No, it's clearly Cable Drama.

Sorry, my fault. I don't know what I was thinking.

Most recent Perception:

Either they just pissed all over Kate's character as portrayed up to now OR Daniel was sitting alone in his home hallucinating this whole episode. I'm not sure which I like less. I hope next episode has a third explanation to surprise me with.

Er to be clear, I'm thinking specifically of the scene in the bar. Unredeemable Creep has just handed her, and her ex their heads in a legal battle. She follows him to a bar, ruins his date, warns him she is going to "bring him down" and does not expect to hear from his lawyers? The detective who is carefully polite or rude to suspects and witnesses to elicit the reactions she wants suddenly loses all control? Once she is suspended, using her time off to get something on the guy I can believe. And the murder may well have circumstances. But the bar confrontation. Asolutely nothing in previous episodes prepares us for her to act like that.

I know. I don't really like the way they write her all the time.

I figure she went off the rails because of the rape of the war hero. TV makes us believe that all worthwhile detectives have that threshold where things become personal, and they break the rules they normally observe. For some its kids, for women it's often sexual violence...

I have to admit the implied violence on R&I didn't ping me much. Did I miss a scene of a dog in distress? I watched distractedly because of Lee Thompson Young--very hard time looking at any of his scenes, and with a topic as gruesome and personal as this, couldn't help but wonder what it's like if you're considering violence against yourself what having a day job tossing terms and scenes like these around feels like. And I shed a tear at the "in loving memory". It's a damned shame (and not right) that the most this show can ever affect me is through real life, and tragedy besides.

I figure she went off the rails because of the rape of the war hero. TV makes us believe that all worthwhile detectives have that threshold where things become personal, and they break the rules they normally observe. For some its kids, for women it's often sexual violence...

I think between this and the veiled references to whatever happened in DC are supposed to make us think that it was just this case making her snap.

On R&I, they said that the 1st sign one character was a serial killer was that he strangled a puppy when he was 5. Then they were handling one of Corsack's puppies while she was monologuing at him when he was tied up.

It was very hard to watch Frost scenes, knowing.

Then they were handling one of Corsack's puppies while she was monologuing at him when he was tied up.

I know. I heard and saw that. But no one threatened a dog, no one was five years old and needed to kill a dog to become desensitised to murder--I just thought they were showing you how cute dogs were (since you totally forget) and how horrible it was for a five year old to have done that. Inasmuch as serial killing made sense (and they were kinda playing that angle) it made no sense to kill any dog in that episode. So I didn't think any dogs were in jeopardy.

And there was Rizzoli's nightmare with what's-his-name and her dog being threatened in it. And I could have sworn there was a third scene with dogs in it, but I'm not going to rewatch.

I think it was more the sociopath angle - we're so desensitized (plus we want to hurt you (Corsack), plus I've done it before so puppy-strangling is kinda my thing). I felt sure that there was no way it was actually going to happen, no way R&I is going to go there. But I'm sure they wanted people to think the puppy was in real jeopardy. And I still felt better when they put the puppy down.

Inasmuch as serial killing made sense (and they were kinda playing that angle) it made no sense to kill any dog in that episode.

Which was what the serial killer said, right before they let the puppy go. Looks askance at ita !. From a safe distance.