That’s not a “judge”: the actor is portraying a UC Berkeley Constitutional law professor who used to serve as a State prosecutor (so he understands principles enshrined in the US Constitution better than some rando TH-cam commenters).😂
Harry is a great movie hero this scene is great. What a true masterpiece. And even though he did break the law and what he did was wrong, on paper, he did the right thing.
I do not think he broke the law. That judge said the jury would have to take into account the police officers concern for the girl( woman?) 's life. Of he thought she might die of he didn'tgo immediately inside, then he did not break the law.
@@jjohnsengraciesmom either way the system is messed up. and I love how this movie shows how the justice department seems to care more about the rights of the criminals that the victims
In my opinion poor judgement on the part of the states attorney and judge. How to get a warrant when a life is in immediate danger? The attorney should have tried harder. A big part of their job is winning arguments.
@@realbobphilips I understand everyone's concern for the girl and sympathy on Harry's POV but the reason the law is the way it is is because (along with other reasons) it was too easy for cops to frame someone they wanted to be a suspect. If you're an innocent man and a cop breaks into your place, plants a gun and blames you then you have no chance and who's to believe you? This law allows you a shield to protect against such volition. Is it perfect? No. Does it often allow guilty men to go free? Sometimes yes, but innocent until proven guilty is the way it should be and it's the best system you can ask for in a free society.
1:50. Despite all the hard and rough exterior on the outside, Harry has a soft spot on the concern and care for the victim especially for those who are perpetrated through violence. Throughout the film, he’s always concerned and showing a hint of emotion if the girl was okay and finding her dead devastated him. Harry knew how dangerous and unpredictable Scorpio was, which why he tails him after, he just knew with great certainty that he would kill again as mentioned.
The bottom line is, the district attorney still has the charges of the attempted murder of Harry's partner Chico and the aggravated assault on Harry by Scorpio to hold him. There is plenty of probable cause to hold Scorpio on those charges. Back in 1970, a police officer could shoot a "fleeing felon" so that is justified. As far as the torture goes, the district attorney only has Scorpio's word that happened and would have told him how he could make a complaint to the SFPD internal affairs office. It is ridiculous that Scorpio would be allowed to walk free.
While that may be true, when Harry yelled “Stop!”, Scorpio did stop running. He did also turn around with his hands above his head, and that’s when Harry shot him.
Well, at that scene, Scorpio had the hood over his head, and in court, that could be taken as mistaken identity. Even if the knife wound to the knee would be right, it isn't enough for conclusive evidence. All other evidence was likely grabbed without the warrant as well, meaning all the evidence is inadmissible. Chico too, never got a close look at the guy. It is very possible to walk him. The DA just doesn't want to spend the time and energy unless he knows he'll win the case without a doubt.
This is a really great scene. You've got an excellent emotional defense of immediate necessity by Harry and a logical legalese case by the DA. That would make a great conflict in itself. Bringing the judge in settles the conflict beautifully. Harry's told that he's not wrong, just not right. Every legal and crime drama could take notes from this series.
I always felt like this was a scene including for the general public who may not understand these legal issues, because there is simply no way that Harry, an experienced detective by this point in his career, would have been unaware of the inadmissibility of evidence obtained via illegal search and seizure, or of information extracted from a suspect by force, and the then recent legal decisions of Miranda v. Arizona or Escobedo v. Illinois. Many or even most people in the viewing audiences in 1971 might not have known, but they _did_ know about sharply rising crime rates in the 1970s, and this movie (like Death Wish, a few years later) was a reflection of the then-widespread feeling that the legal system had broken down and turned into a revolving door, partly due to legal decisions like these, that struck many people as _overly_ focused on the rights of criminals, at the expense of law-abiding citizens. It touched on a very sensitive issue: we do have to protect the rights of the accused, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty; but to deliberately let loose a suspect that you _know_ to be guilty, all strictly because of technicalities... Well, a lot of people struggle with that. One interesting analogy I encountered was to compare turning dangerous criminals loose because an officer screwed up (either deliberately or by mistake), is like making a dogcatcher who has screwed up turn a dangerous dog loose to bite more people. It's something many people find incomprehensible.
@@ricky5058 I'm well aware that our system is set up under the concept that it's better to let the guilty go free than to jail the innocent. But the (not unjustified) perception by the 1970s was that the system had gone of the rails, and it wasn't _a few_ disgusting criminals that were being allowed to go free, it was _a lot_ of disgusting criminals. And our system had mostly functioned acceptably well up until the late 20th century.
America's crime rate was soaring in the cities at the tme, a lot of police forces were corrupt and ineffective, and people wanted criminals to be stopped. Dirty Harry and Death Wish struck a chord with people who wanted violent criminals to be caught, even if it meant them being killed( the death penalty had been suspended). Over here, the death penalty was suspended in 1965 and then abolished in 1969, criminals no longer had to serve their full sentences, and guess what, the crime rate started to really go up.
Its interesting that a lot of people felt Harry's character came over too much as being a vigilante cop in DH, so much so that in the sequel Magnum Force, Harry himself is portrayed as the cop that stops a bunch of vigilante cops.
its a common trick they love to play where they twist characters into fighting against what they stand for by putting them up against a comically over the top version of themselves in order to undermine them
You would think so but in liberal California chances are no... liberal Democrat communists screw up societies by protecting the bad and punishing the good and then after they screw it up they come to us and tell us we need more laws and more money to fix the problems and then everything compounds and metastasizes on itself and then it all goes to hell!
Movie ignores quite a few of the other things they could've charged Scorpio with, even without being able to charge him with the girl's kidnapping and death.
Attempted murder against Harry himself and Chico would stick. 30+ years to life, let alone what mulitiplers for being police officers even in California back then. Illegal possession of fully-automatic weapons as would use against law enforcement also would stick in both Federal and State court, 10-15 years depending on the jurisdiction or both the Feds and State can prosecute Scorpio on those three. Killing that priest and kid is a maybe. As far as the girl goes, one has nothing to do with the other. Terroristic Threats for sure. There were ways to get Scorpio in prison for 20+ years minimum, likely Life Without Parole.
+jldog134 I agree Harry is the kind of cop we need today. During the bank robbery scene, he tells an armed criminal to halt, and only fires at the guy after he has already been attacked. You just don't see cops with that kind of restraint too often these days.
And honestly you're posting anonymously, how dare you attemt to talk about moral conviction. Do you think Harry hid being a veil anonimmity....pfft stik with being frightened you are better at it.
zusty - True, I thank you for pointing that out for me, but on I find myself responding to these people who have characterized empathy and caring with weakness and being a liberal, which I am not but I do find abhorrent. Real conservatives do care.
Less an apology and more of an example of how the law not doing its job can only lead to vigilantism. Which is what we're going to start seeing more and more of here in the US. With more blue states and cities just throwing their hands up and refusing to enforce the law or protect the general public from their own voters.
The funny thing is that the director Don Siegel was a pretty big liberal. It's interesting watching this movie from the point of view of a leftist director, like how in this scene Harry was technically out of line but how the spirit of vigilantism still pervades the film. I liked the choice of having him chuck the badge in the end, and how the very first and last shots of the movie are of the police emblem, all going back to his nickname. The bastard really is dirty, but at least he isn't crooked. Just a man out of time, like the dead men listed on the plaque in front of headquarters. Lots of layers, lots of depth forgone in the sequels. I prefer this one as a stand-alone film. Hell, the ending doesn't provide for a sequel AT ALL but they milked it anyway. I also find it heartening that Siegel and Clint got along so famously
Koby Sampson That's because liberals uphold ideals of equality and accountability. RoboCop was also made by liberals. They are not for bureaucracy and against justice, they are for justice and against people who hide behind the law, like Scorpio in this film and the bad guys in RoboCop also. This scene proves Dirty Harry IS a liberal, IMO. He is not blindly for the establishment, he works for what he knows it right, and he judges people only on merit.
Back then Liberals were just as likely to take the law into their own hands as Conservatives today. Hell Deathwish even made it more obvious when they mentioned Paul Kersey being a bleeding heart prior to his stint in vigilantism.
Koby Sampson I think the film is a criticism of the establishment. Regardless of whether it’s a liberal or conservative establishment. The top cops that Harry hates are the conservative establishment. The lawyers, suspects and hippies are the liberal establishment. Harry as Digorgio says, “Harry hates everybody”
Magnum Force is also enjoyable on its own merits, and shows the audience what Harry would be like without any restraints whatsoever. He says the law is crazy in this scene, but at least knows he's crossed a line, unlike the death squad.
Okay, Harry may have blown it in catching the killer in the case of the dead girl, but couldn't there have been anything to convict Scorpio of in beating Harry at the Cross and shooting his partner?
sserpent21 you could get him for assault on police officers, or try illegal possession of automatic weapons. He likely raped the girl though we don't know that for sure so statutory rape is a possibility as she was a minor.
This might sound trite but it also depends on what Scorpio's financial means were. The better paid attorneys are going to bypass and stonewall a lot of the procedure that most people, whom wouldn't have enough money otherwise, go through. Clearly, the movie takes on artistic license as there were other felonies that occurred during the scene.
@@ryanschmidt3913 This whole scene is BS. First of all there's not a snowball's chance in hell Scorpio would walk free when he's a prime suspect, had been identified as the perpetuator by Harry Callahan, his partner and others and when there's even a firearm as evidence. As for how things really were in the 70's. *Today's* law is toothless kitten to how it was back in the 70's. People got thrown in prison for any minor crime and police brutality was common. Heck the police even shot at students and protesters. Think they would do so today?
"You should've gotten a warrant" the judge shouldve gotten a lesson in reasonable articulable suspicion and exigent circumstance. That wouldnt excuse any brutality, but it would negate the argument that the evidence (the rifle) is fruit of the poison tree.
The anger inducing thing is that it’s so painfully obvious, but the stupid laws just get in the way of real justice. A girl was dying but the ‘laws’ only cared about Scorpio’s rights.
And yet in the next movie Harry says unless someone makes changes to the law that make sense he'll stick with it. Sure we know Scorpio is a scumbag but if you break the rules with him then you leave the door open for cops to do it with every suspect and then its guilty until proven innocent like in China.
@@SelectiveApathy82 It’s not as black and white. That’s why the judge said the court would likely see extreme circumstances (ie; a young girl’s life being in danger) as acceptable for it getting a search warrant. And it’s an argument many wouldn’t argue with Callahan on.
If this were to really happen today, a killer kidnaps, tortures and kills a young girl and ends up walking, there would be tons and tons of outrage. I'm not counting Casey Anthony because that was her own child she killed. The parents would be sobbing and raging about the killer getting away with killing their angel on headline news medias. Petitions would be going around the web saying "Scorpio is guilty" or "Justice For My angel". The family would be suing the courts. My best guess of what would happen if this ever occurred today
From TV Tropes: "Basically the only thing that would be ruled inadmissible in real life would be his confession, due to the fact that he hadn't been read his rights and had been coerced by torture into giving it. 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. Semi-justified with the rifle, a sporterised 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".
In reality Scorpio could still be indicted for attempted murder of two police officers and potentially the girls kidnapping, I think they jammed up the relevance of technicalities for the movie’s plot
@@TheDanrox110 That's right. Plus the exigent circumstances (an innocent life in imminent danger) negates the need for a warrant. Plus Scorpio was squatting at Kezar stadium. The 4th Ammendment doesn't protect squatters. And that SMG he used earlier most likely was unlicensed, so they could charge him for that as well.
“The problem is we don’t have any evidence.” “What about the stab wound to his leg? Isn’t it the same one I gave the guy at the monument who nearly killed me and Gonzalez the other night?” “……Never mind, let’s put him on trial.” **The End**
Harry messed up the report....should have just put down: "Upon questioning, suspect revealed location of girl...." No need to mention all aspects of it. :)
@@raynwolfsbane2084 Or morally right needs a basic understanding of Morals and civility to begin with. A society that abides by 'Rights' as dictated by state is as good as a animal farm house.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 Aren't there exigent circumstances or probable cause in a situation like this or is it that cut and dry. Believe me , I"m for police following the rules and procedures and yes, they should be held accountable, reprimanded and even imprisoned if they don't. I also know this is a just a movie at the same time but it does bring up a good discussion on both sides.
@@srinath31 I've checked online and this is what I found: There are circumstances when a search warrant is not required, such as: - When the police have consent from a person who has use or control of the premises - When conducting a search connected to a lawful arrest - In an emergency situation that threatens public safety (a building fire) or the potential loss of evidence - If a car has been impounded and an inventory is being taken as part of standard procedure - If contraband is "in plain sight" from a location where the officer has a right to be present (outside the car door, at the front door of a house or apartment) The third point is the one that's closest to the circumstances in the film but all Callaghan had was that the suspect had a knife wound and a man living at Kezar Stadium had a knife wound. I don't think that would be sufficient. He would need a search warrant. I would also imagine that a colleague would have to be present during the search to avoid allegations that evidence was planted by the officer.
The bad part, is no one here is the bad guy. We know Harry is in the right, but the issue is his methods go against the law. Sure its impeding his ability to get this man in prison, but those laws are there to protect a civilians rights, and sometimes civilians are serial killers. Its a bad spot
The Law for a person using as your name your the one that’s full of shit you don’t know the law. The DA and the Judge were right if would have had a search warrant could used that to enter premises for legal search. Harry did violate Scorpios rights by illegally obtaining evidence or illegal search and seizure. Not using Miranda probably and torture of suspectb to get him to talk or get a confession that was ruled illegal. If would have done things by the book the gun would have been admissible but who cares it’s a damn movie and we watch it for entertainment. We all know Dirty Harry is not one to follow the rules and broke many laws through out the movie. We watched Dirty Harry in Ethics course in Law Enforcement Training in college and did research on all rules he bends and even breaks to do things his own way.
"Who cares it's a movie." People like you don't think. You really don't. Our media, all of it, from music to books to film, all influences our society and the way we think about things. Stand up comedians making their audiences roar with laughter over simple truths and societal norms are not just making people laugh. There is an unspoken agreement that there is truth in what is being spoken. There is power in that. The same for film, books, music, and television.
You can search a premises without a warrant if you have reason to believe that someone's life is in immediate danger. You also don't have to remind a suspect of his rights if you don't plan to use what he says in court. It seems to me that torture was the only illegal thing that Harry did here and that might get Scorpio's statements thrown out but not the search for the gun or the fact that he shot a policeman.
This was a great movie, but I was always bothered by this scene. They are giving the impression Harry didn't know anything about proper procedure and a suspect, not convicted of anything yet, has rights. Harry was a veteran police Inspector. He would have known everything he did was violating the psycho's rights, and anything seized in an illegal search, would be inadmissible in court.
This scene reminds me of the series, The Wire, from the 1990's. Pure realism, intelligent and doesnt patronise its audience. The wire was probably the last of a bygone age and Harry was when it peaked.
The ending of the next scene is Classic!...."You know, you're crazy if you think you've heard the last of this guy. He's gonna kill again!"...."Cause he likes it too much!"
The only thing I never got was why didn't Harry counter-charge him. He recognizes Scorpio's voice and he tracked him down using the knife wound he inflicted on him and considering the guy was gonna kill him first earlier he was already within his rights to catch and/or kill him.
Wait a minute. Scorpion knew where the girl was. So maybe his confession was forced, but isn't it proof enough that he knew where the girl was? And what about the beating of Harry and the shooting with his partner (he used another gun there)? What about fingerprints on the girls body?
I know the scene makes for good drama but it's kind of a stretch to believe that a veteran like Harry would be surprised to learn that suspects have rights, and that improperly procured evidence would be inadmissible.
In a situation like this, a suspect’s rights should be suspended, in my opinion. His “rights” would have caused the little girls death. His search of the suspect’s room was not illegal, exigent circumstances.
" Well I'm all broken up about that mans rights."
Jane Doe you should be!
@@Legitcar117 you're letting him go?!
Tilden Katz “well we can’t try him...the problem is we don’t have any evidence.”
@@Legitcar117 "evidence? what the hell do you call that?!?"
Septio Sarifudin “I call it nothing!...Zero!”
Harry Callahan: "Well I'm all broken up about that man's rights!"
1:23 The way Callahan turns and looks at the Judge, just way too funny. Clint is a legend.
Best Eastwood has looked in a scene -- for the Dirty Harry movies. He certainly is an Icon -- one of the best of all time.
That’s not a “judge”: the actor is portraying a UC Berkeley Constitutional law professor who used to serve as a State prosecutor (so he understands principles enshrined in the US Constitution better than some rando TH-cam commenters).😂
@@daveperez830 Huh? "This is Judge Bannerman of the appelate court."
49 years later and the law is still crazy.
Damn straight
You're right it's crazy by the minute.
lawyers are dirt
until you get pulled over by an overzealous cop who treats you exactly like Dirty Harry
Just think. Today it’s not illegal to defecate in the street or steal from stores in that same town.
- Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda?
- I don't watch baseball...
😂😂😂
@Appomattox Rose Yes, indeed.
Reminds me of that joke in South Park.
Chef: Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?!
General: ...I don't listen to hip-hop!
Harry is a great movie hero this scene is great. What a true masterpiece. And even though he did break the law and what he did was wrong, on paper, he did the right thing.
I do not think he broke the law. That judge said the jury would have to take into account the police officers concern for the girl( woman?) 's life. Of he thought she might die of he didn'tgo immediately inside, then he did not break the law.
@@jjohnsengraciesmom either way the system is messed up. and I love how this movie shows how the justice department seems to care more about the rights of the criminals that the victims
In my opinion poor judgement on the part of the states attorney and judge. How to get a warrant when a life is in immediate danger? The attorney should have tried harder. A big part of their job is winning arguments.
Before Jack Bauer there was Dirty Harry
@@realbobphilips I understand everyone's concern for the girl and sympathy on Harry's POV but the reason the law is the way it is is because (along with other reasons) it was too easy for cops to frame someone they wanted to be a suspect. If you're an innocent man and a cop breaks into your place, plants a gun and blames you then you have no chance and who's to believe you? This law allows you a shield to protect against such volition. Is it perfect? No. Does it often allow guilty men to go free? Sometimes yes, but innocent until proven guilty is the way it should be and it's the best system you can ask for in a free society.
1:50. Despite all the hard and rough exterior on the outside, Harry has a soft spot on the concern and care for the victim especially for those who are perpetrated through violence. Throughout the film, he’s always concerned and showing a hint of emotion if the girl was okay and finding her dead devastated him. Harry knew how dangerous and unpredictable Scorpio was, which why he tails him after, he just knew with great certainty that he would kill again as mentioned.
Unfortunately the law has nothing to do with morality. It's just a convenient method of arbitration.
The fruit from the poisoned tree rule doesn't apply in England.
"Classic case of the Right Thing to Do vs the Legal Thing to Do."
Justice vs the Law
WTH
@@ronaldshank7589 Yes, but he didn't know where the girl was or that she was already dead.
Search warrant would've gotten him the evidence he needed.
I do not think he would have had time to get a search warrant. Exigent circumstances.
2020 and
The Law's Crazy
2024 and even more crazy!!
One day bubble will blow.
We need guys like Calahan. I am so glad that Clint Eastwood made it to 91.
He is still alive
just turned 93 (June 2023)
Still going
Clint Eastwood is not waiting on Death.
Death is waiting on Clint Eastwood.
The bottom line is, the district attorney still has the charges of the attempted murder of Harry's partner Chico and the aggravated assault on Harry by Scorpio to hold him. There is plenty of probable cause to hold Scorpio on those charges. Back in 1970, a police officer could shoot a "fleeing felon" so that is justified. As far as the torture goes, the district attorney only has Scorpio's word that happened and would have told him how he could make a complaint to the SFPD internal affairs office. It is ridiculous that Scorpio would be allowed to walk free.
An officer still can shoot a fleeing felon, depending on the circumstances.
While that may be true, when Harry yelled “Stop!”, Scorpio did stop running. He did also turn around with his hands above his head, and that’s when Harry shot him.
I agree. This was an example of a miscarriage of justice. A major flaw in the film.
@@gmoney66 Tennesse V. Walker
Well, at that scene, Scorpio had the hood over his head, and in court, that could be taken as mistaken identity.
Even if the knife wound to the knee would be right, it isn't enough for conclusive evidence.
All other evidence was likely grabbed without the warrant as well, meaning all the evidence is inadmissible. Chico too, never got a close look at the guy.
It is very possible to walk him. The DA just doesn't want to spend the time and energy unless he knows he'll win the case without a doubt.
That's okay. At the end he gets a .44 mag bullet to the chest.
And the shoulder
Not true! Harry himself admits they are "light specials", common .44 Special round is 180 grains.
Mmhmm. The Zodiac Killer meets his match, and Death takes him out, via a very powerful ally-A bullet! Right straight through the ticker!!!
That's too generous
This is a really great scene. You've got an excellent emotional defense of immediate necessity by Harry and a logical legalese case by the DA. That would make a great conflict in itself. Bringing the judge in settles the conflict beautifully. Harry's told that he's not wrong, just not right.
Every legal and crime drama could take notes from this series.
I always felt like this was a scene including for the general public who may not understand these legal issues, because there is simply no way that Harry, an experienced detective by this point in his career, would have been unaware of the inadmissibility of evidence obtained via illegal search and seizure, or of information extracted from a suspect by force, and the then recent legal decisions of Miranda v. Arizona or Escobedo v. Illinois. Many or even most people in the viewing audiences in 1971 might not have known, but they _did_ know about sharply rising crime rates in the 1970s, and this movie (like Death Wish, a few years later) was a reflection of the then-widespread feeling that the legal system had broken down and turned into a revolving door, partly due to legal decisions like these, that struck many people as _overly_ focused on the rights of criminals, at the expense of law-abiding citizens. It touched on a very sensitive issue: we do have to protect the rights of the accused, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty; but to deliberately let loose a suspect that you _know_ to be guilty, all strictly because of technicalities...
Well, a lot of people struggle with that. One interesting analogy I encountered was to compare turning dangerous criminals loose because an officer screwed up (either deliberately or by mistake), is like making a dogcatcher who has screwed up turn a dangerous dog loose to bite more people. It's something many people find incomprehensible.
@@ricky5058 I'm well aware that our system is set up under the concept that it's better to let the guilty go free than to jail the innocent. But the (not unjustified) perception by the 1970s was that the system had gone of the rails, and it wasn't _a few_ disgusting criminals that were being allowed to go free, it was _a lot_ of disgusting criminals. And our system had mostly functioned acceptably well up until the late 20th century.
America's crime rate was soaring in the cities at the tme, a lot of police forces were corrupt and ineffective, and people wanted criminals to be stopped. Dirty Harry and Death Wish struck a chord with people who wanted violent criminals to be caught, even if it meant them being killed( the death penalty had been suspended). Over here, the death penalty was suspended in 1965 and then abolished in 1969, criminals no longer had to serve their full sentences, and guess what, the crime rate started to really go up.
Its interesting that a lot of people felt Harry's character came over too much as being a vigilante cop in DH, so much so that in the sequel Magnum Force, Harry himself is portrayed as the cop that stops a bunch of vigilante cops.
its a common trick they love to play where they twist characters into fighting against what they stand for by putting them up against a comically over the top version of themselves in order to undermine them
I wanted to uptick this comment but I like the fact it currently has exactly 44 likes so I'll leave it ;)
Good call punk 😄@@SalemGhassanHanna
Wouldn't they have him on attempted murder of two police officers?
You would think so but in liberal California chances are no... liberal Democrat communists screw up societies by protecting the bad and punishing the good and then after they screw it up they come to us and tell us we need more laws and more money to fix the problems and then everything compounds and metastasizes on itself and then it all goes to hell!
@@loyalamerican8776 "You would think so but in liberal California chances are no..." Oh get a clue, you tool.
I think Scorpio should've got charge for attempted murder on both Callahan and Gonzales.
@@Thinker669 Yeah he would have, this movie is a strawman for what the writer saw as an excessively lenient process
Assaulting Harry at the pick-up?
might have been wearing a mask , but same leg stab wound
Everyone talks about rights now, no one mentions responsibilites
Exactly, George. Your right not to mask, but it is your responsibility not to infect other citizens.
The victims don't have rights anymore, which is a shame
@@kevinbrookes4870 Huh?
Hear! Hear!
You don't have rights! You have privileges! (Georges Carlin)
Movie ignores quite a few of the other things they could've charged Scorpio with, even without being able to charge him with the girl's kidnapping and death.
@@bobross8424 Apparently, it would be admissable if he could prove that he discovered the evidence while attempting to save the girl.
Attempted murder against Harry himself and Chico would stick. 30+ years to life, let alone what mulitiplers for being police officers even in California back then. Illegal possession of fully-automatic weapons as would use against law enforcement also would stick in both Federal and State court, 10-15 years depending on the jurisdiction or both the Feds and State can prosecute Scorpio on those three. Killing that priest and kid is a maybe. As far as the girl goes, one has nothing to do with the other. Terroristic Threats for sure. There were ways to get Scorpio in prison for 20+ years minimum, likely Life Without Parole.
I'm sure in real life, they likely would have gotten him on something else instead! The problem is, the movie would be over!
The actor playing the District Attorney (Josef Sommer) also played the corrupt police captain in the Harrison Ford film "Witness"
and ducksworth in mighty ducks
I love that movie! Witness is one of my personal favorite Harrison Ford Movies, along with another Crime Thriller, "The Fugitive".
Harry is the kind of cop we need today.
F*&K U
+jldog134 I agree Harry is the kind of cop we need today. During the bank robbery scene, he tells an armed criminal to halt, and only fires at the guy after he has already been attacked. You just don't see cops with that kind of restraint too often these days.
I'm an auto mechanic and wear blue overalls at work, does that count?
There is one in the White House now, they won't let him do what is necessary NOW!
We have Trump but need more.
Great scene showing how the law may often be completely on the wrong. This whole scene is basically an apology for vigilantism.
@The Law - Inability to comprehend the simplest of ideas, critical thinking not observed in you.
Please explain.
And honestly you're posting anonymously, how dare you attemt to talk about moral conviction. Do you think Harry hid being a veil anonimmity....pfft stik with being frightened you are better at it.
zusty - True, I thank you for pointing that out for me, but on I find myself responding to these people who have characterized empathy and caring with weakness and being a liberal, which I am not but I do find abhorrent. Real conservatives do care.
Less an apology and more of an example of how the law not doing its job can only lead to vigilantism.
Which is what we're going to start seeing more and more of here in the US. With more blue states and cities just throwing their hands up and refusing to enforce the law or protect the general public from their own voters.
My last name is Callahan. I've always been proud of that, but even more so now.
Awesome 👏
Outstanding.
"What I'm saying is that man had rights"
Yeah well he had wrongs too
"He also holds classes in constitutional law at BERKELY." The problem goes back long and deep.
💯 👍👏🔥
The funny thing is that the director Don Siegel was a pretty big liberal. It's interesting watching this movie from the point of view of a leftist director, like how in this scene Harry was technically out of line but how the spirit of vigilantism still pervades the film. I liked the choice of having him chuck the badge in the end, and how the very first and last shots of the movie are of the police emblem, all going back to his nickname. The bastard really is dirty, but at least he isn't crooked. Just a man out of time, like the dead men listed on the plaque in front of headquarters. Lots of layers, lots of depth forgone in the sequels. I prefer this one as a stand-alone film. Hell, the ending doesn't provide for a sequel AT ALL but they milked it anyway. I also find it heartening that Siegel and Clint got along so famously
Koby Sampson That's because liberals uphold ideals of equality and accountability. RoboCop was also made by liberals. They are not for bureaucracy and against justice, they are for justice and against people who hide behind the law, like Scorpio in this film and the bad guys in RoboCop also. This scene proves Dirty Harry IS a liberal, IMO. He is not blindly for the establishment, he works for what he knows it right, and he judges people only on merit.
Back then Liberals were just as likely to take the law into their own hands as Conservatives today. Hell Deathwish even made it more obvious when they mentioned Paul Kersey being a bleeding heart prior to his stint in vigilantism.
Koby Sampson I think the film is a criticism of the establishment. Regardless of whether it’s a liberal or conservative establishment. The top cops that Harry hates are the conservative establishment. The lawyers, suspects and hippies are the liberal establishment. Harry as Digorgio says, “Harry hates everybody”
Magnum Force is also enjoyable on its own merits, and shows the audience what Harry would be like without any restraints whatsoever. He says the law is crazy in this scene, but at least knows he's crossed a line, unlike the death squad.
Being on the Left meant something different than it does today.
Anyone see a need for Harry in 2021? 50 years later a lot of things are the same .
This movie, IMO, has become more relevant than ever today
This scene was shown in my legal class. The 4th amendment really has apertures that suspects take advantage of.
Okay, Harry may have blown it in catching the killer in the case of the dead girl, but couldn't there have been anything to convict Scorpio of in beating Harry at the Cross and shooting his partner?
sserpent21 you could get him for assault on police officers, or try illegal possession of automatic weapons. He likely raped the girl though we don't know that for sure so statutory rape is a possibility as she was a minor.
@@chrismc410 That might have been difficult as DNA testing wasn't a thing back then
This might sound trite but it also depends on what Scorpio's financial means were. The better paid attorneys are going to bypass and stonewall a lot of the procedure that most people, whom wouldn't have enough money otherwise, go through. Clearly, the movie takes on artistic license as there were other felonies that occurred during the scene.
Law professor from Berkeley. Might as well been Scorpio himself...in a dress.
I concur
Agree
I'm sure it wasn't quite as bad in the 70's.
@@ryanschmidt3913 Still really bad.
@@ryanschmidt3913 This whole scene is BS. First of all there's not a snowball's chance in hell Scorpio would walk free when he's a prime suspect, had been identified as the perpetuator by Harry Callahan, his partner and others and when there's even a firearm as evidence.
As for how things really were in the 70's. *Today's* law is toothless kitten to how it was back in the 70's. People got thrown in prison for any minor crime and police brutality was common. Heck the police even shot at students and protesters. Think they would do so today?
We need more cops like Harry Calahan. Good going Harry
"You should've gotten a warrant"
the judge shouldve gotten a lesson in reasonable articulable suspicion and exigent circumstance. That wouldnt excuse any brutality, but it would negate the argument that the evidence (the rifle) is fruit of the poison tree.
I don't think it's that simple
It seems Harry was more concerned about the girl than the two suit and ties
This scene epitomizes today's society. It was a harbinger and ahead of its time.
Yeah it epitomizes the complete ignorance of the law a lot of dumbass cops have
Ok criminal boot licksr.
wow youre stupid
cool movie, bad message
Today's society? These rights are in the US Constitution.
1:23 is when you did not get that promotion😂😂
"oh he'll do it again and I'll be right there"
"how do you know that?"
"because he likes it"
Scorpio would've never even made it in. "I'm sorry boss, he came at me and I had no choice...feared for my life. Oops." 😬💯💯💯💯💪🏾🧔🏾♂️
It's amazing where the line is drawn and still becomes one of the longest arguments in history.
The anger inducing thing is that it’s so painfully obvious, but the stupid laws just get in the way of real justice. A girl was dying but the ‘laws’ only cared about Scorpio’s rights.
And yet in the next movie Harry says unless someone makes changes to the law that make sense he'll stick with it. Sure we know Scorpio is a scumbag but if you break the rules with him then you leave the door open for cops to do it with every suspect and then its guilty until proven innocent like in China.
blame the supreme court and the miranda lawyers
@@raynwolfsbane2084 So you'd let an innocent girl die so as to "avoid a slippery slope"? Man, that just REEKS of laziness.
@@SelectiveApathy82 It’s not as black and white. That’s why the judge said the court would likely see extreme circumstances (ie; a young girl’s life being in danger) as acceptable for it getting a search warrant. And it’s an argument many wouldn’t argue with Callahan on.
Well I'm all broken up about that man's rights
Dirty Harry is just a great crime thriller with a unique actor and character at the forefront.
"Moral and "lawful" arent necessarily the same thing
And the progressive movie critics called this film "fascist."
Can you quote your sources? I mean, it's plausible, but please be factual.
@@christophschwarzherz5909 Ebert claimed in his review that the movie's message was fascistic
Who even cares what liberals think.
@@Maverick_AZ I care just enough to denounce what they think.
While it's exactly the opposite
And this is how it all began. Criminal rights outweigh citizen rights.
And people wonder why crime is insane.
Berkley law professor on the side of murderers is a huge surprise.
is it just me, i mean quality story and acting including intelligent interactions between characters. sorely missed these days
My often used word at work "what?"
You don't need a warrant when you have PC. Suspecting a girl dying on the other side of the door is good enough.
It's not that simple
If this were to really happen today, a killer kidnaps, tortures and kills a young girl and ends up walking, there would be tons and tons of outrage. I'm not counting Casey Anthony because that was her own child she killed. The parents would be sobbing and raging about the killer getting away with killing their angel on headline news medias. Petitions would be going around the web saying "Scorpio is guilty" or "Justice For My angel". The family would be suing the courts. My best guess of what would happen if this ever occurred today
"Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda?"
"No idea, dude. Are those the punks I shot last week?"
From TV Tropes: "Basically the only thing that would be ruled inadmissible in real life would be his confession, due to the fact that he hadn't been read his rights and had been coerced by torture into giving it. 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. Semi-justified with the rifle, a sporterised 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".
It's not that simple
@@kapitan19969838 It is.
@@kapitan19969838 The original poster (joemac9667) seems on point. It appears you (kapitan ..) are ill informed.
The law is even crazier now.
What about the rights of that little girl?
In reality Scorpio could still be indicted for attempted murder of two police officers and potentially the girls kidnapping, I think they jammed up the relevance of technicalities for the movie’s plot
@@TheDanrox110 That's right.
Plus the exigent circumstances (an innocent life in imminent danger) negates the need for a warrant.
Plus Scorpio was squatting at Kezar stadium. The 4th Ammendment doesn't protect squatters.
And that SMG he used earlier most likely was unlicensed, so they could charge him for that as well.
@@brendanforester4601 I imagine a full-auto weapon in San Francisco was illegal as hell in the 70s as well.
@@JnEricsonx Most definitely.
@Appomattox Rose Uh...I'm a Democrat and I agree 100% with Harry.
“The problem is we don’t have any evidence.”
“What about the stab wound to his leg? Isn’t it the same one I gave the guy at the monument who nearly killed me and Gonzalez the other night?”
“……Never mind, let’s put him on trial.”
**The End**
Great point.
Harry messed up the report....should have just put down: "Upon questioning, suspect revealed location of girl...." No need to mention all aspects of it. :)
But Scorpio could still give his statement
Don't be fooled: Department of the so called "Justice" has nothing to do with Lady Justice. Oftentimes, it's Law vs Justice
With probable cause you don’t need a warrant
Probably nowadays, but this takes place in the 70’s
Quack, quack, quack, quack, QUACK, Mr. Ducksworth!!
Gordon, stop quacking.
"Then the laws crazy".
People are too concerned about what rights we all have, rather than what is morally right.
Because "morally right" is subjective
@@raynwolfsbane2084 no
@@raynwolfsbane2084 Or morally right needs a basic understanding of Morals and civility to begin with. A society that abides by 'Rights' as dictated by state is as good as a animal farm house.
How can Harry be a police inspector and *NOT* know that any evidence obtained without a search warrant is inadmissible???
There’s always exceptions especially if someone’s life is at stake so I doubt he could afford the time to get a warrant.
@@srinath31 There are no exceptions.
He must have a search warrant, otherwise anything he finds is inadmissible.
It's that simple.
@@ppuh6tfrz646
Aren't there exigent circumstances or probable cause in a situation like this or is it that cut and dry. Believe me , I"m for police following the rules and procedures and yes, they should be held accountable, reprimanded and even imprisoned if they don't. I also know this is a just a movie at the same time but it does bring up a good discussion on both sides.
@@srinath31 I've checked online and this is what I found:
There are circumstances when a search warrant is not required, such as:
- When the police have consent from a person who has use or control of the premises
- When conducting a search connected to a lawful arrest
- In an emergency situation that threatens public safety (a building fire) or the potential loss of evidence
- If a car has been impounded and an inventory is being taken as part of standard procedure
- If contraband is "in plain sight" from a location where the officer has a right to be present (outside the car door, at the front door of a house or apartment)
The third point is the one that's closest to the circumstances in the film but all Callaghan had was that the suspect had a knife wound and a man living at Kezar Stadium had a knife wound.
I don't think that would be sufficient.
He would need a search warrant.
I would also imagine that a colleague would have to be present during the search to avoid allegations that evidence was planted by the officer.
Then the laws wrong ..
This is why I love Dexter. And Punisher...
The bad part, is no one here is the bad guy. We know Harry is in the right, but the issue is his methods go against the law. Sure its impeding his ability to get this man in prison, but those laws are there to protect a civilians rights, and sometimes civilians are serial killers. Its a bad spot
Irony is it’s still the same
Nobody says "What are you talkin' about?" cooler than Clint Eastwood.
If Harry knew the girl was dead at the time he was chasing him on that field, he would not aim at the leg.
He made it clear to Scorpio too lel told him his head would’ve been splattered
Scorpio's head would've splattered all over the entire field as he briefly mentioned
This is the only weakness in the movie. Legally, Harry is correct under Miranda and Escobedo.
He's not though. His actions were illegal and most of what the DA said was true.
The Law for a person using as your name your the one that’s full of shit you don’t know the law. The DA and the Judge were right if would have had a search warrant could used that to enter premises for legal search. Harry did violate Scorpios rights by illegally obtaining evidence or illegal search and seizure. Not using Miranda probably and torture of suspectb to get him to talk or get a confession that was ruled illegal. If would have done things by the book the gun would have been admissible but who cares it’s a damn movie and we watch it for entertainment. We all know Dirty Harry is not one to follow the rules and broke many laws through out the movie. We watched Dirty Harry in Ethics course in Law Enforcement Training in college and did research on all rules he bends and even breaks to do things his own way.
"Who cares it's a movie."
People like you don't think. You really don't. Our media, all of it, from music to books to film, all influences our society and the way we think about things. Stand up comedians making their audiences roar with laughter over simple truths and societal norms are not just making people laugh. There is an unspoken agreement that there is truth in what is being spoken. There is power in that. The same for film, books, music, and television.
You can search a premises without a warrant if you have reason to believe that someone's life is in immediate danger. You also don't have to remind a suspect of his rights if you don't plan to use what he says in court. It seems to me that torture was the only illegal thing that Harry did here and that might get Scorpio's statements thrown out but not the search for the gun or the fact that he shot a policeman.
James Maxwell then DA is Crazy
What Harry doesn't understand is that the law is actually there to protect the criminals. Sadly this applies nowadays more than ever
In reality because the body was found, the evidence IS MOST CERTAINLY RELEVANT, AND ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.
The DA explained why the evidence is not admissible.
Today it's almost the opposite. Your 4th Amendment gets laughed at.
Harry would have made a great team with Dan Madigan, also the lead character in a Don Siegel movie.
This was a great movie, but I was always bothered by this scene. They are giving the impression Harry didn't know anything about proper procedure and a suspect, not convicted of anything yet, has rights. Harry was a veteran police Inspector. He would have known everything he did was violating the psycho's rights, and anything seized in an illegal search, would be inadmissible in court.
0:06
Adam Martin “what?”
Is a good crytic,in times of Zodiac killer,Don Siegel one of the BEST ,Great movie,forever and ever.....
well... this is tense
Hilarious, though. "Well I'm all broken up about that man's rights."
Harry knows what he’s doing. And he’s right
i love how it seems thats the first time callahan has heard anything about laws
The district attorney is the same guy who played the evil cop in the Harrison Ford movie "Witness."
Shaffer. Who lead McFee (Danny Glover) and the mustache guy. Good catch
Some state laws are like that they can just dismiss the whole case not never set foot into a court room for a trial
Let's ask the judge from Berkeley, and there you go .
i recognized him from this when i watched d.a.r.y.l.
The world needs more men like Harry
This scene reminds me of the series, The Wire, from the 1990's. Pure realism, intelligent and doesnt patronise its audience. The wire was probably the last of a bygone age and Harry was when it peaked.
The ending of the next scene is Classic!...."You know, you're crazy if you think you've heard the last of this guy. He's gonna kill again!"...."Cause he likes it too much!"
The only thing I never got was why didn't Harry counter-charge him. He recognizes Scorpio's voice and he tracked him down using the knife wound he inflicted on him and considering the guy was gonna kill him first earlier he was already within his rights to catch and/or kill him.
The evidence was the knife wound to the leg.
Apparently, the film just forgot about that.
*Plot Convenience!*
That's not that hard, he could've said he was hunting with his rifle and was attacked by an animal or something
Wait a minute. Scorpion knew where the girl was. So maybe his confession was forced, but isn't it proof enough that he knew where the girl was? And what about the beating of Harry and the shooting with his partner (he used another gun there)? What about fingerprints on the girls body?
You tell them Harry !
Great Movie
they won't let harry get the job done
We know now how many years after this movie was made that a judge from Berkeley that taught constitutional law they're all crazy at Berkeley
Love the scene when he tails him and kids on to watch the draughts game in the park
Harry should have used his brain instead of his emotion. His opinion of the law doesnt matter at all. He screwed up here.
It’s just like Solidus snake said “the criminal has more rights then the victim”
2:15 talk about you eff up big time Harry and then some lol
I know the scene makes for good drama but it's kind of a stretch to believe that a veteran like Harry would be surprised to learn that suspects have rights, and that improperly procured evidence would be inadmissible.
It's not that
In a situation like this, a suspect’s rights should be suspended, in my opinion. His “rights” would have caused the little girls death. His search of the suspect’s room was not illegal, exigent circumstances.
San Francisco needs a Callahan...haha
San Francisco, need we say more!
wht a personality the best natural action hero ever in usa and the whole world