Episode #617 - "To Kill A Predator" ***CONTAINS SPOILERS***

I agree with this statement because I think that what H has had to deal with in the last year would have drove anyone over the edge and yet here he is still trying to protect the city. Maybe this is why he is back in the lab to get away from being in the front--its a change of pace for him or maybe to reaffirm his job and what it means. Maybe his faith in the system is wanning, I don't know, but so many criminals get off with nothing and that has just got to be extreamly fustratating.

I honestly think that the team would help and back up Horatio as he has done this numerous times for them. All in all they respect him.

As for Calleigh she looked like she could've cried durning that one scene where they were looking at evidence (I think Ryan and Nat were there). SHe has to have some emotions left from that kidnapping that will have to be resolved at some point. I guess we will see.....or not.

I have to say though when I saw the ending of the episode, the first thing that came to my mind is Boy the board is gonna have to say alot about this. And you guys did not dissapoint.

 

So also this episode wasn't bad

The ending.......I won't talk about it cause to me paedophilia is a nasty argument and in I think that the majority of us probably considers it as the worst kind of crime ever....but everyone's reaction is different and it depends on the situation in which we are and on how we confront it.
In my opinion It kind ruined the whole episode but still

That's how I think we should see this ending

Hmm Calleigh no mention to her kidnapping but still I appreciated how she looked kinda shocked the whole time.....and it really looked like there was something going on inside her.

The others were kinda anonymous.
I kinda liked this episode.

 

Here's my 3rd 2 cents worth for this thread:
I think we'll find out before season 6 is over or in the last episode of season 6 that Horatio did rough the guy up some. Here's why I think that.
When Horatio said "You're resisting arrest" he had just removed his badge and gun, both of which he wears on his belt just under the opening of his jacket.
Plus, last time I can remember Horatio removing his badge and gun was in the 2nd season 4 episode to feature the character Walter ?Dresden/Resden?
After Horatio shot Walter in the side (or maybe the arm) Walter's foster father told Horatio that without his badge and gun he was like Walter, nothing but a punk. Horatio took his badge and gun off then offered Walter's foster dad a chance to take a whack at him...which the foster dad never did. If that uniformed officer hadn't showed up a few seconds later I think Horatio would've roughed up that foster dad.
Horatio was kinda rough with that guy that falsely accused him of police brutality in the season 3 episode After The Fall but he didn't break the guy's shoulder like the guy claimed he did. The guy broke his own shoulder repeatedly banging it against the concrete wall in the holding cell.
In Lost Son if Yelina hadn't been there to remind Horatio of all the news people there with their cameras and microphones outside that jewelry store where Speedle was shot, I think Horatio would've roughed up that jewelry store fellow. So I think Horatio is capable of committing police brutality without even batting an eyelash or giving it a 2nd thought. Right now it's just a question of "did he or didn't he?". They faded to black without showing whether or not he actually roughed the guy up.

:vulcan:-Cliffhangers are illogical.
:klingon:-I HATE CLIFFHANGERS!!!
:borgrepare to be assimilated...but first we will torture you with cliffhangers.

 

New here! I have read all of the posts and am not going to say anything I want because it pretty much has been covered except I will say this--I don't think Horatio considers himself a "cop" once the badge comes off.

Another thing...does anyone watch CSI Vegas because I swear that "Kevin Weaver" also played on a Vegas episode where he was raping and killing women and they did not catch him at first because he had 2 sets of DNA...Grissom only caught him by seeing a wierd formation under his skin and had him give blood...does anyone remember this ep?

 

*jumps in* I've actually thought quite a bit about the episode, and it seems like 1 of 2 things was done on Monday's ep. Either a) they are setting Horatio up to completely lose it or they are setting him up to have clinical depression. Wikipedia had the following symptoms, and they just seem so much like what we've seen in H over the last few seasons:

Feelings of worthlessness, inappropriate guilt, helplessness
Feelings of hopelessness, pessimism
Difficulty thinking, concentrating, remembering or making decisions
Thoughts of death or suicide or attempts at suicide
Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities that were once enjoyed
Withdrawal from social situations, family and friends
Decreased energy, fatigue, feeling "slowed down" or sluggish

Now he hasn't been suicidal (that we know of) but the quick decisiveness is gone, he's withdrawn, he doesn't seem to have any friends, he doesn't talk much to his family, etc.

Or... b) CBS just threw that in there Monday night to get people talking and create some buzz for the show after the strike. [/cynicism] My actual take is that it's a. *jumps back out again*

 

First of all that is not the result of someone taking the law into their hand, thats the result of idiocy, and a lack of education. Second of all lets get beyond the superficial shall we? The law is ultimately nothing more than an agreed to code of conduct created by politicians who many of you feel are corrupt. It is for all intents and purposes a set of papers, a socially constructed set of barriers. To begin with the question what makes a judge, jury, or executioner special, what gives them the special privilage to dictate justice. Is a local bystander who is also familiar with the law not capable of judging, and determining fair retribution? Additionally isn't a jury itself just a bunch of citizens unfamiliar with the law. The point is can we move beyond simple illogical claim statements like "no one should take the law into their hands"; tell me why. Why is locking someone in a barred room any more just than a cop beating them up? Why is what H did not morally justified? If we look to history, not a 1000 years ago they tortured people in public, burnt them alive, and executed them for similar offenses. That was certainly an action by the state, would you say that’s just? Furthermore would you say that’s just while condemning the simple taking of justice into ones hand and beating up a pedophile who you know for certain committed a vile and heinous act against a minor?

These are important questions you need to ask yourself, what made the government the sole moral actor when it comes to criminal law, and what made them so pure on that matter than any one else compromising that system is just as bad as the criminal they are punishing? Was it not four months ago that a judge if Vermont gave a pedophile twenty days in prison? Was that justice? Everyone has the capacity to be corrupt, especially the government. What matters is not the means that a person takes to enact justice but their intent. H's was clearly a pure intent of punishing the man for what he had done, and on the consequentialist side that same thing checked out. He didn't kill the guy it wasn't uneven retribution, and ultimately when that guy goes to prison the people there are going to be a lot less merciful than H.

Beating someone up is not lawful, no matter who it is you're beating up on. What it is is assault, and if you break bones and/or split their lip and/or break their skin so that the person is bleeding then it is GBH (Grievious Bodily Harm), and if there is intent to kill and you do kill them then it is Murder.

Furthermore perhaps that was in Horatios mind the only way to enforce said law. And even so you have given me little to no substantive reason as to why his actions were wrong. And I do not mean on a legal level I mean on some kind of ethical or moral level. The law in this instance is meaningless; its just paper, and its made by people many of you condemn as I stated earlier.

We need to get our heads out the clouds here, and consider something beyond this narrow, and ridiculous interpretation of ethical police work. Why should we protect people who commit such crimes, and why shouldn't they be made to suffer for what they did, just as they made their victims suffer? Why should we claim it lowers us, why should we feel guilt in such acts; should we not be proud of what H did? Move beyond the obvious there have been many societies in history, each with their own code of laws, and each society felt they were just. We should realize that these standards are subjective standards of conduct created by us, and are no more valid than my conception of justice or dogbert’s. Justice is relative, law is subjective, and there are few if any absolutes. If I want to take the law into my hand my justice may be just as just as that of the state’s. Its all matter of personal judgment.

 

What happened to the innocent until proven guilty? There are reasons why a person is supposed to have a trial. What would happen if we all conducted the law the way we think it should be conducted? I think we all think that pedophilia is a hideous crime, so for some of you it makes it OK to beat someone up because he is pedophile. But what will happen if someone was false accused (yeah, I know that this guy wasn`t falsely accused)? What would you do? Beat the guy, sent him to trial and if he was proven innocent you would apologize? Law has to be equal for everyone. Just because someone is awful, doesn`t give you the right to be the same. Where will you draw the line? When will the vengeance be enough and when will it be to much?

 

Read Iamthey's post again:

 

First and foremost, Marija_Magdalena, I completely agree with you. It’s what I've been saying all along concerning Horatio’s position, and I also think that it is us everyday Joe’s responsibility too, as a civilised society, to respect the law of the land as well.

Um, yes it is taking the law into your own hands. Those who murdered that Paediatrician made a judgement (an erroneous one) and then acted on that judgement by committing murder. That’s taking the law into your own hands. Just because they were too stupid to not know the difference between what a Paediatrician is and what a Paedophile is, is neither her nor there.

In my opinion, the laws of the land are a set of standards that prevents the innocent from being persecuted, murdered (such as the Paediatrician), beaten, physically abused, stalked, etc, etc, etc. It is a set of standards that if broken then a punishment befitting the crime is applied.

How about if you were to put a family member of yours in the same position as the Paediatrician, an innocent who was murdered? Would you want a family member to have been beaten to death and have it quantified as those who murdered that family member were obviously stupid and ignorant and had simply made a mistake? Or would you actually want those who murdered your family member to pay for the crime they had committed?

Now, judging by some of the comments I’ve read in this thread and elsewhere, I think some might opt for the “eye for an eye” and go seek their own form of justice. So, say you go and do that, which will also be taking the law into your own hands, and you go murder a member of their family. Well, once you’ve done that, what’s to stop them from opting for the same option and avenge their family member’s death by murdering another member of your family? ...and so on and so on, until all members of both families are pushing up daisies.

Would you be willing to risk the annihilation of all your family members, or would you rather know that the remaining members of your family are safe from the ones who initially committed a murder because they have been dealt with by the law? I know which one I would prefer.

Isn’t that what we have now? Isn’t a Judge a local bystander who is supposedly knowledgeable of every quarter of the law? Isn’t he the one who determines an appropriate sentencing in accordance to the crime that has been committed?

A member of the jury is not required to know the law, and shouldn’t be required to know the law because they are not there to determine an appropriate sentence according to the laws of the land, they are there to determine whether the man or woman is innocent or guilty of the crime they have been accused of and they are also members of the public who are, or should be, impartial to the crime that has been committed. In other words they are not emotionally involved with the person who may or may not have committed the crime and also the prosecutors.

Whether the Politicians/Judges/Members of the Jury are corrupt themselves or not is neither here nor there, because all in all they are only enforcing the law, they are not the law themselves.

Yes, it is true that this is not an ideal world we live in, but not all Politicians are corrupt and neither are all Law Enforcement Officers/Judges/Members of the Jury. To think that they are is, in my opinion, idiocy itself.

The definition of Morals is: Definition - "Moral adj: relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct.

Given that Horatio Caine is a Law Enforcement Officer, I would say his own personal morals coincide with the reason why he chose a career that involves the upholding and protection of the laws of the land and also the protection of the innocents who adhere to those laws. I would also say that we’ve had plenty of evidence in past seasons showing us that this could said to be true of Horatio.

So, I would say that the reason Horatio Caine was morally unjustified when he supposedly beat up this Paedophile is because he went completely against his personal and professional law abiding tenets that come with the job that he does, by committing a criminal act himself, which involved administering a punishment that he alone saw as a fitting one. He made a judgement on the Paedophile that was not impartial, and then acted on that judgement, which as a Law Enforcement Officer or even as a law abiding citizen of Miami, he should not have acted on.

First of all you are talking about laws that were around 1000 years ago. Admittedly such things still occur in certain parts of the world today, but I would hope not in Miami. I do know such things don’t occur in the UK. I would also hope that our laws today are far more civilised than those of a thousand years ago.

What does bemuse me though is why you are using history as a quantification of why you appear to feel that the laws of today are failing? Shouldn’t we actually be looking at what transpired in our History and be learning from that, and then actually admit that perhaps with these laws that do govern us now, we are a bit more civilised now than we were back then?

As said earlier, this is not an ideal world we live in and that’s because Humans are corruptible, but then not all humans are corrupt, or corruptible. Besides, in your example, it wasn’t the law that was corrupt, it was the official in Vermont who was. So, in my opinion, to disband the laws of the land, as I think you wish would happen, simply because a few have been corrupted would, in my opinion, be committing Social suicide.

...Anarchy in the making because there would no restraint on anything. I could walk down the road, killing anyone I felt like, and without any law or law enforcement officers, and all that entails, to find me and send me to prison or the chair for that, I would get off scott free. Because just say that one of those was a member of your family that I killed, how would you, an every day joe, find me?

Again, your proposal is ignoring the reasons why Horatio chose a career in Law Enforcement. If he doesn’t believe in the application of the law anymore, then he should not be working under the pretence that he does. The badge and what it signifies cannot be placed to one-side when it suits him

The law should never be deemed as meaningless, especially when it comes to a law Enforcement Officer.

Let me ask you a question, why do you think Horatio chose to become a Law Enforcement Officer?

The last thing a law does is protect those guilty of committing a crime.

As said before, the laws of the land are there solely to protect the innocent from murder, persecution, abuse, and so on, and it is also in place to punish those who commit any crime that breaks those laws. I also believe that the laws are there to protect us from ourselves.

In my honest opinion, Iamthey, your debate has been about corrupt individuals who have the power to act on behalf of the law, such as Judges, but it has not been about the laws of the land.

In my opinion, as in most things, it is not the laws that fail us, but some of the people who act on behalf of the law. And yet, in my opinion, it cannot be said with any confidence that if all of us, as local bystanders, were given the power to administer our own punishments on those who commit a crime, that some of us would not become corrupted ourselves.

 

I would want the perp to pay. I don't care what he might've thought at the time - that does not justify murder. When it comes to murder, in most cases, I am completely unforgiving.

No, I would not personally kill the perp unless I had no other choice (ex: deportation).

I think all politicians are corrupt to some degree, some more than others, but that is a long standing personal prejudice of mine, so I'll ignore that part of your response to Iamthey.

 

Continuation of my previous post:

I would want the perp to pay. I don't care what he might've thought at the time - that does not justify murder. When it comes to murder, in most cases, I am completely unforgiving.

No, I would not personally kill the perp unless I had no other choice (ex: deportation).

I think all politicians are corrupt to some degree, some more than others, but that is a long standing personal prejudice of mine, so I'll ignore that part of your response to Iamthey.

I have believed from first watching this show that H chose his career path because he wants to protect the innocent and downtrodden, not the law. It's the reason why I'm joining law enforcement - not to protect the law, but because it gives me an oppurtunity to effectively protect others.

Legally, it was criminal, but once again you are referring only to the law. If you want to complain about H undermining his job, then you should have done it quite a long time ago - he has stood up against laws he felt were stupid since season one - such as threatening both suspects and government agents.

There have been laws from the beginning of time that were placed there to harm society, such as restriction of free speech. I don't know why on Earth you have so much faith in the law, but having too much faith in such a corruptable thing is bad.

 

But haven't you, dogbert14, spent a few posts in this thread justifying Horatio's actions concerning the Gang Member he executed, by saying that as far as you're concerned the Gang member had deserved it?

In all honesty, that to me seems pretty forgivable of Horatio murdering someone.

I've already given my thoughts at the end the quote you have quoted.

Not being funny, but if your aim is to want to solely protect the innocent, then what is stopping you from doing that now? Why do you feel the need to join a Law Enforcement Agency in order to simply protect the innocent?

Hmm, methinks you've not be reading my posts, dogbert14, because I have stated this opinion in nigh-on all, if not all of my posts.

It is the knowing that not all of those who act on behalf of the Law are corrupt that gives me my faith in the law.

 

Ok I haven't watched the entire epy but I did see the ending. So I'm not going to comment on anything that H did, I mean we don't even know what he did cos we didn't get to see it. Like in the ending of 'Ambush' we hear a gunshot when H is surrounded by the Mala Noche but at the beginning of that same scene in 'All In', no gun was actually fired, yet. So it's probably on purpose that tptb want us to think H roughed up the guy. Anyway I digress..

Two things I wanted to say was that, firstly I agree with those who said,

which ironically was said by H. And my next point is how he got there.

Second, I inadvertenly caught the re-run of 'One Of Our Own' (yikes hated that part of s4), and it was the scene when H had the opportunity to kill Riaz at the airport place but he didn't. It came to me IMO that, that moment could be the turning point of H's evolution to the way he is now. Cos Riaz went off and killed Ray Sr. And H must have regreted letting Riaz live. Perhaps he, from then on, decided that he should not let such a thing happen again, if he let anyone go, they might go kill or hjurt someone innocent or someone he cares about.

 

In all honesty, HRockz, that might explain Horatio's actions now, but it is still speculation to be honest. Still, even if we were to go with that, it still does not justify his actions - Not as a Law Enforcement Officer or a Law Abiding citizen of Miami. In my opinion, when Horatio accepted the badge, he accepted the responsibility of being an obvious representative of all of what the law entails and because of that there are certain restaints, professional and as well as personal, placed upon him and the actions he can and cannot take.

To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, Horatio's actions tell me that he has now become something not that dissimilar to a Gang Member of the Mala Noche. He in other words has become a vigilante within a Law Enforcement Agency, which is worse than a member of the Mala Noche, because we, the innocent, the law abiding citizens are supposed to be able to trust and have faith in all of what the law entails, and especially in those who act on behalf of the law.

While there is a possibility that Horatio could simply have said "Boo!" to the Paedophile after taking that threatening step forward right at the end of the scene and then stepped away again - and that maybe his actions and words before that moment were simply to frighten the Paedophile, but given his recent actions concerning, for instance, the Gang member, do you honestly think that that is all Horatio did?

All in all, when you take into consideration Horatio's recent actions, what can I take from that scene at the end with the Paedophile that would make me believe Horatio did not go rogue again and beat him up?