MovieChat Forums > American Violet (2009) Discussion > This could happen to any one in any town...

This could happen to any one in any town...

posted 15 years ago by neugierigblume
8 replies | jump to latest

Have not seen the movie, only the trailer. The following words by German Theologian Martin Niemöller come to mind:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Martin Niemöller

[–] locoowl 14 years ago

Very true! And the nitwits on these boards that complain about "predictability" and "fantasy" and such deprecating terms - as if this film was make believe and has no important story to tell - are just that: nitwits.

Let these fools sit by with their complacency. One day Big Brother will be coming for them, but by then it will be too late.

[–] tomx1000 14 years ago

And I suppose you'll be safe from "Big Brother" because of your profound knowledge that no one else posseses. Go back to your parent's basement.

[–] locoowl 14 years ago

And I suppose you'll be safe from "Big Brother" because of your profound knowledge that no one else posseses. Go back to your parent's basement.

It has nothing to do with profound knowledge, dimwit. All that has to happen is that you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

But consider this: if you tolerate corruption and sloppy police work because the targets of such are "below your station," then you are just as bad and just as corrupt as the politicians and lazy law enforcement people that violate the Constitution.

But I guess you have all the money and power in the world to buy them off, eh? So it will not bother you.

[–] joshdestardi 12 years ago

Wow, tomx1000 totally does not understand the point about complacency.

He'll be the first to complain about cops not allowing him to post on IMDB because his screenname doesn't conform to a government standard.

Then he'll be thrown in jail. Then his already limited rights will completely cease to exist.

*Then* he'll get the poster's very fine point.

[–] whitefangz1 14 years ago

Actually, the movie takes great liberties with the actual legal system to make this plot possible. In reality, her preliminary hearing would typically be within 10 - 20 days. 6 months would violate her constitutional right to a speedy trial and all states have strict time limits in place to prevent this unless the defendant specifically waives their right to a speedy trial. Meanwhile, the grand jury indictment is amazingly weak lacking any physical evidence and consisting entirely of hearsay. In reality, the judge would be disinclined to set a high bail or take the charges seriously unless the D.A. coughed up some real evidence.

Of course, these were necessary elements to make the story work. The basic indictment against the criminal justice system still remains and is still real. Criminal defendants who can't make bail are often faced with a dilemma in instances where the case is weak or the charges are false; Accept a plea bargain and a guilty plea right now to get out of jail, or stay in jail for months fighting the case in order to be exonerated.

[–] desifir667 14 years ago

nice

[–] thebucketrider 12 years ago

The text postscript to the film says the Texas law allowing convictions based on a single informant's testimony was changed, presumably at least in part because of the case depicted. So, your claim that this would not be accepted nowadays is consistent with the narrative.

[–] LadyJEsq 10 years ago

Actually, the movie takes great liberties with the actual legal system to make this plot possible. In reality, her preliminary hearing would typically be within 10 - 20 days. 6 months would violate her constitutional right to a speedy trial and all states have strict time limits in place to prevent this unless the defendant specifically waives their right to a speedy trial. Meanwhile, the grand jury indictment is amazingly weak lacking any physical evidence and consisting entirely of hearsay. In reality, the judge would be disinclined to set a high bail or take the charges seriously unless the D.A. coughed up some real evidence.

I know this is really late, but you couldn't be more wrong. You should spend time in an actual courtroom for awhile to see how the legal system really works. Judging by your comment, I'd be willing to bet that you'd be truly amazed.

All insults will be interpreted as an admission that you cannot contribute to the discussion.