Once again, the ubiquitous Wrigley Building in the background shot. 
Had a flashback to how ER used to do “Chicago” when they went down those stairs downtown and somehow ended up in front of the “Chamber of Commerce” building.
623 E. Jackson wasn’t nearly as jarring as “West Harlem”. Nice episode on Monday…really liking where they are taking the Gibbons character.
I am so proud of Teresa for her decision in tonight’s show. A lot of series would have had that go the other way.
Interesting character development. We see that Wysocki is willing to bend the law to the point of breaking it and Colvin is very rigid about not bending the law.
Another great episode. The Teresa/Brother-in-law situation was handled perfectly. And it was a great illustration of how deep the corruption runs.
I’m a life-long Chicagoan, but have never heard of this “law of their own” business in Chinatown. I wonder if it is real (or based in some semblance of reality), or just a fiction for the show? I’m cool with it either way, but it makes me curious.
Also - I liked the evolution of the under-cover dude. I’m betting this puts him down a path that is going to take him to a very dark place.
(Sorry to be late to the party every week, but I DVR both *House *and *Chicago Code *on Mondays, and I believe each show deserves their own night to be savored as the primary entertainment for the evening. *House *still owns Monday Night DVR Playback rights.)
Yeah, he actually looked down right thrilled by the fire, until he saw the body.
And I’ve got to say, as a ridiculous a premise as “detective gets to choose whatever case he wants” is, it’s a pretty clever move by the writers so they can feature all sorts of cases all around the city.
I agree it’s ridiculous, but it has the stink of believability since his ex-partner is now the top cop for the entire force, and she trusts his instincts.
But the cases aren’t parallels. In particular, the Superintendent’s situation was particularly tricky because she personally and professionally was obligated to not do anything. Her personal motivation for being a cop and becoming superintendent was fighting exactly that kind of corruption, and even brushing it under the rug is the kind of thing she is campaigning against. To make an exception in that case for the brother-in-law would be doing exactly the kind of things she condemns in system and is trying to correct. Plus, she professionally is acting on a campaign of fighting corruption, and her enemies will use anything against her. If she didn’t turn the BIL in, and the Counselman found out, he would use that as a weapon against her. Just look at the damage done by the arrest of her Chief of Staff for corruption. Even though he wasn’t her choice and was foisted upon her, the very public arrest of a corrupt public servant in her office was used as a tool to suggest just what kind of activity she allowed, that it was able to go on so blatantly that even her Chief of Staff thought he could get away with it. There was no way she could sweep it under the rug even if she wanted to, it would give too big a weapon to her enemies.
And her BIL was an idiot for not knowing that about her, to think she wouldn’t find out and wouldn’t fry his ass.
That’s the one thing that makes it believable, his personal relationship to the Superintendent and her using him as her unofficial Task Force.
And I think the undercover guy was a flaming idiot. He was left alone in the house and told “don’t set the fire until dark”, so he had at least an hour alone, unsupervised by the bad guy that set him up, the same bad guy who was creepy about telling him not to look around. The very first thing I would have done as soon as that guy closed the door was start looking around - upstairs, basement, closets - everywhere.
Another great episode this week. I loved the symmetry: Wysocki taking a hit (and getting two unpaid weeks off for it) in order to give his boss data she could never get otherwise; while at the same time, his niece is taking a hit in order to get leverage over *her *boss!
Also, Wysocki pumping his partner for info, because “Hey, I just want to get to know my partner,” but then getting bent out of shape when Caleb is quizzing him on his ex and his fiance. Priceless!
Another great trend: Wysocki never calls Caleb by name. He always has to use some sort of derogatory (in his mind) nickname: Wildcat, Big Ten, College Boy, Wrigley, etc.
Also, they mentioned my very own street where I live: the drug dealer had his picture taken by a traffic cam at Division and Larrabee. How many people have even *heard *of Larrabee Street?
I really like the direction they went with Caleb. He can dish it out just as much as he can take it.
And no, I never heard of Larrabee, so I Googled it and felt very stupid. I briefly worked at the Dominick’s at Division and Clybourn (for those who don’t feel like googling, it’s a whole block and a half away from that intersection.) Although, in my defense, when I passed by it, the bus listed the stop as Lincoln and Webster, not Lincoln and Larrabee.
Or his new one: J. Edgar Hoover.
I think the show is now reaching the point where they’ve established the three protagonists - Colvin, Wysocki, Gibbons - of the main arc, so now they’re going to spend some time developing secondary arcs with the other characters - Evers, Vonda, Joiner, Hennessey. This should add some depth to the series.
I’m waiting for an episode titled “Tinker to Evers to Chance.” That would be awesome.
I would have agreed with you, until a few weeks ago when I had occasion to call the cops on my fighting neighbors. TWO units showed up. Must have been a really slow night. So four cops standing in my stairwell. Four HOT cops! I was so tempted to invite them up for coffee once they were through with my neighbors…
.
I really liked this week’s episode. And happily…they used an actual intersection! 47th & Michigan! And from what I can tell from Google Street View and my memory of the episode last night, they may have actually filmed the ransom exchange scene at the vacant Rosenwald Apartments at 47th and Michigan. Or at least the “stakeout” portion of it.
I liked it. But if the commissioner is such a paragon of virtue is it really realistic that she’d be ok about one of her undercovers committing some form of manslaughter? I’d assumed word wouldn’t get to her to keep her hands clean.
Another great episode. I don’t know if the credit should go to Delroy Lindo or to the writers, but they continue to keep the Alderman Gibbons character juuuuuust on the edge between sinner and saint. Very well done.
Also - who thinks the commissioner is going to be doing the nasty with Mr. FBI Arkin dude before long?
obfusciatrist, that is an interesting question. I do not know actual police procedures for such an event, but imagine people working deep cover have faced similar situations before - been involved with or near where a death has occurred. I do not know how those situations are handled.
I’m fairly certain that agents/officers are not supposed to kill an innocent or allow someone to be killed if they can stop it - protecting their cover does not trump murder. However, there are likely situations where their cover is blown and they have to kill in self defense.
This situation, the officer started a house fire to establish his credentials, only to find out later there was a person in the house - probably tied up. I would imagine in real life, there would need to be some debriefing of the incident - how did he not fully check the scene, etc. As far as the circumstances of this show, there are only three people in the know on the cover identity, because they can’t trust even the police officers to keep it secret - they don’t know who within the agency might be corrupt, and the main criminal they are after is a government official, with lots of types of pull. I can accept for the sake of this show, it is too risky to pull the guy in for a formal debrief. So the debrief occurred by Wysocki chewing him out, then the second round at the station.
If he had elected to come in, then the Superintendent would have likely had a formal debriefing, etc, over the incident. Also, I think it does make sense that she is informed - if and when the takedown ever occurs, it will come out that the undercover agent performed numerous crimes as part of his cover. Certainly a manslaughter as part of an arson will be high on the list - as shown by Gibbons’ blatant move with the visit to the grieving family. She absolutely must know about the incident and sign off on it for any future prosecution based upon the agent’s testimony to stick.
As I see it, she evalutated the situation (Wysocki certainly discussed it with her) and put an accidental manslaughter where he was set up against the value of his deep cover and likelihood to get anyone that far into the program again. It was a year in undercover work to get that far, and only now getting to the point that he has any contact with Gibbons, nevermind actual dirt on Gibbons yet. And it’s clear he was set up - though he certainly was negligent in searching the premises after the other guy prepped him and left, it’s not like there was a kid playing in upstairs - he relied on being told the house was empty and not seeing or hearing any counter indications when he entered. The victim was going to be killed. It’s a case where he made an error and should get a demerit/demotion, but will have to live with that, which is likely enough of a punishment. Plus, it is hoped that will put his alert higher and his incentive stronger.
Interesting question - what should he have done if he found the guy before he started the fire? Set him free, and then report back there wasn’t supposed to be anyone there so he didn’t think he was to kill him? Play dumb, and when they ask deny finding the guy and setting him free?
I think that’s one of the things that makes the show interesting. Just how far is this paragon of virtue willing to compromise her principles in order to bring down Gibbons? She’s now turned a blind eye to manslaughter and it didn’t seem to bother her a lot.
Has anyone else noticed that the episodes have been airing out of order? I thought it was bad writing at first, (especially the way Wysocki goes back and forth with trusting his partner) but then I checked Wikipedia.
Here’s the order they’ve aired:
Pilot
1
9
10
3
2
4
I guess that explains why they didn’t mention the fire for a week.
The problem (trying to keep an eye on reality for what is just a TV show) is that unless it is perfectly legal for an undercover cop to commit manslaughter (which I don’t think it is), they’re going to run into trouble. If the undercover is successful at getting the evidence on Gibbons then they’re going to need him in court and presumably Gibbon’s will let his lawyer know that the key witness against him is a murderer and thus has a pretty strong motivation to manufacture evidence to put himself in the best light possible.
Huh? I think they’ve been broadcast in order.
Events in the episodes seem to be happening in order.