"The Dirty Harry" Syndrome. This is an actual term used by police and in criminal justice classes. I remember mine well. It refers to a police officer doing something illegal--such as torturing a suspect as Dirty Harry does in the first film--in order to save a life. Is it justifiable no matter how much against the law it may be? During our class discussion, even our professor--a retired cop--could completely understand most of us who took the "Pro" side.
We have a similar scenario in this extremely compelling first of two parts episode where Deputy Super Miller knows her son has been abducted. Voight has a lead on a possible location and wants to hit it. Miller immediately shuts him down telling him that they must work within the confines of the law.
Of course, because Voight was not allowed to infiltrate the location, Miller's son is not only killed, but the killers go free and slaughter three more people. What good is "right" if it costs people their lives?
I've always found it interesting how most cop shows always seem to have morons in the upper echelons of the force. People who clearly have no clue about what to do, and how their decisions always end up killing people.
You know why Dirty Harry was such a compelling character? Even when he snapped, "I hate the g**damn system!" It's because Harry was always on the side of the victim and bringing in criminals before more damage was done. Of course, there is always the other side of the equation: being able to prosecute. Thus, the argument. Sipowicz on NYPD Blue was of similar ilk. He did what he had to do. And that's also why I love Hank Voight so much.
Miller dares Voight to acknowledge that she killed her son and three girls. He doesn't answer, even though we all know that she did. It's hard to side and sympathize with stupid.
Put yourself in the shoes of the victim. Would you not want the police to do whatever is necessary to help you and possibly save you? The toughest line of this episode is after Voight finds Miller's son, shakes his head, and says, "We could have saved him."
And now another cop's life is put at risk due to MIller's impotence. Can't wait to see next week's episode!
We have a similar scenario in this extremely compelling first of two parts episode where Deputy Super Miller knows her son has been abducted. Voight has a lead on a possible location and wants to hit it. Miller immediately shuts him down telling him that they must work within the confines of the law.
Of course, because Voight was not allowed to infiltrate the location, Miller's son is not only killed, but the killers go free and slaughter three more people. What good is "right" if it costs people their lives?
I've always found it interesting how most cop shows always seem to have morons in the upper echelons of the force. People who clearly have no clue about what to do, and how their decisions always end up killing people.
You know why Dirty Harry was such a compelling character? Even when he snapped, "I hate the g**damn system!" It's because Harry was always on the side of the victim and bringing in criminals before more damage was done. Of course, there is always the other side of the equation: being able to prosecute. Thus, the argument. Sipowicz on NYPD Blue was of similar ilk. He did what he had to do. And that's also why I love Hank Voight so much.
Miller dares Voight to acknowledge that she killed her son and three girls. He doesn't answer, even though we all know that she did. It's hard to side and sympathize with stupid.
Put yourself in the shoes of the victim. Would you not want the police to do whatever is necessary to help you and possibly save you? The toughest line of this episode is after Voight finds Miller's son, shakes his head, and says, "We could have saved him."
And now another cop's life is put at risk due to MIller's impotence. Can't wait to see next week's episode!
