Review of Daredevil Born Again episode, "Art for Art's Sake"

Review and analysis of Daredevil Born Again episode 7, "Art for Art's Sake." Join us for our discussion on whether Daredevil interfere with a police investigation; issues with assaulting police offices; when can a psychotherapist disclose a doctor-patient communication; the duty to rescue; threatening a journalist; and conspiracy to commit murder. 

Chapters

• 0:00 Episode Introduction and Initial Reactions
• 2:15 Interfering with Police Investigations
• 8:22 Assault on a Police Officer
• 13:44 Psychotherapist Disclosure Obligations
• 21:28 The Duty to Rescue Debate
• 26:18 Self-Defense and Defense of Others
• 32:58 Threatening Journalists: First Amendment Issues
• 40:28 Kingpin's Conspiracy to Murder
• 49:34 Closing Thoughts and Season Two Teasers

Transcript

Joshua Gilliland: 0:05

Hello everyone, my name is Joshua Gilliland, one of the founding attorneys of the Legal Geeks. We are here for the penultimate episode of Daredevil Born Again. Art for art's sake. It's been a long weekend. Here we are to discuss this fantastic show with Gabby Martin and retired judge Matthew Sherino. Gabby, how you doing Doing?

Gaby Martin: 0:30

good this was, I will say I feel like was the biggest return to where the Netflix show was in terms of just the sheer violence and, in my opinion, scariness, um, but um, I I loved it. So it's great and I'm excited to see where it all ends up. And you know, we already have casting news for season two um, new casting news every day, um, so that's exciting too fantastic, your honor it's nice to see Daredevil born again and back in the red suit and the devil of Hell's Kitchen to be front and center.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 1:14

And, as Gabby said, the violence level was clearly at the levels of the original Netflix show.

Joshua Gilliland: 1:22

Yes, it was. And boy and boy, howdy was it glorious? Uh, just, you know, the first time around they had exceptionally well choreographed fights. That continues here and the uh writing a compelling story where you care about the characters outside of the super suit and being able to have some, uh, extreme fighting. I'm talking about the characters outside of the super suit and being able to have some extreme fighting. I'm talking about the grappling hook that it's like Whoa, that's impressive. But people aren't here just to hear us nerds talk about how much we love it. They're here to hear us talk about our legal analysis and there's a lot to unpack in this episode. So we've all made notes. And first is did Daredevil interfere with a police investigation? And then I'm referring to him going to the crime scene after the officers have left. And your Honor, it looks like you have some thoughts on this.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 2:26

In as much as after the officers left. The officers would have already gathered what they kind of needed, and so it might not rise to the level of obstruction of governmental administration which is a misdemeanor crime in New York under Section 195.05, where a person gets in the way or prevents the administration of law or other governmental function. And as much as this was done post-investigation you can make the argument that it didn't in any way interfere. Therefore it didn't rise to the level of interfering with a police investigation that he would be charged with a crime. That being said, and as much as the mayor clearly has it out for Daredevil, it would not be surprising that he would be charged with such a crime, but I don't think he would be convicted of such a crime.

Joshua Gilliland: 3:19

We then get the bully club to the police officer's face, which, while therapeutic and one could argue that police officer clearly deserved it. You don't go around doing that to police officers. Your Honor, what legal issues could arise from the bully club to the face?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 3:40

Yeah, new York has several, as do a lot of states enhancement crimes where the person that is being assaulted results in a bump up. So there are bus drivers. I guess two years ago they added judges, which was nice. So if you attacked a judge, again it was a bump up. So sometimes an assault that might be a misdemeanor assault would become a Class E felony.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 4:19

The statute which was most applicable to this case was 120.08 of the New York's penal law, which is assault on a peace officer, police officer, firefighter or other emergency medical professional and this is basically a serious assault of a police officer and it does bump it up to all the way up to a class C felony because of that special enhancement and by being a class C violent felony the defendant would be subject to a penalty of three and a half to 15 years depending on the record and priors that that person had.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 4:56

There's also aggravated assault upon a police officer, which is a second bump up which makes it a B felony and this is with intent to cause physical injury, serious physical injury. He does cause such injury by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, which does say that a billy club and those kinds of things can qualify as a dangerous instrument. So that would bump it all the way up to a class B B, as in boy felony, and the maximum for a B felony is up to 25 years in prison. So it would be the two enhancements both using the dangerous instrument and the fact that the victim was a police officer would bump it up. So we get two bump ups.

Joshua Gilliland: 5:48

Gabby, any additional thoughts on the incident in the muses layer?

Gaby Martin: 5:55

Well, what I thought was interesting when I saw this on the notes is, you know, because you have him acting or I guess, critical interfering you will in the investigation in two ways. Right, because he's he's acting as daredevil where he goes in into muses layer, but there's also the questioning, um, of white tiger's needs, right, and he's really kind of acting as an investigator there, right, he's asking her specific questions about what happened, about the incident, and to me that was more, you know, like in the role of. Is he acting as a, as an investigator, a private investigator, a police officer? Obviously he.

Gaby Martin: 6:41

I think he's most likely interfering with the investigation because even though the police had left, um, I did note that the crime scene tape was still up. So it would, you could make an argument that the investigation is still ongoing. They're still, you know they may have left. Clearly the police officer came back, right, and they're monitoring the scene, so it's not like it's been abandoned, um, and clearly all the drawings are still there, like they had not secured any of that into evidence, right, which is very weird to me that they just, I guess she just picked up the like little piece of thing with blood and she's like, oh yeah, I'll just leave all the papers here.

Gaby Martin: 7:19

Um, so I definitely think he's guilty of the government, you know, probably obstructing the investigation. But I think we could argue his role as a quote unquote investigator asking those questions. He could be in some form still representing the Ayala's in maybe a civil suit of some kind the Ayala's in maybe a civil suit of some kind, and so he's asking that as their lawyer to understand what happened to her, because this is his client who was put in jeopardy. So, even though it seems like a more investigator role that could be watching it back, I was like that's probably he's representing them in still some capacity. The family.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 8:04

Additionally, the way the New York Police Department works is the initial police on the scene are not going to do other than securing the scene, making sure no one is in any kind of serious injury and then calling the appropriate agencies if there are people that are injured and, of course, doing any kind of emergency care that's needed. They aren't going to be the ones that are going to do the gathering of the evidence for future crimes. That's another unit of the NYPD, so they will put up tape. They will stay on the scene until that other unit gets there, but the evidence collection unit, the ECU, will then arrive on the scene and they're the ones that take the pictures, swab fingerprints, look for DNA and do all of that, and it's a separate unit that have expertise in that collection. And clearly he would be trespassing, in addition to possibly the obstruction of governmental administration, because you can't just cross the police tape without the permission of the authorities reading or looking at paper.

Joshua Gilliland: 9:27

I'm not sure if they've done that in the prior three seasons before. In the comic, daredevil can read by tracing his finger over the printed page and feeling the letters on the page, which they haven't I. I don't think they've done and they have done it, I just missed it. But the same would work with drawings or paintings, and so the fact he's using that skill over the paintings and recognizing his girlfriend in the artwork was impressive, because he suddenly goes, he realizes, uh, oh, suddenly goes.

Gaby Martin: 10:07

He realizes, oh, very quickly that, like it's a drawing of his girlfriend and which clues him on on the the rescue that would need to take place I'd be curious if, if I'm I don't know any people who are blind, um, but if that's a just feature of some forms of blindness, because I remember with the Hawkeye series they did an incredible job representing deafness in various capacities. So if they have somebody who is a coordinator on, or a consultant who's advising them on this, on, you know, not just kind of you know, walking around pretending, I guess, to play a blind person, but really kind of embodying that role.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 10:48

And they also, you know, kind of brought home in the shower scene with his hands caressing her face and kind of getting that mental imprint that you know, people have seen blind people able to touch someone's face to see what they look like or to recognize people that they have met before. You know, the being able to take it off the printed pages is clearly a super enhancement that Daredevil has. That I don't like Gabrielle, I don't know if any blind person would have that ability. Uh, you know the. The paint some of it was, um, uh, you know, a little thick so you could feel it. You know, daredevil clearly having the ability to even do printed pages, as we've seen in comics, uh, you know is is a real superpower and just well done, and it's not just the beat up the bad guy.

Joshua Gilliland: 11:46

There's actually detective work taking place and questions being asked and analysis to figure out what's happening, and that's just nice to see because it's not intellectually lazy of. We just need fast cars and explosions with bright colors. This is actually. There's meat to this, which brings us to one of my I don't want to say favorite but most thoughtful questions about breaching privileges, and that's when can a psychotherapist disclose a doctor-patient communication?

Joshua Gilliland: 12:22

And going back to law school, there are cases with if a therapist or a psychiatrist knew of a risk, did they have an obligation to disclose or, if not an obligation, at least the right to disclose? Or did they have to keep their mouth shut knowing that they have a dangerous patient who's making claims of violence against someone, which then goes to the issue of like. Is it a specific thread? Or is it just scene with you know the, you know heather, with muse, not knowing that the muse is actually you know her patient, he? She thinks he just has a troubled young person and eventually she realizes uh-oh. And there are standards for when and it varies by state. There are standards for when a mental health professional has the option to disclose a doctor-patient communication. And your Honor it looks like you waxed poetic on this.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 13:42

I did not. I think this is Gabriella's work.

Joshua Gilliland: 13:46

Oh, well done. It's so thorough. I thought the judge did it.

Gaby Martin: 13:53

You just take it away, yeah because I was really fascinated by this scene, because it was like what would have happened had she had been able to escape. Right, because obviously there's that impetus that she has to flee. Right, because she realizes she's in danger, she's sitting with a serial killer. But you know, and obviously it doesn't pan out that way. But what if she had right? And I think to your point, josh, psychiatrists, therapists and mental health professionals generally are in a very parallel state to us as lawyers. Right, like we. You know, you think of the confidentiality lessons from law school and it's you have to. It was something I always kind of initially struggled with in law school, because the idea of confidentiality sometimes goes against what you you want to report, right, but you have to in order to, you know, build that trust with your client to learn their story. Right, if we're talking in the context of, you know, criminal defense lawyers, right, you can't just walk up and say, yep, he told me he did it.

Gaby Martin: 15:03

Like you know, he committed to all this stuff, right? You can't actually go up and say, yep, he told me, he did it. Like you know, he committed to all this stuff, right? You can't actually go up and do that, which is why some people become criminal defense lawyers and some don't.

Gaby Martin: 15:14

So, but mental health professionals are very similar, right? Their goal is to get their clients to tell them about their issues, to be able to assist them, and so, as you said, states across the country have laws that either require or permit mental health professionals to disclose information about patients who become violent, and New York actually has a law that was enacted in 2013 that kind of enhances their current law regarding ability to the duty to report, basically, and it moves it from permissive to mandatory duty, requiring mental health professionals to report when they believe patients may pose a danger to themselves or others, but it also protects therapists from civil and criminal liability for failure to report if they act in good faith. It also the this law, which is called the SAFE Act, allows law enforcement to remove firearms owned by patients reported to likely be dangerous owned by patients reported to likely be dangerous and part of what we're talking about, right is? It dates back to the Hippocratic Oath, right? This is not something new, it is very, very old law, right? And so again, new York has a law under New York, section 9.46.

Gaby Martin: 16:44

It's the SAFE Act, or I should say, amended under the SAFE Act, which requires mental health professionals to who have determined that a patient presents a serious or imminent danger to himself or others, to report the concern to state government and not to third parties potentially at risk. So they do have to report it to authorities, not they can't go warn. You know, let's say, in this case we're talking about serial killer. But if you know, they know that, like a patient intends to harm their mother or their loved one, they can't go call the loved one up and say, hey, so-and-so may attack you. Um, they have to report it to authorities, to authorities and they have to document their reasons for reporting. It has to be part of the clinical record.

Gaby Martin: 17:32

And, interestingly enough, what I found when I was looking at this is that the New York Psychiatric Association I'm sorry, the New York State Psychiatric Association actually expressed objections to the language in the amended SAFE Act. First, they were concerned about the breach of confidentiality that might occur with a report would not be warranted because the statute fails to require the presence of imminence in addition to the threat of serious harm. So there's not that imminent danger component that some other laws may have. And they were also concerned about potential HIPAA violations. So that's another whole ball of wax that you get into when you're talking about privacy, disclosures, right, duty to treat, and that's where that kind of other privacy concerns come in.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 18:26

Okay, Well said and yeah, I mean these laws get modified after an incident. One, the Red Flag Act, is the part of the SAFE Act that was amended later. When you say the SAFE Act as amended, that dealt with the red flag laws which enabled those same people to go before a judge to see if a person had guns, that they would lose their ability to have a license to carry a gun in New York. And again, that came from even more incidents of mass school shootings and mass shootings. But yeah, the SAFE Act was a result of the murders in Connecticut that we all know as Sandy Hook.

Joshua Gilliland: 19:32

Yeah, just so there were other cases from I remember from law school, with again that were more like a one person committing a murder situation and then that allowing the legislature to take action for changing the law. But again, these changes and these laws are written because of something horrible happening. They're not proactive. It's very rare for legislation to be proactive. I mean the Bill of Rights is written in the negative for a reason. I mean the Bill of Rights is written in the negative for a reason just to make sure that rights aren't abridged, because it's hard to think of what are we going to list here as fundamental rights?

Joshua Gilliland: 20:35

With that said, let's turn to the next issue of the duty to rescue. So, generally speaking, there is no duty to rescue, and this is one of those things that makes non-lawyers freak out that we don't have a hue and cry system of if you see a kid drowning, you have no obligation to go rescue that kid. If you watch the child die, that just makes you a bad person, but you're not criminally or civilly liable for refusing to go out and put yourself at harm's way to rescue them. There are some exceptions, whether there's a special relationship and that can be defined in statute, like parent to child, and there are other examples as well. Uh, but with you know, you find out that your girlfriend is the target of a serial killer. Understandably, you one would go, hey, I should take action to make sure my significant other does not have a horrible demise. Uh, but I don't think there's a legal obligation to do so.

Gaby Martin: 21:41

But, gabby, you have some thoughts on this that are in the outline and I can tell yeah I can tell it's your style, so take it away I know I was like I when, when you put generally no duty to rescue, I was like wait, wait a minute. Because I, I did look it up and and it's interesting because obviously we talk about, yes, you have maybe a moral duty to rescue, absolutely, but we're here to talk about the law, not you know, moral, uh, code of ethics, um, but what I was really fascinated by, because, because I did take time to look up the special relationship exception and one would think, when you talk again in kind of non-legal terms about a special relationship, you know you would think parent-child, you know, maybe spouses, you don't have a duty to rescue your spouse, your significant other, nobody, like if you are in any way, uh, not, parent, child, you do not have to rescue that person. You do have maybe a moral, moral duty, um, and it makes you a horrible spouse. But you know, um, but specifically applicable here, um, is that there is an exception if you create the peril right, there's two big exceptions and that is if you interfere with a duty to rescue because he let Muse escape by, not for some reason.

Gaby Martin: 23:20

Everyone in this universe is exceptionally durable, and particularly Muse, who got beat around in the prior episode and shows up to heather's couch looking absolutely fine, um, with not a scratch on him. Uh, matt has scratched, like his back is messed up, right, but this kid is totally fine and he got, like, got the living daylights kicked out of him, um, but daredevil didn't, I guess, execute him completely, I don't know. Um, so by letting him escape, did he create a need for a rescue, which is the exception, one of the exceptions right to a duty to rescue, or lack thereof, um, which is a situation. When an individual creates a situation which puts another in peril, it creates a duty to rescue that individual. So you could argue.

Joshua Gilliland: 24:22

in this case, daredevil may be on the hook, but that requires with the letting Muse escape so that's a, he is rescued Was not securing him negligent?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 24:35

I guess would have to be the first level issue. And I can't, also on a Plessy argument. It's very unforeseeable that he then would end up if he didn't take care to secure him, that he would then end up on his girlfriend's couch um to, to, to have therapy. So I think it's a little bit far removed, but it's a. It's a wonderful exercise and he did at least have a bloody nose yeah, so he for which he could then paint yeah, yeah, yeah, that's troubling on so many levels.

Joshua Gilliland: 25:15

So I'm glad you're not saying that there was a duty to commit a summary execution, because I'd be very concerned about you if you felt that way. Matt should really be going full Punisher right now.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 25:29

Yeah, that's what I'm catching it, as you know what was the failure to secure him. But you know, at that point he was very concerned with making sure that the victim was still alive. So I really don't think he in any way acted negligently after beating him to that level to think that it would be foreseeable that he would be able to to walk away from that uh and and then end up in his girlfriend's office.

Gaby Martin: 25:57

So you know, it's a little bit, but but I get like like you know that that's one of the reasons for this kind of show is to take some of the stuff to the extremes for the fun of it, yeah, and I mean he should have seen that somebody taking that many hits would get back up again if we assume in this universe that Bullseye was pushed over a building that was quite hot and somehow magically survived to stand trial like magically.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 26:29

So everybody, all the main characters have a lot of hit points to bring back to Dungeons and Dragons, including Daredevil, who really takes a beating and keeps on going time after time himself a lot of plot armor you know now.

Joshua Gilliland: 26:51

I don't remember from the prior seasons of Stilt man was killed or not. Who made the initial body armor for daredevil and that at least had you know. Reduce the stab wounds, because at the beginning of this show bullseye hits them I don't know nine, ten times with knives and if they're just sticking out of the body armor, that's just pointy and uncomfortable, as opposed to you have nine stab wounds, which your girlfriend's never asked you about. All the all the scars on your chest from the times you've been stabbed, uh. So again, maybe it's just thick padding, uh, so maybe that's how matt can get away with uh having less stab wounds and other bruises, uh, or just bruises, as opposed to uh other blunt force trauma. Compared to the artist who has basically a canvas mask like there there's, that's not adamantium, like that's uh, that's a lot to get back up I also was.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 28:05

It was an excellent nurse yes true, yeah I.

Gaby Martin: 28:09

I also did appreciate how he had his, his outfit, like ready to roll uh with him, so that he was like, yep, I got it like I thought that was uh pretty, pretty funny and very, very comic book lit. He's like ta-da um by the next scene yes, very superman, very super.

Joshua Gilliland: 28:30

There's an Archer episode with him suiting up and forcing someone to watch him, which made me think of you know. It's like, oh God, don't make me watch you suit up again, like that was my reaction to the psychiatrist is tied up and watch me get into costume, and if it's a 15 minute uh exercise, all right. Now we get into self-defense, because there's a lot of self-defense that happens here in defense of others. So how to break this down? We have matt murdoch as daredevil going to save his significant other from the muse. Her name's Heather I'm blanking on her last name and Heather Glenn, dr Glenn, Dr Glenn. She does have a name. I just want to be clear. I just remember Heather. So Dr Glenn, defense of others should be kicking in. We also have Dr Glenn pick in. Defense of others should be kicking in. We also have Dr Glenn pick up Muse's sidearm and use it to dispatch Muse while Daredevil is in combat with Muse protecting her from Muse. Your Honor, this looks like your style of notes.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 29:57

It was yours from last time and I just kind of pasted it over because we have discussed justification before in defense of others if they're in eminent danger of harm themselves and likewise to protect yourself by using reasonable force in order to stop the attack of you or others. So as long as what you do is deemed to be reasonable, you would be justified in that action. And here you know the serial killer who has killed others and Heather is well aware that he has killed others and he was also basically trying to kill her. She absolutely would be justified to put down the muse by using deadly force, because he was using deadly force against all of them. And Matt, likewise, would be protecting an individual and was using a reasonable degree of force in order to stop muse from continuing in his duty. So I think both of them would be able to avail themselves of the justification defenses if they were so charged and I don't really see them ever being charged, but if they were charged that they would have those defenses available to them.

Joshua Gilliland: 31:24

And, if I remember correctly, there's a provision for self-defense if you're trying to escape a kidnapping or false imprisonment situation. I don't remember how it's worded exactly, but she was like bound and and restrained and cut, so she is bleeding out. So, like there, there are other factors at play that I think would go to the justification for her to pull the trigger to stop Muse.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 31:56

Yeah, and in section 2b of 3515, dealing with justification if he or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery, he or she reasonably believes that such person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by that section. So yes, in order to. It wasn't even just a reasonable belief that she was being kidnapped, she was being forcibly held against her will, even if it was her own office.

Joshua Gilliland: 32:52

Well said, which now brings us to threatening a journalist something not at all dark and disturbing.

Gaby Martin: 32:59

Gabby, do you want to help get into what he's actually doing, which is threatening a journalist? You know I worked in communications and state legislator. You do talk to journalists and you do, you know, kind of ask them, hey, don't publish this. Or, you know, can we work? You know, maybe do this, but not that you can ask Right. You can always ask Right, but you cannot do what he did, which is say, hey, don't publish this, you know, and actively like, threaten her. So you can't do that. You cannot.

Gaby Martin: 33:36

You take the good with the bad in state government, in any form of government, right, that is what the press is there for, um, and so we obviously have, uh, the first amendment which protects the freedom of the press. Right, and I thought it was interesting. I went back and watched this episode and I hadn't clocked it the first time I watched it, but this is the first episode that we do not see the BB report in the episode, which I thought was actually very chilling. When you watch that scene it's almost like she's been silenced already. So I frankly have my own issues with how the BB report is being done, but to not see it is, you know kind of chilling that she is being silenced, so um.

Gaby Martin: 34:24

But you do have freedom of the press, which, in gitlo versus new york, um, the supreme court actually held that, um that this was back in 1925. The supreme court held, um that the 14th amendment to the constitution had extended the first amendment's provisions which protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to all governments of the United States. So previously it was only applicable to the federal government and actions by the federal government, but this was the case that applied it. Interestingly enough, dealing with the state of Newark applied it to actions by the state and this is clearly within the state. And then you have some other cases New York versus Minnesota, which rejects the notion of prior restraint on publication and decided that freedom of press applies to states via due process clause, and New York Times v Sullivan, which held that the press is largely free from any adverse act or report action if it attempts to truthfully report the news of public concern and when the news involves a public official, even erroneous reportage has a high degree of protection.

Joshua Gilliland: 35:40

A lot there and also brings back memories from the first amendment class I took, long ago and far away. But these things are timeless. Like this isn't a question of time, place or manner. Like this is I'm silencing the press, which is a no-no, uh under the constitution. Uh, it's also fun to see when the court started applying the first amendment to the states through the 14th. Uh. Now there it's, like california has, uh, its equivalent of the first Amendment. That actually gives some more rights. So it's, the federal constitution is the floor, not the ceiling, and so different states can have some of them just copy it verbatim and others can add other enhancements to it. But you can't subtract from the federal, you can only add to it.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 36:40

Likewise, new York has more protections than the federal government because of the large amount of media companies that are based in New York.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 36:51

There are several provisions of New York law that go further than the US Constitution with regards to protection of the press and protection of their sources and the underlying research that they do, and that they have a lot of protections. My only other or I guess, to play devil's advocate, which is clearly fun to do in a show called the Daredevil that you know, beebe, and kind of acted in an unethical journalistic manner on various occasions, including when, you know, she got this aide drunk and high to get information from him, and it was an aggressive negotiation to use another Star Wars term with regards to getting her to not do something, kind of calling on some of the bad things that she did to maybe level the playing ground. So you know, whereas he clearly did not have the right to stop her First Amendment rights, I think he was also playing at a very high level in as much as what was done to him in the prior episodes as well.

Joshua Gilliland: 38:06

Oh, he has a right to be mad at her Like. I absolutely do not question of. We're friends. You wrote this hit piece. You twisted things radically out of context after you kept me out late, got me drunk and, you know, high on a controlled substance. We're not friends anymore. Like that could have had a very different conversation, like the day after that article. It's like you torpedoed a good policy. You exploited me. I'm angry at you. I will never see you again. As opposed to the godfather approach of you know extracting revenge that way.

Gaby Martin: 38:47

Well, he does have soprano ties, yeah, yeah yeah, I was gonna say, and you know it is. The thing is like being something being off the record, right, that doesn't actually exist. Nothing is technically off the record, as much as you would wish and hope it would be. You know, that's where you have leveraging relationships with journalists and really you can, you know, people that you may trust more than others to, you know kind of give background to. But just saying something's off the record does not mean they're going to not report it. And you know, yes, you can have kind of discussions with journalists and kind of try to, you know, have compromises and how things are covered, but you cannot actively stop them from reporting what they want to do.

Joshua Gilliland: 39:46

It's one thing to go. I'm going to give you an exclusive if you wait 72 hours, you know, and that sort of gamesmanship. So that way the narrative can be controlled. Opposed to I'm just going to threaten the press.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 40:01

Opposed to I'm just going to threaten the press or take away their press credentials to cover certain events or press conferences or other such actions if they don't report in a favorable manner.

Joshua Gilliland: 40:13

Yeah, all bad, all bad, Not how we roll, which brings us to the closing scene, which is it's kingpin being kingpin. But I I have questions about. We see it's a conspiracy to commit murder and on one level it looks like vanessa and the tracksuit crime boss conspiring to kill Fisk. But then it made me wonder was this Fisk and Vanessa conspiring to kill the mob boss in a tracksuit, or did Vanessa and the tracksuit mobster conspire to kill Fisk? And Fisk is just really smart and was ready for it. So there's a, I think, three options here. But this is conspiracy to commit murder and it can. It's a weird one because if it's in the second category of Vanessa and Fisk doing this like double blind, you know we're going to set up this mobster so my bodyguard can take them down. That's still a conspiracy to commit murder and you still have to get rid of the body and it's in a restaurant that's empty. Who would like to help address this?

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 41:52

Let's start with first thing. I choose choice B. Who would like to help address this? They set up Luca, but it's very possible that Kingpin, through other means, found out about this hit. But I really believe that Fisk and Vanessa got together on this.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 42:10

But in any event it's still a conspiracy and in New York under Section 105.15 of the penal law it would be conspiracy in the second degree. A person is guilty of conspiracy in the second degree when, with intent, that conduct constituting a class A felony in this case that class A felony would be murder in the second degree. He agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct and that is a Class B felony. The murder itself is a Class A1 felony. It's common law murder, murder in the second degree with intent to cause the death of another. He causes the death of such person or a third person and clearly the person who pulled the trigger was acting at the behest of the kingpin. The triggerman would be guilty of murder in the second degree and Fisk and Vanessa could be found guilty of conspiracy in the second degree If they both conspired.

Joshua Gilliland: 43:19

If only one conspired, then only one of them would be guilty of that crime uh, this is either really disturbing and creative couples therapy or, um, just just evil for the sake of being evil.

Gaby Martin: 43:34

But uh, gabby your thoughts I'm torn because I when saw it, I had the inverse reaction. When I saw it, initially I thought it was a plot with the two of them to kill Luca, but then when I watched it back again and I just can't help but thinking it's, you know, fisk knowing about it, or maybe the way I thought it, it wasn't so much a um, him being very clever, almost like he ran a test right and that was. And potentially you could have another crime here that I just thought of, which. Which is he?

Gaby Martin: 44:21

He mentioned earlier in the episode, uh, to his bodyguard or staff member, whatever this man's title is, within the administration, um, so made up title Um. But he says that he now has the resources, um, of the, uh, the office of the mayor, right, and we talked about previously. You know corruption and you know misuse of conflicts of interest and misuse of governmental resources, and he could potentially have used that to find this plot out. And he certainly could just have gone to a restaurant alone and told Vanessa he was going to the restaurant alone to see what happened, to see if she would be loyal to him or not.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 45:14

And Buck and Kingpin actually have that discussion. As to the, you know, the using of the governmental resources in a non-governmental manner, in the office they highlighted that issue earlier on. With regards to this, he could have been very, very well prepared, having dropped that hint to Vanessa. But my feeling on the relationship with Vanessa and Kingpin, which goes back to the other episodes dealing with Vanessa not really feeling that she was in danger because of Kingpin's love for her, that love, as weird as their relationship is, is really almost set in stone in the comics. So it would be a big jump to have Vanessa backstabbing the kingpin, not that it couldn't happen, but I see it more as she might have thought of it for that brief second. She might have encouraged Luca to do it for that brief second. She might have encouraged Luca to do it for that brief second. But I think then she goes to Kingpin and says he's coming for you, but we'll see in the last episode I have a feeling.

Joshua Gilliland: 46:35

Yeah, their relationship is either really strong or it's going to have some really complex therapy issues with.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 46:42

Right, and if she knew where Adam was and what he had been doing to Adam, then I could see her doing this and maybe she did find out. But you know, that to me would have given Vanessa the push to maybe do this on her own, to take out Absent. Knowing the situation with Adam, I don't know if she would do it yet that might be the domino that launches it down the road.

Joshua Gilliland: 47:14

Good thinking, good thinking, fascinating. So a lot there, gab gabby. Anything else to add? So, pivoting back to our notes, that looks like every issue, uh, for this episode. I again I thought this was a fantastic episode.

Joshua Gilliland: 47:37

Uh, just going back to the fight well choreographographed, it's bright light, so it's not like they're hiding in the dark for a fight scene. Whoever the stunt people are, look good. We haven't seen anything as brutal as the grappling hook get shot through somebody's shoulder before. So Daredevil might have a rule against killing, but apparently maiming's on the table, uh, which, again, he did that to keep muse from going after, uh, you know the doctor. So I don't I think it's justified. Uh, lethal force would have been justified. So so this while violent and it's like wow, he's going to have to clean that really well. So that way there isn't any evidence of the muse on it. I do also wonder about, with him taking his glove off at times, if he's left fingerprints of himself that could be used to identify him at the at the scene I mean, I think with that the, I would say, because I thought about that as well.

Gaby Martin: 48:54

But then you have the and maybe this is where, like the tension is, the highest person in office knows who he is. So there's a kind of and. And what I personally have loved about the last couple episodes um is the cutting between um daredevil and fisk um, as kind of two sides of a coin, um, and it's, you know, cutting as one makes an action and it's cut, you know, back and forth between them, um, and it just really shows how interconnected they are um and how parallel they are um. So that's what I've personally loved and I would say you know there's, it's that kind of tension between them.

Joshua Gilliland: 49:41

Why would you know this kind of risk that coming out um yeah, because he you know what does he have to lose if he discloses the identity of daredevil and it's like how did you know that would be the? Because it goes to his guilt from the prior crimes that he's somehow out from. Like he should still be rotting in a prison cell. So how he gets out is still a mystery to me. Uh, despite all the weird stuff from uh season three of him gathering information on people and using it to to exploit them and try to cheat the system, but he should still be rotting in a cell federally, not just state, state and federal convictions there to put him away.

Gaby Martin: 50:44

Yeah, I mean he should also be dead. He was shot in the eye Like he should be dead as well. But again, and maybe that's where Daredevil's like not being more carefree with breaking people's elbows elbows and like beating, you know, people, um, within an inch of their life because people clearly have several more inches of their life than normal uh, reality, uh, because everybody is incredibly durable, uh, in this universe, and what would kill a person, um, or severely incapacitate them in our reality does not seem to exist in the show, and the only thing that seems to actually kill you is like a bullet to the head, and sometimes even then, like it depends. So you know.

Joshua Gilliland: 51:38

Merely a flesh wound. He has a very thick skull.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino: 51:42

In soap operasas, superhero shows, comic books and star wars. Uh, they're not necessarily dead until they've, you know, burned the pier yeah, yeah, but it's from the hawkeye series.

Joshua Gilliland: 51:56

Like there's video evidence of him planning a crime with bishop, like that. Like you don't walk that off easily. Uh, like, so did that get suppressed somehow? Uh, because it is a party admission. Uh, even though it's without a warrant, it's still a party admission, unless there's fruit of the poisonous tree somehow, and I haven't watched that for a while. But uh, moreover, we we do see, uh, kate's near stepdad, uh, that he was in in this episode, one of the prior episodes.

Gaby Martin: 52:33

So, again, subtle callbacks that they're doing yeah, and I think it speaks to the kind of um, you know, power, uh, not dynamics, but how power exists in the universe, and that you know, just this kingpin was able to be elected to mayor, these other kind of shadowy figures and and characters are in the the fact that he's at this private fundraising gala of elite. What they very clearly demonstrate is, you know, kind of New York's movers and shakers, right Like the people who really decide power in New York, and he's a part of this. So you know, I think that goes to show like what this universe actually is, at least, at least in the, the new york city. Who knows elsewhere?

Joshua Gilliland: 53:29

yeah, it's. How did barton react to this? Did he just stay in upstate? And you know well that's unfortunate. How, how? How do you not take action with that? I'm not saying that a mayoral race is an avengers local threat. However, you think others would get involved. But then it's a matter of budget, because we're not going to see spider-man and hawkeye appear. Uh, that's just. You can't have them all get together in daredevil. Uh, as cool as it would be, it's just not going to happen. So we're almost at the end. So it's Sunday night when we're recording. Tuesday we get the last episode and then we'll be game on to record our conclusion to the series. And I'm glad to hear there's been casting for season two. Now, gabby, I haven't seen this. Who's been? Who's been announced?

Gaby Martin: 54:28

I believe, um I saw matthew lillard has been uh cast and I I particularly noted it because I I don't remember the couple other actors um that were were cast um, but I do recall that, seeing that the several that I I did see were all cast as political opponents to wilson fisk. So, um, that'll be interesting to see um how that plays out and where, where it ends up um, for clearly he's he's going to stay mayor in some capacity or stay in the political space, um, if he's getting political opponents uh next season.

Joshua Gilliland: 55:09

So yeah, there's still the city council, so, uh, who might not be? We're just gonna go fix up red hook, like might be not okay with some of them, so all right. Well, that said, thank you everyone for tuning in. Wherever you are, stay safe, stay healthy and stay geeky, take care.