Anything you say that can will be used against you in a court of law. He's screwed.

@michaeldowson6988

2 жыл бұрын

That isn't a Court of Law. Dramatic speculation and histrionics aren't allowed.

@TheSweettashamarie

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaeldowson6988 I'm sorry, but do you realize it is one of the points cops have to say when you are read your Miranda rights? There is a reason they say "Anything you say, can and will be used against you in the court of law".

@aspenrebel

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheSweettashamarie Then at the end, the cops ask you "Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?". If you say "yes", then that can be used against you in a court of law. Such as, in court, you can not then claim you did not understand your right or you were mentally impaired, etc. That's why you say NOTHING!! Do not say "yes" or "no" to anything, do not say your name, your address, NOTHING. Don't even ask for an attorney, cuz that can be used against you in court. Can show that you are competent, you have understanding of the law, your rights, etc.. Cops and DA will NEVER use anything you say for you in court only against you.

@tomjeff1866

2 жыл бұрын

@@aspenrebel huh? By law you are obligated to say your name and address. And also by law “asking for an attorney” can’t be use against you in the court of law and it’s not prove that you are competent or at least at the moments of the crime.

@aspenrebel

2 жыл бұрын

@@tomjeff1866 Anything you say can, will, and may be use against you in a court of law. You, nor anyone else, can say ahead of time how the police, da, or judge is going to use something you say against you. The surely are NOT going to use anything FOR you. When have you ever heard the DA say "well, your honor, the defendant said he didn't do it so I'm dropping the charges"? Now Don't tell me it's established law or procedure, that can change in an instant.

If I'm not mistaken, the legal term for what the defense tried to do would be "trying to have their cake and eat it too"

Finally, courtroom scenes with Cutter and Rubirosa

@teodorusdikypermadi

2 жыл бұрын

Yup

@estelaliliana5429

2 жыл бұрын

Qué pena que no vuelvan

@teodorusdikypermadi

2 жыл бұрын

@@estelaliliana5429 english please

@estelaliliana5429

2 жыл бұрын

@@teodorusdikypermadi usa el traductor

The ultimate "You played yourself"

@KnightMysterio

2 жыл бұрын

He played that sumbitch like he playin' piano and I love it.

@jexelbur6872

2 жыл бұрын

Nah that goes to Ben Stone against the anti-abortion extremist.

@odinfromcentr2

Жыл бұрын

​@@jexelbur6872 Agreed, but this definitely has to fall in the top 5.

Jack McCoy is full of something in this episode. In his earlier seasons, he's shown to do anything in order to get someone behind bars. This kind of play is perfect for him, especially if you reflect on Purple Heart, where he does a similar play by changing the Theory of the Case into something he has proof against half way through. The only difference is that he changes the Theory back afterwards in Purple Heart.

@hardrocker943

2 жыл бұрын

There are numerous episodes where Jack is shown to do whatever it takes to win. Hell, almost every episode had Jack arguing with Arthur or Adam about the lengths he would go to, even if it meant bending certain laws to fit his case.

@NoHomerS

2 жыл бұрын

The prosecutors are always shown to be noble here. Hence, we feel good about them doing what it takes.

@Jaxxon

2 жыл бұрын

@@hardrocker943 I mean hell, he talks about how the trial isn’t for getting a conviction at all costs, but Jack’s gone much further than this for a conviction. He’s prosecuted and convicted entirely separate people just to get convictions on other cases. Jack’s not even playing the opponent here to help guide the train of thought, he’s just attacking him morally. Such a weird and hypocritical way of writing him.

@WilliamHWJ

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not so sure. I agree with you that in past episodes he was more cavalier with the law and how to get justice. However, keep in mind, he is now the District Attorney. The top dog on top of prosecution. He now has to set the example and in charge of his subordinates. When you become the boss you see things differently at the top of the mount. A different perspective, and seeing the bigger picture. This I see as a natural progression of the character. He's older, wiser and not so hot headed.

@isabellegranger5980

2 жыл бұрын

When he’s DA it supposed to show that he’s matured from those days.

People in the comments have criticized McCoy because he's gone to much greater lengths to pursue a conviction than the lengths for which he is scolding Cutter for going. I think a couple things are at play. One, he's the DA now, so he can't be the cowboy he was when he was an executive ADA. And two, he's older, a little wiser than he was in the beginning. I think of the episode "Falling," (Season 19, Episode 5) where Cutter tried to impose an illegal stipulation to a woman's conviction that she be banned from surgically stunting her daughter's sexual maturity. McCoy stepped in to kill the stipulation. Cutter brought up "People v Willett," (Season 5 episode 7 "Precious") where McCoy pushed for a stipulation that a woman have her tubes tied so she can't have any more children that she would inevitably kill. McCoy's answer at the end of the episode speaks to the growth of his character: "One day, you’ll thank me for yanking your leash, Mike. Sometimes I wish someone had been there to yank mine." This was a similar moment between the two

@hydrangeas_lover

10 ай бұрын

Well said my friend

I loved Cutter! He was so far out there sometimes. I laughed so hard at some of the things he came up with. Pure entertainment.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" He was pinned either way

I don't quite understand: He may have given a compelling argument for guilt, but isn't it guilt for a different crime? And wouldn't that call for a whole different trial?

@connormunro8282

2 жыл бұрын

I believe it falls into conspiracy law, for instance if a group of 3 people rob a bank and 1 person kills someone all the people who conspired to rob the bank would be charged with murder. The idea being that they engaged and conspired in dangerous actions that have the reasonable expectations of harm, and while initially financial harm, when murder got involved they just changed the way their theory as to what happened to say that if his sister was rational then he is just as liable for the people she murdered and that's why it doesn't require a new trial since they are not actually putting him on trial for the tax scam but rather using the tax scam with conspiracy laws to implicate his liability in the murder.

@YouTubeallowedmynametobestolen

2 жыл бұрын

@@connormunro8282 Thanks, Connor. It's hard for me to follow that--but that's not your fault!

@connormunro8282

2 жыл бұрын

@@KZreadallowedmynametobestolen It is a bit convoluted. Essentially they just gave new reason why he was liable in the murder trial, the conspiracy to commit tax fraud is a separate charge from the murder and will probably be done separately, but they are using the fact he admitted to conspiracy in open court against him to say in a conspiracy all participants are liable for the murder hence they do not need a new trial.

@YouTubeallowedmynametobestolen

2 жыл бұрын

@@connormunro8282 So the charge actually hasn't changed. It was murder before and it's the same murders now. That makes sense!

@jediknight1294

2 жыл бұрын

@@KZreadallowedmynametobestolen you can also add new charges during trial for consideration in some circumstances.

They'll probably junk him in the revival, but I do hope Cutter comes back. He was a major jackass, especially in his first season, but he got better and could get really, really clever. I forget the episode, but the one where he manages to put the fear of God into a dude who got acquitted due to believing in the Not!Illuminati was absolute genius. I also appreciated how he was unafraid to stand up to Jack when the situation called for it, which the show lacked ever since Abbie left.

@ashleybennet9243

2 жыл бұрын

I didn’t know they were bringing og law and order back you just made my day posting this!

@MsWiccanpriestess

2 жыл бұрын

@@ashleybennet9243 the L&O revival is returning in 2022. They just started filming this past summer.

@MsWiccanpriestess

2 жыл бұрын

@Gflipnitz Blruiken Cutter first appeared in Law and Order in season 18, in the episode called Home...McCoy had just been given the office of District Attorney so Cutter was promoted to Executive Assistant District Attorney, but there was a problem Cutter never passed his bar exam after McCoy checked him out and found that McCoy knew Cutter's law teacher...McCoy almost fired Cutter but he couldn't bring himself to do it because Cutter not only proved himself on a case, but as one hell of an attorney.

@user-xg3uy6hq9g

Жыл бұрын

I found him almos as boring as stone

@NativeWarrior88

Жыл бұрын

Sometimes Jack acted like he was more of a hug-a-thug than a prosecutor!

To quote a wise man’s life changing word: “HA! Got’em!”

I don't think McCoy has much ground to stand on in that argument

@teodorusdikypermadi

2 жыл бұрын

Yup and yet knows

@ItsGooseIsland

2 жыл бұрын

I think he's speaking on it based on his personal experience

@teodorusdikypermadi

2 жыл бұрын

@@ItsGooseIsland of course back in season 5 L&O

@jadefire2817

2 жыл бұрын

Hah! So true. McCoy was the *original* wild-west-style prosecutor. He and Adam Schiff used to square off all the time over his courtroom antics.

@teodorusdikypermadi

2 жыл бұрын

@@jadefire2817 yes of course

Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law ... so true in this case...

Jack McCoy 101. Break or twist the law in a holy crusade to do whatever he wants.

A real judge would’ve never let that argument happen in FRONT OF THE JURY. He would’ve excused them until after he had a chance to listen to the objection. Pure CINEMA.

@jimjimmyjames59

2 жыл бұрын

It IS a tv show...

@alexbrown7708

2 жыл бұрын

@@jimjimmyjames59 Yes any criticisms about something being unrealistic is not fair because its not real. Seriously that logic is stupid.

@CalyGamer13

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexbrown7708 No, it’s a fair assessment but it doesn’t change the fact it’s a dramatized tv show.

@alexbrown7708

2 жыл бұрын

@@CalyGamer13 Yes because if a TV show spreads misinformation than its fine apparently (sarcasm in case it wasn't obvious)

@CalyGamer13

2 жыл бұрын

@@alexbrown7708 Spreading misinformation is only applicable if the show’s purpose was to teach or inform its audience. It would be much different if this was the news or some how-to video. Some of Law & Order’s episodes may take inspiration from actual cases. But at the end of the day, it’s a dramatized tv show for the purpose of entertainment. They’re going to cut some corners to make the storyline smoother and more entertaining for their allotted time slot.

I’m watching My Policeman and I heard him speak and I’m like woah he is good then I look him up and I’m like DUDE IS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THAT WAS HIS REAL ACCENT and the accent he has on here is fake😭😭I LOVE THIS AND I LOVE HIM💜

There’s no way this wouldn’t result in a mistrial. The prosecution wasn’t able to make their case, and they can’t at the 11th hour present a whole new case to the jury. The judge would have shut the prosecution down, or issued very specific instructions to the jury that they are to rule on the evidence the prosecution brought during the trial. And the whole back and forth between the prosecution and defense would never be allowed.

@jonsouth1545

2 жыл бұрын

On top of that the prosecuting lawyer would have been charged with contempt of court.

@sdaiwepm

2 жыл бұрын

IANAL, but it doesn't appear to me that the prosecution introduced any new "evidence" in their summation.

@jadeduniverse2988

2 жыл бұрын

Usually these episodes are based on real events so I have no idea if this was made for the purpose of the show or if this actually happened

@tomjeff1866

2 жыл бұрын

Using the defendants “own words” against them isn’t introducing new evidence and it’s has been done a lot in courts. That why lawyers always prepare their own witnesses before trial.

@jamespoledna2693

2 жыл бұрын

Remember it's ultimately up to the JUDGE, it's their court. This judge definitely wanted someone to be accountable for a heinous crime!

Linus Roache is one of those British actors who can pull off an American accent flawlessly.

@liamroberts1458

2 жыл бұрын

Same with Damien Lewis and Hugh Laurie.

@WarGrowlmon18

2 жыл бұрын

And the guy who plays Morgan Jones and the girl who plays Maggie Green

@MsWarriordiva

Жыл бұрын

Didn't even realize he is British!!

@Escul1960

Жыл бұрын

And also Kate Winslet and Maxwell Caulfield......

@Warriorsoul101

Жыл бұрын

Just watched an interview with him and was blown away lol

That's a bad move on the judge's part, the prosecutor can't pull what he did, case is easily overturned on appeal. Judge might even be sanctioned for something like that.

@blender124

2 жыл бұрын

Welcome to the majority of courtroom dramas. The “good guys” are allowed to badger, antagonize, manipulate, mislead, and abuse courtroom etiquette and procedures all in the name of putting away the bad guys. Meanwhile almost all cases would be thrown out or overturned based on violations of the “bad guys” rights.

@samueljimenez1

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting comment

@samueljimenez1

2 жыл бұрын

Also, not very ethical of the State prosecutors

@boredlawyer3382

2 жыл бұрын

Right. They did not charge conspiracy in the indictmemt. (Which in NY has to be issued by a grand jury). So the proofs varied from the indictment. That is one reason to overturn the verdict. I also don't buy his theory. Just because brother and sister conspired to commit tax fraud does not mean that they conspired to commit murder. I do not believe he has stated the law correctly here.

@Arjay404

2 жыл бұрын

@@boredlawyer3382 Right, there is a big difference between committing tax fraud and committing murder. I think most people would commit tax fraud if they knew they could get away with it, but most people would definitely not commit murder even if they knew they could get away with it.

He ends up taking a deal for 20 to life after this. I just saw the episode.

Tiene que volver Linus Roache. Con Sam Waterston sería genial!!!

@Jodacro-it4zz

Жыл бұрын

He was seriously underrated

Quick question, what does all of this have to do with two guys getting burnt to a crisp and the other having severe burns?

@billcook4768

2 жыл бұрын

Those were the victims the possibly-crazy sister killed.

@inarifox8912

Жыл бұрын

Basically what happened is the defendants sister killed three people-two intentionally and the third died trying to save the other two. The defendant wanted money from their deceased mothers estate as well as to sell a highly valued item and keep all the proceeds for himself. He also didn't want to deal with his sister and her mental health anymore, so he purposely didn't refill her medication because he knew without it she would suffer from a psychotic episode and either end up in jail or dead.

@mewesquirrel6720

Жыл бұрын

@@inarifox8912 why

I actually like cutter no lie, got a little of that Jack McCoy in him.

Shouldn’t that last back-and-forth have been a sidebar or in chambers?

@thelostsandwich8435

2 жыл бұрын

Law and Order is not known for it's accuracy. Lawyers probably cringe watching these exchanges, as the actual process is very dry, and this series is very dramatic.

@cheridehart7771

2 жыл бұрын

This was the closing statement and summation. During the closing statement the lawyers can say almost anything. Generally, an objection, side bar or chambers isn't even allowed.

@josephkerrigan733

2 жыл бұрын

@@cheridehart7771 I just googled it and it seems like you can object whenever you want. It's just not recommended because it looks bad to a jury and as you said there are very few valid objections you can make in a closing statement. The only instance I found that you can object validly to is if the opposing council just starts making things up and saying things were said that did not occur. In those cases objecting is probably ok if they're just saying "You heard the defendant admit to killing the victim...".

@burningsnow9870

2 жыл бұрын

@@thelostsandwich8435 As a student in paralegal studies, closing arguments do allow the lawyer to say whatever they want within reason to conclude their final argument. Now obviously if the final statement is along the lines of "Find my client innocent/defendant guilty an I'll pay/hurt you" is completely against the rules for obvious reasons. Most court proceedings primarily deal with objective facts and can't really be strayed from. But at the end the lawyer is allowed to make a subjective/objective closing argument to convince the jury that their side is right. Obviously L&O does exaggerate some of the proceedings but that's entertainment for ya. If you wanted to watch a realistic depiction of a court case there's always C-span

@Chinlc

2 жыл бұрын

@@josephkerrigan733 Nope! There is 1more valid instance to object during a summation/closing statement. kzread.info/dash/bejne/iGet19aoadvQdag.html

Funny to see Mccoy telling another not to be sleazy.

Nice video and hi

Good series , still like mixing watching with Di Vinci's series & MIT .

I've never seen that particular episode but I can pretty easily guess the verdict in this one

Watching him walking around with a bat in this clip is very scary given that I just watched the clip of the Walking Dead where Negan kills Abraham and Glenn.

The judges on t.v. are always smarter than in real life.

That's the thing about bipolar people. They can be incredibly intelligent and lucid and still act like none of it is their fault, that they don't remember, that they can't have done it. And they'll play the victim when called out on it.

@paulacornelison243

2 жыл бұрын

Being bi-polar, I don't see things as other people do. When in a manic episode I am high on joy and am quite lucid. As for being off medication, it takes 2 weeks being off medication for the symptoms to be visible to others. It also takes 2 weeks for the medicine to build up into my system for the medication to be effective. Bi-polar is a chemical imbalance in the brain. Medication brings the patient into a more natural balance. We still have bouts of excess happiness but not as wild. We do get depressed but not as severe. Being bi-polar doesn't mean you are crazy. It just means you need to see a doctor and take your medication properly. You have to work with the doctor to find the correct medication for you. Being bi-polar is like being on a roller coaster that you can't get off of. Your brain separates you from others. It's like being on a glacier while family and friends are in spring time where everything is green and bright. This has actually happened to me during a emotionally bad time. Hope this helps you understand us better.

@vikinggoddess2126

2 жыл бұрын

@@paulacornelison243 I understand being bipolar. My dad is bipolar. Unfortunately he hasn't been medicated for about 20 years. We all tried to be understanding and patient. But my hubby had to stop a suicide attempt, had to keep from being killed by the man, ...there's a lot that he did to us. My sister's and their men didn't live with us, mom worked two jobs besides not being home or just oblivious when she was. All this was after we were all grown and married, circumstances had us living with my parents. It became increasingly clear that he needed medicated, and evaluated for possibly schizophrenia as he had hollucinations as well. No one would believe us or even help us do anything. Not our house so no authority there. Now we haven't spoken to any of them for two years. And it really is just my dad's fault. Medicated it probably would have been better, but unmedicated he's really not safe to be around.

@paulacornelison243

2 жыл бұрын

@@vikinggoddess2126 You have my sympathy as I have been off my medication once. I wish you well and agree with your staying away from your Father. My husband went from supporting me to ignoring me. Once I was having a major attack and he walked out and left me alone. My landlord heard my cries and called an ambulance. I was in the hospital for 2 weeks getting stabilized. I never forgot what he did nor have I ever forgiven him. You see I was planning on committing suicide . I also have a brother who is schizophrenic. He was staying with another of my brothers but had to leave because my sister-in-law was afraid of him. As I said earlier I wish you well and you made the right choice!

@sambarouch3528

2 жыл бұрын

​@@vikinggoddess2126 That situation is terrible and I am sorry you had to be in such a problematic place. That being said, you can't reasonably apply your own experiences to other people. 2% of Americans have bipolar disorder (twice the number of soldiers and reservists in the US) and the overwhelming majority of them are not violent people.

@sapphireseptember

2 жыл бұрын

Paula, please tell me he's your ex husband now. That's just cruel and cold. I'm sorry he left you like that. :(

Why does 5:45 feel like he was struggling to keep talking 💀😭

Now that's extra crispy for ya

4:57 Cutter trying to channel Daniel Kaffee/Tom Cruise

That was INTENSE

I don't get something. How are the bodies burned but the apartment isn't? What does the trial have to do with the burned bodies?

"my sister cant be trusted to even fill out her own percriptions" 2 seconds later "it was all her idea, shes a criminal mastermind"

wow, David Wellington and President Keane

What does any of that court case have to do with two people in an apartment getting burned to a crisp?

@theoneaboveall4533

2 жыл бұрын

I was wondering that as well.

Seems like the prosecution wasn't paying attention in the pre-trial stages. Both prosecution and defence would have made it quite clear what angle they're going for, what testimony and evidence they're putting forward so that they could each prepare their own lines of questioning in relation to it. And the fact this is the defendant's own testimony makes it even worse. The prosecution's closing statement would absolutely be thrown out.

Jack McCoy comeback with cutter and connie

Anything to win.

The judge should not have allowed this.

Anything you say can and will be used against you. Why do defendants waive that right?

Great scene - horrible procedure. The opposing counsel addressing the jury during summation? The assisting counsel reading from the record instead of the stenographer? The two counsel directly addressing each other during closing? L&O (and basically every show) takes liberty with procedure for the purposes of drama, but there's a difference between 'yeah, it wouldn't happen like that' and 'there is no way in hell any bit of this would ever happen in a courtroom' - this scene is definitely the latter.

Are the lawyer and the judge the same characters in other episodes of the franchise?

@yvonnetomenga5726

2 жыл бұрын

@Samuel Jiménez • The lawyer has been on multiple episodes. Not sure about the judge.

that would be an extreme violation

Can someone explain this to me I’m confused… so why exactly is he getting charged with murder?

@Jo-er6tw

2 жыл бұрын

Someone here explained it very well but I think I might be able to summarize it An example would be if 3 people decided to rob a bank, 1 person of those 3 killed someone but all 3 will be charged for conspiracy/ murder This is because they all planned and executed something that put others in a very dangerous situation and someone died becomes of sed actions, even if that was not their original intent it was still caused by them during an act of malicious intent Something similar is happening here aswell I think

What the heck happened in that apartment?

so many people have bipolar disorder/ are manic depressive. doesn't mean they can't function normally.

Consuela Rubirosa 🥰

Crazy rubirosa looks exactly the same today

It's true! If you shake it more than twice, you ARE playing with it! - Woody Bigpecker

I love carter good lawyer 😊

it came from the defendant mouth that ended him in jail

The later L&O episodes are such...trash. This kind of nonsense would NOT fly in a courtroom. A simple rebuttal is "is the defendant qualified to classify someone's mental state?" If no, you cannot use his words against him.

@MoleVillsupreme72

2 жыл бұрын

I think that It’s part of the drama added for the show. Also, I think the point of it is that it was a surprise foe which the defendant lawyer wasn’t ready and couldn’t react. Not a very good lawyer, btw.

@Renegade2786

2 жыл бұрын

*This kind of nonsense would NOT fly in a courtroom* I'm assuming that this comment was posted before Kylie Rottenhouse's trial happen.

Wait so this is 2 dufferent episodes?

I'm a simple man, I hear about people evading taxes, I cheer.

Did they say the burned bodies smelled like french fries?...

Not a lawyer, but I believe this will be overturned on appeal.

the fact that he's British...

Jeremy Sisto is my favorite Jesus...

Good episode but totally unrealistic. The cops would not have kept digging if they got that that kind of evidence/confession. Close the case and push on because you have 10 pending.

4:47 What are you doing with that? 🤨

@flamedude6849

Жыл бұрын

Wendy dumped acid on the bodies I think

that Goldfish is the real victim

Hey Joe

Hello

7:44 she fine

Dang... Uno reverse card in *action* no?

in reality he would prolly win on appeal

What type of idiots walking around with dangerous chemicals in open bucket. Oh, it's probably one neighbors. Never mind🙄🤨

Sweetie bear

Jack got Melo as he got older, don't you think?

The show frequently took liberties with legal reality for dramatic effect.

This is weird…

I didn't like how cutter won this case he basically turned the victim into a criminal just to win his case he destroyed her character

@isabellegranger5980

2 жыл бұрын

McCoy does it a lot too.

@Igarappappa

2 жыл бұрын

Cutter admitted that he hates how that's what he did. But he had not other way to get to her brother otherwise sadly.

(SIGH) So in the L&O Universe...u don't have to have a college degree, lie to the Bar, and u can still become an Exec DA in NYC!! Alana de la Garza must of been livid when they cast Whitey McWhitey!! I hope they they cast her in the reboot of L&O...or even better Angie Harmon as the New York Country District Attorney!! EVERY1 gets the death penalty!!

burgle

I dislike McCoy's stance in this clip. He's not trying to run a con; he's simply showing that either the defendant provoked his sister to commit the crime or that he was in a conspiracy with her to commit the crime. Either way, he's guilty of the crime.

Uno reverse card

Defendant is screwed

This BS is why I can't sit on a jury or believe police in court. As a reserve I quit being involved in anything which would bring me into court. Juries are notoriously uninformed about much of anything in life. They are easily lead by police testimony which no informed person would even briefly consider. In these episodes we all see the detectives making decisions by stating things which are not true any where except New York City.

Peter Barlow was deported to America and ended up in Law And Order

Well didn't the mother break the law there was a court injunction stopping her taking the child to Brazil so why didn't she get a sentence??? He isn't a monster he was doing what a parent would do so he wouldn't lose the child. But yet why was the mother Spared Prison she completely ignored a judges Injunction and took the child to Brazil

Whoever moderates this channel needs to start double checking their posts. The first scene in this video obviously has nothing to do with and is completely unrelated to everything after 1:21.

@sdaiwepm

2 жыл бұрын

It shows the aftermath of the murder which led to the trial.

Mac Donalds

The problem with this show is that it's so laughably inaccurate

Put the bat down. Made me nervous. He's not at batting practice.

@starguy2718

5 күн бұрын

They borrowed it from Tom Cruise's character in "A Few Good Men".

acab

CHRIST is the only way to heaven.

@The.Wellerman

2 жыл бұрын

Christ is a fairytale.

Yea no...cause literally right after the doctor said she was manic...it wouldn't stand..the summation would absolutely be thrown out