still just the _name_ of a charge, for example. But I do see, on more widely looking around, that I am on the wrong side of the momentum on this issue and I expect the "updates" to further ratchet up. I have no facts to back up my instinctive disbelief of these charges, so Sallie is guilty until proven innocent. I will retreat in disorder.


In a courtroom trial she would be presumed innocent, like all defendants in theory.

If you and 100 other people witnessed a crime without any doubt at all in any of your minds, and the crime was caught on 50 cameras, the defendant would still be presumed innocent in a trial, even if you 100% knew they were guilty.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I'm a software developer... "update" and "edit" mean the same thing to me.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Allanon said:


> The Instagram post in the Deadline article Amnesia posted states what happened.


To be fair, the Instagram post detailed what Afton *said* happened.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

There are two separate and distinct parts of this that both have two sides. The first is what actually happened as far as the harassment and bullying allegations go and secondly how it was handled when it was initially reported. They can determine that nothing wrong happened on the first but still say it wasn't handled correctly or say the allegations were dealt with correctly and the incident happened as she described or some other combination of right and wrong.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

And people wonder why more victims of bullying and sexual harassment don't come forward... If people are going to doubt them and question their credibility, who would want to come forward? Good for her for standing up and leaving the show.

Shame on ABC for not taking a stand, and shame on Nathan Fillion for doing nothing about it. Whether he/they knew initially doesn't affect the fact that the story has come out now, and neither are doing anything about it.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

The problem with "believing" is sometimes, people lie.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Or, there are differing levels of conduct, and there are differing intentions and perceptions.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

"Believe all women." But if you're locked into that, what if two women tell different stories?

"Believe all victims." Victim(s) of what?

Hypothetical: A says there were racist comments against her, harassment, by B. B says they were the kinds of factual comments, jokes, observations she's made directly to people, all people, routinely, over years of similar interaction; maybe even admits she's sometimes a jerk. A says sexual assault by B in public at a party. B says you couldn't move in that crowd without touching someone or something.

I'd love to see an Errol Morris documentary about that party with the different perspectives tested. Or better yet a new Rashomon movie.

There is always a reality somewhere, frequently beyond our ability ever to get to it. You can sometimes get clues by asking questions. Who had the power? _Cui bono_? Where does applying Occam's razor get you?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Often, when a woman makes an accusation like this, they have a lot to lose. They are not likely to potentially destroy their future careers for nothing. So I tend to believe them. That does not mean blindly believe, but you don't do something this dangerous to your future without really good reasons.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

eddyj said:


> but you don't do something this dangerous to your future without really good reasons.


Is that a Jussie quote?


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Mike Lang said:


> Is that a Jussie quote?


Not comparable at all. One is at the bottom of a career looking up, with limited potential to even tread water. The other is a person who's hit lightning in a bottle, with lots of options, but locked into a relatively low paying and restrictive contract.

Neither situation proves or even indicates motivation, but they are completely different conditions.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

And there are always idiots. But the unlikeliness of him fabricating it was why people believed him at first. But, not blind belief, as I said.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

It's those 1 (or 10) percent cases, where truth is stranger than fiction. But they can't gobble up the vast majority of cases.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

You could probably take any two people and show them the same incident and they'd disagree on what exactly happened.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

From USA TODAY:

'Rookie' investigation finds 'no inappropriate behavior' after Afton Williamson's claims


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> From USA TODAY:
> 
> 'Rookie' investigation finds 'no inappropriate behavior' after Afton Williamson's claims


Wow.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Looks like they did an extensive investigation.

_"The investigation was commissioned through law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, which hired EXTTI to conduct nearly 400 hours of interviews and examine video and other evidence.._​


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> Wow.


The character assassination was done; unlikely it can ever be completely undone.

These incidents are so rare, but so damaging to those actually assaulted, harassed or discriminated against.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Wil said:


> The character assassination was done; unlikely it can ever be completely undone.
> 
> These incidents are so rare, but so damaging to those actually assaulted, harassed or discriminated against.


I doubt it was character assassination. She probably destroyed her career by doing this. Much more likely is that the events were interpreted differently by her than by the investigators. What she felt was harassment, did not meet that threshold for the investigation.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

eddyj said:


> I doubt it was character assassination


Tell that to the real victim in this case. Maybe _victims_; we'll see.



eddyj said:


> She probably destroyed her career by doing this


Do you happen to be a betting man?


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Such anger


----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

Just watched the season premier. They sure wrote Afton Williamson / Officer Bishop out quickly. Just a few well-placed sentences explaining her absense, and we're off-and-running.

Due to a recording problem here I never saw the previous season finale and cliffhanger, so I had no idea what was going on at first.

But, they appear to have chopped up what they'd originally filmed for the season opener to quickly conclude that situation and avoid using anything new with Williamson in it. Then they moved on to an entirely new story. Kinda sad.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I found it fine, but still lacking something.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Enjoyed it,


Spoiler



That DHS woman is bad news.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

So what read the matter with Tim? He collapses at the end of last season, rushed to hospital, guess into aniphylaptic shock, then sittings up to save the day a few seconds later?

Very sloppy writing. Or re-writing.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

wprager said:


> So what read the matter with Tim? He collapses at the end of last season, rushed to hospital, guess into aniphylaptic shock, then sittings up to save the day a few seconds later?
> 
> Very sloppy writing. Or re-writing.


He had a reaction to something they gave him. Once you get the epi you recover pretty fast, right?


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

We've started a new thread since these are technically spoilers and this thread isn't listed for them.


----------



## Pokemon_Dad (Jan 19, 2008)

Agatha Mystery said:


> We've started a new thread since these are technically spoilers and this thread isn't listed for them.


Thanks! The Rookie S2E01: Impact *spoilers*


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Just started watching because of Fillion and for the most part, I'm liking it. Fillion does appear to play the same character in all of his parts but he can pull it off. 

Finished episode 16 and was surprised at the ending though. I was not expecting that from a show in it's first season.

And it's always good to see Shahi in anything. It took me a minute to recognize her though.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> The rumor mill said that Fillion and Katic developed a significant personality clash, particularly in the latter seasons. I don't know that I'd call it bullying... and by all reports, it seemed to be a two-sided clash. She didn't like working with him, and he didn't like working with her.
> 
> Because Fillion was, frankly, the star (can't really have "Castle" without Castle), there was talk that if the show would have been renewed, it would have eliminated Katic's character, as a way to resolve that clash.


Huh. I stopped watching Castle after season 3 but I always told myself that I would go back and finish the series. It's too bad there was so much drama behind the scene. How is Fillion's rep in the industry? I found this article but the information quoted might be from the pro-Katic camp.

'Castle' Canceled: A Look Back at Stana Katic, Nathan Fillion's War



> A few days later, _Us Weekly _exclusively revealed even more on-set drama that might have played into Katic's exit. "Stana would go in her dressing room and cry. A lot of people who work on the show don't like Nathan. It's not just her," a second insider told _Us_. "The friction was very evident. Nathan has been nasty to Stana for a long time. Stana was a pro, just wanted to get in there and do her job."


----------

