squidprincess

I think you're right about their motivation overall, but someone in the scene did bring up Sommer's age relative to Abe's. That's why I mentioned it.

It's hard to judge if someone's reaction was appropriate or justified in a reality show, because of the level of editing involved. Both Sommer and Abe seem like less than pleasant people in general, which doesn't help. It did seem like the rest of the guys of Team Blue didn't agree with Abe's behavior though. I appreciated seeing them criticize him for confronting a girl half his age like that, whether he was right or wrong.

It was a filler episode, but I enjoyed how none of the lead characters took it personally that Kasie had to investigate them. Instead, they acted like reasonable adults. It was kind of refreshing.

Alex really seems like he has the winner's edit, or at least a finalist's edit. He appears to perform well and is never shown as part of the screw-ups. We keep hearing a lot of harping about leadership, and he's the one that consistently appears to step up. He even seems to be able to keep Billy on a mostly manageable level. I'll be shocked if he doesn't make it all the way.

I'm not really a Reddington is Katarina believer (though it doesn't really seem anymore nonsensical than most of the show at this point), but I think it's worth pointing out that trans men can and do have very satisfying sex lives.

Will Riker was a second banana for seven years. Between them, Anthony DiNozzo and Tim McGee have totalled almost eighteen years!

I like Gibbs at his best when they let him be paternal, and his relationship with Phineas is a highlight. I'm cautiously optimistic that giving the kid the dog means that Gibbs will return to NCIS proper. Though, I think that puts McGee in the same difficult situation that DiNozzo was in after season 4, namely once a character has proven that they can lead a team for a significant amount of time, the show has to give us more and more contrived reasons why they're willing to stay second banana rather than actually advance professionally. I really have no interest in the Bishop-Torres romance, to be honest. They're cute and they seem to like each other, but I get annoyed when the romantic elements start overtaking the rest of the story.

To be honest, I'm not sure I can think of anything the prosecution could have done to save Gibbs as a witness. Gibbs has a very respectable career, but he'd hardly be the first person with a respectable career to be revealed to engage in corrupt behavior behind the scenes. The jury is not made up of people who watch the show, they're people who are watching the testimony of a man who, they've just learned, has been put on indefinite leave because he took the law in his own hands. I think if Gibbs had eaten crow, apologized, and gotten reinstated, then it might not have been so bad. It might have been easier to convince the jury that Gibbs's lapse was a one time thing, based on the extreme circumstances of the case. But the fact that he's still on indefinite leave makes it seem like his bosses have no faith that he won't do something like this again. That's the defense attorney's point: if Gibbs did something extra-judicial once, whose to say he wouldn't do it multiple times? (And as you've pointed out, he HAS done this sort of thing multiple times. But fortunately for every case he's investigated, that doesn't appear to be common knowledge the way the dog incident is.)

Credibility is about more than just not lying on the witness stand or when caught. Gibbs has proven that he's willing to use extrajudicial measures to punish a suspect that he believes is guilty. He's proven that he'll let his emotions overpower logic and reason and take "justice" into his own hands. Now we, the audience, know that there are lines that Gibbs won't cross and that he's fundamentally an honest man. But the jury doesn't know Gibbs. And it's not really that much of a stretch to suggest that a man who will attack a suspect in a rage might do other things if he thinks someone is getting away with a crime. It is absolutely appropriate for the defense attorney to bring this up. The standard of proof for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and it's very reasonable at this point for someone who doesn't know Gibbs like the audience does, to think "maybe this is another situation where this guy decided someone was guilty and decided to do something about it." It's POSSIBLE that the prosecutor could have mitigated the effect by pointing out Gibbs's general honesty, but that's the prosecutor's job not the defense attorney's. Besides, when you think about it, Gibbs HAS resorted to extra-judicial measures before. (See, for example, when he set a gang member up to be murdered by his own men when the team couldn't find enough evidence to make an arrest.) Falsifying evidence isn't really his style, but they're not exactly wrong to doubt his ethics in general.

I was frustrated because this was the perfect time for Gibbs's decisions to come bite him in the butt. I completely understand why he beat up the guy, but I really do wish he seemed even remotely affected by the consequences. It aggravated me to see his smug smile when he told the Ponzi dude that it wasn't over. I suppose I'm just tired of Gibbs at this point. If he's not going to rejoin the team, then what's the point of him being on the show at all? If he does rejoin the team, then this entire storyline will seem like a bit of a waste of time. The trial was frustrating because ultimately the defense attorney did have a point. Gibbs's actions impugned his credibility. And he was right to focus on that. But the execution was incompetent. (It's kind of the same issue as in that previous episode, when the other team called Gibbs's team out on their actions. They were right! But the point was lost because our heroes still ended up being right.)

It makes sense though. Daddy issues are about the only thing that explains why grown adults let Gibbs treat them the way they do.

I've been thinking about it, and I think what annoys me most about the episode isn't that the folks criticizing the team are wrong (they're right, of course), but that McGee, Torres and Bishop are the only people who seem to be suffering under the consequences. The characters are adults, and accountable for their own decisions of course. But Gibbs is the one who created this screwed up work environment to begin with. Gibbs has been suspended of course, but he doesn't seem to care about that. And by the time he inevitably comes back, Vance and company will be past the initial anger and resentment. And things are just going to go back to the same way they've always been. Unless he finally retires, in which case, he still never has to deal with the after effects. The problem is that the show created basically a cartoon dynamic with the team. And while it's entertaining to watch the way he can spur grown adults into action or shut down their nonsense with a glare (or a headslap), it doesn't remotely work when you start looking at it realistically. No real world employer would allow that kind of abusive behavior and no real world employee would put up with it. (I sometimes think that's why DiNozzo, Ziva and McGee all ended up with severe daddy issues, it's the only thing that makes any of this plausible.) If you start looking at it realistically, then you realize that McGee in particular began working for Gibbs at the start of his career as a field agent, at twenty-five, and then spent EIGHTEEN YEARS being told to skirt the rules or outright break the law (how many times has Gibbs/Jenny/Vance ordered the guy to hack into some agency or another?) in order to get Gibbs the results he wants. It seems unfair that Gibbs gets to blithely ignore the consequences of this.

The team conflict was so annoying. In some ways, I agreed with the one dude's complaints. But it was completely undermined by the behavior of the other team. Whatever they thought of McGee, Torres and Bishop as people, they're still reasonably effective agents who ostensibly are part of the same workplace. It was ridiculous and immature to shut them out, especially when it was obvious that Team Gibbs was looking at angles that they weren't. If the team leader was worth her salt, she would have said something like "Okay, I'll read you in, but you have to follow my lead and work with my team." But the show can't have that, because it would then legitimize the complaints against Team Gibbs.

I wish Gibbs cared a little more that the team is facing consequences for backing up his actions. I know they're adults and he didn't ask them to, but he should appreciate the kind of work culture he's instilled in them. Just because he seems perfectly content being suspended or fired, doesn't mean that he can't show a little concern for the people he's left behind. I don't think McGee is necessarily a bad team leader. But he has the same problem that DiNozzo did, which means that as long as Gibbs/Harmon is still on the show, we're going to see episodes where the team either "needs" Gibbs or isn't nearly as effective without him. The characters aren't going to get a true "growing into the role" moment until or unless it's clear that Gibbs is NEVER coming back.

I think Gibbs being at a loss without his team was supposed to be more of a reflection of his emotional state. This isn't the first time Gibbs has had to work alone, and it's not the first time a team member or two have gone off the grid, but it is the first time this has happened right after Gibbs had to almost kill one of his subordinates to save his life. (At least as far as we know.) The show was a bit too over the top about it, but it's not a bad character beat.