40th Anniversary Watch Party

[Pahonu]

That's true. There sure are many, many options.

Absolutely, and I think that can lead many to feel overwhelmed by so many viewpoints. That’s not a criticism of any point of view, just a comment on individual’s many reactions to all the options.

This may be getting into the weeds a bit, but there is growing psychological literature drawing a connection between individual’s response to variety and complexity in general and their political inclinations. I’ve had several discussions on the topic with a colleague over the last few years, though not lately. Essentially, several recent psychological studies have shown that individuals who view new and unique experiences, such as trying a new foreign cuisine, as a negative and uncomfortable tend to fall on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Individuals who find such exotic experiences more positive and enjoyable tend to lean more liberal. These studies don’t approach it from a political perspective but rather the lens of personal behavior traits that are very likely biologically motivated. I’m not too familiar with all the details but find the topic fascinating. I’ll have to get more specific details from my coworker, because I feel I’m not explaining this very well.

My experience has been that it has more to do with class than politics. Wherever I’ve been in the world, eating foreign / international cuisine is a marker of being a successful or well educated professional.

Yes, I think we’re thoroughly in the weeds!

To go further into the weeds yeah, the example of foreign cuisines may not have been the best! It had more to with the tendencies one might have to either seek out and enjoy new experiences, or to question and be cautious about the unfamiliar. Those tendencies showed some correlation with political conservatism or liberalism. Yeah, the foreign cuisine example was NOT a good one.

I do remember one component of one of the studies was pickiness toward food though. It has actually been described in psychological journals that part of the population has higher sensitivities to flavors and are much more cautious about trying unknown flavors. Because these new flavors are often perceived as unpleasant, the experience of trying new ones is viewed more negatively. I think the takeaway was that certain innate tendencies can affect whether people experience new and different things as more generally positive experiences or more negative experiences.

From a purely anecdotal view, I know people on both sides of that spectrum from myself, both the friend who’s up to try anything (sometimes stupidly!) and the friend who’s much more reluctant about those same things and takes a lot of convincing to try something. Now I just have to survey all of them about their political leanings and see how they correlate!!!

While I haven't caught up yet with this week's watch, I like where this discussion is going.

I do agree there seems to be a lack of "role model" type characters out there, at least of the Magnum type. Sure, we can point to Longmire or Justified, maybe even Burn Notice, to find those characters closer to traditional role models, but they also seem to represent a "fish out of water" feel as well, as if they stand apart from, current society.

They also aren't major network shows but on secondary services. But is it society doesn't want traditional heroes or Is it the loosening of restrictions and having the creative freedom to write more complicated characters? Even back when society was more "polite" there was always a draw to the complicated . . . pulp novels were all the rage and morally grey characters played out the readers fantasies. Think about Casablanca. Everyone loves Rick, yet he wasn't the hero, Lazlo was the real true hero who tried, and did achieve good things. Yet everyone wants to be Rick, the man who self proclaims "he sticks his neck out for nobody".

There's Sons of Anarchy . . . a show I loved yet my wife couldn't stand. These were not nice men, yet they had their own moral code, apart, outlaw, from society as a whole. Similar to The Godfather, yet many who love The Godfather won't see the parallels in SOA. Yet the biggest movies this century were based on either actual superheroes or a band of different peoples, often fantastic races, coming together to fight evil. So for every Dexter and Walter White, isn't there also an Aragorn or Steve Rogers?

I'm not sure ... a lot of people are #TeamCap yet would want to hangout with Tony Stark, or even Loki. It's interesting whether it's what the audience wants, or what the companies producing content want the audience to want.

I find very little on TV catches my attention anymore, between the unfunny "comedies", the overly dramatic medical soap operas, the endless virtue signaling and don't get me started on the reality shows . . . it's disappointing, but it makes shows I like stand out more. SEAL Team is still OK but Blue Bloods is winding down, Walking Dead is now just an obligation rather than Must See T.V. and Last Man Standing is fading.

Oh well, such is the life of one no longer in the target demo I guess . . .

Very well put, Conch and you hit on a couple of new aspects. One that I think is very important is that we in the forum are really no longer the target demographic for advertisers. In the end, as depressing as it might seem to us, this kind of entertainment is a popularity contest. The programming that holds the most viewers will make the money in advertising to continue producing the program. Our perception of the quality of the content is irrelevant.

Which leads the second topic. I think it is tempting to think that content providers are driving what is popular but that doesn’t fit with the very nature of the business model. Programming that isn’t popular with a large enough part of the viewing audience will simply be a money loser. Even shows that are more popular, but not with the most profitable demographic groups won’t make money and won’t last. I don’t think most producers are in it to keep losing money.

Another forum member brought up the very controversial action taken by Magnum in the killing of Ivan. As much as we love this character and think of him heroically even, Bellisario made the decision to muddy the waters. He had our favorite protagonist commit an act of vigilante murder. He came close to repeating the act in the final season with Quang Ki. Some might choose to justify it according to their beliefs but it was legally a murder. I think this complexity makes for much more compelling storytelling but I would cautiously say, it makes it much more difficult to accept this as the behavior of a role model. Magnum is definitely not Jack Webb “Just the facts, ma’am” by any stretch, but I think that makes for a much more interesting character.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Oh well, such is the life of one no longer in the target demo I guess . . .

So true. At our age, there's very little that can change our habits and have us trying something new (and advertisers know it).

All opinions about the new Magnum aside (we don't need to go traipsing off into the weeds again), does the 21st century Magnum bring up issues like honour and/or morality? It's not like our Magnum was completely virtuous (picking locks, stealing wine, not paying his friends back, breaking the speed limit), but he had a strong sense of real honour and it seemed important to the producers to make that clear.

Picking locks, stealing wine, speeding, etc. is basically being a "saint" when compared to the "heroes" of today's television. Basically Magnum was a prankster with a heart of gold and a code of honor. We all have that mischievous side to us which in no way means we lack virtue or lack some type of moral compass. I certainly wouldn't knock any points off TM's virtue meter.

[Pahonu]

Oh well, such is the life of one no longer in the target demo I guess . . .

So true. At our age, there's very little that can change our habits and have us trying something new (and advertisers know it).

All opinions about the new Magnum aside (we don't need to go traipsing off into the weeds again), does the 21st century Magnum bring up issues like honour and/or morality? It's not like our Magnum was completely virtuous (picking locks, stealing wine, not paying his friends back, breaking the speed limit), but he had a strong sense of real honour and it seemed important to the producers to make that clear.

Picking locks, stealing wine, speeding, etc. is basically being a "saint" when compared to the "heroes" of today's television. Basically Magnum was a prankster with a heart of gold and a code of honor. We all have that mischievous side to us which in no way means we lack virtue or lack some type of moral compass. I certainly wouldn't knock any points off TM's virtue meter.

Vigilante murder doesn’t seem just mischievous or like a prankster. That’s an awfully big thing to overlook. It seems a bit like the moral relativism you were criticizing in previous posts. He’s a character we all love, but imagine someone you know confided that they killed someone in cold blood, meaning their was no immediate threat to them or others, but explained it was acceptable according to their moral code. You wouldn’t have any reservations about a comment like that? I would argue that TM is a much more complex and interesting character than just the lovable prankster you describe. That’s an oversimplification of a very well-drawn character.

[T.Q.]

To take the Ivan killing as a barometer of Magnum's value system is a stretch.

He was acting as a soldier and it was justice (which wasn't forthcoming from anywhere else in the system). It was one and done so in my mind it can be 'overlooked'. Sort of like when a Dad blows away someone who sexually assaults his daughter and gets away with it. I don't judge the father for taking care of business. I applaud him actually.

Everything else over 8 years indicated his strong values and respect for the rule of law.

Not killing Quang Ki (who deserved it) in the end.

Not lying to the court in Blind Justice to put away a murderer for a different killing even though it would have been justified.

Etc.

JMHO

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

T.Q. nailed it!

I would shake TM's hand after his confession to me about what he had done. Job well done. It may not be legal, but it was 100% justified. He executed revenge against a ruthless criminal who murdered his good friend (or imagine if this was your wife or child), a criminal who was going to get off scot free to boot! Someone had to dispense justice. If the courts weren't then by golly our morally upright and honorable hero would. That's why comparing TM to someone like Walter White is crazy. One is a hero, the other is a villain. Simple as that. No gray area here. One killed to bring justice to someone who was going to escape it, the other kills to protect his drug empire. Hello! It's not even close.

As you can probably tell I'm very much pro-capital punishment.

To take a more extreme example think about the DEATH WISH movies where Charles Bronson prowls the streets at night dispensing vigilante justice left and right. I feel no remorse towards the scum he blows away. As it's presented, they deserve it. Is it legal? No. But if blowing away a scumbag saves the life of an innocent person down the road then it's justified. Again, I don't see Bronson as a villain. Walter White, however, remains a villain.

[Styles Bitchley]

T.Q. nailed it!

I would shake TM's hand after his confession to me about what he had done. Job well done. It may not be legal, but it was 100% justified. He executed revenge against a ruthless criminal who murdered his good friend (or imagine if this was your wife or child), a criminal who was going to get off scot free to boot! Someone had to dispense justice. If the courts weren't then by golly our morally upright and honorable hero would. That's why comparing TM to someone like Walter White is crazy. One is a hero, the other is a villain. Simple as that. No gray area here. One killed to bring justice to someone who was going to escape it, the other kills to protect his drug empire. Hello! It's not even close.

As you can probably tell I'm very much pro-capital punishment.

To take a more extreme example think about the DEATH WISH movies where Charles Bronson prowls the streets at night dispensing vigilante justice left and right. I feel no remorse towards the scum he blows away. As it's presented, they deserve it. Is it legal? No. But if blowing away a scumbag saves the life of an innocent person down the road then it's justified. Again, I don't see Bronson as a villain. Walter White, however, remains a villain.

Everyone has their own idea of what a "scumbag" is. I don't trust humans enough to make that determination alone. In movies and TV, yeah, we get the whole story. But that ain't real life. Courts make mistakes, but they're pretty essential to creating order from the chaos we'd all have if everyone followed their own code based on their personal values and experiences.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

T.Q. nailed it!

I would shake TM's hand after his confession to me about what he had done. Job well done. It may not be legal, but it was 100% justified. He executed revenge against a ruthless criminal who murdered his good friend (or imagine if this was your wife or child), a criminal who was going to get off scot free to boot! Someone had to dispense justice. If the courts weren't then by golly our morally upright and honorable hero would. That's why comparing TM to someone like Walter White is crazy. One is a hero, the other is a villain. Simple as that. No gray area here. One killed to bring justice to someone who was going to escape it, the other kills to protect his drug empire. Hello! It's not even close.

As you can probably tell I'm very much pro-capital punishment.

To take a more extreme example think about the DEATH WISH movies where Charles Bronson prowls the streets at night dispensing vigilante justice left and right. I feel no remorse towards the scum he blows away. As it's presented, they deserve it. Is it legal? No. But if blowing away a scumbag saves the life of an innocent person down the road then it's justified. Again, I don't see Bronson as a villain. Walter White, however, remains a villain.

Everyone has their own idea of what a "scumbag" is. I don't trust humans enough to make that determination alone. In movies and TV, yeah, we get the whole story. But that ain't real life. Courts make mistakes, but they're pretty essential to creating order from the chaos we'd all have if everyone followed their own code based on their personal values and experiences.

Of course. And that's what we're talking about here - what's presented to us on our TV screens. Based on what we saw of Ivan, his motivations, and what he had done, we all cheer for TM when he blows the scumbag away. BAM! There's a reason this episode is rated so high and why it's my personal favorite. It helps that this act comes so unexpectedly and so bluntly from a man who's clearly had enough and had reached his limit.

Didn't TM also shoot point blank at the end of "China Doll"? Though I think that was more of a self-defense move. He saw George Kee Cheung blink. And then there's the likely (we're not sure) execution of Lena in "Never Again..." where he probably could have disabled her. She was only holding a scalpel. Actually that scene is probably more "cold" than Ivan's execution if you ask me. Lena didn't actually kill anyone close to Magnum.

[Styles Bitchley]

T.Q. nailed it!

I would shake TM's hand after his confession to me about what he had done. Job well done. It may not be legal, but it was 100% justified. He executed revenge against a ruthless criminal who murdered his good friend (or imagine if this was your wife or child), a criminal who was going to get off scot free to boot! Someone had to dispense justice. If the courts weren't then by golly our morally upright and honorable hero would. That's why comparing TM to someone like Walter White is crazy. One is a hero, the other is a villain. Simple as that. No gray area here. One killed to bring justice to someone who was going to escape it, the other kills to protect his drug empire. Hello! It's not even close.

As you can probably tell I'm very much pro-capital punishment.

To take a more extreme example think about the DEATH WISH movies where Charles Bronson prowls the streets at night dispensing vigilante justice left and right. I feel no remorse towards the scum he blows away. As it's presented, they deserve it. Is it legal? No. But if blowing away a scumbag saves the life of an innocent person down the road then it's justified. Again, I don't see Bronson as a villain. Walter White, however, remains a villain.

Everyone has their own idea of what a "scumbag" is. I don't trust humans enough to make that determination alone. In movies and TV, yeah, we get the whole story. But that ain't real life. Courts make mistakes, but they're pretty essential to creating order from the chaos we'd all have if everyone followed their own code based on their personal values and experiences.

Of course. And that's what we're talking about here - what's presented to us on our TV screens. Based on what we saw of Ivan, his motivations, and what he had done, we all cheer for TM when he blows the scumbag away. BAM! There's a reason this episode is rated so high and why it's my personal favorite. It helps that this act comes so unexpectedly and so bluntly from a man who's clearly had enough and had reached his limit.

Didn't TM also shoot point blank at the end of "China Doll"? Though I think that was more of a self-defense move. He saw George Kee Cheung blink. And then there's the likely (we're not sure) execution of Lena in "Never Again..." where he probably could have disabled her. She was only holding a scalpel. Actually that scene is probably more "cold" than Ivan's execution if you ask me. Lena didn't actually kill anyone close to Magnum.

Yep, you're right. He's no Mike Hammer, but he's no Joe Friday either.

[Pahonu]

T.Q. nailed it!

I would shake TM's hand after his confession to me about what he had done. Job well done. It may not be legal, but it was 100% justified. He executed revenge against a ruthless criminal who murdered his good friend (or imagine if this was your wife or child), a criminal who was going to get off scot free to boot! Someone had to dispense justice. If the courts weren't then by golly our morally upright and honorable hero would. That's why comparing TM to someone like Walter White is crazy. One is a hero, the other is a villain. Simple as that. No gray area here. One killed to bring justice to someone who was going to escape it, the other kills to protect his drug empire. Hello! It's not even close.

As you can probably tell I'm very much pro-capital punishment.

To take a more extreme example think about the DEATH WISH movies where Charles Bronson prowls the streets at night dispensing vigilante justice left and right. I feel no remorse towards the scum he blows away. As it's presented, they deserve it. Is it legal? No. But if blowing away a scumbag saves the life of an innocent person down the road then it's justified. Again, I don't see Bronson as a villain. Walter White, however, remains a villain.

In one comment you argue there’s no gray area, and in another you say some illegal behavior is okay, if you think it’s justified. There’s no logic in that and, if I’m honest, seems more than a little hypocritical. You’re engaging again in the very moral relativism you criticize. There is no logic in saying there is absolute right and absolute wrong and then making exceptions to those absolutes.

Another problem with this logic arises: Who gets to decide who’s a scumbag, as you put it? What if someone thinks you’re a scumbag because you said something that offended them, for example. You’re reasoning would allow them to kill YOU if they feel it’s justified. It’s the same kind of thinking that Muslim extremist have used to justify their killing of individuals who insult their faith, such as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists murdered. They are all illegal killings lacking due process. Your reasoning above, justifies their murder. Supporting some vigilantism but not other vigilantism is both hypocritical and completely illogical.

Accepting or even encouraging any vigilantism is a dangerous, slippery slope to go down. It’s no different than the racial lynchings of the last century. Putting the roles of judge, jury, and executioner in the hands of one person is the opposite of due process in democratic systems. These steps toward justice are clearly described in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. This is at the very heart of our nation’s founding, the rule of law, applied to all, not meted out by some vigilante or a monarch like George III. Based on their writings and decisions in creating our nation’s democratic system, the founding fathers would not agree with you.

I’m with Styles here. The real world isn’t as neat and tidy as an hour long fictional TV series. Using movies or TV shows as examples or justification just isn’t realistic and is an oversimplification. The courts aren’t perfect, nothing is, we’re human. However, I would rather they follow constitutional due process, EVEN if that means they err on the side of allowing guilty people to go free to prevent innocent people from being imprisoned or executed. It might seem easy to disagree with that statement but what if the innocent person was you or a loved one? Don’t think it hasn’t happened, even with due process. You argue above that a vigilante murder is justified if it has the POTENTIAL of saving a future innocent life, but that same vigilantism you support has in REALITY led to the loss of innocent lives. Your prescribed cure has proved more deadly than the disease.

Since you brought it up, my position on capital punishment isn’t really based on any moral or philosophical principle or belief. It’s pretty simple really, and based on what I wrote above. We’re human and we make mistakes. That includes the justice system, so I think it’s unwise, perhaps even hubristic, to issue a punishment that cannot be undone. That’s all. There have been approximately 1500 executions in the US in my lifetime and in that time more than 150 individuals were exonerated from death row, found innocent, and released. That’s not a great track record for mistakes. Tragically, there were several cases in the 80’s and 90’s were the exoneration came too late and innocent people were killed. Most of the world’s democracies have come to the same conclusion about capital punishment. The nations of the world that still execute people like the US is a pretty eye opening list of autocratic regimes from North Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia.

[Styles Bitchley]

In one comment you argue there’s no gray area, and in another you say some illegal behavior is okay, if you think it’s justified. There’s no logic in that and, if I’m honest, seems more than a little hypocritical. You’re engaging again in the very moral relativism you criticize. There is no logic in saying there is absolute right and absolute wrong and then making exceptions to those absolutes.

Another problem with this logic arises: Who gets to decide who’s a scumbag, as you put it? What if someone thinks you’re a scumbag because you said something that offended them, for example. You’re reasoning would allow them to kill YOU if they feel it’s justified. It’s the same kind of thinking that Muslim extremist have used to justify their killing of individuals who insult their faith, such as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists murdered. They are all illegal killings lacking due process. Your reasoning above, justifies their murder. Supporting some vigilantism but not other vigilantism is both hypocritical and completely illogical.

Accepting or even encouraging any vigilantism is a dangerous, slippery slope to go down. It’s no different than the racial lynchings of the last century. Putting the roles of judge, jury, and executioner in the hands of one person is the opposite of due process in democratic systems. These steps toward justice are clearly described in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. This is at the very heart of our nation’s founding, the rule of law, applied to all, not meted out by some vigilante or a monarch like George III. Based on their writings and decisions in creating our nation’s democratic system, the founding fathers would not agree with you.

I’m with Styles here. The real world isn’t as neat and tidy as an hour long fictional TV series. Using movies or TV shows as examples or justification just isn’t realistic and is an oversimplification. The courts aren’t perfect, nothing is, we’re human. However, I would rather they follow constitutional due process, EVEN if that means they err on the side of allowing guilty people to go free to prevent innocent people from being imprisoned or executed. It might seem easy to disagree with that statement but what if the innocent person was you or a loved one? Don’t think it hasn’t happened, even with due process. You argue above that a vigilante murder is justified if it has the POTENTIAL of saving a future innocent life, but that same vigilantism you support has in REALITY led to the loss of innocent lives. Your prescribed cure has proved more deadly than the disease.

Since you brought it up, my position on capital punishment isn’t really based on any moral or philosophical principle or belief. It’s pretty simple really, and based on what I wrote above. We’re human and we make mistakes. That includes the justice system, so I think it’s unwise, perhaps even hubristic, to issue a punishment that cannot be undone. That’s all. There have been approximately 1500 executions in the US in my lifetime and in that time more than 150 individuals were exonerated from death row, found innocent, and released. That’s not a great track record for mistakes. Tragically, there were several cases in the 80’s and 90’s were the exoneration came too late and innocent people were killed. Most of the world’s democracies have come to the same conclusion about capital punishment. The nations of the world that still execute people like the US is a pretty eye opening list of autocratic regimes from North Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia.

Yeah, the whole capital punishment thing seems pretty archaic if you grow up in the rest of the developed world. But hey, you guys still use the Imperial system of measurements and have dollar bills and even pennies still, so we just assume you guys have a thing for old fashioned things.

I would also suggest that the concept of vigilante justice is so much more of a dangerous concept with the advent of social media, where mobs "convict" people regularly based on "information" that goes viral.

[Amian]

Of course. And that's what we're talking about here - what's presented to us on our TV screens. Based on what we saw of Ivan, his motivations, and what he had done, we all cheer for TM when he blows the scumbag away. BAM! There's a reason this episode is rated so high and why it's my personal favorite. It helps that this act comes so unexpectedly and so bluntly from a man who's clearly had enough and had reached his limit.

The vigilante justice topic is always super interesting, and is probably why so many dramas use it. Is it acceptable for an individual to contravene laws to dispense what he considers justice and commit a "righteous kill"? It feels very biblical, an eye for an eye sort of thing. Primitive, even, since it may be the most basic conception of justice we humans have: you do me wrong, I do you wrong right back. Kids are doing this on the playground from before they can talk. But our societies have laws, and they are meant to maintain order (and dispense justice). Laws are imperfect, both in conception and execution (ha), but if we agree that a functioning society is important then we should follow it and work to improve it.

My own reaction to Magnum's killing of Ivan is a little more complicated than "we all cheer" when he does it. I was satisfied because, given the circumstances, I thought Ivan deserved it. He was a remorseless villain. But I was also shocked, as I think many viewers were. It was a murder, and not in self defense. He killed the guy deliberately and with a level head. So I didn't cheer, but I could see why it happened, and the complications of all that are, for me, what makes it so highly rated. The stakes were high (as was the quality of the acting and writing).

I would also agree that Walter White and TM are not the same, but then agin they aren't supposed to be the same. The title of the show, Breaking Bad, tells you that WW is on the path toward Evil. The whole show is about that journey. MPI is not that kind of show in its conception, and it's too simple to say that both characters do bad things, so they are somehow the same, or even necessarily similar.

Now, that said, could you argue that WW also has his code? That he has a moral foundation that makes sense to him and which justifies his actions? He seemed to think that anything that would support his family was A-OK. By the end, if I recall correctly, he has transformed into a monster who owns up to liking doing bad things, but throughout most of the series we viewers are given little openings to root for him, to see if we'll go along with his code even as he goes further off the rails.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

T.Q. nailed it!

I would shake TM's hand after his confession to me about what he had done. Job well done. It may not be legal, but it was 100% justified. He executed revenge against a ruthless criminal who murdered his good friend (or imagine if this was your wife or child), a criminal who was going to get off scot free to boot! Someone had to dispense justice. If the courts weren't then by golly our morally upright and honorable hero would. That's why comparing TM to someone like Walter White is crazy. One is a hero, the other is a villain. Simple as that. No gray area here. One killed to bring justice to someone who was going to escape it, the other kills to protect his drug empire. Hello! It's not even close.

As you can probably tell I'm very much pro-capital punishment.

To take a more extreme example think about the DEATH WISH movies where Charles Bronson prowls the streets at night dispensing vigilante justice left and right. I feel no remorse towards the scum he blows away. As it's presented, they deserve it. Is it legal? No. But if blowing away a scumbag saves the life of an innocent person down the road then it's justified. Again, I don't see Bronson as a villain. Walter White, however, remains a villain.

In one comment you argue there’s no gray area, and in another you say some illegal behavior is okay, if you think it’s justified. There’s no logic in that and, if I’m honest, seems more than a little hypocritical. You’re engaging again in the very moral relativism you criticize. There is no logic in saying there is absolute right and absolute wrong and then making exceptions to those absolutes.

Another problem with this logic arises: Who gets to decide who’s a scumbag, as you put it? What if someone thinks you’re a scumbag because you said something that offended them, for example. You’re reasoning would allow them to kill YOU if they feel it’s justified. It’s the same kind of thinking that Muslim extremist have used to justify their killing of individuals who insult their faith, such as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists murdered. They are all illegal killings lacking due process. Your reasoning above, justifies their murder. Supporting some vigilantism but not other vigilantism is both hypocritical and completely illogical.

Accepting or even encouraging any vigilantism is a dangerous, slippery slope to go down. It’s no different than the racial lynchings of the last century. Putting the roles of judge, jury, and executioner in the hands of one person is the opposite of due process in democratic systems. These steps toward justice are clearly described in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. This is at the very heart of our nation’s founding, the rule of law, applied to all, not meted out by some vigilante or a monarch like George III. Based on their writings and decisions in creating our nation’s democratic system, the founding fathers would not agree with you.

I’m with Styles here. The real world isn’t as neat and tidy as an hour long fictional TV series. Using movies or TV shows as examples or justification just isn’t realistic and is an oversimplification. The courts aren’t perfect, nothing is, we’re human. However, I would rather they follow constitutional due process, EVEN if that means they err on the side of allowing guilty people to go free to prevent innocent people from being imprisoned or executed. It might seem easy to disagree with that statement but what if the innocent person was you or a loved one? Don’t think it hasn’t happened, even with due process. You argue above that a vigilante murder is justified if it has the POTENTIAL of saving a future innocent life, but that same vigilantism you support has in REALITY led to the loss of innocent lives. Your prescribed cure has proved more deadly than the disease.

Since you brought it up, my position on capital punishment isn’t really based on any moral or philosophical principle or belief. It’s pretty simple really, and based on what I wrote above. We’re human and we make mistakes. That includes the justice system, so I think it’s unwise, perhaps even hubristic, to issue a punishment that cannot be undone. That’s all. There have been approximately 1500 executions in the US in my lifetime and in that time more than 150 individuals were exonerated from death row, found innocent, and released. That’s not a great track record for mistakes. Tragically, there were several cases in the 80’s and 90’s were the exoneration came too late and innocent people were killed. Most of the world’s democracies have come to the same conclusion about capital punishment. The nations of the world that still execute people like the US is a pretty eye opening list of autocratic regimes from North Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia.

Pahonu, you're reciting the entire Constitution here and going off waaaay into the weeds while we're discussing TV shows. Thomas Magnum is a hero, Walter White is a villain. We're not talking about hypothetics here. We're talking about what's presented to us on the screen. And Charlie Bronson doesn't blow away any innocents while dispensing his brand of justice. That's why we can root for him. Because he's not making any real-world mistakes.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

it's too simple to say that both characters do bad things, so they are somehow the same, or even necessarily similar.

Yes!! And that's precisely my point.

I would even say that what Mag did to Ivan was NOT a bad thing. The law may say it's a bad thing but the law isn't always right, is it? I mean this same law often lets the guilty go free and then punishes the innocent. So clearly it isn't perfect. We're a nation of imperfect laws. Sometimes old-fashioned justice is most satisfying!

[Pahonu]

T.Q. nailed it!

I would shake TM's hand after his confession to me about what he had done. Job well done. It may not be legal, but it was 100% justified. He executed revenge against a ruthless criminal who murdered his good friend (or imagine if this was your wife or child), a criminal who was going to get off scot free to boot! Someone had to dispense justice. If the courts weren't then by golly our morally upright and honorable hero would. That's why comparing TM to someone like Walter White is crazy. One is a hero, the other is a villain. Simple as that. No gray area here. One killed to bring justice to someone who was going to escape it, the other kills to protect his drug empire. Hello! It's not even close.

As you can probably tell I'm very much pro-capital punishment.

To take a more extreme example think about the DEATH WISH movies where Charles Bronson prowls the streets at night dispensing vigilante justice left and right. I feel no remorse towards the scum he blows away. As it's presented, they deserve it. Is it legal? No. But if blowing away a scumbag saves the life of an innocent person down the road then it's justified. Again, I don't see Bronson as a villain. Walter White, however, remains a villain.

In one comment you argue there’s no gray area, and in another you say some illegal behavior is okay, if you think it’s justified. There’s no logic in that and, if I’m honest, seems more than a little hypocritical. You’re engaging again in the very moral relativism you criticize. There is no logic in saying there is absolute right and absolute wrong and then making exceptions to those absolutes.

Another problem with this logic arises: Who gets to decide who’s a scumbag, as you put it? What if someone thinks you’re a scumbag because you said something that offended them, for example. You’re reasoning would allow them to kill YOU if they feel it’s justified. It’s the same kind of thinking that Muslim extremist have used to justify their killing of individuals who insult their faith, such as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists murdered. They are all illegal killings lacking due process. Your reasoning above, justifies their murder. Supporting some vigilantism but not other vigilantism is both hypocritical and completely illogical.

Accepting or even encouraging any vigilantism is a dangerous, slippery slope to go down. It’s no different than the racial lynchings of the last century. Putting the roles of judge, jury, and executioner in the hands of one person is the opposite of due process in democratic systems. These steps toward justice are clearly described in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. This is at the very heart of our nation’s founding, the rule of law, applied to all, not meted out by some vigilante or a monarch like George III. Based on their writings and decisions in creating our nation’s democratic system, the founding fathers would not agree with you.

I’m with Styles here. The real world isn’t as neat and tidy as an hour long fictional TV series. Using movies or TV shows as examples or justification just isn’t realistic and is an oversimplification. The courts aren’t perfect, nothing is, we’re human. However, I would rather they follow constitutional due process, EVEN if that means they err on the side of allowing guilty people to go free to prevent innocent people from being imprisoned or executed. It might seem easy to disagree with that statement but what if the innocent person was you or a loved one? Don’t think it hasn’t happened, even with due process. You argue above that a vigilante murder is justified if it has the POTENTIAL of saving a future innocent life, but that same vigilantism you support has in REALITY led to the loss of innocent lives. Your prescribed cure has proved more deadly than the disease.

Since you brought it up, my position on capital punishment isn’t really based on any moral or philosophical principle or belief. It’s pretty simple really, and based on what I wrote above. We’re human and we make mistakes. That includes the justice system, so I think it’s unwise, perhaps even hubristic, to issue a punishment that cannot be undone. That’s all. There have been approximately 1500 executions in the US in my lifetime and in that time more than 150 individuals were exonerated from death row, found innocent, and released. That’s not a great track record for mistakes. Tragically, there were several cases in the 80’s and 90’s were the exoneration came too late and innocent people were killed. Most of the world’s democracies have come to the same conclusion about capital punishment. The nations of the world that still execute people like the US is a pretty eye opening list of autocratic regimes from North Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia.

Pahonu, you're reciting the entire Constitution here and going off waaaay into the weeds while we're discussing TV shows. Thomas Magnum is a hero, Walter White is a villain. We're not talking about hypothetics here. We're talking about what's presented to us on the screen. And Charlie Bronson doesn't blow away any innocents while dispensing his brand of justice. That's why we can root for him. Because he's not making any real-world mistakes.

Ivan, if I went into the weeds, it was in response to your comments like below:

“As you can probably tell I'm very much pro-capital punishment.”

As you talk about MPI, or other media, you add what I am taking as personal views. That’s what I’m responding to. Below is another:

“Is it legal? No. But if blowing away a scumbag saves the life of an innocent person down the road then it's justified.”

Are you are saying that you only feel this way about the fictional portrayals in media?

If that’s a yes and you don’t personally feel that way l, then I’m sorry I took those views as your personal beliefs about society in general. That being the case, I agree with you and as Amian and others have pointed out, it makes for compelling storytelling. It’s not realistic or even close to the complexity of reality, BUT... it is entertaining.

If these are your personal views as I originally thought, then I stand by my arguments.

[Pahonu]

it's too simple to say that both characters do bad things, so they are somehow the same, or even necessarily similar.

Yes!! And that's precisely my point.

I would even say that what Mag did to Ivan was NOT a bad thing. The law may say it's a bad thing but the law isn't always right, is it? I mean this same law often lets the guilty go free and then punishes the innocent. So clearly it isn't perfect. We're a nation of imperfect laws. Sometimes old-fashioned justice is most satisfying!

I didn’t actually make a comparison between TM and Walter White. I didn’t even bring up WW and never said the two were comparable. I’m not really that familiar with the show having given up after watching the first few episodes with my wife. I just agreed with you that I also don’t care for the show.

I was arguing that TM is an imperfect character who has broken more than a few laws in the series, the most extreme being vigilante murder. There is no perfect hero in reality and likely also in fiction. To justify all TM’s actions like wine theft or breaking and entering, etc... as you seem to be trying to do, seems both unnecessary and impossible. I don’t view his pilfering of Robin’s wine as a felony, but vigilante murder is definitely a felony. It’s not necessary to defend his minor transgressions to me, but conversely there is no way that I agree with justifying vigilantism in society as something to celebrate with a hand shake and a job well done, as you wrote.