Realistically, the only thing that's actually inadmissible is Scorpio's confession, due to the fact that it was coerced out of him. Harry should have been able to charge him with assault, attempted murder and kidnapping of a police officer. Everything else was perfectly admissible. His partner could also have laid charges as a witness; he was close by and saw the whole thing, and Scorpio shot at him, too. The very fact that Scorpio has a fresh knife wound exactly like the one Harry (legally) gave the guy in the balaclava and the same voice would be enough for a conviction. Then there's the matter of Scorpio's rifle, which is a sporterized Japanese Arisaka (rechambered in Springfield .30-'06), which, as a war prize, could easily have no paperwork at all. In Scorpio's case, while exigent circumstances would certainly apply (someone's life was in imminent danger), his residency is Kezar Stadium, and it is under the consent of the groundskeeper. The trouble with this is the groundskeeper, most likely, does not have the legal standing to grant such permission, which therefore makes Scorpio a squatter and thus his rights are not protected. However, courts have held that even homeless people squatting in public parks have the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures-the key is whether it can be considered their "house", even if they're squatting there, so that part is unclear. Scorpio is also in possession of an MP40 submachine gun, presumably not registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (since he's not shown with it again after his arrest, it can be assumed it was confiscated along with the rifle). Possession of an unregistered full-auto firearm is punishable by up to twenty years in federal prison, meaning they could have at least charged him for that, even if the murder, kidnapping, assault and attempted murder charges wouldn't stick.
Excellent analysis. Therefore, this scene is a weakness in the film. The script and story should be more forthright in conveying the Law instead of looking like weak-kneed leftists using the Constitution as a scapegoat for foregoing the capture of the criminal.
I love “Dirty Harry” and it became and remains my favourite film since I first saw it on a re-release in 1978, I was 15. It inspired me, for better or worse, to become a Police Officer. (In the U.K...so I never got a Model 29). It was then that I realised that every screw up Harry makes with regards to the law, search procedures evidence gathering and suspects rights are the things that every officer has ingrained into them in basic police training. So he shouldn’t really be so outraged, after all, he has made mistakes that not even a first day rookie should make! But it’s still a great movie so I can forgive it.
Aren’t there exceptions to the rule sometimes especially in a situation like that? There will be an exigent circumstances. Yes, I do believe police have to follow procedure but sometimes there are exceptions when someone’s life is in immediate danger!
If Harry Callahan were a real life person, I would love to see him as something like White House press secretary. If a reporter asked him a dumb question he would say "what do you think this is, some kind of encounter group?" LOL. As far as the people who disliked this video are concerned, they can have a seven point suppository.
Actually the reporters aren't asking dumb questions. It's just that a snowflake like Trump has this incredibly thin skin so he gives dumb answers like "nasty question", "fake news network" and "poor ratings".
This is an excellent scene portraying both sides of the political spectrum. While the law should always be upheld--according to the judge and Callahan's superior--it often seems to favor the victimizer, not the victim. As Harry says, "Who speaks for her?" Justice often comes way too late.
"The law should always be upheld". Really?? It should ALWAYS be upheld? A very immature and sweeping statement IMHO, that fails to take into account the complex nuances and circumstances of EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. So no, the law should not ALWAYS be upheld. It should only be upheld when upholding it means that justice, common sense, morality will be served.
@@akshaynatu6568 A very self-righteous and sweeping statement. Read what I wrote, 'counsellor'...if you can. In my OP, I wrote "according to the judge and the Callahan's superior"--meaning in the context of this scene in the movie. Laws are made for a reason. Laws--while seemingly unfair at times, depending on the case (this movie, for example)--are for the common good. (Allegedly). Are they applied equally? No. Are they applied objectively? Unfortunately not. Is there racism involved? At times, yes, there is. No argument. But, let's use your words: "It should only be upheld when upholding it means that justice, common sense, morality will be served." 'kay. Who's justice, common sense, and morality? Yours and yours alone? The will of the people? Which people? How many? It cuts both ways. And by your lofty standards, on EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, it would take much longer to establish a verdict, and the courts in N. America are already way behind on their cases. I can't and won't speak for other countries. Think on that one...counsellor.
@@jessfrankel5212 You said and I quote: "It should only be upheld when upholding it means that justice, common sense, morality will be served." 'kay. Who's justice, common sense, and morality?" I have a very simple answer to this question, Jess. And the answer is, the MAJORITY'S. Whatever the MAJORITY of people think justice, or common sense, or morality is, that's what they are. They are what the majority of the country's populace think they are. There should be mandatory nationwide polls regarding this.
@@jessfrankel5212 You said and I quote: "And by your lofty standards, on EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, it would take much longer to establish a verdict, and the courts in N. America are already way behind on their cases." Well that's just too damn bad. Judges and lawyers need to work their asses harder then. One law cannot fit all cases. Each case needs to be examined and analyzed on its unique individual nuances, and the law needs to be flexibly applied to each one.
Funny, but in real life, not only would that rifle had been admissible (exigent circumstances, no actual Fourth Amendment protections due to Scorpio being a squatter) but they would've been able to get Scorpio on numerous other crimes (illegal ownership of an automatic firearm, assaulting a police officer, assault with intent to kill) even if it had been inadmissible.
@@kapitan19969838 The gun and etc would have been admissible at the time of the movie too. Bear in mind that THIS IS A MOVIE NOT REAL LIFE, and it was necessary for the system to be unrealistically stupid to justify Dirty Harry going all rogue. But it definitely reflected conservative beliefs that the courts are too lenient and there are too many technicalities that let guilty people go free. Well, there are no doubt guilty people who go free, but that's the price we pay for a system where innocent people can't be so easily railroaded. Anyone who thinks there are no police or prosecutors who wouldn't happily convict people on a basis of "I just KNOW they're guilty because [subjective reasons]", I say, police and prosecutors are like the public at large: some merit respect, and some are complete a-holes.
@@harrycallahan692 I take it you all heard a bout Berkley's changes. No more She or Him.. no Manhole covers... LOL America is becoming a shit hole ruined by the SJW and LGBTQ communities.
Wow. So this is where the delusional Dunning-Kruger crypto-fascists hang out on CZcams -- the comments section of clips from old Clint Eastwood movies. Any more idiot conspiratard lies you folks want to jerk off to? Flat Earth, maybe? Chemtrails? Pizza restaurant pedo rings?
Always a pleasure rewatching clips of this classic film. Except this year it's really special : Dirty Harry celebrates its 50th anniversary. And Clint is still with us.
Today, at this very moment, were Harry Callahan a real police officer he would have been fired and brought up on charges for the use of excessive force.
Going Coastal This film laments the beginning of a downward spiral for the Republic that lead us to within a hairbreadth of electing a known pedophile, who sold out the Dept. of State for money, and who's probably left a long trail of bodies from Arkansas to Benghazi to Washington, to the highest office in the land. Let us pray that President Trump and a Conservative Congress will be able to reverse these trends.
+Going Coastal That makes sense, but how in the world was Scorpio protected by the fourth amendment? He is living at the stadium which the grounds-keeper lets him, but technically the grounds-keeper can't grant that kind of permission to a ordinary citizen. Which would make Scorpio a squatter, which would not give him the right to the fourth amendment.
"However, the defense would argue that Harry didn't have reasonable proof that the endangered life was connected to Scorpio's home" What? That's ridiculous, he needed to find Scorpio to find the girl didn't he? Where else was he going to look? "Also, the defense could argue that Harry had no reason to believe that someone's life was in IMMEDIATE danger inside the residence" Not inside the residence, but that residence was the only possible place where he would be able to find the only possible person who knew where the girl was, and Harry believed that she only had one hour left to live.
I disagree. The girls life was endangered and he wasn't searching Scorpio's residence for evidence, he was searching for Scorpio who was armed and dangerous at the time. This falls under exigent circumstances. But the DA is wrong that they couldn't charge him. Remember that little game at the Cross on Mt. Davison where he assaulted Harry and seriously wounded Chico? None of the evidence they wanted to exclude applied in that instance. They should have charged him with the incident that happened at the Cross.
Couldn't Harry at least file assault and attempted murder charges against Scorpio? After all, Scorpio did beat the shit out of Callahan and tried to kill him at the Mt. Davidson Cross. Chico was there and he got shot.
I see a slight parallel in the TV drama “Suits” where real lawyers say there are many plot holes and felonies committed in every episode. But I liked watching it.
This is how the criminals got to the top of the food chain. A killer has more rights than his victim. Walks away scot-free to continue his reign of terror while his victim lies cold in the grave.
Realistically speaking, that .44 Magnum shot should have blown half of Scorpio's leg off. How's he gonna really hurt anyone slowly hobbling around as a cripple?
It's not right wing BS. It's the sad irony of life. Twisted, sick individuals are more protected by the law than the helpless victims. The Bill of Rights is important to protect the rights of individuals from a tyrannical government. However, when time is of the essence and a person's life is in danger, then everything ought to be done in order to save the life of the victim.
You say everything should be done? Why doesn't "apply for a search warrant" fall in that category? Smh... He didn't do everything that could be done. He did what he wanted to do. And he along with the victim, got fucked over. He fucked up. He ruined the case. His gung ho, attitude destroyed the case against Scorpio...
sounds like rioters getting off for smashing a store owner and burning his store to the ground these days...then the store owner pulls a gun on them. how dare he do that without a court order?
@Old man Goat you have a point there. As much as I support the goals of BLM they talk about during interviews, by making someone like Floyd their martyr they stained themselves forever and lost all credibility. Whatever they say, they act like Floyd and that is not tolerable. I wonder what happened since MLK, who could put half a million on the streets easily without a single store looted.
Exigent circumstances(ie, girl's life on the line) would probably allow it. But sadly, once he started beating the shit out of Scorpio, he's screwed, as shitty as it is.
@@JnEricsonx Also Scorpio shot Harry’s partner and tried to kill Harry so another exigency circumstance where Harry can go after Scorpio by any means necessary.
Don't say that. When Clint dies I am seriously going to cry. I've been a lifelong fan of this guy. His films mean very much to me. He's a legend. I've seen Good Bad and the Ugly a 100 times.
Daddy Erich Clint was only 40 years old during filming of Dirty Harry and is now 89 and will be 90 on May 31st. Clint Eastwood could live several more years yet.
First up front I am not on either side politically. Which party rules should be irrelevant as to the laws created and how they are interpreted and enforced. I don't remember the exact quote but, "When kings become philosophers and philosophers become kings", then politics, law, and enforcement will make a lot more sense than it does today. However even a movie like this has elements of reality.
While the rifle may have come under the exclusionary rule, there are many other felonies that Scorpio could have been charged with. Several counts of attempted murder on law enforcement officers, as well as extortion and grand theft of the money. Now days, the feds would also been involved, not just with the unregistered suppressor on the rifle, but with the commence clause kicking in. The mere fact that he communicated his demands using a telephone would bring the feds down on him. In all probability, he would never see the light of a free day.
Objectively I will agree that Scorpio's 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment protected rights were violated when Harry shot him in the leg when he had his hands up in surrender and proceeded to torture him by stepping on his wound until he confessed to the location of the girl. But 4th amendment was not violated. The doctor who treated Scorpio's knife wound told Harry that he lived at the stadium. That along with Harry's encounter with Scorpio at the park gave sufficient probable cause to enter the stadium without a warrant (which by the way is a public building, not Scorpio's private residence) especially since a girl's life was at risk. Any search of the stadium should be admissible in court due to probable cause of a crime being committed. Ballistics from the rifle found at the stadium would have found Scorpio guilty of most of the murders. Unfortunately, since the confession from Scorpio to the location of the girl would be inadmissible since it was obtained through torture which is what violates the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment. But Scorpio would still be prosecuted and most likely found guilty of the other murders, as well as his assault on Harry and Chico. Now most likely Harry would face criminal prosecution for torturing a suspect. And there is a strong possibility that he would be found not guilty in a trial by jury given the details of the case.
This is what I wish WOULD have happened, all things considered: Harry doesn't outright shoot Scorpio in the leg, he runs toward him with the Magnum drawn. When Harry is close, Scorpio pulls out a knife and lunges at him, and Harry shoots him dead in the head in self-defense. The bitter part of this is that Scorpio dies before revealing the location of the girl, which means yes, the poor girl is dead. But the much sweeter part is that the psycho monster is DEAD, no trial, and he can never hurt anybody else.
I get they couldn't get Scorpio on the girl and other shootings. Can they get him on Attempted Murder of two Police Officers and federal charges of illegal possession of automatic weapons?
Well, it would have been easy, had it been written into the script. Scorpio was wearing gloves every time he used the rifle and MP40. He was likely clever enough to not leave any finger prints on them (although, he may have left prints on internal components during the cleaning process). Actually, what this scene tells me is something I have known all my adult life. LEO are not there to protect our lives. They are there to clean up the aftermath of crime....oh, and to collect taxes.
Well, Harry was abnormal in that way. Magnum Force showed that, since he didn't side with the vigilante motor cycle cops. Like someone else stated, we could use more cops like Harry.
If the police witness a crime taking place or have the knowledge of a crime taken place with proof like girls undergarments and teeth. They do not need a search warrant to enter the criminals dwelling. It’s like robbing a bank and hiding at your house. Police chased you and don’t need a warrant. Same applies if a policeman sees a crime happening by looking through a window of house, he can automatically enter. Same with underage drinking at parties or hearing a woman screaming inside a house. No warrant needed. It’s called the plain view doctrine. Harry had a bloody shootout with Scorpio and the he fled. They don’t need a freaking warrant. They are in hot pursuit of this nut job.
Police are allowed to enter without a warrant for exigent circumstances, such as someone being held hostage and the threat of their death. I did not see this episode, but I am thinking they did this for drama purposes. If anyone knows the name of the episode, please et me know.
Having read quite a few heated comments from both sides, I would ask why use a fictional movie to back up real world views? This is not a police procedural. As with any film it might start off by basing it self on real world things (law, politics, etc), but it will discard them in an instant if it makes the story better. Calling for more cops like Dirty Harry is just as stupid as denouncing him for what he does in the movie. If you want to make a valid point, please don't base it on fiction.
A true hero and how policemen should be - although only fictional... Real ones seem to do things like we see in Rotherham. Hard to work out who's worse them or the creature played by Andy Robinson in this classic and one of my all time favourites.
Yea, cause the liberal movement in America is soooo awesome. All they do is whine, cry, bitch and loose everything because people are sick of their stupid moronic shit....
And Harry isn't a fascist, he a lawman who see the world in black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, criminal and victim. a person commits a crime like murder or rape, they should automatically give up their rights. The rights of the victim or the surviving family trumps the so called rights of the criminal
in Germany a rapist gets like 4 years in jail at best... ofc hes mostly Arab or a Balck guy but thats ok Germany voted for a women to lead their country...
I hate the people in this saga who make the law. ALWAYS giving more right to the bad guy than the good guy. I don't want ANYONE arguing with me,saying it's just a movie!
Mistake here. Because of his living situation he would have no reasonable expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment, he was either squatting or staying there on the graces of the stadium grounds keeper, he does not own or lease that room. He would have a case of brutality against Harry, but the rifle would be considered admissible evidence.
As our professor used to tell us, when you torture a suspect, don't demand to admit he's guilty, he'll deny it in court anyway and you'll look like idiots. Can't deny dead body or murder weapon or stolen stuff, so torture them for real facts, not statements. Must be different in USA i guess.
This has got nothing to do with liberals or anything else. Think about this: The law gives the impression that it is protecting this psychopath. However, this law is not there for this purpose; it is there to protect "the innocent". Imagine someone is accused without any evidence, would you call it a "justice"? Imagine that anybody can plant anything to anyone's belongings and call it "evidence", would it count as "fair"? This law is there to play the game according to the rules. It happens in this case that 1 psychopath is hiding himself behind this law, think it as a lamppost in the street and psychopath is dogging the bullets thanks to this lamppost. But it is just a coincidence: This lamppost is erected there to give benefit to thousands and it will as long as you don't give up the lamppost.
trashy git, "Imagine someone is accused without any evidence" How Ironic that is exact what we just witnessed with a supreme court nomination AND one whole side of the political spectrum was ready and willing to hang the dude. He is now and forever viewed as a violent rapist by millions and millions of people.....all based on "I don't remember" but I know it happened.
Yeah, yeah, we get it, Reverend trashy git. You say it's got "nothing to do with liberals or anything else." I call (as do others) bullshit. As "therealthreadkilla" just correctly stated, we just watched a leftist dog/pony circus in action...all based on "I don't remember" this, "I don't remember" that. "I'm afraid of flying" even though she flies on planes ALL THE TIME! And that flying is better when you're on "vacation." And that she flew to the f---ing hearings! Enough of the sanctimonious sermonizing. None of us want to read it.
Laws nowadays are made specifically to protect criminals, my country (Spain) is a perfect example of this, if someone breaks into your house and you defend yourselve you're the one going to jail, not to mention the thousand anti male laws, a women can just say she was raped and you are almost certainly going to jail, this are all leftist laws BTW.
@Da Name "A search warrant would not prevent the planting of evidence" you say. But guess what; "planting of evidence" is also against the law, it's not 'legal', is it? Just because someone uses his or her 'police officer' status to plant an evidence does not make this action suddenly lawful; it only makes this evidence planter a criminal. So what you said does not make any sense whatsoever.
@@therealthreadkilla You can claim that the political power struggles, cultural atmosphere, traditions, beliefs and all sorts of things affect the creation as well as implementation of law, I can understand that. What I cannot accept is that you are trying to explain the working mechanics of law 'with' politics. It's something like trying to explain the car mechanics with a drunk driver. Two things (politics and law, or the state of driver and the movement of a vehicle) can be related, but that doesn't mean they work on the same principles.
At 3:00 when Harry says Scorpio will kill again "because he likes it" his expression reveals that he likes killing just as much as Scorpio. Scorpio and Harry are two sides of the same coin.
My favorite line of all time: "Well I'm all broken up about that man's rights." Loving Dirty Harry!!!!
well said, as felons have-no-rights
i realize it's kind of off topic but does anyone know of a good site to watch newly released tv shows online ?
@Hassan August i use Flixzone. You can find it by googling :)
@Mason Rhys Definitely, have been using Flixzone for years myself :)
@Mason Rhys thank you, signed up and it seems like they got a lot of movies there :) I really appreciate it!
When "Harry" passes away I will cry for months.
Thanks for this, great scene.
Every town needs a Harry Callaghan.
"Evidence, what the hell do you call that?" Love the delivery of that line.
Berkley...of course
0:09 I'm all broken up about that man's rights
Ross Stevenson quoted that on Lawyers, Guns and Money on 3RRR in 1986.
Hard to believe that in Callahan's entire career, this is the first time this has happened.
Robyn Highart First movie!
I love how at the end of the clip...Harry leaves the office, and they cut to a peace sign.
There's no fucking way any of this shit comes as a surprise to Harry.
Realistically, the only thing that's actually inadmissible is Scorpio's confession, due to the fact that it was coerced out of him. Harry should have been able to charge him with assault, attempted murder and kidnapping of a police officer. Everything else was perfectly admissible. His partner could also have laid charges as a witness; he was close by and saw the whole thing, and Scorpio shot at him, too. The very fact that Scorpio has a fresh knife wound exactly like the one Harry (legally) gave the guy in the balaclava and the same voice would be enough for a conviction.
Then there's the matter of Scorpio's rifle, which is a sporterized Japanese Arisaka (rechambered in Springfield .30-'06), which, as a war prize, could easily have no paperwork at all. In Scorpio's case, while exigent circumstances would certainly apply (someone's life was in imminent danger), his residency is Kezar Stadium, and it is under the consent of the groundskeeper. The trouble with this is the groundskeeper, most likely, does not have the legal standing to grant such permission, which therefore makes Scorpio a squatter and thus his rights are not protected. However, courts have held that even homeless people squatting in public parks have the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures-the key is whether it can be considered their "house", even if they're squatting there, so that part is unclear.
Scorpio is also in possession of an MP40 submachine gun, presumably not registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (since he's not shown with it again after his arrest, it can be assumed it was confiscated along with the rifle). Possession of an unregistered full-auto firearm is punishable by up to twenty years in federal prison, meaning they could have at least charged him for that, even if the murder, kidnapping, assault and attempted murder charges wouldn't stick.
Excellent analysis
Karen Page nice work 👍🏻
Give Foggy my best
@@BlueRonin44 Awesome comment sir.
Excellent analysis. Therefore, this scene is a weakness in the film. The script and story should be more forthright in conveying the Law instead of looking like weak-kneed leftists using the Constitution as a scapegoat for foregoing the capture of the criminal.
I love “Dirty Harry” and it became and remains my favourite film since I first saw it on a re-release in 1978, I was 15. It inspired me, for better or worse, to become a Police Officer. (In the U.K...so I never got a Model 29).
It was then that I realised that every screw up Harry makes with regards to the law, search procedures evidence gathering and suspects rights are the things that every officer has ingrained into them in basic police training.
So he shouldn’t really be so outraged, after all, he has made mistakes that not even a first day rookie should make!
But it’s still a great movie so I can forgive it.
Aren’t there exceptions to the rule sometimes especially in a situation like that? There will be an exigent circumstances. Yes, I do believe police have to follow procedure but sometimes there are exceptions when someone’s life is in immediate danger!
If Harry Callahan were a real life person, I would love to see him as something like White House press secretary. If a reporter asked him a dumb question he would say "what do you think this is, some kind of encounter group?" LOL. As far as the people who disliked this video are concerned, they can have a seven point suppository.
I second that!!!
Actually the reporters aren't asking dumb questions. It's just that a snowflake like Trump has this incredibly thin skin so he gives dumb answers like "nasty question", "fake news network" and "poor ratings".
7..... 🤣🤣 point.....suppo🤣🤣
...........🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🖕🖕🖕🖕
Triggered a tard.
This is an excellent scene portraying both sides of the political spectrum. While the law should always be upheld--according to the judge and Callahan's superior--it often seems to favor the victimizer, not the victim. As Harry says, "Who speaks for her?"
Justice often comes way too late.
"The law should always be upheld". Really?? It should ALWAYS be upheld? A very immature and sweeping statement IMHO, that fails to take into account the complex nuances and circumstances of EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. So no, the law should not ALWAYS be upheld. It should only be upheld when upholding it means that justice, common sense, morality will be served.
@@akshaynatu6568 A very self-righteous and sweeping statement. Read what I wrote, 'counsellor'...if you can. In my OP, I wrote "according to the judge and the Callahan's superior"--meaning in the context of this scene in the movie.
Laws are made for a reason. Laws--while seemingly unfair at times, depending on the case (this movie, for example)--are for the common good. (Allegedly). Are they applied equally? No. Are they applied objectively? Unfortunately not. Is there racism involved? At times, yes, there is. No argument.
But, let's use your words: "It should only be upheld when upholding it means that justice, common sense, morality will be served." 'kay. Who's justice, common sense, and morality? Yours and yours alone? The will of the people? Which people? How many? It cuts both ways.
And by your lofty standards, on EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, it would take much longer to establish a verdict, and the courts in N. America are already way behind on their cases. I can't and won't speak for other countries. Think on that one...counsellor.
@@jessfrankel5212 You said and I quote: "It should only be upheld when upholding it means that justice, common sense, morality will be served." 'kay. Who's justice, common sense, and morality?"
I have a very simple answer to this question, Jess. And the answer is, the MAJORITY'S. Whatever the MAJORITY of people think justice, or common sense, or morality is, that's what they are. They are what the majority of the country's populace think they are. There should be mandatory nationwide polls regarding this.
@@jessfrankel5212 You said and I quote: "And by your lofty standards, on EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, it would take much longer to establish a verdict, and the courts in N. America are already way behind on their cases."
Well that's just too damn bad. Judges and lawyers need to work their asses harder then. One law cannot fit all cases. Each case needs to be examined and analyzed on its unique individual nuances, and the law needs to be flexibly applied to each one.
@@akshaynatu6568 Do you even law? Seriously, get a life.
Clint Eastwood should have got an Oscar for this scene alone. Maybe Josef Sommer should have got an Oscar too. Certainly gets a reaction from me
Andrew Robinson, the guy that plays Scorpio, eventually played Elim Garak on DS9.
And he'd probably have tracked down Scorpio in 3 days.
He was amazing as Garak. One of my favorite characters in all of Star Trek.
Funny, but in real life, not only would that rifle had been admissible (exigent circumstances, no actual Fourth Amendment protections due to Scorpio being a squatter) but they would've been able to get Scorpio on numerous other crimes (illegal ownership of an automatic firearm, assaulting a police officer, assault with intent to kill) even if it had been inadmissible.
Thank you, makes me feel better about our system.
Today, but what about before?
@@kapitan19969838 The gun and etc would have been admissible at the time of the movie too. Bear in mind that THIS IS A MOVIE NOT REAL LIFE, and it was necessary for the system to be unrealistically stupid to justify Dirty Harry going all rogue. But it definitely reflected conservative beliefs that the courts are too lenient and there are too many technicalities that let guilty people go free. Well, there are no doubt guilty people who go free, but that's the price we pay for a system where innocent people can't be so easily railroaded. Anyone who thinks there are no police or prosecutors who wouldn't happily convict people on a basis of "I just KNOW they're guilty because [subjective reasons]", I say, police and prosecutors are like the public at large: some merit respect, and some are complete a-holes.
Now 2018 - and they are SHITTING on the sidewalks.
San Francisco today is a shit hole. Liberal political policies doing wonders.
@@harrycallahan692 I take it you all heard a bout Berkley's changes. No more She or Him.. no Manhole covers... LOL America is becoming a shit hole ruined by the SJW and LGBTQ communities.
Wow. So this is where the delusional Dunning-Kruger crypto-fascists hang out on CZcams -- the comments section of clips from old Clint Eastwood movies. Any more idiot conspiratard lies you folks want to jerk off to? Flat Earth, maybe? Chemtrails? Pizza restaurant pedo rings?
@@JuergenGDB
Too much democracy means anarchy
ALL BOILS DOWN TO THE ASSHOLES WHO RUN THAT STATE
ITS NO WONDER THE STENCH IS SO BAD
The Canadian "Justice" system in a nutshell.
IS THAT WHY AMERICANS MOVE UP THERE?
Unless you're a First Canadian, then you're fucked.
Canadian Justice is weak and I'm sure that there would be more criminals in the near future.
It's so nice to blame someone, rather than admit that you screwed up ...
@@madriller You should blame yourself of being one of them.
Always a pleasure rewatching clips of this classic film. Except this year it's really special : Dirty Harry celebrates its 50th anniversary. And Clint is still with us.
Did he fire 6 shots or only 5?
@@basedelon : "Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I kind of lost track myself".
50th Anniversary of Dirty Harry
@@tyrondavis6727 Personnel? That's for assholes.
"How do you know?"
"He's going to stub his toe and I'll be there."
2:40 was hilarious!
" cuz he likes it."
DA says its the law, and Harry says " Then the law is crazy!"
"The judge teaches law at Berkeley". Now that is satire! Law at UC? What a joke!
Constitutional law at berkely
Mouth open policy there.
I wonder if the script writer added this as tongue-in-cheek, because a judge teaching law at UC is as oxymoron as one can get.
@@Locktwiste72 that judge would be one of those liberal activist judges that Michael Savage talks about
Spot On, my friend!!!
Today, at this very moment, were Harry Callahan a real police officer he would have been fired and brought up on charges for the use of excessive force.
what a crazy justice system...iam just shaking my head listening to this
Really? You'd prefer a police state that could bang down your door and search your house on whatever "hunch?"
@@elpulpo800 na id rather have my daughter r@ped by a psycho then to tell me he has rights....you and the law are crazy
@@elpulpo800 yeah ur right your way is better....the law and you are crazy
Ironically, the D.A. in this scene is the same actor (Josef Sommer) who plays the head dirty cop in "Witness" 1985 with Harrison Ford
Good catch, that was a great role
What's ironic about it? He's an actor.
"Well im all broken up about THAT mans rights "... "Well then the law is crazy!"
CLINT EASTWOOD THERE WAS NO ONE LIKE HIM AND THERE NEVER WILL BE
Search Warrant? Wasn't Harry's search legal? Since he had probable cause that someone's life was in danger?
Going Coastal This film laments the beginning of a downward spiral for the Republic that lead us to within a hairbreadth of electing a known pedophile, who sold out the Dept. of State for money, and who's probably left a long trail of bodies from Arkansas to Benghazi to Washington, to the highest office in the land. Let us pray that President Trump and a Conservative Congress will be able to reverse these trends.
+Going Coastal That makes sense, but how in the world was Scorpio protected by the fourth amendment? He is living at the stadium which the grounds-keeper lets him, but technically the grounds-keeper can't grant that kind of permission to a ordinary citizen. Which would make Scorpio a squatter, which would not give him the right to the fourth amendment.
"However, the defense would argue that Harry didn't have reasonable proof that the endangered life was connected to Scorpio's home"
What? That's ridiculous, he needed to find Scorpio to find the girl didn't he? Where else was he going to look?
"Also, the defense could argue that Harry had no reason to believe that someone's life was in IMMEDIATE danger inside the residence"
Not inside the residence, but that residence was the only possible place where he would be able to find the only possible person who knew where the girl was, and Harry believed that she only had one hour left to live.
It's simple, to favor oneself the laws were created by criminal minds.
I disagree. The girls life was endangered and he wasn't searching Scorpio's residence for evidence, he was searching for Scorpio who was armed and dangerous at the time. This falls under exigent circumstances. But the DA is wrong that they couldn't charge him. Remember that little game at the Cross on Mt. Davison where he assaulted Harry and seriously wounded Chico? None of the evidence they wanted to exclude applied in that instance. They should have charged him with the incident that happened at the Cross.
"A policeman’s job is only easy in a police state." -A Touch of Evil, 1958
Couldn't Harry at least file assault and attempted murder charges against Scorpio? After all, Scorpio did beat the shit out of Callahan and tried to kill him at the Mt. Davidson Cross. Chico was there and he got shot.
The mayor would rather invite killers like Scorpio to dinner and a b.j.
And to think Chico would’ve been killed had Harry not been carrying a knife.
This is just a film peeps.
It’s the Law!
The Law is Crazy 😝!!!’
"who speaks for the girl"
"the district attounreys office if you let us"
2:36 When he talks about being worried for his family’s wellbeing, you can almost forgive him for being so abrupt to begin with.
I see a slight parallel in the TV drama “Suits” where real lawyers say there are many plot holes and felonies committed in every episode. But I liked watching it.
This is the deepest flaw in the legal system
This is how the criminals got to the top of the food chain. A killer has more rights than his victim. Walks away scot-free to continue his reign of terror while his victim lies cold in the grave.
Realistically speaking, that .44 Magnum shot should have blown half of Scorpio's leg off. How's he gonna really hurt anyone slowly hobbling around as a cripple?
It's not right wing BS. It's the sad irony of life. Twisted, sick individuals are more protected by the law than the helpless victims. The Bill of Rights is important to protect the rights of individuals from a tyrannical government. However, when time is of the essence and a person's life is in danger, then everything ought to be done in order to save the life of the victim.
You say everything should be done? Why doesn't "apply for a search warrant" fall in that category? Smh... He didn't do everything that could be done. He did what he wanted to do. And he along with the victim, got fucked over. He fucked up. He ruined the case. His gung ho, attitude destroyed the case against Scorpio...
@@YOCEEOOH Hey Evelyn, the ONLY fuck up Harry did here was NOT shooting Scorpio in the head after getting the location of the girl.
I love Harry's attitude to crime, but to make inspector, didn't he have to know the law about torturing suspects?
He was out sick the day they taught that at the academy.
Nowadays leftists would call Scorpio a hero.
Damn Bill of Rights. Who needs those? LOL
Harry should have sent him on his way to meet💀his new boss.
Marcellus !
Sometimes the only way to get justice is to act outside of the law.
czcams.com/video/IAY4XI7KZd4/video.html
sounds like rioters getting off for smashing a store owner and burning his store to the ground these days...then the store owner pulls a gun on them. how dare he do that without a court order?
Where are the police? Evidently not protecting local businesses.
@Old man Goat you have a point there. As much as I support the goals of BLM they talk about during interviews, by making someone like Floyd their martyr they stained themselves forever and lost all credibility. Whatever they say, they act like Floyd and that is not tolerable.
I wonder what happened since MLK, who could put half a million on the streets easily without a single store looted.
You'd get life in prison for defending your business like that in the UK. Probably summarily executed if the criminals were a minority.
High-ranking cop doesn't understand search warrants? LOL
Exigent circumstances(ie, girl's life on the line) would probably allow it. But sadly, once he started beating the shit out of Scorpio, he's screwed, as shitty as it is.
@@JnEricsonx Also Scorpio shot Harry’s partner and tried to kill Harry so another exigency circumstance where Harry can go after Scorpio by any means necessary.
Yes.
Good ol' Garek.
Can you imagine of Garak had to hunt down Scorpio? I'm guessing 3 days to get him-5 tops.
Every town in America should have a cop like Callahan
"constitutional law from Berkeley", which means NOTHING nowadays
Depends on which liberal, federal judge is using it to enact social legislation
Bad ass movie!!!!
Welcome to the wonderful world of Kalifornia liberalism!
People like you always so quick putting politics ahead of the law .
never mind the constitution is the founding document of the united states
Conservatives are fine with other peoples rights being violated, as long as it's not their own
@@ray.shoesmith Like Nancy Pelosi being against the wall along the southern border while having a wall around one of her houses.
納得いかずに怒るハリー😠💪
I love the fact that Andy Robinson (Scorpio Killer) also played Garak in DS9, another magnificent psychopath
Garak wasn't a psychopath. He was a patriotic war assassin, spy & torturer, but he had a redeeming heart.
@@Diakron79 Yeah, he'd have happily tracked down Scorpio. I bet 3 days he'd have gotten him.
@@JnEricsonx Well, with 24th Century technology, Scorpio would've been captured in less than a nano. Probably vaporized by a phaser disruptor.
@@Diakron79 How about of the era? Just using his mind?
For those who are unaware, reason that evidence was excluded due to violation of 4th amendment under Exclusionary Rule
0:07 is just one of the best lies ever
The lawyers commenting here maybe right but the movie would have ended too soon without the best parts
Man he looks so young, it makes me sad because he is at the end of his days
Don't say that. When Clint dies I am seriously going to cry. I've been a lifelong fan of this guy. His films mean very much to me. He's a legend. I've seen Good Bad and the Ugly a 100 times.
Daddy Erich Clint was only 40 years old during filming of Dirty Harry and is now 89 and will be 90 on May 31st. Clint Eastwood could live several more years yet.
Quack quack Mr Ducksworth.
@MegaSpliffster favorite line ever.
Here! Here! Brother!
" Well I'm all broken up about that man's rights." It's a movie.
First up front I am not on either side politically. Which party rules should be irrelevant as to the laws created and how they are interpreted and enforced. I don't remember the exact quote but, "When kings become philosophers and philosophers become kings", then politics, law, and enforcement will make a lot more sense than it does today. However even a movie like this has elements of reality.
Well I'm all broken up about that mans rights.
While the rifle may have come under the exclusionary rule, there are many other felonies that Scorpio could have been charged with. Several counts of attempted murder on law enforcement officers, as well as extortion and grand theft of the money. Now days, the feds would also been involved, not just with the unregistered suppressor on the rifle, but with the commence clause kicking in. The mere fact that he communicated his demands using a telephone would bring the feds down on him. In all probability, he would never see the light of a free day.
And this is why it only happens in movies! Thanks Hollywood for duping the public.
@StarWarsGeek05 Exactly!!!! What you just said is kinda like the line From "COBRA" a dirty harry type movie but with stallone.
Objectively I will agree that Scorpio's 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment protected rights were violated when Harry shot him in the leg when he had his hands up in surrender and proceeded to torture him by stepping on his wound until he confessed to the location of the girl. But 4th amendment was not violated. The doctor who treated Scorpio's knife wound told Harry that he lived at the stadium. That along with Harry's encounter with Scorpio at the park gave sufficient probable cause to enter the stadium without a warrant (which by the way is a public building, not Scorpio's private residence) especially since a girl's life was at risk. Any search of the stadium should be admissible in court due to probable cause of a crime being committed. Ballistics from the rifle found at the stadium would have found Scorpio guilty of most of the murders. Unfortunately, since the confession from Scorpio to the location of the girl would be inadmissible since it was obtained through torture which is what violates the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment. But Scorpio would still be prosecuted and most likely found guilty of the other murders, as well as his assault on Harry and Chico. Now most likely Harry would face criminal prosecution for torturing a suspect. And there is a strong possibility that he would be found not guilty in a trial by jury given the details of the case.
This is what I wish WOULD have happened, all things considered: Harry doesn't outright shoot Scorpio in the leg, he runs toward him with the Magnum drawn. When Harry is close, Scorpio pulls out a knife and lunges at him, and Harry shoots him dead in the head in self-defense. The bitter part of this is that Scorpio dies before revealing the location of the girl, which means yes, the poor girl is dead. But the much sweeter part is that the psycho monster is DEAD, no trial, and he can never hurt anybody else.
Mr. Deacon disliked this video!!!
It's only a movie. Don't take it so seriously.
18:44:44Clint Eastwood com a Magnum 44 a arma de mão mais poderosa do mundo.Vamos complete meu dia!Sucesso também no Brasil!
Like Harry says, "The Law is CRAZY"!
This is unbelievable, you can't get the guy on ONE thing because Harry didn't have a precious search WARRANT?!
It's a MOVIE!!!
I get they couldn't get Scorpio on the girl and other shootings. Can they get him on Attempted Murder of two Police Officers and federal charges of illegal possession of automatic weapons?
Well, it would have been easy, had it been written into the script. Scorpio was wearing gloves every time he used the rifle and MP40. He was likely clever enough to not leave any finger prints on them (although, he may have left prints on internal components during the cleaning process). Actually, what this scene tells me is something I have known all my adult life. LEO are not there to protect our lives. They are there to clean up the aftermath of crime....oh, and to collect taxes.
kyokogodai They also protect their own people almost to the exclusion of all else. You'd think that reason alone is enough to charge him with that.
Well, Harry was abnormal in that way. Magnum Force showed that, since he didn't side with the vigilante motor cycle cops. Like someone else stated, we could use more cops like Harry.
Exigent circumstances...
If the police witness a crime taking place or have the knowledge of a crime taken place with proof like girls undergarments and teeth. They do not need a search warrant to enter the criminals dwelling. It’s like robbing a bank and hiding at your house. Police chased you and don’t need a warrant. Same applies if a policeman sees a crime happening by looking through a window of house, he can automatically enter. Same with underage drinking at parties or hearing a woman screaming inside a house. No warrant needed. It’s called the plain view doctrine. Harry had a bloody shootout with Scorpio and the he fled. They don’t need a freaking warrant. They are in hot pursuit of this nut job.
Police are allowed to enter without a warrant for exigent circumstances, such as someone being held hostage and the threat of their death. I did not see this episode, but I am thinking they did this for drama purposes. If anyone knows the name of the episode, please et me know.
What do call that
The more things change...
S F District Attorney’s Office then and now. There has always been a clown as the top cop of the County
Didn't they get him on tape when his partner was listening in at the money exchange
Great cop but doesn't understand miranda rights and warrants. I see a flaw in his plan.
Having read quite a few heated comments from both sides, I would ask why use a fictional movie to back up real world views? This is not a police procedural. As with any film it might start off by basing it self on real world things (law, politics, etc), but it will discard them in an instant if it makes the story better. Calling for more cops like Dirty Harry is just as stupid as denouncing him for what he does in the movie. If you want to make a valid point, please don't base it on fiction.
A true hero and how policemen should be - although only fictional... Real ones seem to do things like we see in Rotherham. Hard to work out who's worse them or the creature played by Andy Robinson in this classic and one of my all time favourites.
At "Berkely"?!!! That figures.
Berkeley, the nest of the liberal movement.
Yea, cause the liberal movement in America is soooo awesome. All they do is whine, cry, bitch and loose everything because people are sick of their stupid moronic shit....
And Harry isn't a fascist, he a lawman who see the world in black and white, good and evil, right and wrong, criminal and victim. a person commits a crime like murder or rape, they should automatically give up their rights. The rights of the victim or the surviving family trumps the so called rights of the criminal
in Germany a rapist gets like 4 years in jail at best... ofc hes mostly Arab or a Balck guy but thats ok Germany voted for a women to lead their country...
bobbycratchit? What is the difference?
The movie takes place in San Francisco by the way..
I hate the people in this saga who make the law. ALWAYS giving more right to the bad guy than the good guy. I don't want ANYONE arguing with me,saying it's just a movie!
So now that judge is conflicted even if it does go to trial.
Mistake here. Because of his living situation he would have no reasonable expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment, he was either squatting or staying there on the graces of the stadium grounds keeper, he does not own or lease that room. He would have a case of brutality against Harry, but the rifle would be considered admissible evidence.
harry risks his life for nothing
As our police do today .
Liberal thoughts...Here we are today
As our professor used to tell us, when you torture a suspect, don't demand to admit he's guilty, he'll deny it in court anyway and you'll look like idiots. Can't deny dead body or murder weapon or stolen stuff, so torture them for real facts, not statements. Must be different in USA i guess.
Is that really the law in America? Evidence inadmissible because it happened to be illegally obtained? Then he's right, the law actually is crazy!
Would an attorney pls comment whether this is realistic?
This has got nothing to do with liberals or anything else.
Think about this: The law gives the impression that it is protecting this psychopath. However, this law is not there for this purpose; it is there to protect "the innocent". Imagine someone is accused without any evidence, would you call it a "justice"? Imagine that anybody can plant anything to anyone's belongings and call it "evidence", would it count as "fair"? This law is there to play the game according to the rules.
It happens in this case that 1 psychopath is hiding himself behind this law, think it as a lamppost in the street and psychopath is dogging the bullets thanks to this lamppost. But it is just a coincidence: This lamppost is erected there to give benefit to thousands and it will as long as you don't give up the lamppost.
trashy git,
"Imagine someone is accused without any evidence"
How Ironic that is exact what we just witnessed with a supreme court nomination AND one whole side of the political spectrum was ready and willing to hang the dude. He is now and forever viewed as a violent rapist by millions and millions of people.....all based on "I don't remember" but I know it happened.
Yeah, yeah, we get it, Reverend trashy git. You say it's got "nothing to do with liberals or anything else." I call (as do others) bullshit. As "therealthreadkilla" just correctly stated, we just watched a leftist dog/pony circus in action...all based on "I don't remember" this, "I don't remember" that. "I'm afraid of flying" even though she flies on planes ALL THE TIME! And that flying is better when you're on "vacation." And that she flew to the f---ing hearings! Enough of the sanctimonious sermonizing. None of us want to read it.
Laws nowadays are made specifically to protect criminals, my country (Spain) is a perfect example of this, if someone breaks into your house and you defend yourselve you're the one going to jail, not to mention the thousand anti male laws, a women can just say she was raped and you are almost certainly going to jail, this are all leftist laws BTW.
@Da Name "A search warrant would not prevent the planting of evidence" you say. But guess what; "planting of evidence" is also against the law, it's not 'legal', is it? Just because someone uses his or her 'police officer' status to plant an evidence does not make this action suddenly lawful; it only makes this evidence planter a criminal.
So what you said does not make any sense whatsoever.
@@therealthreadkilla You can claim that the political power struggles, cultural atmosphere, traditions, beliefs and all sorts of things affect the creation as well as implementation of law, I can understand that.
What I cannot accept is that you are trying to explain the working mechanics of law 'with' politics. It's something like trying to explain the car mechanics with a drunk driver. Two things (politics and law, or the state of driver and the movement of a vehicle) can be related, but that doesn't mean they work on the same principles.
I'm shocked there wasn't an "accident" on that football field. Wet grass could have caused the inspector to slip and pull the trigger.
The Hungarian: "I sh*t on the court!" :) /Sz*rok a bíróságra!/
Is that the guy who drank poison?
we need clint and.44
Oh. Berkley
the DA became ducksworth in the first mighty ducks
I have a tape
At 3:00 when Harry says Scorpio will kill again "because he likes it" his expression reveals that he likes killing just as much as Scorpio. Scorpio and Harry are two sides of the same coin.
Rickey Dixon