S07.E11: Shelter

[Snazzy Daisy]

Quote

When a gunman opens fire at a homeless shelter in Astoria, the team is led toward a killer with connections to a Mexican cartel.

Air Date: Feb 11, 2025

 

[Xeliou66]

Interesting episode, lots of good twists, but a very unsatisfying ending - the drug dealer was somewhat responsible for the massacre at the shelter and would no doubt turn his kid into a monster like him, it was very disappointing that he was allowed to walk away just because he was providing intel. I hope they come back to this story, maybe at the end of the season.

I didn’t feel sympathy for the girlfriend either, she knew what she was getting into by sleeping with a drug kingpin, and she was partially responsible for the carnage as well. I agreed with OA about her. 

I liked seeing Maggie/OA/Scola all work together. Some good stuff for Jubal and the analysts as well.

So Isobel is married now? That was a weird revelation that came out of the blue, it wasn’t even known that she was seeing anyone. I wonder if we’ll meet her husband in the future? 

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I didn’t feel sympathy for the girlfriend either, she knew what she was getting into by sleeping with a drug kingpin,

Did you think she was lying when she said:

• I was 16 the first time Jorge set eyes on me. He followed me walking home from school. He spoke to my parents, and I had no say in it. I didn't understand the world I was stepping into.
  …I became his girl, and it was good until I grew up and I realized what it cost me. And the first chance I got, I stole drսgs from him to cross the border and start over.
  …The day Miguel turned eight, Jorge took him to the stables. He thought he was getting a new horse. Instead, he found a rival boss tied up. Jorge handed him a gun and said it was time for Miguel to be a man. My son, he couldn't pull the trigger.  I couldn't let him turn our boy into a monster like him.  That's why I stole the drսgs, to sell and give Miguel a new life.

I wondered if she was lying, but in the end it seemed true.

Edited February 12 by shapeshifter

[LisaM]

Felt terrible that the boy was sent back to Mexico to turn into a killer. 

The ghost guns were interesting - and terrifying. 

[Woodrose]

Scola, Maggie, and OA put their lives on the line, took fire, entered a bobby trapped building and one of the SWAT team was injured in the explosion, in order to bring a child to safety. Only for the FBI and DEA to give the child to a violent drug lord, to be trained into a cold blooded killer before he reaches adolescence.

I can't understand why agents would continue to work for the FBI after that. It has happened on FBI Most Wanted, too -- they put their lives on the line to catch a bad guy, and at the end the CIA shows up to let them go. 

The DEA and their informants are just one more player in the violent, profitable drug trade. A cartel with slightly different rules, but they all agree on Rule Number One: keep the trade going forever. Never take out so many rivals that the overall trade suffers and customers drift away.

No one at Isobel's workplace knows she got married. That's an unhealthy level of isolation from your own co-workers. She's trying to be a robot while at her workplace, which occupies most of her waking hours. Bizarre.

 

[Snazzy Daisy]

The news of Isobel being married for 2 months is such a random development for her character. It comes out of nowhere. If her personal life isn’t going to be featured on this show, they should do the same with Jubal. Stop forcing Sam and the kids on us. 🙄

I have ZERO sympathy for Ines. Because of her inability to plan her escape properly, many innocent people died. Selfish b!tch.

[Xeliou66]

7 minutes ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

The news of Isobel being married for 2 months is such a random development for her character. It comes out of nowhere. If her personal life isn’t going to be featured on this show, they should do the same with Jubal. Stop forcing Sam and the kids on us. 🙄

I have ZERO sympathy for Ines. Because of her inability to plan her escape properly, many innocent people died. Selfish b!tch.

Isobel’s reveal about being married was really weird, I wonder how long she had been seeing this dude. I don’t have an issue with characters keeping their personal lives personal, but it’s weird since we see glimpses into the others personal lives that this was never referenced. I bet we meet him in the future though. 
Agreed about zero sympathy for Ines, she was partially responsible for the carnage at the shelter. OA was right to be furious at her. 

[Snazzy Daisy]

11 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Isobel’s reveal about being married was really weird, I wonder how long she had been seeing this dude. 

Wasn’t she dating someone when she was first introduced in this show? 🤔

[Xeliou66]

10 minutes ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

Wasn’t she dating someone when she was first introduced in this show? 🤔

I don’t remember much being said about her personal life, I think she dated a guy who was in politics and then they broke up when his boss, a member of Congress, was exposed as corrupt by the team during an investigation, that was several seasons ago, since then I don’t recall anything being said about Isobel seeing anyone, could be wrong though.

[Netfoot]

13 hours ago, LisaM said:

The ghost guns were interesting - and terrifying. 

From time to time I make small pieces of furniture. I just completed a towel rack. Is it a "ghost towel rack?" If the government wanted to discourage me from building furniture - despite my being legally allowed to do so - I'm sure they would make up an equally "terrifying" name for my towel rack.

Firearms are legal in most of the United States. In more than 60% of the country you can own a firearm without seeking permission to do so, without informing anyone that you do and without applying for any sort of firearms license. And if you wish and have the skill, you can create your own firearm using steel and suitable tools such as milling machines, lathes, etc. And now, with 3D printing technology. 

What terrifies me, is this exchange from the show:

Ian: "Corbin works at an industrial supply house on Wakefield."
Jubal: "Any chance it has a 3D printer?"
Ian: "A gen-three BlockMagic with dual extruder heads..."

That an agency widely recognized as corrupt to the core can, with one second's notice, identify what equipment I have on my premises, down to the make, model and after-market accessories? That scares the crap out of me!

[Dowel Jones]

Someone should have leaked a photo or two of the drug lord inside the Fed building meeting with the DEA chief.  That might have raised a few eyebrows around town.

[millennium]

The last two episodes have been better than usual, I think.   Even the shootings seem improved, the head shots especially.

[psychfan]

On 2/12/2025 at 9:54 PM, Netfoot said:

From time to time I make small pieces of furniture. I just completed a towel rack. Is it a "ghost towel rack?" If the government wanted to discourage me from building furniture - despite my being legally allowed to do so - I'm sure they would make up an equally "terrifying" name for my towel rack.

If there were requirements that towel racks were identifiable so they could be registered and traced, then yes, I guess making one on your own that was not traceable that way would make it a ghost towel rack. And if towel racks were regularly used to kill people or there were other similar reasons to be able to track towel racks as we do guns, or cars for that matter, which are also legal to own and also must be registered and traceable, I’m guessing there would be such requirements. 

[Netfoot]

2 hours ago, psychfan said:

If there were requirements that towel racks were identifiable so they could be registered and traced, then yes, I guess making one on your own that was not traceable that way would make it a ghost towel rack. And if towel racks were regularly used to kill people or there were other similar reasons to be able to track towel racks as we do guns, or cars for that matter, which are also legal to own and also must be registered and traceable, I’m guessing there would be such requirements. 

Firearms require the inclusion of certain marks such as a serial number (1, 2, 3, etc), manufacturers name ("BigGuns & Co."), model ("Big Banger Mk. 1"), caliber ("4.47386E-5 Fur.") and city/state of manufacture ("Boise, ID"). But there is an exception for homemade firearms. Under federal law, individuals can legally build firearms for personal use without a serial number. 

There is no general federal registration requirement for firearms. There are exceptions specifically for machine-guns, short-barreled rifles or shotguns, silencers, etc, which must be registered with the ATF.

Traceability is a job for law enforcement. There is no requirement that a firearm constructor make that job easy for them. Once the constructor fulfill the requirements for necessary marks (which, in the case of a homemade firearm means no marks), their job is done.

 

Edited Sunday at 04:10 PM by Netfoot

[Charlemagne]

On 3/2/2025 at 10:08 AM, Netfoot said:

Firearms require the inclusion of certain marks such as a serial number (1, 2, 3, etc), manufacturers name ("BigGuns & Co."), model ("Big Banger Mk. 1"), caliber ("4.47386E-5 Fur.") and city/state of manufacture ("Boise, ID"). But there is an exception for homemade firearms. Under federal law, individuals can legally build firearms for personal use without a serial number. 

There is no general federal registration requirement for firearms. There are exceptions specifically for machine-guns, short-barreled rifles or shotguns, silencers, etc, which must be registered with the ATF.

Traceability is a job for law enforcement. There is no requirement that a firearm constructor make that job easy for them. Once the constructor fulfill the requirements for necessary marks (which, in the case of a homemade firearm means no marks), their job is done.

 

While they do not talk it up quite as much in relation to any potential dangers, it seems to me that the real reason for tracking of weapons by the government is related to taxation. Or, rather, the loss of tax revenue from illegal sales.

After all, there is a reason that ATF stands for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

Those are all things that can be sold under the table (so to speak) which robs the government out of their cut. When that situation applies to towel racks, then, yes, I would imagine they would go after the illegal towel rack manufacturers. 😊

[Netfoot]

18 minutes ago, Charlemagne said:

While they do not talk it up quite as much in relation to any potential dangers, it seems to me that the real reason for tracking of weapons by the government is related to taxation. Or, rather, the loss of tax revenue from illegal sales.

Well, for sure that's why they wouldn't legalize marijuana for decades. The combined federal & local taxes on tobacco was $47B+ in 2023. Difficult to collect taxes on bushes grown in people's back yards.

But going back to firearms: The whole "ghost guns" rhetoric is nonsense to scare the unwashed into believing that these perfectly legal devices are somehow spooky and extra dangerous. It's all part of an undercover effort to sway popular  opinion in favour of "gun control". Because those who ignore the law against shooting people with guns are bound to adhere to the law about not acquiring guns in the first place!

 

[Charlemagne]

6 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Well, for sure that's why they wouldn't legalize marijuana for decades. The combined federal & local taxes on tobacco was $47B+ in 2023. Difficult to collect taxes on bushes grown in people's back yards.

But going back to firearms: The whole "ghost guns" rhetoric is nonsense to scare the unwashed into believing that these perfectly legal devices are somehow spooky and extra dangerous. It's all part of an undercover effort to sway popular  opinion in favour of "gun control". Because those who ignore the law against shooting people with guns are bound to adhere to the law about not acquiring guns in the first place!

 

I would respectfully suggest in return that framing the situation as "gun control" is a tactic to scare people. "Gun Safety" and "Gun Regulation" is what people want, not "control."

We all have to deal with the intricacies of Federal Regulation. Making a gun might be legal but there may be issues relating to 3D Printing that somewhat alter the situation. For example, for 3D printing, isn't there software involved? Are there issues relating to the legality of the software that allows for the 3D Printing?

14 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Because those who ignore the law against shooting people with guns are bound to adhere to the law about not acquiring guns in the first place!

 

And this seems like a sort of awkward path to go down because the same argument could be made against any law.

Why make laws against murder when the people who really want to commit murder will just ignore the law? Same with theft.

We really can't use those who will ignore any rule or law as a gauge for whether or not we should make a law. Because then no laws would be made.

[Netfoot]

1 hour ago, Charlemagne said:

Gun Safety" and "Gun Regulation" is what people want, not "control."

I believe this is totally untrue. Control I'd exactly what they want. The "Big-Ups" (as we call them here) will get guns to defend themselves if they want them. So long as they support the right policies by the right political figures and make the right donations. But the deplorables won't be allowed to. 

1 hour ago, Charlemagne said:

Making a gun might be legal but there may be issues relating to 3D Printing that somewhat alter the situation. For example, for 3D printing, isn't there software involved?

I write software for a living. Or, I used to. There is software available with no issues. And if I need such and can't find any, I will write my own.

1 hour ago, Charlemagne said:

And this seems like a sort of awkward path to go down because the same argument could be made against any law.

I don't see the argument. There is a law against stealing. Here is no law against stealing from a bank. There is no law against stealing from a gas station.

Similarly, the law against murder covers murder by gun, by knife, by chocolate teapot. We don't need a special law against murder by firearm. And trying to stop murder by chocolate teapot by introducing a law against chocolate teapots is silly. The new law against chocolate teapots is so low priority in comparison to the law against murder, it is clear that anyone willing to break the law against murder would laugh at a law against chocolate teapots.

Now, I don't wish to pursue this any more. I don't want to be banned from the forums just because I'm not from California.  

[Charlemagne]

36 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

I believe this is totally untrue.  

And I am saying that it's not.

Common-sense and well-regulated. That's what most people want in their gun-related policies.

Like it says in the Second Amendment.

I don't know how to be any clearer about that.

36 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

I don't see the argument.

Then let me spell it out.

Criticizing a law because the "bad guys" are just going to do it anyway is a crippling attitude when crafting a Just society.

It's also kind of a cop out.

There are plenty of people for whom laws against crime - any crime - are not a deterrent. Else there would not be criminals.

But they are a deterrent for most people. Because most people are not criminals.

Edited Tuesday at 09:27 PM by Charlemagne

[Netfoot]

"Well regulated" means "properly trained". Not "Subject to regulation".

[Charlemagne]

37 minutes ago, Netfoot said:

Now, I don't wish to pursue this any more. I don't want to be banned from the forums just because I'm not from California.  

I am not from California either. I live in Texas. So...

... not sure what your point is.

But, hey, have a nice day.

1 minute ago, Netfoot said:

"Well regulated" means "properly trained". Not "Subject to regulation".

Mandated that they be properly trained is, actually, a regulation. 

But, ultimately, you are incorrect. "A well regulated Militia, " is the exact description.

That suggests a level of organization beyond simple training. And if you have an organization - especially one with a hierarchy - then that means a lot of regulation.

[Netfoot]

39 minutes ago, Charlemagne said:

Mandated that they be properly trained is, actually, a regulation. 

But, ultimately, you are incorrect. "A well regulated Militia, " is the exact description.

That suggests a level of organization beyond simple training. And if you have an organization - especially one with a hierarchy - then that means a lot of regulation.

The amendment does not require that a militia exist at all, whether well regulated (trained) or not. The amendment says that since a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the citizenry must not be prevented from forming one on demand, if at some time it proves necessary to do so. And since denying the citizenry free access to arms is a sure-fire way of preventing them forming a militia, the amendment makes it clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, I've already said that I don't want to discuss the matter any more in this environment. Therefore, I will not respond to any further comments on this.

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:09 PM by Netfoot

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, Netfoot said:

Now, I've already said that I don't want to discuss the matter any more in this environment. Therefore, I will not respond to any further comments on this.

How did you get the red font? 
Or is that a Mod addition? 
Colors can be fun.
𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕠𝕟𝕝𝕪 𝕗𝕠𝕟𝕥 𝕧𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕀 𝕜𝕟𝕠𝕨 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒐𝒄𝒉𝒓𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝔞𝔫𝔡 𝔭𝔯𝔢𝔱𝔱𝔶 𝔪𝔲𝔠𝔥 JЦƧƬ ӨПΣ ƧIZΣ.

[b4pjoe]

TEST

Color tags like this.

[Charlemagne]

20 hours ago, Netfoot said:

The amendment does not require that a militia exist at all, whether well regulated (trained) or not. The amendment says that since a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the citizenry must not be prevented from forming one on demand, if at some time it proves necessary to do so. And since denying the citizenry free access to arms is a sure-fire way of preventing them forming a militia, the amendment makes it clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, I've already said that I don't want to discuss the matter any more in this environment. Therefore, I will not respond to any further comments on this.

 

Since you won't be responding, that gives me the last word, so thanks for that.

The issue is that you don't seem to be extrapolating.

They specifically stipulated "well-regulated, " which means not just training but maintenance, oversight, command structure, supply chains, etc., etc., etc.

Those things have to be in place because without them - without the regulation - these "militias" would just be mobs at worst or organized gangs at best. But, in either case, they would be completely ineffectual.

"Well-regulated" is in there for a reason. And not just so that people can have guns and be a Gravy Seal in Meal Team Six.

[Netfoot]

1 minute ago, Charlemagne said:

Since you won't be responding, that gives me the last word, so thanks for that.

Congrats! You get to win for once.

[Charlemagne]

1 minute ago, Netfoot said:

Congrats! You get to win for once.

I didn't get to be this confident and articulate by just winning once. 😊

My waistline and hairline, though? Definitely a losing battle on those fronts. 😊

[shapeshifter]

17 hours ago, b4pjoe said:

TEST

Color tags like this.

 Oh. Cool. I didn't realize it was enabled.
Size too.
Is the forum's testing page is a thing of the past? I can't find it.
Sorry to interrupt.
Now back to the episode discussion, which I think left off here:

On 3/1/2025 at 4:21 AM, millennium said:

The last two episodes have been better than usual, I think.   Even the shootings seem improved, the head shots especially.