Continuity mistake: When Amaro and Benson are searching the hotel room, they both put on gloves as they enter (Amaro puts gloves on both hands, Benson just on her right). After Amaro says "they weren't after cash", the camera pans back to Benson who is no longer wearing gloves, but holding one in her right hand and using it to pick up items. The camera pans back to Amaro who opens a safe and finds a passport, still wearing both gloves. He opens the passport and recites information, and we see Benson now wearing her right glove again. We then go to a POV shot of Amaro and he is reading the passport with no gloves, before the camera immediately changes shot and he has them both back on again.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (1999)
1 continuity mistake in season 14 - chronological order
Starring: Christopher Meloni, Richard Belzer, Mariska Hargitay, Dann Florek
Continuity mistake: When Stabler steps out to confront Tarzi, there is a long, brown brick wall to Tarzi's right. Tarzi then turns and runs across the street and is followed by Fin. Munch steps out and yells "halt!" There is another shot of Tarzi and he stops again. Right before he is tackled by Fin, behind him, to his right, is the same brick wall as before even though he crossed the street and ran down the block.
More quotes from Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
Trivia: Jerry Orbach's son Chris plays Lennie Briscoe's nephew Ken.
Question: Why was A.J. only charged with reckless endangerment? The video showed him punching Paula in the back when she's climbing the stairwell, getting punched in the face by A.J. and then being dragged away unconscious. Shouldn't he have been charged with either aggravated assault or assault and battery instead considering how violent he was?
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: I didn't see the show so I don't know the details. A general answer would be because a reckless endangerment charge is easier to prove "beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in court and get a conviction. This charge would not require the prosecutor to prove intent, which would be required for proving aggravated or simple assault. Also, if there were no visible injuries, it is difficult to show bodily injury. Just because the reckless endangerment charge was specifically mentioned, it does not necessarily mean there were not other charges filed. Police often make multiple charges, like lesser-included offenses, so that the defendant's act will fall under one of them if the legal requirements are not met for the others, if they are not sure of the best charge to make (the district attorney knows and can decide), or to have something to plea bargain with.
KeyZOid