S07.E03: Detente

[Snazzy Daisy]

Quote

After a series of targeted bombings in Queens, the team fears a citywide gang war is imminent — until a tip from OA’s old Army buddy, Clay, directs their attention to an unexpected and powerful foe.

Meanwhile, Scola continues to struggle to find a new partner.

Air Date: Oct 29, 2024

 

 

Edited October 30, 2024 by Snazzy Daisy

[Xeliou66]

Good episode - I liked the investigation and how it played out. I could see it coming that the brother would take matters into his own hands, that was telegraphed well in advance so that was predictable, it was a good case overall. I did wonder just how culpable the dad was - I don’t think he was directly involved with the bombings, I think it was all Junior, the dad may have planted the idea but I don’t think he had a clue that Junior would carry it out, it seemed clear to me that Junior did it to show his dad he could and the dad had no idea Junior could or would carry it out. So I think the brother threw away his life for nothing since the dad wasn’t directly involved - it was a good twist that Junior was the mastermind. 

I really liked seeing Jubal and Isobel do interrogations, I liked how they played Senior and Junior against each other and how Jubal got Junior to confess. Nice roles for both of them - not a lot of Scola this week and I take it his cocky partner from this episode is going back to SWAT, I wonder when Scola’s permanent new partner will join?

I think the story about OA and his army buddy Clay is far from over and I suspect Clay may cause more issues for OA down the line. Will be fascinating to see.

I hope the bomber and Junior both get the death penalty to be honest, they are two of the most evil perps we’ve had on this show and we’ve had plenty. Completely heartless psychopaths.

Overall a good investigation and case even with the predictability of part of the ending. This is a consistently entertaining show. 

[preeya]

Wouldn't it be great if everyone's computer and search engine could work as well and as fast as JOC's. And the operator's never encounter a typo.

[Dowel Jones]

That's some kind of record for me.  Only 10 minutes into the episode and already I don't like Scola's partner.  

So, OA's new/old buddy drives an Aston Martin.  Does it have an ejection seat and changeable license plates?

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

That's some kind of record for me.  Only 10 minutes into the episode and already I don't like Scola's partner.  

I liked the partner because he provided me with comic relief, albeit likely unintentionally funny.

[MerBearHou]

I think it's amusing on such a serious show that TPTB are having a little fun with such non-match new partners for Scola.  Nothing too overt, but just so wrong.  

The Javi death made me so sad.  

[Netfoot]

15 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I did wonder just how culpable the dad was - I don’t think he was directly involved with the bombings, I think it was all Junior, the dad may have planted the idea but I don’t think he had a clue that Junior would carry it out, it seemed clear to me that Junior did it to show his dad he could and the dad had no idea Junior could or would carry it out.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

I'm not at all sure that the plot was entirely the work of the son, or that the father had nothing to do with it. It seems like the father was well versed at manipulating the son to get him to do what ever the father wanted. Apparently he was a manipulative guy who had been using that ability for many years to gain advantages for his business.

What I do know is that Jubal believed the father was the man behind the plot. But in his incompetent attempt to push the son into betraying his father, he persuaded the son to take all the glory/responsibility for the plot, thereby completely absolving the father of any blame. This allowed the father to walk free while throwing the son under the bus.

OA now has a CI who drives an Aston. What OA should have had was a serious reprimand for lying about the "anonymous tip-off"

[Raja]

Real estate guys setting up a gang war again. All the neutral territory talk had me flashing back to the DMZ of Hill Street Blues gangs.

[Snazzy Daisy]

Déjà vu! That opening scene is very similar to the opening scene in the pilot episode - two brothers, a girl and a bomb.

Once they mention about a developer, we know that’s the culprit. It’s either the senior or the junior.

Scola’s new partner reminds me of Evan Buckley from 9-1-1, the eagerness and the recklessness.

Gosh…that cocky Clay is gonna keep popping up since he’s a CI now. UGH.

Anyway, OA looks good in T-shirt. 💪🏼

 

[EtheltoTillie]

I lost focus on this episode. Can someone give me the TLDR version of OA’s military buddy.  I thought that guy seemed hinky last week. At the end he’s suddenly a CI, meaning he is somebody with a criminal past. 

[Raja]

20 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I lost focus on this episode. Can someone give me the TLDR version of OA’s military buddy.  I thought that guy seemed hinky last week. At the end he’s suddenly a CI, meaning he is somebody with a criminal past. 

CI doesn't mean a criminal past, just someone who doesn't want to be forced into court and  identified. I think you saw all of him that there is to see

[EtheltoTillie]

47 minutes ago, Raja said:

CI doesn't mean a criminal past, just someone who doesn't want to be forced into court and  identified. I think you saw all of him that there is to see

I took it as he had something on him so he could force him to be an informant. Am I missing something?  

[Raja]

3 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I took it as he had something on him so he could force him to be an informant. Am I missing something?  

Beyond serving in combat and we saved each other as Rangers getting involved with planting a bug left OA just as vulnerable as his partner 

[EtheltoTillie]

11 minutes ago, Raja said:

Beyond serving in combat and we saved each other as Rangers getting involved with planting a bug left OA just as vulnerable as his partner 

This part of the episode is going over my head.  Oh well. 

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I lost focus on this episode. Can someone give me the TLDR version of OA’s military buddy.  I thought that guy seemed hinky last week. At the end he’s suddenly a CI, meaning he is somebody with a criminal past. 

My take:
OA helped his buddy in the espionage move in the restaurant because the buddy played the I-saved-your-life-in-Afghanistan card.
In that restaurant episode, it seemed buddy's employer was engaged in nefarious, illegal activities, and then this week it became clear (I guess?) that the buddy's company is selling an app that can be (and is being?) used for terrorism etc.
So:
If I understood correctly, by agreeing to be OA's CI, it makes OA's actions in the restaurant arguably part of OA's reconnaissance for the bombing case and protects the buddy if the Feds move against his employer.

Have I got that right?

Edited October 31, 2024 by shapeshifter
this week, not his week

[Netfoot]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

...and then his week it became clear (I guess?) that the buddy's company is selling an app that can be (and is being?) used for terrorism etc.

Like Signal? WhatsApp? Telegram? Session? Briar?

Like Twitter/X? TicToc? Facebook? Instagram? 

Like the public, global telephone network, operated by AT&T? Verizon? T-Mobile? NTTYY? DTEGY?

Like this forum and thousands more like it?

All of the above and any other communications mechanism can be used by terrorists, thieves, murderers and any amount of nefarious people for unscrupulous purposes. (But prolly not pagers and walky-talkies any more.) And also by perfectly innocent people in their hundreds of millions, for completely wholesome reasons.

To suggest that a person or company has ties to terrorism simply because a communications service they provide could be used by terrorists, is disingenuous. It is probably an effort to quietly support a recent goal of many governments: to ensure that your private communications are an open book for them to read at will.

This program has on many previous occasions played into totalitarian attitudes that are favourites of the state.

[shapeshifter]

57 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Like Signal? WhatsApp? Telegram? Session? Briar?

Like Twitter/X? TicToc? Facebook? Instagram? 

Like the public, global telephone network, operated by AT&T? Verizon? T-Mobile? NTTYY? DTEGY?

Like this forum and thousands more like it?

All of the above and any other communications mechanism can be used by terrorists, thieves, murderers and any amount of nefarious people for unscrupulous purposes. (But prolly not pagers and walky-talkies any more.) And also by perfectly innocent people in their hundreds of millions, for completely wholesome reasons.

To suggest that a person or company has ties to terrorism simply because a communications service they provide could be used by terrorists, is disingenuous. It is probably an effort to quietly support a recent goal of many governments: to ensure that your private communications are an open book for them to read at will.

This program has on many previous occasions played into totalitarian attitudes that are favourites of the state.

Sure. 
But was my plot synopsis correct?

[Netfoot]

8 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

But was my plot synopsis correct?

Oh, no!  I wasn't trying to imply that you were, Sorry if I gave that impression.

ETA: To clarify, I am trying to say that your synopsis was not incorrect. 

Edited November 1, 2024 by Netfoot

[MarylandGirl]

19 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

My take:
OA helped his buddy in the espionage move in the restaurant because the buddy played the I-saved-your-life-in-Afghanistan card.
In that restaurant episode, it seemed buddy's employer was engaged in nefarious, illegal activities, and then this week it became clear (I guess?) that the buddy's company is selling an app that can be (and is being?) used for terrorism etc.
So:
If I understood correctly, by agreeing to be OA's CI, it makes OA's actions in the restaurant arguably part of OA's reconnaissance for the bombing case and protects the buddy if the Feds move against his employer.

Have I got that right?

This is how I understood it as well. And if he's a CI, then OA also wouldn't have to identify him to the rest of his team (I think).

[Raja]

7 hours ago, MarylandGirl said:

This is how I understood it as well. And if he's a CI, then OA also wouldn't have to identify him to the rest of his team (I think).

Fuzzy Dunlop