dubbel_v
A rejoint le oct. 2003
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Évaluations80
Note de dubbel_v
Avis1
Note de dubbel_v
The decisions of the characters/cops in the show are stupid and unprofessional and the show is lazy writing.
In episode two a notary is abducted from his office. There are multiple clues that this a part of a crime; like lot's of blood in his office, his secretary telling the police that there must be a break-in and that somebody took him, the notary should be at the office but is not, signs of a break in, the whereabouts of the notary is unknown etc. The police however thinks there is no sign of a crime and don't even investigates until the body of the notary is found.
After finding the body the police questions the secretary and the first question is: Was your boss a criminal and/or conducting criminal actions? There was absolutely no reason to ask this and of course the secretary gets mad at the officer for asking the question and doesn't want to answer anymore questions.
The public officer, played by Huub Stapel, is also an idiot who does not know anything about the law. In the show they use legal terms but they don't even know what these terms mean. In episode two they put a suspect in 'bewaring' (temporary custody) while the subject should be put 'inverzekeringstelling' (police custody) first. Later in the show the public officer tells the suspect that she can testify that she committed murder because she was arrested for helping a TBS-er escape. So he stated that murder is not part of the charge and she will not incriminate herself this way.
However the suspect was not even charged yet, but was put in temporary custody. A public offender can summon a suspect for a different crime then for the crime that he/she was arrested for. However the writer thinks that if you arrest somebody for shoplifting you can't summon him for murder after finding more evidence later etc.
The show is full of such nonsense. You should avoid this.
In episode two a notary is abducted from his office. There are multiple clues that this a part of a crime; like lot's of blood in his office, his secretary telling the police that there must be a break-in and that somebody took him, the notary should be at the office but is not, signs of a break in, the whereabouts of the notary is unknown etc. The police however thinks there is no sign of a crime and don't even investigates until the body of the notary is found.
After finding the body the police questions the secretary and the first question is: Was your boss a criminal and/or conducting criminal actions? There was absolutely no reason to ask this and of course the secretary gets mad at the officer for asking the question and doesn't want to answer anymore questions.
The public officer, played by Huub Stapel, is also an idiot who does not know anything about the law. In the show they use legal terms but they don't even know what these terms mean. In episode two they put a suspect in 'bewaring' (temporary custody) while the subject should be put 'inverzekeringstelling' (police custody) first. Later in the show the public officer tells the suspect that she can testify that she committed murder because she was arrested for helping a TBS-er escape. So he stated that murder is not part of the charge and she will not incriminate herself this way.
However the suspect was not even charged yet, but was put in temporary custody. A public offender can summon a suspect for a different crime then for the crime that he/she was arrested for. However the writer thinks that if you arrest somebody for shoplifting you can't summon him for murder after finding more evidence later etc.
The show is full of such nonsense. You should avoid this.
Sondages effectués récemment
Total de 2 sondages effectués
