S01.E01: Scott's Story

[statsgirl]

premiers January 22

Stars Michael Chiklis, Jill Hennessy, Rachel Bilson, Abigail Breslin

[AnimeMania]

A father confronts the limits of unconditional love when he comes to believe his teenage son may be planning an unimaginable crime.

Premiere Date: Sunday, January 22, 2023      8pm     FOX 
Michael Chiklis as Dr. Scott Harmon

Jill Hennessy as Lynn Harmon

Oakes Fegley as Hunter Harmon

Robert Wisdom as Mitch Becker
Lanette Ware as D.A. Claire Wilson
Evan Marsh as Alex Harmon
Michael Isen as Jax
Tara Rosling as Dr. Laurie Grotstein
Eric Parker as Cyrus Lane 
Paula Boudreau as Judge Ruta Wells

Next New Episode: Note New Day and Time: Tuesday, January 24, 2023      9pm     FOX

[Diana Berry]

Well that was depressing 

[Bcharmer]

What happened to Devin? It abruptly cut to commercial when Devin was in the classroom talking with Scott... then when it got back to the show, Scott was in court, and was free to go. Then his wife said he'd wished he had killed him. I missed the first five minutes of the show. Do we see Devin's fate then? I'm super-confused. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

32 minutes ago, Bcharmer said:

What happened to Devin? It abruptly cut to commercial when Devin was in the classroom talking with Scott... then when it got back to the show, Scott was in court, and was free to go. Then his wife said he'd wished he had killed him. I missed the first five minutes of the show. Do we see Devin's fate then? I'm super-confused. 

It may have been that your local station cut things off to avoid potentially disturbing content.

Devin waited to get his father on the phone while he had the students hostage, then called him out for planning to kill him at the gorge, and left Scott with the guilt trip that all the killings were at his feet. saying that Devin couldn't have done it without him. Then he put the rifle to his head and committed suicide.  Devin was apparently every bit the psycho his journal implied that he was. 

FWIW, I don't think a real life prosecutor would even attempt to bring criminal charges against Scott under these circumstances for giving Devin money. There would be no way to show that Scott believed the money was not for an Iceland trip and was really for arming himself and his buddy. It also seems unlikely that they would wheel out his actual co-conspirator as a prosecution witness against the dad.

That might not stop someone from suing the doctor for all he's worth. But then it might make more sense to try to go after the school or the police, who were on notice that Devin was a psycho and clearly didn't do enough to look into how much of a threat he was.  

[Bcharmer]

47 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

It may have been that your local station cut things off to avoid potentially disturbing content.

Devin waited to get his father on the phone while he had the students hostage, then called him out for planning to kill him at the gorge, and left Scott with the guilt trip that all the killings were at his feet. saying that Devin couldn't have done it without him. Then he put the rifle to his head and committed suicide.  Devin was apparently every bit the psycho his journal implied that he was.  

Thank you so much for filling me in. By cutting to commercial (many of them, in fact) right in the middle of that crucial conversation between Devin and Scott, the story made no sense. There was no way I would have pieced that together. How annoying. 

[OLynn33]

I can't watch anything shot with that many closeups. I'm out.

[Spartan Girl]

7 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

FWIW, I don't think a real life prosecutor would even attempt to bring criminal charges against Scott under these circumstances for giving Devin money. There would be no way to show that Scott believed the money was not for an Iceland trip and was really for arming himself and his buddy. It also seems unlikely that they would wheel out his actual co-conspirator as a prosecution witness against the dad.

That might not stop someone from suing the doctor for all he's worth. But then it might make more sense to try to go after the school or the police, who were on notice that Devin was a psycho and clearly didn't do enough to look into how much of a threat he was.  

Ordinarily I am critical of the parents that enabled troubled kids and/or don’t do more to stop them, but in this case, I don’t think it was fair that they lay all the blame on Scott. Devin, like many sociopaths, was manipulative, and he knew how to be convincing enough to dupe Scott with that Iceland bullshit. Could Scott have looked into it more before giving the money? Obviously. But between the guilt of what he’d almost done and the fact that Devin didn’t kill the dog after all, I can understand why he wanted to believe Devin finally turned a corner and wanted help.

That being said, he should have gone to the police instead of worrying that Devin would blame him for it. The asshole already had a victim complex a mile wide, given how he passed the buck for his own actions right to his father.

I’m less sympathetic towards the mother. Unlike Scott she was deep in denial and refused to heed Scott and the school’s warnings—at least until she saw the manifesto, but by then it was too little too late. That being said, I did feel for her when she admitted she wished Scott had killed him when he had the chance.

[Chicago Redshirt]

I think someone brilliant enough to be a top neurosurgeon would know that going from 16 years of torturing animals and sulky passive-aggression to "I want a cure for my anger. I'm going on a trip to Iceland with someone you've never met. I can has $10,000?" would see a few red flags there.

I suppose denial is a helluva drug and just sheerly wanting to believe that there had been a breakthru and turnaround would make it easier to fall for Devin's BS. 

I mean between the two parents, it seems like one of them should have bought tickets to Iceland, arranged for housing, visits, those sorts of things more than just venmo'ed $10k.

That's assuming that they didn't ask "Hey, is it a good idea to let a couple 16-year=olds loose, especially one of whom has had lifelong known psych issues?"

[Spartan Girl]

26 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I think someone brilliant enough to be a top neurosurgeon would know that going from 16 years of torturing animals and sulky passive-aggression to "I want a cure for my anger. I'm going on a trip to Iceland with someone you've never met. I can has $10,000?" would see a few red flags there.

I suppose denial is a helluva drug and just sheerly wanting to believe that there had been a breakthru and turnaround would make it easier to fall for Devin's BS. 

I mean between the two parents, it seems like one of them should have bought tickets to Iceland, arranged for housing, visits, those sorts of things more than just venmo'ed $10k.

That's assuming that they didn't ask "Hey, is it a good idea to let a couple 16-year=olds loose, especially one of whom has had lifelong known psych issues?"

Like I said, guilt clouded his judgement. I, on the other hand, could tell it was bullshit from a mile away.

[Starchild]

Wasn't clear to me if the accomplice was another student at the same school. Or just some random internet friend who wanted to shoot some people up.

Eh, probably doesn't matter.

[Chaos Theory]

What he’d the first episode and it is well made but insanely depressing.  When I was younger I would have liked this kind of deep discussion about who was to blame when a kid shoots up a school and then himself.   The problem is I am older now and my tolerance for this deep level of depressing has gone down.   I may give the show another episode but honestly….not really my kind of show.  

[Chicago Redshirt]

2 hours ago, Starchild said:

Wasn't clear to me if the accomplice was another student at the same school. Or just some random internet friend who wanted to shoot some people up.

Eh, probably doesn't matter.

I think the way they framed it, that Devin knew him by his gaming handle, suggests that he is more likely a random Internet friend who wanted to shoot stuff up, but like you said, probably doesn't matter.

To dovetail from the Primetimer article, the trouble with at least this episode is that it is going to talk about a supersensitive subject in a way that just is not going to work very well. It's going to oversimplify a very real problem and portray the politics inherent in it in a way that is not really going to be meaningful because it glosses over so much.

Like it would be almost comical that a couple of teens, again, one with known psych issues who had apparently had police told that he had a murder journal, could take $10k and buy a couple of AKs, ammo, and bulletproof vests without any flags being raised if that isn't something that could happen in real life.

Like laying the shootings at the feet of coddling mommy and clueless daddy.

Or videogames are teh evil! since it implicitly fueled Devin's interest in a mass killing and gave him the wherewithal to find a murder buddy.

[Chaos Theory]

Posted this previously on the board I THOUGHT was for this show

Watched  it  and it is well made but insanely depressing.  When I was younger I would have liked this kind of deep discussion about who was to blame when a kid shoots up a school and then himself.   The problem is I am older now and my tolerance for this deep level of depressing has gone down.   I may give the show another episode but honestly….not really my kind of show.    

Yes the episode over simplified a problem.  No parent wants to admit their kid is a sociopath so when the Iceland thing came up and there were brochures and everything dad latched on to it like it was a life raft.   So now, yeah I don’t have to kill my son.    Which is the truly sad part.    

Edited January 23, 2023 by Chaos Theory

[Madding crowd]

This was a very sad episode. I kept wondering why Scott didn’t have an attorney speaking up from him but I guess it wasn’t needed. I felt for the parents but not sure what they could do. Getting him put on a psych hold would be temporary and he would come out even angrier. The police could not arrest him for writing things in a journal. I think this will be a good show but I wish it had ended with some advice on how parents should act in a case like this. I did find it unbelievable that those parents wouldn’t have checked into the trip or the friend although their son likely would have thrown a fit if they did.

[AnimeMania]

FOX's "Accused" Dominates Sunday Night Delivering #1 Rated and Most Watched Debut on Any Broadcast or Cable Network in Three Years

8.4 million viewers

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, Madding crowd said:

This was a very sad episode. I kept wondering why Scott didn’t have an attorney speaking up from him but I guess it wasn’t needed. 

He did have an attorney, but basically, in the context of this show, his attorney was one step above an extra. The guy who said to someone that his client would need 15 minutes to clean himself up after the paintball attack was his attorney. The way the show was constructed, I don't think he said almost anything in the courtroom beyond saying like "The defense is ready." None of the many, many objections that could have been leveled against the prosecutor's questions.

Part of why this is an interesting setup (to me, anyway): It's a courtroom drama that takes most of the focus off the courtroom stuff (examination of witnesses, closing arguments and the like) that are the staples of most shows and puts it on the drama of the actual events. Which is good from my perspective as it means the many many issues I might have with it as a courtroom drama (such as the notion that there is no way a prosecutor would attempt to bring criminal charges against the dad under these facts) are diminished at least somewhat.

Because of the setup, none of the stars are the prosecutors or defense attorneys but a rotating cast of folks. That means it can get a bunch of high quality actors to come in for a single episode who wouldn't be available or interested in a full season. But also means that the quality of the episodes can vary wildly. Like if you tune into most episodic legal dramas (or even ones with story arcs), you pretty much know what you are going to get if you've seen one episode of it. But there's no telling if next week's episode will be as good as this or better.

[Daff]

8 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

That being said, he should have gone to the police instead of worrying that Devin would blame him for it. The asshole already had a victim complex a mile wide, given how he passed the buck for his own actions right to his father.

He could have gone to the police all he wanted. He could have even taken the journal to them, after having reported his son’s behavior to them again and again. The police would not have done anything. There are no facilities or services for individuals who have been deemed “dangerous to self or others”. The best the parents could have gotten was a 30 day confinement for evaluation in a mental facility, perhaps because of the issues the school raised, but unlikely because they were threats, not actual violence. As the poster above said, no prosecutor would bring a criminal case here. However, those parents will loose everything and more if a lawyer brings a wrongful death civil case against them. 

[Spartan Girl]

It took me a couple minutes to realize Scott was Michael Chiklis. He’s certainly come a long way in his career since that Wired shitshow.

[Madding crowd]

3 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

He did have an attorney, but basically, in the context of this show, his attorney was one step above an extra. The guy who said to someone that his client would need 15 minutes to clean himself up after the paintball attack was his attorney. The way the show was constructed, I don't think he said almost anything in the courtroom beyond saying like "The defense is ready." None of the many, many objections that could have been leveled against the prosecutor's questions.

Part of why this is an interesting setup (to me, anyway): It's a courtroom drama that takes most of the focus off the courtroom stuff (examination of witnesses, closing arguments and the like) that are the staples of most shows and puts it on the drama of the actual events. Which is good from my perspective as it means the many many issues I might have with it as a courtroom drama (such as the notion that there is no way a prosecutor would attempt to bring criminal charges against the dad under these facts) are diminished at least somewhat.

Because of the setup, none of the stars are the prosecutors or defense attorneys but a rotating cast of folks. That means it can get a bunch of high quality actors to come in for a single episode who wouldn't be available or interested in a full season. But also means that the quality of the episodes can vary wildly. Like if you tune into most episodic legal dramas (or even ones with story arcs), you pretty much know what you are going to get if you've seen one episode of it. But there's no telling if next week's episode will be as good as this or better.

Yes, that’s what I meant. I know that he had an actual attorney, but there was no cross examination allowed which made no sense. I did like the show and it brought up some interesting issues but they could have showed a few minutes of cross by the defense attorney and perhaps cut back on the scenes with Scott at the hospital.

[Chicago Redshirt]

56 minutes ago, Madding crowd said:

Yes, that’s what I meant. I know that he had an actual attorney, but there was no cross examination allowed which made no sense. I did like the show and it brought up some interesting issues but they could have showed a few minutes of cross by the defense attorney and perhaps cut back on the scenes with Scott at the hospital.

I took it that there was cross-examination allowed and that occurred, but that it did so off-screen. "Accused" is more interested in showing us things directly from the defendant's perspective. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

It took me a couple minutes to realize Scott was Michael Chiklis. He’s certainly come a long way in his career since that Wired shitshow.

Oh snap, I hadn't realized that Michael Chiklis played John Belushi.

I first heard of him through the roles that made him more famous -- The Commish, which I never watched, and The Shield, which I and a lot of critics loved. It's funny, because I might not have given this show a try if they hadn't pulled in him and actors that I knew from The Wire, a show that is often on critics' lists of best TV programs of all time. Scott's best friend from this episode had a recurring role on The Wire, and it looks like an upcoming episode will feature another Wire star.

[Madding crowd]

1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I took it that there was cross-examination allowed and that occurred, but that it did so off-screen. "Accused" is more interested in showing us things directly from the defendant's perspective. 

Yet the witnesses were dismissed by the judge directly after questioning by the prosecutor and there were no objections made. It was oddly done and there had to be a way to show the defendant’s view which would normally include their defense.

[Court]

15 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Ordinarily I am critical of the parents that enabled troubled kids and/or don’t do more to stop them, but in this case, I don’t think it was fair that they lay all the blame on Scott. Devin, like many sociopaths, was manipulative, and he knew how to be convincing enough to dupe Scott with that Iceland bullshit. Could Scott have looked into it more before giving the money? Obviously. But between the guilt of what he’d almost done and the fact that Devin didn’t kill the dog after all, I can understand why he wanted to believe Devin finally turned a corner and wanted help.

That being said, he should have gone to the police instead of worrying that Devin would blame him for it. The asshole already had a victim complex a mile wide, given how he passed the buck for his own actions right to his father.

I’m less sympathetic towards the mother. Unlike Scott she was deep in denial and refused to heed Scott and the school’s warnings—at least until she saw the manifesto, but by then it was too little too late. That being said, I did feel for her when she admitted she wished Scott had killed him when he had the chance.

It was brief but I think he DID go to the police. He told his coworker that the police said they couldn't do anything because Devin hadn't done anything yet. 

That was why I didn't buy the prosecutor would bring charges. 

[Daff]

10 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

It took me a couple minutes to realize Scott was Michael Chiklis. He’s certainly come a long way in his career since that Wired shitshow.

Or, the semi-comedic “Commish” 

[Daff]

6 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

Yet the witnesses were dismissed by the judge directly after questioning by the prosecutor and there were no objections made. It was oddly done and there had to be a way to show the defendant’s view which would normally include their defense.

I don’t think he was actually charged yet. I think this was an appearance before a judge to determine if a murder charge could actually go forward, because the judge said, “RoR” at the end, instead of charges dismissed, acquitted, etc. I would say that it was more of a grand jury proceeding, but there was no jury (except the usual, public opinion). The whole courtroom part was a bit fuzzy. 
Also, given the bad son’s admission that he often fantasized about harming his brother, I really didn’t understand the brother’s rejection at the end. 

[Chaos Theory]

I have gotten into “true crime” shows lately mainly due to the fact that they are easy to put on in the background while I work. (And yes these shows are often deeply edited to tell a particular story like anything else on tv) but sometime parents do get wind that their kid is on the cusp of doing something very  very bad and scream out for help but are often ignored or told there is nothing that can be done until the kid actually does something.    Kids have rights too and  besides sending your kid to  a shrink which mean’s actually finding one who will take your calls or you can afford there is not much you can legally do without proof which is hard to admit to.  No one wants to admit that their own kid might be a sociopath and wants to shoot up a school and have a clearly thought out plan to con their own parent out of actually giving them the money to buy a gun to do it.  I mean the scene between Scott and his son was the kind of scene where any other show might have been the lightbulb moment between two people who couldn’t communicate.  But because Scott gave his kid money to buy a gun and  in open court admitted to going to the mountains to kill him He likely might have lost his other son as well.  

Edited January 24, 2023 by Chaos Theory

[Chicago Redshirt]

8 hours ago, Daff said:

I don’t think he was actually charged yet. I think this was an appearance before a judge to determine if a murder charge could actually go forward, because the judge said, “RoR” at the end, instead of charges dismissed, acquitted, etc. I would say that it was more of a grand jury proceeding, but there was no jury (except the usual, public opinion). The whole courtroom part was a bit fuzzy. 
Also, given the bad son’s admission that he often fantasized about harming his brother, I really didn’t understand the brother’s rejection at the end. 

I think the show described the proceeding as a preliminary hearing, which would make sense.  Generally speaking, the most common ways for a criminal case to proceed are indictment by grand jury or a preliminary hearing. (Different states do things differently.)

At a real-life preliminary hearing, the prosecutor would present witnesses who can be cross-examined. It is generally a foregone conclusion that the defendant will be bound over for trial, since a finding of probable cause is a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt."  

I'm not sure where exactly this story was to take place, but I assume Illinois, as the story about gorge accidents had a Chicago dateline.

If the judge didn't say charges dismissed and just released on his own recognizance, that seems sloppy writing.

As to Devin, it may not have fully come out in testimony or elsewhere that Devin did say anything about wanting to harm Good Son. Or Good Son might be so good/in denial that he thought Devin didn't actually mean that he fantasized about killing him or he thought that the fact that Devin didn't act on that particular murderous impulse showed that there was still good in him. Or it could be that unlike Enabling Mom, Good Son can't come to grips with the notion that his dad would have murdered Devin if he hadn't lost his nerve. In a way, it's like the worst of all worlds: he's got the mentality of a cold-blooded killer but is too cowardly to do it. 

I kinda wish they put more time exploring character and such so we would have a better idea of why Good Son snubbed dad.

 

[Jillybean]

I wish they hadn't kicked off the series with this episode because of how dark and depressing it was. I'm in for one more episode and if it has the same tone, I'm out. 

[Chaos Theory]

1 hour ago, Jillybean said:

I wish they hadn't kicked off the series with this episode because of how dark and depressing it was. I'm in for one more episode and if it has the same tone, I'm out. 

Yeah probably should have maybe kicked off the series with a slightly less depressing episode….:if there is one.

My fear is that this is the slightly less depressing episode of the series.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Chaos Theory

[Jillybean]

53 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

Yeah probably should have maybe kicked off the series with a slightly less depressing episode….:if there is one.

My fear is that this is the slightly less depressing episode of the series.

I'm hoping they aren't all murder trials.

[somethingwicked]

On 1/23/2023 at 1:15 AM, Bcharmer said:

Thank you so much for filling me in. By cutting to commercial (many of them, in fact) right in the middle of that crucial conversation between Devin and Scott, the story made no sense. There was no way I would have pieced that together. How annoying. 

I ran across this article+ it happened in many markets & apparently was a commercial timing snafu:

https://uproxx.com/tv/accused-ending-ruined-stations-cut-away-early/

[Kiss my mutt]

I thought perhaps, Good Son was mad at dad for his plot to kill the Bad Son or maybe because he didn’t go through it. Too much for this show, but I would be interested in siblings of school shooters and life growing up with a psychopath and repercussions they had to deal with.  I almost didn’t watch because of the subject matter but it turned out better than I thought and I wanted to see Jill Hennessy from Crossing Jordan. 
I haven’t seen the UK version. I may see if I can find it. 

[TV Anonymous]

While the format of the series and the story of this episode are interesting, I feel that the legal angle in this episode is shit. IANAL, of course. Even if it was pre-trial, how did Scott get charged? He had no knowledge of Devin's activities and Devin deliberately misrepresented the purpose of the money.

[Chicago Redshirt]

20 hours ago, TV Anonymous said:

While the format of the series and the story of this episode are interesting, I feel that the legal angle in this episode is shit. IANAL, of course. Even if it was pre-trial, how did Scott get charged? He had no knowledge of Devin's activities and Devin deliberately misrepresented the purpose of the money.

I am a lawyer, though not a prosecutor or criminal defense lawyer. I have done no meaningful research on this topic, but...

Scott was facing charges of being an accessory to the murder spree before the fact.

Normally, for someone to be guilty of a crime, there need to be two elements proven: the guilty act (actus reus) and the guilty mindset (mens rea).

There is no question that Scott gave Devin the money that enabled the murder spree. 

The real question is what level of mens rea is needed for accessory before the fact? 

There are a few crimes where the mindset does not matter. Even if you subjectively think you are sober, you are still driving under the influence if your blood alcohol content level is .16. 

For some crimes, it is enough to have done something recklessly or with criminal negligence.

For most crimes, someone has to knowingly/intentionally be committing the guilty act to actually be guilty.

It's indisputable (for our purposes -- I suppose in the real world, someone could doubt Scott's version of events happened as it actually did) that Scott did not know what Devin was planning. So if the mens rea requirement for accessory before the fact is knowingly/intentionally helping Devin out, Scott is obviously innocent and there should have been no possibility of charges.

The prosecutor was arguing that Scott should be charged because what Scott did was reckless. He knew Devin had been a lifelong sociopath/head case/problem child (however you want to put it), knew he had threatened the life of a fellow student online, suspected him of having murdered the neighbor's dog, discovered his murder journal. warned police Devin was a danger, thought Devin was so dangerous that he literally plotted to kill him to avoid Devin going on the murder spree that his murder journal suggests he soon planned. And despite all this, Scott gave him a blank check for $10k with no investigation, no questions asked, assuming a life of sociopathy had just melted away.

If recklessness is a viable mens rea for accessory before the fact, that's not a bad argument. I think that many would agree in the common English-language sense of the word, what Scott did was reckless, especially when it is colored by the tragic actual results. But does it meet the term of art definition of "reckless" in the criminal context? To me, that is a harder question.

The legal definition of reckless is:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reckless

Quote

Behavior that is so careless that it is considered an extreme departure from the care a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. As a mens rea (mental state) in the criminal law context, reckless action is distinguished from negligent action in that the actor consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk, as opposed to merely being unreasonable. For example, in State v. Olson, a 1990 South Dakota Supreme Court decision, the court did not find a tractor driver who turned left at 5-15 mph and hit another car reckless because the prosecution could not prove that he was aware that there was an oncoming car.

I would say that Scott clearly knew there was a substantial risk that Devin was going to go all murdery, and turned a blind eye to that risk because Scott was relieved that Devin sounded normal for five seconds. 

But it is the sort of thing that would not need testimony or a hearing to establish in real life. Scott's defense attorney would argue in a brief that Scott could not be criminally charged even though he was reckless. And if recklessness is allowed as a mens rea, it seems to  me that would be a question for a jury to determine if Scott's behavior fell within criminal recklessness.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Chicago Redshirt

[TV Anonymous]

@Chicago Redshirt thank you, Counselor.

[Bcharmer]

On 1/24/2023 at 5:02 PM, somethingwicked said:

I ran across this article+ it happened in many markets & apparently was a commercial timing snafu:

https://uproxx.com/tv/accused-ending-ruined-stations-cut-away-early/

Thank you so much for that. I guess I wasn't alone. 

The article says: "There’s a happy ending, of sorts: Those unfortunate souls who were left hanging — and fuming on social media — can mosey on over to Hulu and watch the entire uninterrupted episode. Also good news (for Fox at least): Accused drew in 8.4 million viewers — a record for the network for a debut. Hopefully most of those people liked the episode enough to want to see how it ended." 

They assume everyone subscribes to Hulu. I don't.

[possibilities]

Are they making the episode available free, perhaps? 

[connieinnc]

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

Are they making the episode available free, perhaps? 

If you are in the US, it is available on fox.com

[marceline]

On 1/23/2023 at 4:57 PM, Daff said:

He could have gone to the police all he wanted. He could have even taken the journal to them, after having reported his son’s behavior to them again and again. The police would not have done anything. There are no facilities or services for individuals who have been deemed “dangerous to self or others”. The best the parents could have gotten was a 30 day confinement for evaluation in a mental facility, perhaps because of the issues the school raised, but unlikely because they were threats, not actual violence. As the poster above said, no prosecutor would bring a criminal case here. However, those parents will loose everything and more if a lawyer brings a wrongful death civil case against them. 

And that's what I think this was really about. What do you do when you realize that your child is an unrepentant sociopath? We should probably have more conversations about that given...*points to the outside world* This episode was basically the TV version of "We Need to Talk About Kevin" or "Devin" in this case.

 

On 1/23/2023 at 7:55 AM, Spartan Girl said:

I’m less sympathetic towards the mother. Unlike Scott she was deep in denial and refused to heed Scott and the school’s warnings—at least until she saw the manifesto, but by then it was too little too late. That being said, I did feel for her when she admitted she wished Scott had killed him when he had the chance.

I think it was important to show her journey from denial to regret. Once she saw the journal, her denial fell away. Then there's the added realization that the reason her husband went away for the weekend was to kill their son. 

Part of me wonders what would've happened had Scott had been successful. Was the plan to push his son off the ledge? What would he do afterward? Claim his kid fell? What would Wifey have thought then?

I think her "I wish you had" was the realization that her son is dead anyway. At least he wouldn't have had the chance to take innocent people with him.

Edited January 29, 2023 by marceline

[Kiss my mutt]

One thing I like about how this show is written is that it really makes you think what you would do if you were in these situations. I’m definitely looking forward to this season.

[Chicago Redshirt]

8 hours ago, marceline said:

I think it was important to show her journey from denial to regret. Once she saw the journal, her denial fell away. Then there's the added realization that the reason her husband went away for the weekend was to kill their son. 

Part of me wonders what would've happened had Scott had been successful. Was the plan to push his son off the ledge? What would he do afterward? Claim his kid fell? What would Wifey have thought then?

I think her "I wish you had" was the realization that her son is dead anyway. At least he wouldn't have had the chance to take innocent people with him.

Just an assumption, but I assume Scott's plan was to describe the death as an accident, and that wifey would have bought that along with the rest of people. Given that she was in denial about Devin's sociopathy, I doubt that she would have picked up on the notion that Scott had cold blood of his very own.

It's easy to say "I wish you had" when you are in the middle of the nightmare of your son being responsible for 7 murders, having to live with the social consequences, and probably the legal consequences too. Scott beat the criminal case. but there is a good chance the survivors of those seven families will be able to convince a jury that he should be held liable in the civil system with a lower burden of proof.

I am pretty sure if Scott had included Wifey in the planning or even confessed that he had been thinking about murdering Devin after the fact, that she would have not taken it well.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Chicago Redshirt

[Tachi Rocinante]

I thought the defense might push the bullying angle but that never materialized. 

How did his lawyer know it was a paintball gun so quickly? I was guessing he set it up to give Scott a chance to get his bearings.

Does casting have a connection to The Wire?  First we get Bunny Colvin and later we get Bunk Moreland. 😎

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 1/31/2023 at 8:14 AM, Tachi Rocinante said:

I thought the defense might push the bullying angle but that never materialized. 

How did his lawyer know it was a paintball gun so quickly? I was guessing he set it up to give Scott a chance to get his bearings.

Does casting have a connection to The Wire?  First we get Bunny Colvin and later we get Bunk Moreland. 😎

That Devin was/might have been bullied isn't a defense to what Devin did, and it's not a defense to what Scott did.

I think a person who was very familiar with guns would be able to tell a real gun from a paintball gun both by look and sound. It would be extreme to set up someone to shoot Scott with a paintball gun just to engender sympathy or give Scott a little time. The lawyer could just ask for the additional time, and of course if it were to come out that it was staged, that probably wouldn't work out well for the attorney.

I am all for a full-employment act for ex-Wire actors. :)

[mansonlamps]

On 1/23/2023 at 7:49 PM, Chicago Redshirt said:

Oh snap, I hadn't realized that Michael Chiklis played John Belushi.

I first heard of him through the roles that made him more famous -- The Commish, which I never watched, and The Shield, which I and a lot of critics loved. It's funny, because I might not have given this show a try if they hadn't pulled in him and actors that I knew from The Wire, a show that is often on critics' lists of best TV programs of all time. Scott's best friend from this episode had a recurring role on The Wire, and it looks like an upcoming episode will feature another Wire star.

Kima from the Wire is also a regular on a new show called Will Trent.

[circumvent]

skimming through the comments I have a couple of points:

There was a moment that the father did say he went to the police and they didn't do anything. 

If you have been close to a sociopath, it doesn't matter how "smart" and informed you are. You will get manipulated, at least for some time. And if you are close to that person, it is just too hard to be rational and see things for what they are. Sociopaths are master manipulators and you might think you would be able to get out, but I promise you, it is not that easy. When emotions are involved, logic takes a back seat. Besides, even with all the information one has, not all sociopaths will escalate to psychopathy. This makes things even harder because hope doesn't get erased that easy.

The father's reaction was pretty accurate. The writing wasn't too great. There is not enough time in one episode to tell that story.

[Halting Hex]

On 1/23/2023 at 9:02 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

"Hey, is it a good idea to let a couple 16-year=olds loose, especially one of whom has had lifelong known psych issues?"

I'm guessing that Jax is meant to be slightly older, so that he's the one who bought the guns, etc., that 16-y/o Devin couldn't.  That's why they needed Scott's help for the rest of the money; if it was just a question of cash, Dev could have bought enough to do the job on his own with the $3000 he already had.  But Jax was needed to be the "adult" of the two, so that's double the shopping list, now.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Halting Hex

[Anela]

This was too depressing.  
It is easy for the mum to say that she wished he’d gone through with it.  She didn’t do anything to stop him. 
 

this reminded me of, “We Need To Talk About Kevin.” I read the book years ago.  

[DanaK]

I thought Scott was on trial for killing his son so the story definitely didn’t go the way I expected. It’s too bad the show didn’t go into depth on how the cops and other officials are helpless to stop a person before they kill by citing what they write in a journal. but that’s probably another show. I found the episode confusing through the first half, but it’s intriguing how the show centers on the defendant, so I’m willing to see how the next episode goes 

[SunnyBeBe]

Maybe what dad did didn’t ruse to the level to fit the crime, but I just wonder why Dad gave his troubled son that cash.  I mean…..even if he wasn’t so disturbed, you wouldn’t handle a large amount of money that way. Just ridiculous.  So, in my mind, he was partially responsible…..civilly perhaps.