Home

Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey?

Posted By: Lollygagers12

Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 02:40 AM

I don't understand why Michael couldn't sue Captain McCluskey for striking him outside of the hospital. I mean, Michael had plenty of witnesses to testify against McCluskey and could have possibly gotten McCluskey suspended from the force or something along those lines. Michael could have played the "but I'm his son" type of excuse, which would have been perfectly legitimate because Michael wasn't part of the family at that time. I know the other Families would have been furious but like Clemenza said, wouldn't they still have to recognize Michael as a "civilian"?
Posted By: Turnbull

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 02:52 AM

The family's urgent objective was to prevent another attempt on Vito's life. They needed to eliminate Mac and Sol ASAP. Suing McCluskey for assault would have been, at best, a long, protracted process. Vito would have been dead long before any suit came to trial. And it probably wouldn't have because all the witnesses were cops, who'd put up the famous "blue wall of silence" to protect Mac.

A more credible alternative to Michael killing Mac and Sol would have been for Tom to use the family's newspaper contacts to place a story about how Mac took bribes from organized crime and was in cahoots with Sol to kill Vito--attest the removal of the Corleone troops from the hospital. Given Vito's prominence, the police commissioner would have no choice but to assign uniformed cops to guard Vito, and to suspend Mac pending "further investigations." The Corleones then could have used their considerable political clout to have one or more of their judges and politicians call for Mac's dismissal from the force--and to round up Sol and deport him. But then we wouldn't have had a GF Trilogy.
Posted By: dontomasso

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 02:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Lollygagers12
I don't understand why Michael couldn't sue Captain McCluskey for striking him outside of the hospital. I mean, Michael had plenty of witnesses to testify against McCluskey and could have possibly gotten McCluskey suspended from the force or something along those lines. Michael could have played the "but I'm his son" type of excuse, which would have been perfectly legitimate because Michael wasn't part of the family at that time. I know the other Families would have been furious but like Clemenza said, wouldn't they still have to recognize Michael as a "civilian"?



The witnesses were all cops. Had Hagen's people not arrived when they did Michael would have been arrested for several things including resisting arrest with violence, and the testimony would be that Michael hit MCluskey first.

Also the Corleones don't seek justice through the judicial system.
Posted By: Sicilian Babe

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 03:02 PM

In today's litigious society, he probably would have. But remember Tom's words to Michael when he first proposes killing McCluskey. Nobody had EVER gone after a police captain, clean or dirty. It was completely unheard of. The book goes into further detail about how untouchable the simplest patrol officer was.
Posted By: SC

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 04:49 PM

Originally Posted By: dontomasso
Also the Corleones don't seek justice through the judicial system.


That's it in a nutshell. Bonasera sues. Vito and sons don't.
Posted By: olivant

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 07:46 PM

You also have to consider such things as New York state law and governmental immunity. Even an "ultra veris (under the cover of authority)" based suit against McCluskey might was not a slam dunk for petitioner especially back then. A tort of some sort might have been successful, but there probably were no federal civil rights laws back then on which to base a suit. And getting a local lawyer to take the case would have been a challenge.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 08:09 PM

In the New York City of the 1940s, an Irish cop beating up an Italian (any Italian, not just gangsters), was an acceptable prejudice.

I know I'm gonna get in trouble for this, but I'll say it anyway: Irish cops have always been a clannish and exceptionally rude, vulgar and racist bunch here in New York. They came here with the benefit of speaking the language, giving them the upper hand when it came to city jobs. They always held it over the heads of other Euro groups.
Posted By: SC

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 08:16 PM

Originally Posted By: olivant
You also have to consider such things as New York state law and governmental immunity. Even an "ultra veris (under the cover of authority)" based suit against McCluskey might was not a slam dunk for petitioner especially back then. A tort of some sort might have been successful, but there probably were no federal civil rights laws back then on which to base a suit. And getting a local lawyer to take the case would have been a challenge.


I'm surprised at you, oli. To even CONSIDER the possibility of a Corleone suing for justice in a court is showing a complete misunderstanding of the novel. It's impossible to even think.

Vito Corleone and his world had no use for the judicial system. They took care of their own and metered out justice as they saw fit. This is a basic tenet of their world and it is described at the beginning of the novel (when Bonasera comes to Vito for justice).

I repeat - Vito Corleone or any of his sons would NEVER EVER go to a court for justice.
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 08:18 PM

I agree 100%.
Posted By: Sopranorleone

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 09:55 PM

I also agree with everyone that posted here that no member of the blood Corleone family would ever use the judicial system. But, to be more clear, no Corleone would use the judicial system at that time. Later, in GFIII, Michael famously says, "I need more lawyers." In Michael's quest for legitimacy (however "real" that quest actually was), he had to bend and accept the democratic way of the corporate world.

In short, it was a matter of goals.
In GF1, the goal was the immediate safety of Vito and the survival of the family.
In GF3, the goal was being considered legit in the eyes of the public (at least, so says Michael).
Posted By: svsg

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 11:24 PM

Originally Posted By: SC

I repeat - Vito Corleone or any of his sons would NEVER EVER go to a court for justice.

But Tom was a lawyer. He even threatens McCluskey that he would have to show cause in a court of law. no one except Michael thought that they could kill a policeman. So whatever Vito's private justice system was, he or his men weren't ready to handle McCluskey outside the court. It was unprecedented, until Michael comes up with his bold plan.
Posted By: SC

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 11:38 PM

Originally Posted By: svsg
But Tom was a lawyer. He even threatens McCluskey that he would have to show cause in a court of law. no one except Michael thought that they could kill a policeman. So whatever Vito's private justice system was, he or his men weren't ready to handle McCluskey outside the court. It was unprecedented, until Michael comes up with his bold plan.


A quick, necessary tactical move by Tom. He needed to make sure that Vito was guarded by trusted men.

I doubt that using the court system was ever in the Corleone's plans to deal with McCluskey in the long run. Tom MAY have been thinking along those lines but as Turnbull pointed out, there was a much more immediate concern for Vito's safety. Once that was assured dealing with McCluskey could be dealt with later.
Posted By: Lilo

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/19/09 11:59 PM

I agree that no Corleone would take someone to court. Vito's whole way of life is based on not recognizing the legitimacy of the courts over him and his. Vito would view going to court and begging strangers to intercede in your life as contemptible.

Tom's only concern was to ensure Vito was kept safe until he could be moved to the mall. So Tom used his seeming upperworld status to impress upon McCluskey that further interference at that point in time would be met with superior (legitimate) political force.

Maybe over time Tom and Sonny might have been able to use their father's judicial and police connections to get McCluskey transferred to a highly undesirable location, mess around with his pension, get him kicked off the pad or something like that but as Michael pointed out they had no time.

In order to save Vito's life Sollozzo had to go immediately. As there was no way to do this without also removing McCluskey, the cop got to go along for the ride. I think it was business and personal for Michael.
Posted By: Danito

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/20/09 12:58 AM

Originally Posted By: SC
Vito Corleone and his world had no use for the judicial system.

You're right, they wouldn't sue McCluskey for acting as Sollozzo's body guard. But they did use the judicial system. Why else should Vito keep all those judges "in his pahket"? And he insisted that Tom became a lawyer.
Also, I believe, they would have used the judicial system if McCluskey interfered in the renewed protection of Vito at the hospital. This wasn't just an empty threat.
Posted By: Turnbull

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/20/09 03:09 AM

In Lilo's and Danito's most recent posts, we find the essence of the Corleones' relationship to the "justice" system:

Vito was sophisticated enough to understand that "a lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns." His legitimate facade--his ability to accomplish things that benefited him and the people who needed him--came from manipulating the politico/judiciary system and exploiting the weaknesses and greed of judges, politicians and cops. A man who could deliver things to constituents "through the system" would wield awesome power and assume mythic proportions.

At the same time, as SC noted, the Corleones would never use the same system to achieve "justice" for themselves in urgent, personal and life-threatening matters. Why should they, when they had other means at their disposal. In fact, a great deal of their strength rested on the fear factor: their ability to go beyond the system and use violence to achieve quick, definitive solutions. The combination was what made them strong.

Connie's wedding provides us with splendid examples of both sides. Nazorine wants Vito's "legitimate" political clout to keep his future son in law in America. Bonasera, after trying and failing to get justice through the courts, wants Vito's violence. Bravo!
Posted By: The Last Woltz

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/20/09 02:05 PM

Vito was smart enough to change with the times. As his reach become longer - beyond one neighborhood - he needed to use the "legitimate" system to reinforce his power. Certainly, he couldn't bribe the entire law enforcement/judicial system, so he worked within the system as well as outside of it.

The Corleones used whatever means were most apt to achieve their goals. In the scene outside the hospital, they were outmanned and outgunned. Tom, realizing this, uses the threat of judicial review of McCluskey's actions to ensure that Vito was protected. No amount of buttonmen would have accomplished that.
Posted By: Don Cardi

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/20/09 07:47 PM

Originally Posted By: SC
Originally Posted By: dontomasso
Also the Corleones don't seek justice through the judicial system.


That's it in a nutshell. Bonasera sues. Vito and sons don't.



Originally Posted By: Turnbull
Vito was sophisticated enough to understand that "a lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns." His legitimate facade--his ability to accomplish things that benefited him and the people who needed him--came from manipulating the politico/judiciary system and exploiting the weaknesses and greed of judges, politicians and cops. A man who could deliver things to constituents "through the system" would wield awesome power and assume mythic proportions.

At the same time, as SC noted, the Corleones would never use the same system to achieve "justice" for themselves in urgent, personal and life-threatening matters. Why should they, when they had other means at their disposal. In fact, a great deal of their strength rested on the fear factor: their ability to go beyond the system and use violence to achieve quick, definitive solutions. The combination was what made them strong. Connie's wedding provides us with splendid examples of both sides. Nazorine wants Vito's "legitimate" political clout to keep his future son in law in America. Bonasera, after trying and failing to get justice through the courts, wants Vito's violence. Bravo!


Exactly! :

BONASERA: "I went to the police, like a good American."

VITO CORLEONE: "Why did you go to the police? Why didn't you come to me first?
Had you come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruined your daughter would be suffering this very day. And that by chance if an honest man such as yourself should make enemies, then they would become my enemies. And then they would fear you."


VITO CORLEONE (to Tom ) : "Ah, give this to ah, Clemenza. I want reliable people; people that aren't gonna be carried away."


----------------------------------------------------

NAZORINE : "Well now that the war is over, this boy, Enzo -- they want to repatriate him back to Italy. Godfather, I have a daughter. You see, she and Enzo... "

VITO CORLEONE: "You want Enzo to stay in this country, and you want your daughter to be married."


TOM : "Who should I give this job to?"

VITO CORLEONE: "Not to our paisan. Give it to a Jew congressman, in another district."

________________________________________________


As Turnbull pointed out above, Vito knew exactly what and who to use depending on what the situation was.

A violent situation and a legal situation. Both handled by Vito accordingly.
Posted By: olivant

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/20/09 11:22 PM

"I want him sued. I want his family sued. I want his house encumbered with a judgement."
Posted By: Turnbull

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/21/09 06:37 PM

"...I'll tort him into the poorhouse..."
Posted By: pizzaboy

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/21/09 06:45 PM

"That Turk shows one hair on his ass, we'll go after him for libel, believe me."
Posted By: Turnbull

Re: Couldn't MIchael have sued McCluskey? - 02/21/09 07:03 PM

"..and if not that, indecent exposure." lol
© 2024 GangsterBB.NET