I don't get it either. It was really bad storytelling, imho.

It was really bad storytelling, imho.

Yup. WAY better was last season's plotline where Sherlock decided to kill the man he thought was Moriarty, and there was hell to pay from Gregson. THAT was a direct consequence of his actions, and it affected him. And so goddamn well done. Aidan Quinn is no slouch in the acting department.

I have read that cops and criminals do think they have more in common with each other than with people with day jobs.

I can tell you from personal experience that what you just said, erika, is stone cold fact.

1) Don't think "one of them" refers to "like everybody else" or "Plays well with others" but to "gives a damn and is not a psychopath" which I think has always been true for Sherlock. I think part of his unsureness is that he confuses "gives a damn" with "plays nice".

2) I don't think it was poor story telling to blame Sherlock in part for getting Bell hurt. No, this guy being homicidal and attacking Sherlock was not foreseeable. But Sherlock carelessly ruined the guy's life in passing during an investigation - because he could not be bothered to do his homework. He did something pretty awful to the guy for no good reason. That triggered a nutso reaction, but the awful thing he did that triggered it still means he gets part of the blame.

It is like hitting a guy with a glass jaw and killing him. The hitter may have had no way to foresee that hitting guy once on the jaw would lead to his death. But the hitter has to take his victim as he finds him; that punch makes him guilty of some degree of homicide, not first - but 2nd or 3rd or manslaughter or whatever the particular state law calls it.

Sherlock did something pretty terrible. Even if the consequences were far worse than could have been reasonably foreseen, he triggered them and bears partial responsibility for them. Unlike the case of the glass jaw it is not criminal responsibility or probably civil. It is by no means even the same degree of moral responsibility as the glass jaw. But he does bear at least some degree of moral responsibility. I think the writers are correct, and that this is NOT poor writing.

Hmm. I would say it's closer to getting someone all riled up and then they hit someone with a glass jaw.

but the awful thing he did that triggered it still means he gets part of the blame.

Nope.

I'm more than willing to agree to disagree on this. I said above that I understand that Sherlock the character feels some responsibility, and Bell the character blames Sherlock, at least partially. I see how the writers intend it to work *within the story*.

As a viewer, I do not buy into the "Blame Sherlock, at least partially" campaign, and I think it's poor writing if it's intended to drive character development.

Hmm. I would say it's closer to getting someone all riled up and then they hit someone with a glass jaw.

If you set his hair on fire. I can see I'm a minority of one on this - but I'm with the writers. Somebody starts a bar room brawl, and a third party kills a fourth part in that brawl, even though the main responsibility belongs to the killer, the brawl starter get a bit of the blame too. (Not speaking from a legal perspective.)

OK - I'm not saying my mind won't change on this, but not by the arguments made so far. No one has outright asked me to drop it, but I'm kind of getting a "please drop it" vibe, so won't pursue it further unless explicitly told it is OK. Don't want to offend, bore, or pursue a discussion everybody thinks is pointless.

And to post something I hope will completely uncontroversial, or at least not provoke passionate disagreement, finally getting rid of Red John once and for all has greatly improved the Mentalist. Though I want to throw things at the screen every time "two years later" comes on the screen.

What I liked best about this ep of The Mentalist is that they showed Lisbon figuring out who the mastermind was before Jane revealed it to her.