-Spoilers-
it's a decent episode if you aren't questioning the detective.
in each episode he shows up, he makes assumptions about Frank Castle's involvement, which is proven to be incorrect later on in the same episodes, which begs the question, HOW did this guy pass the detectives exam in the first place? Not ONCE has he been correct about Frank Castle's involvement...wouldn't a actual detective start noticing a pattern at this point?
taking the warehouse situation as a example:
you have a well known psychopath (Billy), known for not caring about who he kills...and then you have Frank.
The detective doesn't question it at all before leaping to the conclusion that Frank did it even though this is clearly a breach of all his previous shootouts.
why would he not assume Billy did it and Frank were trying to save them? (this would be more in line with Frank's M-O)..and then wait for coroners report and ballistics report as any half-decent detective would.
he even calls them "unknown civilians"....how does he manage to figure out they weren't there for some shady reason if they ARE unknowns...and how does he conclude withouth ANY evidence that Frank did it, as it is stated a bit later that Frank doesn't specificly say he did or didn't do it..
you see this exact problem in pretty much any series that aren't specificly a police show...all cops are portrayed as idiots who have no clue how to do their job.
in a real world situation, the detective would barely qualify for handing out parking tickets...and he would probably mess that up by assuming a diplomats flag was false and start shooting because the car was parked outside the U.N
12 out of 17 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
