"Law & Order" Self Defense (TV Episode 1992) Poster

(TV Series)

(1992)

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Controlling the Rush.
rmax30482319 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The police find two dead bodies. One is slumped over on a car seat; one is found in an alley some distance away, a .45 in his hand. Seretta and Logan track the shooting down to Adam Arkin, a Greek immigrant who runs a nearby shop and has been robbed at gunpoint before. A surveillance tape reveals that the two dead men entered the shop as far as the anti-robbery gate would allow, demanded entry, Arkin produced his revolver and a shoot out followed. The two robbers, wounded in the exchange, managed to make it outside. Arkin rushed after them, shot them and killed them.

Ben Stone's problem: convince the jury that there is a difference between self defense, which is justified in cases like this, and revenge, which is not. Arkin's shoot out, with bullets whizzing past him, was self defense but the chase and subsequent killings were murders.

Stone really does have a problem and it goes way behind conceptual distinctions between defense and offense. It gets into endocrinology. In the movies, policemen shoot an armed and threatening suspect once or twice and the suspect immediately drops his weapon and falls to the ground. In real life, as video clips often show us, the shooting doesn't stop until the perp is clearly dead. The police officer isn't prosecuted for using more force than was necessary to just disable the suspect.

The problem is that people aren't robots responding to programming that has incorporated charter documents like the NYC penal code. They're biological entities, whether police or civilian. Once the glands start twitching and the adrenalin squirting, once the amygdala hijacks the brain, no human being can simply shut it off. It's why police officers tend to shoot armed suspects full of holes. It's why soldiers in combat rush into a danger zone and slaughter the enemy, armed and unarmed alike, soldier or civilian. If Arkin had been a U. S. Marine he'd have been decorated for his act.

Nobody in the episode brings this up because to them it all looks like a question of legal and illegal motives. Stone and Robinet are lawyers after all, and to somebody with a hammer every problem begins to look like a nail.

As it is, the writers leave the issue hanging in the air, which they usually do. Arkin is judged guilty of murdering the guy in the car, who may have been reaching for a weapon on the floor, but he is found innocent of executing the other man. At any rate, Arkin is headed for Attica.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Role reversal from victim to perpetrator
bkoganbing1 August 2016
It's fairly obvious that Bernard Goetz the subway vigilante was the inspiration for this story. If you'll recall that was the inoffensive looking man whom four thugs decided to hassle on the IRT. He was packing a weapon and was going to be ready when these four picked on him.

Goetz might have walked completely if he hadn't pumped an extra bullet into one of them while he was prone. That reversed Goetz's role from hero to perpetrator in an instant.

Something similar happens here as two brothers rob Greek immigrant Adam Arkin's store and pay with their lives. Forensics yields a similar story to Goetz.

It's this that catches Chris Noth's attention and later Paul Sorvino who was initially a supporter of Arkin gets converted. It won't be any easier for Michael Moriarty to get a conviction than it was for the NY County DA for the real Goetz.

You'll have to check this one out.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Self-defense or murder? That is the question
TheLittleSongbird8 July 2020
'Law and Order' was a great show in its prime. Have said more than once about preferring the earlier seasons, and that is true for 'Special Victims Unit' and 'Criminal Intent' as well. It is a shame though that one doesn't see the pre-Season 7 episodes aired that often, or at least that's the case with me, because the show's very early period is not to be neglected. With most of the episodes being good to outstanding, with only a few disappointments that are still not too bad.

"Self-Defense" doesn't quite see Season 3, or 'Law and Order' in general, on peak form, it is not quite "The Corporate Veil" and "Wedded Bliss" as far as the previous Season 3 episodes go. It did have potential to be a brilliant episode and nearly was, and it would have been with a more consistent pace. It is still very good though and much better than the still above average but somewhat disappointing previous episode "Helpless", also with a relevant and difficult subject but addressing it more sensitively, tastefully and compellingly.

It is slightly dull and routine to begin with.

Also felt it was a little on the rushed and too neat side at the end.

Can find nothing to fault the production values for though, the slickness and grit still present and likewise with the more fluid editing. The music is used relatively sparingly and is not too intrusively orchestrated, fitting too with the mood. The direction is generally alert but also sympathetic, shining in the character interactions in the legal scenes. Liked the tautness, edge and thought-probing of the second half's writing.

Likewise with the much improved second half in general with the legal scenes. It really does pick once the complications with the case arises. It may not be as tense or as emotional as other 'Law and Order' episodes, but it does raise interesting questions about how to prosecute and approach the case and whether it was self-defense or not. Not doing it in a one-sided way and one really does think hard as to what their stance is. The acting is very good, Michael Moriarty continues to shine as Stone and Adam Arkin does well in a different role as a character that intrigues and doesn't come over as too obvious.

Overall, very good if not outstanding. 8/10
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Death Wish
safenoe15 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Adam Arkin guest stars as George Costas, of indeterminable accent (Hispanic perhaps but maybe). The accent kind of got lost through the episode, and anyway, a couple years later Adam Arkin) son of Alan "Catch-22" Arkin, made it big in Chicago Hope.

Anyway, here it's vigilante justice at play, and it ain't pretty. This episode, Self Defense, really captures the gritty streets of New York, kind of like Escape from New York (Snake, I though you were dead!) or The French Connection or Serpico. Anyway, I'm enjoying catching up on the early seasons of Law and Order, along with Father Brown from across the pond.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Above & Beyond
refinedsugar28 April 2024
Plenty of movies, tv shows get on a soapbox and thru entertaining manipulation using emotion typically try to make you feel, think a certain way. I'm not about to say L&O wasn't immune to this baloney, but 'Self-Defense' in my humble opinion is not one of those times. Of course the case is largely at the mercy of your own preconceived opinions. I however think it presents a fair and balanced look into things going overboard and the image of the store owner isn't unfair.

A dead man is discovered in a car and meters away another also shot dead. Store owners including Greek immigrant Costas (Alan Arkin) are mum on seeing anything, but he's quickly discovered to be lying. Soon a picture is amassed thru further evidence of a robbery that went past the point of self defense. Det. Cerreta (Sorvino) sympathies with Costas while Logan (Noth) sees things differently. In court it comes down to the line in the sand about where justice, standing your ground crossed over into murder, unjust vigilantism.

Notable actors in Arkin (copping an accent) and Ron Rifkin as the type of defense lawyer you love to hate punch this episode up a notch. Not to say the topic isn't already interesting on it's own and emotionally charged. However remaining level headed you'll see the moral stance being presented here is routed in logic. It's a slippery slope. A parting word about public opinion, mob mentality on justice rings true and leaves a lasting impression as well.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Self defense concocted into murder
evony-jwm6 May 2021
Because of "gun safety".. charged with 2 murders for one "extra" bullet. Bullying brother with accomplice for camera.
3 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed