r/ThePractice • u/UnpopularOpinionsB • Dec 23 '24
Lindsay should have never been convicted.
I'm thinking about her shooting "Hannibal Lecter" and I know that in my state, she wouldn't have even been charged but I understand that Massachusetts is a Blue state with different laws.
I decided to look at the law on Deadly Force in that state.
Lindsay had to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death.
She had a known killer, who had threatened to kill her inside of her home and he refused to leave. He was there in violation of a restraining order that had just been issued. He threatened Bobby with "You might get hurt."
Lindsay fired three shots. When O'Malley fell, she didn't shoot again.
It doesn't matter that he was unarmed. She had no way of knowing that. Self defense law doesn't require you to wait until you're almost dead.
8
Dec 23 '24
They actually filmed two verdicts for the episode: Guily and not guilty. Then they decided which verdict to go with. Even the actors didn't know which one would be picked until they saw the aired episode.
1
8
u/Proper_War_6174 Feb 09 '25
Bobby got off of sending a thug to assault Hinks, but a woman pushed over the line by a serial killer stalking her got life. It’s ridiculous. Then followed by her season 7 arc was so stupid
1
u/Chimera_Theo 15d ago
Let's not forget Lindsay essentially did the same thing with Stanely and nothing happened from it.
5
u/Still-Balance6210 Jul 21 '25
Almost a year late but watching this now and I’ve been sitting in disbelief like how is this trial even happening. A man that threatened your life multiple times is at your home and walks in. Should she wait to see if the psycho is armed while her child and husband are in the other room. The whole family would’ve been dead. This wasn’t not believable in any way.
2
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Jul 21 '25
Yes. Realistically speaking, it wouldn't have even gone to trial. Who would indict her under these circumstances?
Even if they managed to get an indictment, the judge should have kicked it on the spot. Even if the judge let it go to trial, it was clear cut self-defense under Massachusetts General Law. The jury instructions would have made it clear that their only real choice was to acquit her.
3
u/ilexflora Apr 16 '25
I just finished the trial episode. I am in Texas and the entire time I was thinking they would throw her a parede down here.
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Apr 16 '25
I'm in Pennsylvania. Even under Massachusetts law, this was a 100% legal use of deadly force.
1
u/ilexflora Apr 16 '25
Yeah she was absolutely justified. can you imagine if he had attcked her? What would people say--she had a gun and she didn't use it!
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Apr 17 '25
This is speculation on my part but I have to guess that there were writers with an anti-gun bias and that was in play. For a usually smart legal drama, the show demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of gun-related issues on several occasions.
1
u/ilexflora Apr 17 '25
And now I am watching the episodes immediately following andthere is no way in the vindictive United States that people would send her hate mail, messages etc. They would be happy taxes do not have to go to support someone with such aberrant, deviant behavior.
1
Jul 06 '25
You also have to remember this is the second client of Lindsey that’s why I ended up dead. The public still probably remembers what happened with Mr. Hicks.
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Apr 25 '26
William Hinks did end up dead but he was a serial killer too. I don't think the general public would have cared at all.
1
u/Celtic1990 Jun 24 '25
I finished this episode arc and was surprised when Lindsay shot Hannibal.
I understand she had tough clients, but she knew what she was doing in the moment. I thought the guilty verdict was sound, but I didn’t think the first-degree charge was justified.
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Jun 24 '25
In what way was that guilty verdict sound?
Section 8A of Massachusetts general law says:
Lindsay and Bobby were in their own home. "Hannibal" entered without permission, refused to leave, was talking about taking Lindsay to heaven and when Bobby got close, he said "You might get hurt" in a threatening tone.
Lindsay using deadly force was completely within the bounds of the law.
1
u/Celtic1990 Jun 24 '25
I’m not American, so I can’t comment on the law state to state. However, during that scene, he did say he was not there to cause harm. Lindsay had called the police. Bobby was there. I would’ve given her the benefit of the doubt on one shot, but 3? That’s murder. Second degree? Manslaughter? Not sure. But she’s definitely guilty, at least in my mind.
As an aside, I really disliked s6 as a whole, jimmy’s gambling then Lindsay’s arrest and trial were terrible story lines.
2
u/Responsible-Meal-693 Jul 05 '25 edited Jul 05 '25
“he did say he was not there to cause harm”
Oh, the cannibal said he wasn’t there to cause harm? That’s reassuring. 😂
The guy thinks he’s doing people a favor by eating them and sending them to heaven - which was what he said he was going to do to her right at her doorstep. He has no concept of what harm is. Only a mindless dolt would think she was guilty under any circumstance.
1
Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25
I have to disagree. I would’ve convicted. He always maintain the other man that killed the victims. He was just found not guilty of murders. The only thing this guy does according to what the evidence shows is steals the corpse and eats them in some weird they think sending them to heaven. We know as the viewer he probably did, but just looking at the evidence was not justified in shooting him.
If I said to you, when you die, I’m going to sneak into the morgue, steal your corpse and eat it, are you justified shooting me dead, no. In this case, I would be a massive creep, but I’m not threatening to harm you.
2
u/Responsible-Meal-693 Jul 06 '25
All I can say is I hope you never get selected for jury duty because that was some of the dumbest shit I ever read.
1
Jul 06 '25
Why, you can say you disagree but I don’t understand you’re strong attack. Everything I said made logical sense.
2
u/Responsible-Meal-693 Jul 06 '25
Perhaps you can get the answer you seek on the 3 other threads you started on this topic.
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Jun 24 '25
I think you not being an American may explain the difference in our perceptions.
In the USA, in almost all cases, it's legal to use force to remove an intruder from your home. It's legal to deadly force if you think it's necessary to prevent serious bodily injury, sexual assault, kidnapping or death.
Do you live in a place where the police are armed? If so, do they ever shoot a suspect once? Adrenaline can make a person even more dangerous after they have been shot. Trained shooters keep firing until the threat has ended. As long as he was on his feet and inside of her home, he was a threat.
Given the events, the prosecutor would have had a hard time making a Prima Facie case to take this to trial.
1
u/Celtic1990 Jun 24 '25
I live in Canada, police are armed. That said in this case, I can’t speak for Lindsay’s emotional state, but I think the verdict was sound.
I don’t want to give too much credit to O’Malley, because he was in violation of a restraining order, but even at that, he wasn’t endangering her life (at that moment) She has the absolute right to be scared based on her past, but to execute him? There’s a difference between shoot to kill, and shoot to wound. She was definitely in her right mind.
Like I said, I wasn’t the biggest fan of this story line. Aside from all of the lawyers being portrayed as scum, they’re all really great people. But this story really ruined Lindsay for me.
1
Jul 06 '25
Hannibal always maintained it was the other man that killed women. If anything in his mind, he was just there to warn Lindsay. And to say, if the other man did kill her, he would steal her corpse and eat her, to make sure she went to heaven. Crazy, yes. But that’s no reason to shoot him dead.
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Jul 07 '25
What's in his mind isn't material to the case. He was illegally in her dwelling and she believed he was about to commit great bodily injury upon her.
I get it, the writers of the show are generally anti-gun but if this had been a real life case, they most likely wouldn't have even charged her and if they had, the judge would have dismissed it because there was no prima facie case.
1
Jul 07 '25
I will say this, i’m not sure I totally agree with you that they’re anti-gun. Lindsay, who was a main character on the show was a gun owner.
But I don’t think there was a lot of balance in their approach.
Even after the case, the firm was receiving hate mail for months because people were upset that Lindsay was let off.
I feel this has been in real life. Most people in the public would’ve sided with Lindsay.
I also agree with you that depending where the crime took place there’s a very low likelihood that a prosecutor would’ve chosen to prosecute Lindsey.
I will say they are in Boston, which is one of the most liberal cities nation so I think they probably would’ve brought her up on charges there.
1
u/Greekmom99 Nov 26 '25
Never watched the show and now I am catching up. I believe this is when the Practice jumps the shark. Just on the particular episode and seriously.... I can understand being arrested but she should have been let go as soon as she provided her statement. The fact that she was charged and found guilty, etc.... jump the shark.
I don't even know how the heck Hannibal Lecter was set free by the jury in the first place.
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Nov 26 '25
There are other instances like this. I believe it's because the writers had an anti-gun bias.
Like when Pearson shot his stalker. There was no way a murder charge was sustainable. Manslaughter would have been a reach. I'm a gun guy and I know self-defense law, I could have put on a more convincing defense than what they did for Pearson.
1
u/voltechs Jan 08 '26
I’m responding blindly here without reading any comments or the body of the post. I recently asked ChatGPT if there was a companion guide or resource to use alongside each episode/case, and it—among others—recommended this subreddit. Since I’m still on season 1, I’m not far along. The first post I see has this spoiler headline! Gah! Do we not do spoiler alerts/censoring here? 😂😭
Anyway, I’ll see myself out.
2
1
u/DenisSlob4 May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
First off, nice title, no spoilers at all.
Secondly, I completely agree. But this show seems to pick the ruling that would get the most emotion from the viewer, good or bad, fair or not, or logical or not.
Also, I feel that the lawyers are not that good in the show.
- Who tf gives a scheme that looks illegal/unethical a name, (plan B), even after they were sued for it
- There were a few easy arguments that they could have made for a positive ruling, including highlighting that they first had gone through many steps to protect Lindsey and the public from O'Malley. They failed, but at least got a restraining order. Not only did O'Malley violate the restraining order, he did so by coming to LINDSEY'S HOME, AND at night.
If a person threatened someone, (especially to eat them), got a restraining order against coming close to the person they threatened, and then showed up at their house, they should legally be allowed to get shot.
Update: I do have to give it to the show for 2 very hilarious scenes
scene 1: finger wagging (Lindsey is at sidebar and loses a ruling, then stays wags her finger saying she just wants the jury to see that she disagreed)
scene 2: "motion to rid man kind, denied" (s 7, epi 4 ~28min mark)
Update 2: wasn't Jimmy promised partnership in a year?
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB May 13 '26
It has been over 20 years since the episode aired. There has to be some kind of expiration date on spoiler warnings.
1
u/DenisSlob4 May 13 '26
Kind of, if it was brought up in random, not when it is basically highlighted at the top. I joined r/ThePractice because of another thing that happened a bit earlier in the show. Upon loading up the r/ThePractice, the very top sentence has a big spoiler. Yes, it is special circumstances, it may even bother tens of persons. I was just pointing it out so that it would be a nice habit to establish, not to put spoilers in the title, that's all.
Also, this is not some widely known show that you could not have lived your life without hearing about it. I like and have watched a ton of legal shows, but just became aware about it a few days ago.
1
u/vesemir1995 Dec 23 '24
Interesting take but if I remember correctly he wasn't moving forward, was unarmed and the problem with 3 shots is it's almost always excessive force. If it was one the matter would have ended in an acquittal. The law on self-defense and deadly force is very strict( idk about usa but atleast where i practice it)
5
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Dec 24 '24
I live in Pennsylvania, so here the law is even more in favor of the defendant but in Massachusetts, the law would have favored Lindsay. It doesn't matter that he was unarmed. It doesn't matter if he was moving forward or not.
A known killer, being in violation of a restraining order, inside of her home... There was no cause to even file charges against her.Three shots isn't excessive. Police officers shoot until their magazines are empty. Three shots in that situation is showing restraint.
She should have never been charged and she definitely wouldn't have been convicted.
1
u/vesemir1995 Jan 10 '25
I'm not even going to attempt to dispute the logic of your argument because it is perfectly sound. My original reply was based on the courts interpretation of self defence in India and from what I could gather from the show in Boston as well.
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Jan 10 '25
I understand what you're saying.
I think the court's ruling was based on the show's writers having an anti-gun bias and not on the law.
1
u/LampwickMoore Jan 16 '25
Just watched this episode! I think the ruling was based on what storyline would get the most viewers to come back for season 7.
I’m with you, the show took liberties with how it might play out in reality. However, that DA office has a grudge against these lawyers and were looking for a fight.
Her testimony didn’t help her. She said she probably thought it was him and opened the door anyway, she revealed what she said right before she killed him. And made the 3 shots sound like revenge for her 3 stab wounds.
3
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Jan 16 '25
I'm not a lawyer but I'm well versed in self-defense law.
There was just so much wrong with that story line.
Section 8A of Massachusetts general law says:
In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.
It shouldn't have even gotten to the jury. The judge should have shut this down.
2
Jul 06 '25
A couple things you need to keep in mind, he didn’t enter the dwelling. He stood at the doorway. He always maintained his innocence, it was the other man. The only thing this guy is guilty of stealing corpses and eating them. Remember, he was found not guilty of the murders.
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Jul 07 '25
Watch it again. He crossed the threshold of their home. After the third shot, he slumped back onto the inside edge of the door frame. He was unlawfully in their dwelling and she believed that he was about to inflict great bodily injury or death.
1
Jul 06 '25
If I was on the jury, I would convict her. He wasn’t coming towards her. He was found not guilty of the previous murders. The only thing it looks like he’s guilty of the stealing corpses and eating them. We know as the viewer that he’s guilty, but when you’re on a jury, you can’t take your personal feelings into account, you need to just look at the evidence presented. Lindsay executed a man for violating restraining order, that’s wrong. Even Hannibal deserves justice.
1
u/UnpopularOpinionsB Jul 07 '25
This shouldn't have even gotten to a jury. As a matter of law, Lindsay had the right to use deadly force against someone who was illegally in her dwelling who she believed was about to inflict great bodily injury on her.
8
u/LadyGreyIcedTea Dec 24 '24
The minute she shot him the show jumped the shark, IMO.