I know I'm a little late to the party with this information, but if you haven't heard, Viva La Bam's Vincent "Don Vito" Margera was sentenced on Saturday for 10 years to life on probation after he was convicted of two counts of sexual assault on a child. Further, Margera was ordered not to perform as his "Don Vito" alter-ego for 10 years. This is TV related news because, apparently, Don Vito is a television personality. Since I'm over 30 and a high school graduate, I wasn't readily aware of this fact.The bit that intrigues me about this story is the strategy the defense used: that the judge should go easy on Margera because he only groped the teenage girls while "in character." I think that this sets the precedent for a lot of really interesting future court cases...
First, let me say this: I'm not one to judge a book by its cover, but if I had to make a guess whether the man in the picture accompanying this article was "an outrageous and profane [lecher]" or a great method actor who merely pretended to be an outrageous and profane lecher, I'd have to go with the former. I mean, I know that's horrible and all, but come on! I'm a parent now. If this guy showed up at my son's playground wearing a trench coat, my first thought wouldn't be, my god, what a committed character actor!, it would be, how can I pick up my son and run away without it being obvious?
That being said, it's something of a landmark precedent that a lawyer was able to successfully argue a reduced sentence due to someone acting too well. I mean, sure Rambo got only hard labor after killing all those cops because he had post-traumatic stress disorder, but could Sylvester Stallone make the same argument after he shot Brian Dennehy? The answer, in this brave, new post-Margera world? Lock and Load, Mr. Stallone. Lock and load.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, here are some other actors free to commit crimes:
1) Carroll O'Connor* can now be totally racist. And I don't mean subtly racist, like when my uncle complains that scrambling quarterbacks aren't as good as pocket quarterbacks (right, sure, it's the scrambling you don't like). I mean, he can be flat-out Michael Richards crazy racist. If anyone calls him on it, he can just say, "Oh, man, I'm so sorry, I was just having an Archie Bunker moment, you know?"
2) Hugh Laurie can start a Vicodin addiction. (It's important to note, however, that he can only have the addiction if he swallows the pills without water, House-style. Regular people need water to down pills, TV characters, it always seems, just throw the pills down their throats without the need for any liquid whatsoever. I've never actually seen this in real life. Even my mother -- who was, shall we say, a committed fan of Xanax -- would need, at the very least, an icepick or two in order to take her afternoon trip. I think that if Lurie was seen taking the pills with water, human-style, it would be too hard for the defense to prove he was "in character.")
3) Sam Neill can now plot to overthrow the United States for his masters in the Soviet Union, like his character Colonel Andrei Denisov from the 1987 ABC miniseries Amerika. The only problem I foresee the actor having is that, when he's called before an international tribunal for crimes against humanity, his lawyer might have trouble convincing the judge because the role is such an obscure one. He'd be better off hedging his bets and plotting the downfall of the United States by way of dinosaurs. The double whammy of Amerika and Jurassic Park should make it no problem keeping him out of jail.
What about you guys? Any ideas of other actors and the crimes they can now commit? Let me know in the comments...
Six Mad Men characters who are in limbo after the finale
Fact or Fiction: Big Bang, Brothers & Sisters and CSI
The TV Squad Podcast: Linda Purl talks about The Office, we talk spoilers, and more
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-25-2007 @ 12:40PM
LC said...
"The bit that intrigues me about this story is the strategy the defense used: that the judge should go easy on Margera because he only groped the teenage girls while "in character."
I didn't get that from the article at all. From what I read, the banning of the character was in addition to the 10 year to life probation, which sadly, seems to be the usual sentence a predator gets for only groping an underage person. If anything, the lawyers argument caused the additional punishment which was banning him from the show.
I would assume that if his lawyer didn't use the character as an excuse for his actions he would still be allowed to use it albeit in a different manner than what got him in trouble in the first place.
Reply
12-25-2007 @ 1:04PM
Jay Black said...
LC -- you're right, I think, that the judge put the character provision in the sentence most likely because the lawyer used it as a (very flimsy) excuse for his behavior. I think you're quoting the wrong part of what _I_ wrote, however -- I think the article makes it clear that the strategy the defense used was, indeed, that the judge should go easy on Margera because he was in character. The part that I eloborated on (for comedic purposes) was the idea that if that defense worked, what other characters would now be able to get away with.
Sorry if I wasn't 100% clear on that!
Reply
12-25-2007 @ 1:35PM
LC said...
You are right and I did quote the wrong part. I meant to use this:
"That being said, it's something of a landmark precedent that a lawyer was able to successfully argue a reduced sentence due to someone acting too well. "
It was the "successfully" that was the focus of my response.
I agree that the lawyer did try to use that as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. It just backfired and gave him the added sentence I believe.
Don't worry though, I did get the tongue in cheek nature of the elaboration and found it funny. ;)
Reply
12-25-2007 @ 2:05PM
Hollywood Ron said...
I take pills without water all the time, and as far as I know, I'm not on TV.
Reply
12-25-2007 @ 2:31PM
Jay Black said...
Yes, but you are _Hollywood_ Ron... :)
12-25-2007 @ 2:25PM
BartmanDK said...
Well Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles could kill random people and then afterwards say they where vampiers, wearwolfs etc.
And Bret Harrison could walk around pointing random objects at people and say he's trying to take theire soul back to hell, but i guess thats not really a crime! :D
Reply
12-25-2007 @ 4:46PM
Midnight13 said...
Keifer Sutherland can now torture his Fox network executives when he "negotiates" his contract on "24". Apparently Micheal C. Hall can kill, well anyone he sees fit. Wow, this portraying a fictious character argument can work wonders. The possiblities are endless.
Reply
12-26-2007 @ 10:22AM
soundoftheground said...
"I'm...a high school graduate,..."
show off.
Reply
12-26-2007 @ 10:37AM
Jay Black said...
Hey, I worked really hard for seven years -- I'm allowed a little bragging, don't you think?
12-26-2007 @ 12:24PM
kevjohn said...
Another important precedent: If they decide to make "Viva La Bam: The Movie", Margera has been legally barred from reprising his role as Don Vito! The judge has made himself a casting director.
Reply
12-26-2007 @ 2:38PM
LC said...
I don't know if that would really be a precedent since Judges have barred people from working a particular field or barring them from specific activities that may cause their risky behavior, in the past.
I mean, if Margera were a school teacher and was banned from teaching jobs, I wouldn't feel that the judge made himself school superintendent or whatever the title is of hiring teachers.
Reply
12-28-2007 @ 10:01AM
kip said...
"here are some other actors free to commit crimes: ... Carroll O'Connor can now be totally racist. ... I mean, he can be flat-out Michael Richards crazy racist."
I would just like to point out that being racist, even "Michael Richards crazy racist," is not a crime. At least not in the United States (where I assume you are writing from since you mention American shows).
Reply
1-10-2008 @ 9:08PM
Robert Vlupins said...
Oh get a grip people! So he copped a little feel. Who hasn't?
If groping a little teen poopage is wrong, than mister, I don't want to be right. Who's with me?
Reply