I know I was talking about Dean and Sam and trust before, but I just read this on io9 and it says what I wanted to say, but better...

As soon as Sam is looking the other way, Dean sneaks off to knife Amy in the heart. Not only does this seem cruelly unnecessary, but it's also a direct betrayal of Sam. With his actions, Dean seems to be saying that all monsters deserve killing, no matter what the circumstances. As always in these situations, Dean is a complete hypocrite: his own brother is a partial monster with demon blood in his veins whom Dean has spared a billion times; and Dean himself has been Satan's henchman. So why does Dean think he can judge another monster for killing to save her son's life? Because he's Dean. And this is the side of Dean it's really hard for anybody to like.

[some Leviathan stuff]

But an even bigger "what the hell Dean" moment was just the overall betrayal of Sam, and his unwillingness to believe that Sam's mind could be on the mend just the way Dean's leg is. Why has Dean gone from believing in Sam's ability to heal — in an incredibly moving scene last week — to being a total douche about it? Some of the stuff he says to Bobby about Sam being broken forever sounds a lot like what Lucifer Dean said when Sam was hallucinating. I think we've come full circle back to the relationship the brothers had when Sam was drinking demon blood with Ruby and Dean was freaking the hell out.

I'm really not looking forward to what happens when Sam finds out Dean is sneaking around behind his back.

One thing I've been wondering is if part of Dean's motivation was knowing that if Amy killed again (which Dean was probably sure she would), Sam might not forgive himself. It's still very much an "I know what's better for you than you do" thing.

Also, I can't help think of this in the context of what happened with Castiel--who had been one of Dean's closest friends, and probably his only real friend who wasn't Sam. If Castiel had turned on them, then anyone (or anything) else probably would as well.

No, not a noble thing for him to have done by any means, but certainly understandable.

I do wonder when/if/how Sam will find out.

I'm dreading Sam finding out.

There's speculation elsewhere that what we're seeing is the thin edge of Dean's disintegration, that he's repressed and moved on and sucked it up and moved on and dealt with Sam's issues and moved on, and the day's coming when it all falls apart on him.

I'd actually like to think this is the case, that there's a payoff coming for Dean acting so callously out of character by becoming the kitsune boy's own YED, and that we get to see it. I'd like to think Dean's "You gotta carry *me*" plea in the scrapyard was prophetic, and that Sam gets to rise from his own ashes and do just that. And that, finally, the brothers acknowledge each other as equals.

Unfortunately, I don't think I have quite that much faith in the writers.

that there's a payoff coming for Dean acting so callously out of character by becoming the kitsune boy's own YED, and that we get to see it. I'd like to think Dean's "You gotta carry *me*" plea in the scrapyard was prophetic, and that Sam gets to rise from his own ashes and do just that.

I can has this nao?

I'd really like that Bobby's inquiry into Dean's mental health plays out, that it wasn't just one-shot lip-service. That Sam and Dean have to save each other, Sam using Dean as his keystone to get better, and Sam having to pull himself up by his bootstraps in order to pull Dean back from the edge.

I fear that if Dean gets so closed off and hopeless and cold that he's going to make it hard for Sam to believe he's real (although maybe we're past that hurdle now) or make it hard for Sam to not want to stay checked out.

I would love to see Bev's version where Dean falls down, Sam picks him up, and they are truly equals.

I agree. Dean hasn't been right for awhile and it would be a good thing indeed to address this head on. When Dean got to the point of begging Michael to take over his body, he was just in a really bad space. And he hasn't come back.

Dean has always had a line. By and large, people who've killed innocents before go on one side, and people who haven't, go on the other, The more likely you are to kill the underserving again (or for the first time), the closer to the kill side you are.

If Amy could, for any reason, make a promise that her son would never get sick again, maybe she could switch sides. But she knows she can't, and Dean knows she can't. That lie is palpable, She will kill an innocent again in a heartbeat to keep him alive. End of story.

This line is severely fucked up by the vessels of demons and angels. They are innocents that die in droves. But it's not just Sam and Dean that don't treat them like innocents, most of the time...its the writing staff.

Dean fell down at the end of S5 and Sam picked him up. THe were balanced, and it didn't last, because Sam came back so very very damaged.

I was watching a season 1 episode with Meg where Bobby is explaining about the demon meat suits, and Dean there was very adamantly "save the vessel". I don't know where that went.

The more likely you are to kill the underserving again (or for the first time), the closer to the kill side you are.

That's why I don't get why he didn't kill the kid. I suppose I do for meta reasons, but how else is that kid going to survive? So, he either condemned him to slow starvation or killing people to feed himself. The story logic breaks down for me at killing the mother but leaving the kid alive.

I agree, Jen, the story logic doesn't work. Dean essentially ensured that the kid would become a killer. But from a fucked-up Dean pov, does it hold water that he is eliminating a definite risk, someone who has taken lives, and someone he doesn't trust to not kill again, and yet the kid gets a pass in Dean's eyes because so far he's innocent. And if the only one the kid is gunning for is Dean, Dean considers that fair? I'm just trying to make this work, and I think that Dean is not in a logical headspace right now.