Entertainment desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 18

bringing me down down

Hi there,
I‘ve heard on the radio a song,
That its chords goes like this:
Bringing me down down.
A female sings it and then she shouts and on the background
males sing "down down". Does anyone recognise?

"Bringing Me Down" from Jefferson Airplane Takes Off? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't Bring Me Down" by ELO? It's a male singer, but a lot of it is in falsetto. Matt Deres (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of reminiscent of "Falling Away From Me". Like ELO, not a woman, but sometimes sounds like one. The lyric is actually "beating me down, down" in that one, but maybe.

Less likely is 311's "Down". I haven't listened to much radio from this decade, but here are several more songs named "Down" you might want to check. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I checked a few Down articles out from that link, and edited one for repetition. The byte count went down by 311. Also happened to be 3:11 pm, UTC. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Hypothetical Situation

Wilson lives alone in a House.

In America, two American officers are informed that a Terrorist is living inside a particular House, which belongs to Wilson.

When Wilson opens the door, the Officers use Self-Defense to shoot Wilson in the Shoulder becuz Wilson was holding a (Dangerous Weapon aka Hammer).

The American Officers find a Piece of Paper which reveals that Wilson is a New Tenant.

Bassically, the Actual Terrorist escaped Unfortunately.

But the shooting was in self-defense due to Wilson's hammer.

Since Wilson was holding a Hammer, it’s because Wilson wanted to attack his (Annoying Friend who keeps asking for a Commission Price) but Wilson didn’t expect the Cops to be there.

Wilson is still alive.

In this situation, can the (American Officers) & (Wilson) be charged with any crime?(50.173.3.170 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

This desk doesn't offer legal advice or predictions. Even if we could, there are enough missing details that the best guess would be "Maybe."

In an actual (though Canadian) case of cops vs hammer man this year, they were not charged. But that's a different story. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hammer shooting from Phoenix. And Albuquerque. And Potomac Mills. And Lynchburg. Something to consider. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)71.186.150.94 (talk)== arlene francis ==

What do you mean maybe? How come you can't say yes or no for whether American Officers can get Charged? What about the Indian Movie called Shock? In that movie, why were the Officers worried about getting Arrested for shooting a Man in Self-Defense due to the Hammer?(50.173.3.170 (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Whenever a cop kills someone (or even fires their gun), there's an internal review. Depending on the info this review finds, he might be charged or might not. Cops are legally allowed to use force on the job, even deadly force. It only becomes a problem for the courts when it's excessive force. Who's reviewing the shooting, which state they're in, what the prosecutor feels like doing and the political climate of the time can all influence the decision, after the facts are found. So maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a bunch of examples. Mostly no hammers, but all controversial. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might have helped if you told us that you were talking about a specific film that you had seen. Someone who has seen the film might be able to give a better answer since they know the factors involved in the movie as presented by the writers.

As far as the "Maybe" answer that you've received, there are too many unknown factors.

And for anyone who may want to venture a guess, the OP is possibly referring to either Shock (2004 film) or Shock (2006 film). I can't tell from our plot outlines which might have involved a shooting. Dismas|^(talk) 11:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about Shock(2006 telugu film). Why didn't those Indian Officers just say that they shot the Indian Dude in Self-Defense due to the Hammer? Why did those Indian Officers have to frame that Indian Dude as a Terrorist?(50.173.3.170 (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Because the screenwriter(s) chose to do it that way. If he/she/they hadn't, likely the story would have seemed less entertaining.

Fiction isn't mathematics, and doesn't have to correspond with what is most likely (or actually happened) in real life: it just has to seem plausible at the moment you're consuming it. Even films based on real events often deviate considerably from what actually happened so as to form a "better story" within the confines of the film.

The degree to which you see plot implausibilities while you're watching may be one measure of a film's quality, so you're entitled to judge that the film was a poor one. If the implausibilities only occur to you after the film's over, that doesn't matter because the theatre (or whoever) has already got your money. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. If you're sitting in the theater saying to yourself, "Why are they doing that?", that falls into what Siskel & Ebert used to call "the idiot plot". For example, No Country for Old Men had, to my mind while wztching it, an "idiot plot". The performances were good, though, which helped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]