donutsweeper | Told You So

Title: Told You So
Pairing/Warning/Rating: NCIS fandom, no pairings, rated G
Word Count: 200
Summary: Tony was right and Kate was wrong, and he's not going to let her forget that any time soon.
Author's Note: Written for the

ncisdrabble100 challenge: bad idea

“I hate to say I told you so, Kate... but I told you so.”

“Fine. You were right. Is that what you want me to say, Tony? That you were right and I was wrong?”

“I told you it was a bad idea, Abby told you it was a bad idea even Ducky told you it was a bad idea, but you-”

“Ducky didn’t say it was a bad idea!”

“Fine, my mistake. Ducky told you it ‘might not be the smartest way of celebrating such a momentous occasion’ which boils down to pretty much the same thing.”

“But I thought...”

“Thought what, Kate? Thought that you knew better than we did? More like you didn’t think. For heaven’s sake, the man’s a marine. A marine!”

“I know that, Tony. I do. I just didn’t expect...”

“If you didn’t expect this kind of reaction then don’t know the marine mindset at all.”

“No, I guess I don’t.”

“But I guess you know better now, don’t you?”

“I definitely do.”

“Good, then you can get this mess cleaned up while I go find something patch up the bullet holes. And Kate?”

“Yeah, Tony?”

“No more surprise birthday parties for Gibbs, okay?”

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

Kate never did really get a handle on her co-workers. Kind of strange for a profiler.

And Gibbs would *not* appreciate being surprised. For anything

Yeah, I absolutely agree - on both accounts.

I really wish the women of NCIS were written more consistently (Abby as the one exception) how on earth am I supposed to write them IC when their characterization in canon is all over the place?

That's always the annoying thing about inconsistent writing >>

stupid inability for the writers to keep track of what they're writing!!!

definitely. they need good beta readers!

absolutely! If we can keep track of Gibbs' rules, so can they!

or at least they should be able to. but are they? noooo.

*grumbles under breath*

The least they could do is write more shirtless Tony to make up for it

We should demand they do that. think it'd work? ... think we can get some shirtless Gibbs in the general vicinity of the shirtless Tony, too?

would be nice, but will probably be asking far too much from them.

I'll settle for storylines that make sense

and proper first aid, should it happen to be needed.

that's like asking for the moon!

well, i used to ask for the moon and the stars, so I guess I must be getting more realistic.

that's pretty smart

yup yup. and now I have to get back to writing my paper; use all that smart for something I actually need to do :D

errrr, have fun?

i am actually enjoying this, so yeah, thanks :D the right to silence is an interesting topic :D

the right not to incriminate yourself?

the right not to incriminate yourself and the privilege to silence - that when you refuse to answer a question, your silence cannot be used by the judge/jury to draw any conclusions as to whether you're guilty or not.

and, of course, the whole "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you"

I didn't realize it was an international law as well

in the international form, it's mostly due to article 6 and 8 of the human rights convention; "anyone has the right to due process and fair trial and whatnot"

oh. Interesting- I had no idea. It seem like a smart law, it prevents people from being forced into talking

I think it is! at the same time, some people have argued that "The right to silence, in the sense of the immunity of an accused person from having adverse inferences drawn from failure to answer questions during police questioning, is central to the due process model. In contrast, adherence to crime control principles logically demands not only that such inference should be drawn, but that in some or all circumstances, refusal to answer police questions should be an offence in itself, on the ground that innocent persons would not thereby be disadvantaged and the burden on the prosecution would be eased."

Forcing someone to answer can lead down a slippery slope though. i.e. How far can the police/investigators go in getting the answer? What are they allowed to do?

(no subject)

chatona.livejournal.com - 2008-09-29 15:12 (UTC) - Expand

donutsweeper.livejournal.com - 2008-09-29 15:13 (UTC) - Expand

chatona.livejournal.com - 2008-09-29 15:15 (UTC) - Expand

donutsweeper.livejournal.com - 2008-09-29 15:16 (UTC) - Expand

chatona.livejournal.com - 2008-09-29 15:18 (UTC) - Expand

donutsweeper.livejournal.com - 2008-09-29 15:19 (UTC) - Expand