MovieChat Forums > Prison Break: The Final Break (2009) Discussion > Sara's arrest?? Can someone explain how?...

Sara's arrest?? Can someone explain how???

posted 14 years ago by Blue_Jedi
12 replies | jump to latest

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I going to pretend...BUT

I'm assuming when they were being exonerated, the story about how Momma Schofield ended up dead would have came out. The whole truth, about how she set them up, how she pulled a gun on Micheal, how Micheal tried to fire his gun in self defense but it jammed, how Sara shot Momma Scholefield, (sorry about the spelling!) and such, and I'm sure the UN believed them. And I'm sure her murder would have been covered as part of everyone's immunity/exoneration deal.

So...if that's the case, how the hell could she still be arrested? WTF? Did I totally miss something?

Also, with as high profile of a criminal Kratz was, why was he allowed to wonder around the prison so openly there in Florida? Shouldn't he have been in a supermax or federal prison, or at least a lot more secure place? Tbag and Gretchen I could get, but shouldn't Kratz have been kept/held in a tad more secure place? Same with Sara, being such a high profile case, for her protection shouldn't she have been in ad seg at least?

Fat People Are Harder To Kidnap

[–] sarahgear-1 14 years ago

I thought the same thing. I think they were reaching with that arc and I am so glad it got released separately from the last season.

[–] Bunkerwelt 13 years ago

Thank you very much!

I came here for the very same reason. I hated Final Break because I thought the premise was stupid as hell! EVERYONE got Immunity at the end of season four, so why would they arrest her?

[–] McFly_2015 13 years ago

Presumably it was a blanket immunity. The boys and sarah committed dozens of crimes between them so they wouldn't sign unless it was immunity from ALL crimes committed up until that point (that way they couldnt charge them for anything they did since the escape). Since the murder of Christina happened BEFORE the exoneration, that should have been covered too.

[–] gotyougood 12 years ago

Yeah it makes no sense which really ruins the last 2 episodes (the final break) for me. Not only that but they didn't really have enough evidence. Just a video of Sara shooting a gun...comeon the public would have to defend them after everything else turned out to be a lie. It just seems so unlikely. They were really reaching indeed.

[–] Lunchbox-3 12 years ago

First of all, this entire series was one of the most ridiculous credibility stretchers ever aired. It left all trace of reality behind about halfway through episode one.

Another good question for the Final Break is would they really put four people who had all collaborated on a high-profile prison break (Krantz, T-Bag, Sara and Gretchen) in an adjoining prison? Then let the guy who broke them out (Michael) come in for visits? He visits Sara, then Krantz, then Sara again.

And what prison doesn't monitor phone calls? Really the part where Krantz is on the phone with his lawyer saying "you've got my money, I want her dead, kill her!" wasn't monitored by anyone at the prison? Come on.

Every episode of this series had to try to top everything that had gone before for sheer implausability.

[–] Moonbaseone 12 years ago

I think that Final Break was completely unnecessary. Story made no sense. And Michael having so little time to plan an escape from a prison which he knew so little about?

almost a bad as season 3. Both should have never been made, IMO.

-If you like Cartoons and Anime, checkout http://favoritetoons.com/

[–] hp-303-973831 10 years ago

The final breakup should never have been aired to be honest...

Killerman kills dozens or hundreds of people and he becomes a Congressman, yet Sarah kills ONE person in self defence (sorta) and goes to prison... OOOOOOOOOOOKAY...

It was just sloppy writing.

[–] joelcosta-jcx 7 years ago

Told a friend the same thing. Also told him that even without the exoneration it's a stretch that she wouldn't be considered to have defended herself. Here's what he said:

The only thing they saw in the camera was Sara shooting at someone. They know the time and place she fired the bullet, and in what direction. At approximately the same time, Christina died. Also we know that Christina fired a bullet, her fingerprints being on the gun, and Michael being shot.

So his take is that we don't know at what time Christina shot Michael, and we know that Sara killed Christina. So we don't know if it was actual self-defense or if she didn't kill her out of revenge later. So since we can prove that Sara killed Christina (although, we don't really saw that one tape, anything could've happened), she must be punished unless she can prove that she defended herself.

My concern is the following: "innocent until proven guilty". In his view, since we know that she killed Christina, it's Sara that has to prove that it was self-defense. I wonder, since she's accused of murder without self-defense, shouldn't it be proven that she killed Christina without good reason, i.e. it had to be proven by the state that she did not act in self-defence? Isn't it their task to prove that it is a crime?

The whole thing seems like a big stretch to me. With witnesses being around, and proof that Christina was part of a big conspiracy, she should have enough proof that Christina tried to kill Michael and therefore she killed her first.

I'm just curious about that one. It doesn't seem wrong what he said, I understand what he means. But also there is the other part where they make the claim of "she committed a crime", and since that is the claim, the burden of proof should be on them, shouldn't it? I'm just curious if without the exoneration it would be possible to put her in jail.

[–] Blue_Jedi 7 years ago

But here's the thing I don't get....when the UN was working out the plea deal or whatever where everyone pretty much got to walk away (minus tbag) wouldn't the issue of who shot/who killed Christina have come up, and wouldn't they have told them what happened? I mean if the UN is letting them all walk away from escaping prison and breaking into a secure government facility and letting Link get off scot free for killing the VP's brother-why couldn't they overlook Sara killing Christina in what looks like self defense?

Fat People Are Harder To Kidnap

[–] joelcosta-jcx 7 years ago

Another plot hole. Didn't even think of that.

As for the burden of proof, I found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense#Burden_of_proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponderance_of_the_evidence

Basically, the burden of proof for affirmative defense is indeed on the defendant. However, the standard for proving it is considerably lower, it doesn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but only by either clear or convincing evidence or in case of self defense, which is a form of affirmative defense, by a preponderance of the evidence.

What this means is that you don't need to prove it entirely, but just convince. It's what they call a balance of probabilities, meaning that you have to prove that it's more likely to have happened that way than otherwise.

We have Michael as eye witness. One might say that he has a conflict of interest, but we're not looking for a proof by preponderance of evidence, so that's one eye witness more in favour of self defense than not. An important one too, given that Michael was shot, so he was the person to be defended (which falls under the same category as self defense). We can pinpoint Michael being shot to a certain time frame, a window giving more credibility to him being shot around Christina's death. We can prove that it was her gun being used, making the time frame even more precise. We can prove that Michael and Sara we on a run by a by enterprise called the Corporation, so that they were in imminent danger before Christina's death. We can prove that Christina had ties to the company. Heck, she was officially dead, giving more credibility to the big conspiracy. Given Sara's clean record as well, since she had no crime record except for the whole Company thing from which she was exonerated, there is no reason to believe she did it out of hate, spite, revenge, but there is a lot of reason to believe that she did indeed kill Christina in self defense. By preponderance of the evidence, Sara can therefore not considered to sent to prison. Jail, maybe for a hearing, and still rather improbable. But not prison.

So even without the exoneration, Sara's incarceration was wrong, and unrealistic.

[–] mgreen9715 7 years ago

I love that people complain about Prison Break and how the story is so bad because it's highly unrealistic and impossible

Welcome to 90% of the fictional drama TV shows, idiots.

[–] joelcosta-jcx 7 years ago

It's not about just being unrealistic, it's about being unrealistic to a ridiculous extent. For instance, it's also unrealistic that Michael always finds a solution in the last second, but you don't see anyone complaining about it. Why? Because it's not ridiculous and sheerly impossible. It's understandable that this is the driving mechanic of the show, a genius who even under a lot of pressure almost always finds a way out.

This Sara thing, however, is. It's just impossible in so many degrees, as already explained. And it totally defeats the plot from the previous episode. It's a bad attempt at milking the show for a new last episode, when all the story is told.

And it adds to the horrible plot of before. Like the constant sudden reincarnation of dead characters, because the writers were too stupid to plan ahead more than a season (you can verify that, they had no idea where to go with the show), as well as the bad narrating considering those parts.

Or constantly looping the same story, over and over again, namely "We need Scylla, they got Scylla, we get Scylla with the help of X. Oh! X sells us out! We need Scylla, X got Scylla, we get Scylla with the help of Y. Oh! Y sells us out too!" After the third time you get bored by it. And that was season 4 only.

Or the fact that it makes no sense for the Company to want Whistler and the book so bad, and thus send a guy who is known to break out of prisons, instead of using their apparent bottomless resources to get him out. Or, you know, to just destroy the damn book, which in the end, they didn't need at all, and they didn't care about at all in season 4. And before you claim that it's just Whistler and Morgan who want the book out: in season 3, the General was the one explicitly said he wanted the book. Except that in season 4, he didn't.

The list goes on. It's not just because it has some unrealistic feature. It's because it's full of plot holes, has a repeated and forced plot, and it's highly ridiculous and impossible. That is for season 3 and 4 of course, season 1 and 2 had both their merits.

Welcome to 90% of the fictional drama TV shows, idiots.

First, give me an example of such a ridiculous and impossible plot or boresome recurrence in any of the big TV shows of the last years. You must have been watching truly bad TV if you think season 4 is nearly acceptable, or comparable to 90% of fictional drama TV.

Secondly, I don't care about the other shows, I'm not talking about them here, I'm talking about Prison Break, specifically the 4th season, and to an extent the 3rd as well. If other shows have that sort of absurdities, we point them out as well. This isn't the thread for it.

Now if you are offended by someone pointing out the obvious facts of your beloved TV show, then grow a pair. Or, you know, if you don't like critique don't read it. It's not as if the title of this thread was some cryptic message, it was pretty clear where it was heading.