Heat of Passion was a liiiiittle bit better than last week with the over-the-top political agenda. It was still there but was incorporated in a more believable fashion…but still annoying. But what’s even more annoying, winning cases you have no business of winning. Let’s look at each case.
Gun Toting Granny
Are you kidding me with this one? An 87-year-old woman holds up a liquor store at gun point in order to steal money for groceries and she gets a not guilty verdict. What? Don’t get me wrong, I am not a heartless shrew. Do I think there are some terrible situations out there when it comes to poverty in this country….you bet. Can I understand that people will sometimes do things they wouldn’t normally do because they are desperate and starving…absolutely. Do I think something needs to drastically change….of course. But having said all that, this is a woman who brandished a loaded weapon and threatened to kill a liquor store clerk in order to rob him. And according to Harry, Ohio gun laws are some of the strictest in the country. I guess they aren’t that strict because a woman can rob a store at gun point and walk away. This is the type of thing that fuels my fire. Kelley believes that because the poor are in a terrible situation, that he believes the government put them, they should be able to do whatever they want because being poor isn’t their fault. In some cases, he’s right. But in other cases, he isn’t. And no matter how bad the situation, it doesn’t give people the right to threaten innocent people and rob them at gun point. Here’s another question I wish was raised…if she was so poor, how could she afford to get a gun and legally register it? It also kept being brought up that she is 87. So her going to jail is a life sentence, even for 3 years. Well she should have thought about that before sticking a gun in someone’s face and threatening to blow it off!
I thought the prosecutor had a terrific closing argument. He agreed with the compassion people want to feel towards an 87-year-old woman who has had to sink so low that she had to rob someone to get money to get food on her table. But that doesn’t excuse what she did. And let’s not forget the innocent liquor store owner who feared for his life because there was a gun in his face. Harry’s closing argument wasn’t very good because she knew she didn’t have a case. But this is where the political agenda creeps in and I’m ok with that to a point. I’d rather have it interjected here, where it makes sense, then in the middle of cross-examination like last week. Ultimately it didn’t matter because Harry won. Even she thought the verdict was preposterous. We all did Harry. Ugh.
Chinese Law in the USA
The other case, while also outrageous, was much more interesting. An American woman was working at an American business run by Chinese immigrants. She was fired because she was pregnant. He fired her because she already has one child and she is having another one. Again, WHAT??? I think this is absolutely 100% WRONG on sooooo many levels. However, it raises an interesting discussion point that my husband and I debated last night. Is it acceptable for a private business to invoke any rules and regulations they want for their own business regardless of how ridiculous you may think it is? Let’s think about that for a minute. It sounds crazy but where do you draw the line? In the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office (I have a friend who worked there) women and men must wear suits everyday but women are not allowed to wear pants suits, it must be skirt suits. A little archaic don’t you think? But that’s the rule if you want to work there. Some business say you must have college degree to work for them otherwise, you can’t. Is that ok? Some businesses don’t want their employees to have visual tattoos or piercings unless in your ear only for the piercings. Is that ok? I think it’s a fascinating discussion point. There are 2 areas where I have a problem with this case…1. The owner is trying to force something on his employee that is law in HIS country, not hers and not the one he has his business in. 2. Was she made aware of that rule BEFORE she was hired? If Mr Lao didn’t make his employee aware of his rule before she was hired, I don’t think he can enforce. Plus, in America, it’s illegal to fire a woman because she is pregnant. Just like it’s illegal to fire someone with an addiction problem. You need to offer them treatment not termination. But, if Mr Lao told this woman he doesn’t want anyone working here who will have more than one child, and she took the job anyway and got pregnant a second time, that’s on her (seriously as soon as that rule was said to me, I wouldn’t work for him out of principle.) In that instance, she knew the rules of her boss and broke them anyway. It’s a VERY fine line but what is that line? This is a case I can get behind.
Adam was a little more toned down this week and tolerable. So I warmed up to him a bit more. And Christopher MacDonald was fantastic!!! I hope we see Tommy Jefferson a lot on this show because he was a fun breath of fresh air.
I am going to keep watching, especially since I want to see what happens with the pregnancy case. But since the soap box material was toned a little bit and interjected in a more appropriate fashion, I am going to hang with Harry a little longer. The funny thing is, since my husband only watched this episode and not the pilot he thought this was very in-your-face political slant. I told him it was toned down from last week. He shouts “this is toned down! You’re lucky I didn’t see last week then because I wouldn’t watch it again.” Well sweetie, you aren’t the only who feels that way.