Grimm--The Woman in Black (spoilers)

[Ken from Chicago]

Buffy
Xena
Gabrielle
Aeryn
Zoe
Ziva
Kara

It looks like, especially next season after giving us a sample in the season
finale, GRIMM will be adding Mama Burkhardt to that list of live-action
warrior women (US edition). Aunt Marie was tough enough and she was
literally getting out of her deathbed to fight off monsters. Nick's mom
looks like she's more in her fighting prime, with not just the fighting
skills, but the experience to have honed those skills to a laser's
sharpness.

Nice.

Altho showcasing her and Juliette and squeezing in Monroe, oh and this
week's monster of the week, Hank's (justified) paranoia (and possible
insomnia), the return of Adelaide, and whatshisname, the former
lipstick-eating, coin-eating, random-object-eating cop who always seems to
be introducing Nick and Hank to the weirdness, it looks like Captain Reynard
got short shrift. Normally no way would someone human or ... otherwise ...
totally catch him flatfooted like that.

Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero trope
of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".

Btw, that "protection" STILL FAILS as Nick has been attacked in their home
and Juliette has been threatened directly several times. I'm so looking at
you, Batman, Spider-Man and especially you, Superman, and triple-dog
especially you, SMALLVILLE Clark Kent. Oh puhlease make that pain stop. What
a jerk that show turned Clark into.

Yet more importantly is the fact that she has a RIGHT to know this. Sure,
some apprehension on Nick's part is understandable as he himself is
adjusting to the news. However it had been months after finding out he was a
Grimm when he got attacked in their home by a vessen. He had the perfect
chance to come clean then seeing how the danger could be that close.

But Nick definitely should have revealed the truth BEFORE PROPOSING to
Juliette. For the love of all that good and decent, what the frell does he
think marriage is if he's NOT willing to be honest about his situation. You
don't propose to someone WITHOUT revealing you're a cop, firefighter,
soldier, spy, lion-tamer, etc., some kind of extremely dangerous profession.

Btw, maybe Nick should let his partner, Hank, know also. Time and again they
are both walking right into the belly of the beast, so he should know that,
just as much as Juliette.

Instead, Nick keeps it secret and Juliette is endangered because it. Way to
go, hero. Maybe your ma will teach ya better.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. "I've said it for years, ... Uncommunication is the Ultimate Bad, the
ubervillain of all too many series."--Ken from Chicago

P.P.S. "If you can't quote yourself who[sic] can you quote?"--Ken from
Chicago

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <jpd3tv$76d$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:


> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero trope
> of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
> allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".

"Have you tried NOT being the Slayer?"

These conversations are always awkward. And, as it turns out, Nick did
have a couple of valid concerns about telling her -- the exploding head
thing of her not being able to cope, and the "are you crazy?" thing. But
Nick being in denial is the most important impediment to telling her or
Hank. So, it's understandable. Wise, no, but understandable.

BTW, it's Sgt. Wu, who seems to be everywhere.

And Claire Coffee's character is named Adalind.

[David Johnston]

On 5/21/2012 4:03 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:

> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
> trope of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret
> identity, allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting
> her".
>

No, his rationalization was "Telling her that I'm a superhero who fights
monsters she can't see would make her think I'm crazy."

[Hunter]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 05:03:40 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:

>Buffy
>Xena
>Gabrielle
>Aeryn
>Zoe
>Ziva
>Kara
>
>It looks like, especially next season after giving us a sample in the season
>finale, GRIMM will be adding Mama Burkhardt to that list of live-action
>warrior women (US edition). Aunt Marie was tough enough and she was
>literally getting out of her deathbed to fight off monsters. Nick's mom
>looks like she's more in her fighting prime, with not just the fighting
>skills, but the experience to have honed those skills to a laser's
>sharpness.
>
>Nice.

------
Yes but the thing is the girls above were young and sexy. Nick's mom
isn't young or sexy. I mean she isn't ugly but she isn't going up on
my wall in poster form anytime soon. :-)

>
>Altho showcasing her and Juliette and squeezing in Monroe, oh and this
>week's monster of the week, Hank's (justified) paranoia (and possible
>insomnia),

-----
Hank's insomnia is a result of his paranoia.
>
>... the return of Adelaide, and whatshisname, the former

>lipstick-eating, coin-eating, random-object-eating cop who always seems to
>be introducing Nick and Hank to the weirdness, it looks like Captain Reynard
>got short shrift. Normally no way would someone human or ... otherwise ...
>totally catch him flatfooted like that.

-----
Sergeant Wu has been back for some time I think. That is hasn't he
been several episodes since the "all you can eat" syndrome?

I think it is a testament that the guy looking for the coins was that
good. But to be fair Captain Renard didn't know what was after him. I
still don't know for sure if he is human or-for lack of a better term
right now-metahuman.

>
>Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero trope
>of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
>allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".

------
It was more like he was protecting *himself* but he had good reason to
be afraid given Juliette's reaction..

>
>Btw, that "protection" STILL FAILS as Nick has been attacked in their home
>and Juliette has been threatened directly several times. I'm so looking at
>you, Batman, Spider-Man and especially you, Superman, and triple-dog
>especially you, SMALLVILLE Clark Kent. Oh puhlease make that pain stop. What
>a jerk that show turned Clark into.

-----
"Smallville" was just following precedent, and Superboy didn't have
Clark telling his girlfriend either. I do agree in those cases in
keeping the secret from their girlfriends because they didn't actually
live with them. Clark's situation in "Smallville" is closer to Nick's
in "Grimm" but most of the bad guys didn't know he had superpowers and
when they found out they either died, lost their memories, or were
committed to Belreeve. And, as mentioned before, Lana Lang nor Lois
Lane live with him. In the case of Juliette she was in the line of
fire regardless of whether she knew or not; but also like with Nick
Clark was scared that Lana would reject him for being a "Meteor
Freak". Partly the same fear that Nick had with Juliette except she
thinks he is a plain freak. The fear of rejection by the women they
loved deeply was over powering.

But in most cases it is justified in not telling the significant
others their secrets because in most cases the superheroes does have
true secret identities. That is there is Clark Kent and there is
Superman; there is Bruce Wayne and then there is Batman; there is
Peter Parker and then there is Spiderman. In those cases a completely
different alter ego that the vast majority of people including super
criminals, don't know about. That is the vast majority don't know that
Clark Kent mild mannered reporter was Superman.

In this case of "Grimm" Nick doesn't have a secret identity that the
"super criminals" didn't know about. Everyone knows he is a
Grimm-everyone not totally human that is-so they can find out where he
lives, where he works, will know him on sight. He doesn't have a mask
and costume-or black rimmed glasses-to disguise him, so everyone knows
who and where he is and can go after him, so yes he was putting
Juliette in danger anyway because any of his enemies could kidnap her
and use her against him; and lo and behold that is exactly what
happened with the literal "Dragon Lady". She knew who she was and used
her against him. If Lex Luthor knew that Clark Kent was Superman he
would've attacked Lois Lane in the same way but he didn't so Lois was
safe and could be kept out of the secret. Not the case with Juliette.

But again I do agree with most of the trope of not telling the
significant other-unless they are getting married-in the dark because
who wants to do say Superman harm don't care about Clark Kent so Clark
Kent isn't putting Lois Lane in danger.

As mentioned before the real life versions of this are undercover cops
and Intelligence agents and they do it for good real life reasons
including the fewer who knows their secret the lesser the possibility
that the secret would get out, but they too have SEPARATE secret
identities from themselves. The Mafia didn't know that Donny Brascoe
wasn't his real name and was actually an FBI agent with a family. In
many cases CIA Agents in real life keep the fact that they work for
the CIA a secret from their families so again there is lessened
possibility that the secret would get out, so you see that reflected
in the more realistic secret agent shows.

>
>Yet more importantly is the fact that she has a RIGHT to know this. Sure,
>some apprehension on Nick's part is understandable as he himself is
>adjusting to the news. However it had been months after finding out he was a
>Grimm when he got attacked in their home by a vessen. He had the perfect
>chance to come clean then seeing how the danger could be that close.

------
Considering what had almost happened to her and the point that they
were living together I do agree that he should've told her. But as we
saw he had better be able to prove it otherwise she will think him a
big nut. There was no guarantee that Monroe would've cooperated
because HE has a secret to keep and would be putting his fate in
Juliette's hands.

And I don't blame Juliette for reacting the way she did LOL! It is a
lot to believe in one go, but Nick is bringing more evidence to the
table than August, Jefferson and Henry did to Emma in "Once Upon a
Time…" all who said basically "take our word for it". At least Nick
can site Juliette's own Chimera DNA findings and has a Wieder Blutbad
to transform in front of her eyes, not just a hole in a tree LOL!!!

>
>But Nick definitely should have revealed the truth BEFORE PROPOSING to
>Juliette. For the love of all that good and decent, what the frell does he
>think marriage is if he's NOT willing to be honest about his situation. You
>don't propose to someone WITHOUT revealing you're a cop, firefighter,
>soldier, spy, lion-tamer, etc., some kind of extremely dangerous profession.

------
On this I am totally in agreement with you. You don't propose marriage
without revealing your aspect of yourself. It is a much higher level
of commitment. It would be like Lois Lane marrying Clark Kent without
knowing he was Superman. She should've told her before proposing even
at the risk of having his heart broke. It would be her life too.

>
>Btw, maybe Nick should let his partner, Hank, know also. Time and again they
>are both walking right into the belly of the beast, so he should know that,
>just as much as Juliette.

------
More so because he is going into those situations blind.

>
>Instead, Nick keeps it secret and Juliette is endangered because it. Way to
>go, hero. Maybe your ma will teach ya better.
>
>-- Ken from Chicago

-----
Like I said I agree in this case that he should've told Juliette
because she was in the middle of the action and didn't know it. That
is different from most girlfriends of Superhero in which they don't
live with the target and the super villains don't know he is the
target because of a totally different identity.
(snip)

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

[BTR1701]

Which is just as stupid, since he had Monroe all along to prove it to her,
just as he was going to do in the finale.

[shawn]

Which is where I think he should have started. Of course if you tell
someone that you see things no one else does and have a higher calling
to fight off these evil creatures they are going to think you have
lost touch with reality. Hank might not immediately think that since
he's seen some things that he can't explain but Juliette hasn't seen
anything that odd so far so Nick really should have started with
Monroe and explaining what Vessen are and then get into his role.

[shawn]

Yes, Wu is there in just about every episode. Often he gets quite a
few lines.

>I think it is a testament that the guy looking for the coins was that
>good. But to be fair Captain Renard didn't know what was after him. I
>still don't know for sure if he is human or-for lack of a better term
>right now-metahuman.

Except that we finally saw Nick taking him down fairly easily. That
felt a bit odd given past fights that Nick has gotten into and how
easily this guy took down other people. I'm not sure if it was just
poor writing or some sort of change in Nick's abilities (or maybe he
was just pissed off which makes him much stronger. ;))

>>Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>>beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero trope
>>of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
>>allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".
>------
>It was more like he was protecting *himself* but he had good reason to
>be afraid given Juliette's reaction..

Yes, he had a real romantic interest in Juliette and was afraid that
she might leave him if he told her the truth. It's not exactly the
sort of thing that most people want to deal with in their lives
(monsters are real and oh.. some of them will want to kill Nick and
anyone around him, but you can't ask for help from anyone else in law
enforcemnet because no one can know about their existence.)

[Ken from Chicago]

"David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:jpdinp$skn$1...@dont-email.me...

All well and good--except for Monroe.

He's definitive *convenient* proof monsters exist.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Hunter (Hunter)" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:4fba4d95...@news.optonline.net...

> On Mon, 21 May 2012 05:03:40 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Buffy
>>Xena
>>Gabrielle
>>Aeryn
>>Zoe
>>Ziva
>>Kara
>>
>>It looks like, especially next season after giving us a sample in the
>>season
>>finale, GRIMM will be adding Mama Burkhardt to that list of live-action
>>warrior women (US edition). Aunt Marie was tough enough and she was
>>literally getting out of her deathbed to fight off monsters. Nick's mom
>>looks like she's more in her fighting prime, with not just the fighting
>>skills, but the experience to have honed those skills to a laser's
>>sharpness.
>>
>>Nice.
> ------
> Yes but the thing is the girls above were young and sexy. Nick's mom
> isn't young or sexy. I mean she isn't ugly but she isn't going up on
> my wall in poster form anytime soon. :-)

Those two terms are not mutually required for either to be true.

IOW different strokes.

And that's far from the only thing that makes them interesting.

>>Altho showcasing her and Juliette and squeezing in Monroe, oh and this
>>week's monster of the week, Hank's (justified) paranoia (and possible
>>insomnia),
> -----
> Hank's insomnia is a result of his paranoia.

Which is actually justified.

>>... the return of Adelaide, and whatshisname, the former
>>lipstick-eating, coin-eating, random-object-eating cop who always seems to
>>be introducing Nick and Hank to the weirdness, it looks like Captain
>>Reynard
>>got short shrift. Normally no way would someone human or ... otherwise ...
>>totally catch him flatfooted like that.
> -----
> Sergeant Wu has been back for some time I think. That is hasn't he
> been several episodes since the "all you can eat" syndrome?

Yeah, but he's ALWAYS the beat cop introducing them to cases. They finally
showed another beat cop just to have him killed off by the monster.

> I think it is a testament that the guy looking for the coins was that
> good. But to be fair Captain Renard didn't know what was after him. I
> still don't know for sure if he is human or-for lack of a better term
> right now-metahuman.

Yes, I think it's the Worf Syndrone. You make the villain look really tough
by beating up the toughest guy in the cast, Renard, relatively easy. Unlike
Worf during the 1st season of Star Trek TNG, Renard has actually been SHOWN
being tough.

>>Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>>beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
>>trope
>>of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
>>allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".
> ------
> It was more like he was protecting *himself* but he had good reason to
> be afraid given Juliette's reaction..

If he didn't trust her he should have broke up with her. If he feared she'd
think he was crazy, he had Monroe as convenient definitive proof.

Maybe the first couple of YEARS but by year 4, 5, 6, that reason just
doesn't cut it anymore. And yeah, it's a superhero trope in general, not
just with GRIMM, and more of an issue with DC Comics superheroes versus
Marvel (except for Spider-Man and maybe Captain America), where the heroes
are for more laid back about their secret identity being public (Iron Man),
or not having one at all.

> In this case of "Grimm" Nick doesn't have a secret identity that the
> "super criminals" didn't know about. Everyone knows he is a
> Grimm-everyone not totally human that is-so they can find out where he
> lives, where he works, will know him on sight. He doesn't have a mask
> and costume-or black rimmed glasses-to disguise him, so everyone knows
> who and where he is and can go after him, so yes he was putting
> Juliette in danger anyway because any of his enemies could kidnap her
> and use her against him; and lo and behold that is exactly what
> happened with the literal "Dragon Lady". She knew who she was and used
> her against him. If Lex Luthor knew that Clark Kent was Superman he
> would've attacked Lois Lane in the same way but he didn't so Lois was
> safe and could be kept out of the secret. Not the case with Juliette.

Yep, esp with the attack in his house and with him finding out more vessens
knew where he stayed, all the more reason for Nick coming clean with
Juliette. He wouldn't date someone without revealing he was a cop the same
should go for being a Grimm.

> But again I do agree with most of the trope of not telling the
> significant other-unless they are getting married-in the dark because
> who wants to do say Superman harm don't care about Clark Kent so Clark
> Kent isn't putting Lois Lane in danger.

Even if they aren't married, a long-term romantic relationship is still just
as dangerous for the partner kept in the dark.

> As mentioned before the real life versions of this are undercover cops
> and Intelligence agents and they do it for good real life reasons
> including the fewer who knows their secret the lesser the possibility
> that the secret would get out, but they too have SEPARATE secret
> identities from themselves. The Mafia didn't know that Donny Brascoe
> wasn't his real name and was actually an FBI agent with a family. In
> many cases CIA Agents in real life keep the fact that they work for
> the CIA a secret from their families so again there is lessened
> possibility that the secret would get out, so you see that reflected
> in the more realistic secret agent shows.

But not telling relatives and not telling the loved ones who stay in the
same home as you is totally different. Yeah, you don't have to detail every
aspect of the undercover work, but you can and should say you are an cop
working undercover or an intelligence agent (yeah, I'm looking at you, Annie
Walker of COVERT AFFAIRS and Chuck Bartowski of CHUCK). They have a right to
know if you suddenly disappear, why, in general non-classified terms.

>>Yet more importantly is the fact that she has a RIGHT to know this. Sure,
>>some apprehension on Nick's part is understandable as he himself is
>>adjusting to the news. However it had been months after finding out he was
>>a
>>Grimm when he got attacked in their home by a vessen. He had the perfect
>>chance to come clean then seeing how the danger could be that close.
> ------
> Considering what had almost happened to her and the point that they
> were living together I do agree that he should've told her. But as we
> saw he had better be able to prove it otherwise she will think him a
> big nut. There was no guarantee that Monroe would've cooperated
> because HE has a secret to keep and would be putting his fate in
> Juliette's hands.

True, and the show could have shown Monroe being reluctant--altho Monroe has
been very cooperative. Definitely Nick should have come clean by the time he
wanted to propose. That would have been months later and he could have been
slowly persuading Monroe to reveal his other face to Juliette.

> And I don't blame Juliette for reacting the way she did LOL! It is a
> lot to believe in one go, but Nick is bringing more evidence to the
> table than August, Jefferson and Henry did to Emma in "Once Upon a

> Time." all who said basically "take our word for it". At least Nick

> can site Juliette's own Chimera DNA findings and has a Wieder Blutbad
> to transform in front of her eyes, not just a hole in a tree LOL!!!

Exactly. Juliette was basically making the argument last week. Her
reluctance this weeks is a little too convenient.

>>But Nick definitely should have revealed the truth BEFORE PROPOSING to
>>Juliette. For the love of all that good and decent, what the frell does he
>>think marriage is if he's NOT willing to be honest about his situation.
>>You
>>don't propose to someone WITHOUT revealing you're a cop, firefighter,
>>soldier, spy, lion-tamer, etc., some kind of extremely dangerous
>>profession.
> ------
> On this I am totally in agreement with you. You don't propose marriage
> without revealing your aspect of yourself. It is a much higher level
> of commitment. It would be like Lois Lane marrying Clark Kent without
> knowing he was Superman. She should've told her before proposing even
> at the risk of having his heart broke. It would be her life too.

Exactly, early on in dating, I understand keeping that secret but by the
time there's some kind of permanency built you gotta be fair.

>>Btw, maybe Nick should let his partner, Hank, know also. Time and again
>>they
>>are both walking right into the belly of the beast, so he should know
>>that,
>>just as much as Juliette.
> ------
> More so because he is going into those situations blind.

Cop partners are spose to have each other's back. For many, it rivals a
marriage considering the level of danger they are routinely in.

>>Instead, Nick keeps it secret and Juliette is endangered because it. Way
>>to
>>go, hero. Maybe your ma will teach ya better.
>>
>>-- Ken from Chicago
> -----
> Like I said I agree in this case that he should've told Juliette
> because she was in the middle of the action and didn't know it. That
> is different from most girlfriends of Superhero in which they don't
> live with the target and the super villains don't know he is the
> target because of a totally different identity.
> (snip)

Agreed. That's what burned me so much about SMALLVILLE was that it was
increasingly making Clark Kent for hiding the truth from Lana, after half a
decade claiming to love her so much--and then later from Lois. YEARS had
passed with him still hiding the truth--and she was still getting in danger
regardless.

> ------>Hunter
>
> "No man in the wrong can stand up against
> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>
> -----William J. McDonald
> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

-- Ken from Chicago

[Obveeus]

One concern Nick had was that she would think he was crazy. The other
concern Nick had was that exposure to the knowledge would drive her crazy.
Monroe was pretty clear in stating that most humans simply cannot accept
such things and go nuts as a result of seeing them.

[David Johnston]

If he could convince Monroe to do it, and if he was willing to take the
chance of an epic freakout that would at the least end their
relationship anyway.

[shawn]

Is it that people can't accept what they have been told or that they
go crazy when they have no explanation for what they have seen and no
one believes them? I can see the latter case but I would expect most
people could deal with if they were shown the truth (by having Vessen
change in front of them) and being told about the Vessen and their
relationship to humanity.

[Obveeus]

Yes, I don't think the premise (that it would drive a human crazy) holds
water at all, but that is the setup the show gave us as 'fact'. In reality,
that might have been the case for people in the 1500s, but people nowadays
see all kinds of weird stuff in movies and while they may never be able to
explain what they think they saw in real life, I don't think most people
would dwell on it to the point of insanity in this day and age.

[~consul]

I think it is also more likely that he is afraid that she will just leave him, truth or not. It's not something that all women can deal with. I've known women who didn't want to deal with a cop in the family or someone on the career military and getting that letter that their spouse has died. Those types of high-risk jobs can make a family unstable and unappealing. Now granted she is already involved with him as a cop, but being a Grimm, with monsters, justifiably takes it to a new level of commitment.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[~consul]

Ferxample, like when she says, "what like ghosts?" And then his look like, "no duh, ghosts aren't real!" At least that was what I was thinking he was looking like. He was pretty far back in the distance of the scene, so I can't be sure. :D

I still think it is what I put in my post earlier, that she could have just left him instead.

[suzeeq]

There's something to be said for 'mature' and sexy....

[snipalot]

>> Like I said I agree in this case that he should've told Juliette
>> because she was in the middle of the action and didn't know it. That
>> is different from most girlfriends of Superhero in which they don't
>> live with the target and the super villains don't know he is the
>> target because of a totally different identity.
>> (snip)
>
> Agreed. That's what burned me so much about SMALLVILLE was that it was
> increasingly making Clark Kent for hiding the truth from Lana, after half a
> decade claiming to love her so much--and then later from Lois. YEARS had
> passed with him still hiding the truth--and she was still getting in danger
> regardless.

Sometimes getting into dange *because* she didn't know the truth.

[KalElFan]

"shawn" wrote in message
news:eoqkr7tgmh30ede3a...@4ax.com...

> ... we finally saw Nick taking [the Wesen villain] down fairly easily.

> That felt a bit odd given past fights that Nick has gotten into and

> how easily this guy took down other people. I'm not sure if it was...
> some sort of change in Nick's abilities...

His abilities have been strengthening over the course of the season,
at a seemingly increasing rate. He was an average cop at first, but
by the late eps he was rendering the Witch/Adalind powerless and
the like, and then the peak seemed to be killing both reapers in the
fight an ep or two back. That impressed the heck out of Monroe,
and he suggested both heads be shipped back to the guy in Europe
as we saw in that final shot.

Then the finale, Renard was caught off guard leaning over the dead
housekeeper, then fairly quickly rendered unconscious and tied up.
So it wasn't proof he couldn't have won, but it did strengthen the
villain even more. They'd already established his rep, fighting skills,
fearsome-looking Wesen creature persona and so on, setting him up
as very difficult to beat. Again possibly because of the element of
surprise, he gets in the first good shots at Nick and it looks like
Nick might lose.

After those first few seconds though, it's a rout for Nick. He's
tossing the critter around like a rag doll and surely could have
killed the guy if he hadn't been distracted by what he thought
was the bad female they'd been searching for. To Nick's surprise
she finishes off the Wesen and turns out to be Mamma Grimm.

I guess we'll find out if protecting Nick from the Wesen baddie
was her primary reason for showing up, but it didn't look like
Nick would've needed it. So my guess is she's showing up to
explain what has been and will be happening to Nick ability-wise,
and tell him about other things Grimm and of course why she's
been in hiding.

We did get the line confirming that the Grimms were on his mother
side. In that reaper ep we also had the planning meeting for the
hit where one baddie asks if it was even possible to kill a Grimm.
Technically, even Auntie Grimm on her death bed and life support
died more from disease and actually won her last fight IIRC. Now
we find out Dead Mama Grimm is very much alive, and judging by
her abilities it doesn't look like anyone's going to be successfully
killing her anytime soon. Maybe, like Auntie Grimm though, she's
starting to succumb to something else.

We also saw Nick training with Monroe, and learning more and
more, but again I think there's more going on than training here.
Maybe this has been a kind of Grimm Apprentice phase he's gone
through after his Aunt died, and now he's approaching Full Grimm,
the stage where Wesen are asking if a Grimm can be killed and for
good reason. There was that anecdotal kill of a Grimm a century
ago in Europe that was mentioned, but for all we know that was
reaper b.s. so they could start up their reaping business. :-)

It was a great finale. I already loved the series but it makes for
even greater anticipation of season 2, which has the August start
a week or so after NBC's Olympics coverage.

[Don Bruder]

In article <jpdtqf$a6g$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:

Which is precisely where he *EVENTUALLY* went - but too late, since by
then, Jules was on her way to la-la land.

The "*EVENTUALLY* beign the problem...

I lost track of how many times I grumbled something to the tune of
"Fercrissake, take her to see Monroe already, you idiot!" through this
episode. Also had flashes of "If not Monroe, go visit the herb shop and
that cute little fox chick whose name I can't remember." (On second
thought, maybe not such a good idea, being as she's a cute fem - that'd
probably just send Jules into a "...and how long have you been sleeping
with her?" tizzy) Or the little beaver guy that was supposed to fix his
fridge - he knows where him and his family live, and they're on
*REASONABLY* good terms, if only because the beaver clan guy is scared
so shitless of Nick and his "Grimmness" that he's likely to do pretty
much anything he wants.

Put another way...
There's absolutely no reason (1) he shouldn't have been able to convince
Jules that he was speaking pure truth within a VERY short span of time -
travel time between home and Monroe, the herb shop, or the beaver clan's
house being the max.

I think the writers are doing Nick a disservice - He's obviously going
to be ignorant about Grimms and Vessen, sure. And his learning about
what both they and he are should be the core of the show. But come on...
No matter how much you (Generic "you" intended to be read as "whoever is
reading this post") might dislike police, you gotta admit, a person
doesn't make police detective without having at least SOME smarts. The
way the writers are handling him, Barney Fife is a more believable cop
than Nick.

Don't get me wrong... I LIKE the show. But some of the stuff that's
happening in the character handling department is off-putting. Changing
that handling could make it even better than it is now.

Of course, I'm not "Joe Average TV-Watcher", so maybe it's "just right"
for the masses...

(1) Aside from milking the reveal for as much screen time as possible
while still leaving her ignorant for the sake of the cliffhanger.

--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.

[Sean Eric Fagan]

In article <jpeuv2$5rt$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> All well and good--except for Monroe.
>> He's definitive *convenient* proof monsters exist.

>Which is precisely where he *EVENTUALLY* went - but too late, since by
>then, Jules was on her way to la-la land.

But he isn't.

They've established that only veschen and Grimms can see them when they're,
um, transformed, whatever word they used. (That was, in fact, the big deal
about the thing in "Big Feet" -- that *anyone* could see them that way.)

[BTR1701]

And yet that's exactly what he was going to do and has realized he was
eventually going to have to do for most of this season.

[BTR1701]

I just don't get where TV/movie writers get this trope. It also crops up
all the time in sci-fi stories featuring aliens-- the government must
suppress all evidence of alien life because people will go stark raing mad
if they find out that there's other life out there.

I guess it's just a convenient crutch for them to use to explain the
inexplicable (yet crucial to the plot) actions of the characters.

[shawn]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 03:07:18 GMT, s...@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan)
wrote:

He is proof. The Vessen don't have to be visible but they can choose
to be visible to others. So Monroe can show himself in his transformed
state to Juliet if he wants to which is what he tried to do but the
cat scratch did it's work before she could really see him.

[Ken from Chicago]

"shawn" <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote in message
news:sh6mr7t17o3m3iavl...@4ax.com...

Yeah, Monroe said Vessen can chose to be visible when they want. Grimm can
see them when the Vessen don't want to be seen when they are having a flood
of intense emotions. Monroe wanting to be seen was how he scared those dogs
hunting "Big Foot"--and how Hank saw him.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"suzeeq" <su...@imbris.com> wrote in message
news:jpend3$gvg$1...@dont-email.me...

So say we all.

>>> Like I said I agree in this case that he should've told Juliette
>>> because she was in the middle of the action and didn't know it. That
>>> is different from most girlfriends of Superhero in which they don't
>>> live with the target and the super villains don't know he is the
>>> target because of a totally different identity.
>>> (snip)
>>
>> Agreed. That's what burned me so much about SMALLVILLE was that it was
>> increasingly making Clark Kent for hiding the truth from Lana, after half
>> a

"... increasingly making Clark Kent [a jerk] for hiding the truth from Lana
...."

>> decade claiming to love her so much--and then later from Lois. YEARS had
>> passed with him still hiding the truth--and she was still getting in
>> danger regardless.
>
> Sometimes getting into dange *because* she didn't know the truth.

After the first couple of years of the series you'd think Clark would clue
in that. Worse is TPTB for SMALLVILLE didn't clue into it. I get that they
were going with the Clark & Lana are doomed to be replaced by Clark & Lois,
but he still could have trusted Lana. He trusted Pete and Chloe, why not
Lana?

Lana thinks she can handle Clark's heroic activities but the stress of him
often facing death, voluntarily, and him putting other people ahead of their
relationship slowly wears her down and rather than try to change him from
the hero he is and the hero people need him to be, she breaks up with him.

That leaves the door open for Lois, who grew up as the daughter of a
general, and was used to a loved one constantly being at risk of losing
their life, and of the people in general needing his help. That would be a
key factor in why Lois & Clark could last as a couple where Lana & Clark
didn't.

But nooooooo. Instead we got years of Clark not trusting Lana, flat-out
lying to the woman he claimed to love, and him being portrayed as a jerk. It
was worst portrayal of Clark ever.

Until SUPERMAN RETURNS (Superman should not be a super stalker).

-- Ken from Chicago

[Hunter]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:24:38 -0400, shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com>

-----
I thought so.

>
>>I think it is a testament that the guy looking for the coins was that
>>good. But to be fair Captain Renard didn't know what was after him. I
>>still don't know for sure if he is human or-for lack of a better term
>>right now-metahuman.
>
>Except that we finally saw Nick taking him down fairly easily. That
>felt a bit odd given past fights that Nick has gotten into and how
>easily this guy took down other people. I'm not sure if it was just
>poor writing or some sort of change in Nick's abilities (or maybe he
>was just pissed off which makes him much stronger. ;))

----
Yes that was strange. I am sure he was in a fury because he was
gighting the guy he thinks was responsible for his parent's death but
he moped the floor with the guy once he got his footing. That was too
sudden.

Anyway in the past I have suspected that the Grimms were superpowered.
They have to be in order for a lsmall female late middle aged woman
who was dying of cancer to fairly easily beat a heathy grown man in
hand to hand combat, and all of the supernatural people were afraid of
him. That little human so he had to be at least superstrong, but his
new found fighting abilities and strength is strange. If there was an
in show explaination for it I either forgot it or missed it
completely. I still don't think he can go up against Monroe yet but he
seems to be getting there.

>
>>>Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>>>beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero trope
>>>of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
>>>allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".
>>------
>>It was more like he was protecting *himself* but he had good reason to
>>be afraid given Juliette's reaction..
>
>Yes, he had a real romantic interest in Juliette and was afraid that
>she might leave him if he told her the truth. It's not exactly the
>sort of thing that most people want to deal with in their lives
>(monsters are real and oh.. some of them will want to kill Nick and
>anyone around him, but you can't ask for help from anyone else in law
>enforcemnet because no one can know about their existence.)

------
It is a lot to take in, but Nick is in a better position to convince
her than those trying to convince Emma in OUaT. :-)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jpfot5$ef4$1...@dont-email.me>,

Oh, God, you're making me defend Smallville.

Clark DID trust Lana. Remember the big 100th episode, where he told her
the truth, flew (not jumped) her around the Fortress, and she
IMMEDIATELY went out and blabbed to Lex, the one thing he told her not
to do, and got herself killed, and Clark had to reset time and the cost
was Pa Kent's life? Frankly I think he should have asked for a do-over
on the do-over and let the miserable stupid bitch die again; I have no
idea how he ever managed to talk to her after that. Of course she spent
most of their sack time screwing an evil duplicate too.

Clark also trusted Pete, and the bad guys figured it out and almost beat
Pete to death, and Pete moved away because of it? And then went on to
make sex tapes nobody wants to see and landed in prison for drug
trafficking?

The Smallville lesson is clearly that your friends are NOT safer for
knowing the secrets, and in Lana's case, can't be trusted at all anyway.

--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<984512834359349673.331169...@news.giganews.com>,

I've always thought that if the DoD could prove there were ETs, they'd
do it instantly while asking for more funding.

[David Johnston]

On 5/22/2012 4:13 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:

> After the first couple of years of the series you'd think Clark would
> clue in that. Worse is TPTB for SMALLVILLE didn't clue into it. I get
> that they were going with the Clark & Lana are doomed to be replaced by
> Clark & Lois, but he still could have trusted Lana. He trusted Pete and
> Chloe,

No he didn't. Pete discovered the spaceship independantly and was about
to bring the full weight of the world's attention down on the Kent Farm.
Chloe found out about the superpowers by seeing him use them. He
never said, "OK, you are my closest friends in the world, so I can just
trust you with my Big Secret".

[suzeeq]

You'd think they would have done it by now in that case. Would make the
perfect reason for a larger budget.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I just don't get where TV/movie writers get this trope. It also crops up
>> all the time in sci-fi stories featuring aliens-- the government must
>> suppress all evidence of alien life because people will go stark raing
>> mad
>> if they find out that there's other life out there.
>>
>> I guess it's just a convenient crutch for them to use to explain the
>> inexplicable (yet crucial to the plot) actions of the characters.
>
> I've always thought that if the DoD could prove there were ETs, they'd
> do it instantly while asking for more funding.

Definitely...though that has also been explained in TV/film tropes with the
'what, did you think it actually cost us $1,000 to make a hammer' line of
reasoning that the government inflates all their costs so that they have
lots of money left over for MiB style operations.

[Hunter]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 06:26:22 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

-----
No he didn't fly then. He jumped up from one level of the fortress to
a high platform. I know some people thought that was flying but it
wasn't if he had hovered or turned direction in mid air then that
would've been flying as it was he just used his super strong legs to
jump just like he did to catch that missile and then fell back to
Earth like a rock. If that was flying then the "Incredible Hulk" flies
too.

In all the cases of when people thought he was flying before the
series finale-except for when he hovered over his bed in
"Metamorphous" (S1XE2) and then was trying to rescue Lana in the
tornado ("Vortex" S2XE1) (and I mean *Clark* not when he was programed
to be "Kal El" by Jor-El in "Crusade" (S4XE1))-can be explained by
jumping high jumping or broad jumping because the writers were taking
advantage of the "being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound"
thing and historically Superman at first couldn't fly but jumped.

>
> and she
>IMMEDIATELY went out and blabbed to Lex, the one thing he told her not
>to do, and got herself killed, and Clark had to reset time and the cost
>was Pa Kent's life? Frankly I think he should have asked for a do-over
>on the do-over and let the miserable stupid bitch die again; I have no
>idea how he ever managed to talk to her after that. Of course she spent
>most of their sack time screwing an evil duplicate too.

------
All do respect that was completely not true. Lana DID NOT betray
Clark. For those not familiar with the storyline, in "Reckoning"
(S5XE12 ) Lex found out that she knew from the engagement ring on her
finger (Clark had posed to her in the Fortress of Solitude and she
accepted). Lana went to the Luthor mansion after Lex called her. She
wnet there because he was down after loosing the State Senate election
to Jonathan Kent. As he brooded drunkardly, he wondered to her why she
would accept after he lied to her so many times. He then realized
Clark had told her hs secret. Lex tried to force the truth out of her
but she ran away and got in her car and left. Lex chased Lana. Lana
saw Clark as Lex was chasing her and she tried to warn him. Lana
eventually wrecked when a empty school bus hit her car and was killed.
In grief Clark went to Jor-El and had him turn back time, but part of
an earlier deal for a past trangression Clark commited, Jonathan died
instead as he fought Lionel Luthor who he thought was blackmailing him
over Clark's secret.

If anything all those times before Lana was extremely patient with
Clark's lying until she decided she had enough. It was then when Clark
knew he was about to loose her anyway he told her by taking her to the
FoS.

In Nick's case he did the equivalent but a old airstream Trailer of
antique books and instruments and parchments lacks the OOOPH of having
been instantly transported to a crystal palace near the artic circle
LOL! Maybe if Nick lifted her up with one hand or something...

>
>Clark also trusted Pete, and the bad guys figured it out and almost beat
>Pete to death, and Pete moved away because of it? And then went on to
>make sex tapes nobody wants to see and landed in prison for drug
>trafficking?
>
>The Smallville lesson is clearly that your friends are NOT safer for
>knowing the secrets, and in Lana's case, can't be trusted at all anyway.

-----
Not just "Smallville" but for all the comics.That is the major reason
for not telling people especially your friends. If the bad guys get
the idea you know something they will beat it out of them or use them
against you. If Dr. Octopuss knew who Spiderman's girlfriend was you
better believe he would try to capture her and use her against him.

But in this case "Smallville"'s Clark Kent was more like Nick in that
he didn't have a secret identity but most of his adversaries either
died, got amnesia or were thought of as Belreeve material so his
secret was safe with a trusted few, most of them superpowered
themselves. It wasn't until Clark developed his alter ego as "The
Blur" is when he started to develop a identity separate from Clark and
something to say he *wasn't*: "Clark the Blur? C'mon!"

And as I pointed out before there are real life situations like that,
being an undercover cop or an intelligence agent.

Of course in "Smallville" as in the Comics the government had found
out who the heroes were anyway revealing another reason not to tell:
The government will take advantage of you try to control you,
experiment on you, try to make you into their weapon etc.

I still miss the show. Last week was the one year anniversary of its
last episode, May 13, 2011. I don't miss it as much as "Battlestar
Galactica" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or "Lost" (in that order) but
I miss it.

[Hunter]

----
If Monroe would cooperate. He did now but lets say he was asked to
reveal himself at the start of all of this I doubt he would've.

AAs it were her reaction was sensible to what Nick told her and Nick's
fear of her reaction was understandable, but unlike Clark Kent and
Peter Parker he had to tell her eventually.

[Hunter]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:00:33 -0700, ~consul
<con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:

>'tis on this 5/21/2012 10:25 AM, wrote Ken from Chicago thus to say:
>> "David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote in message news:jpdinp$skn$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 5/21/2012 4:03 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>>>> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
>>>> trope of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret
>>>> identity, allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting
>>>> her".
>>> No, his rationalization was "Telling her that I'm a superhero who fights monsters she can't see would make her think I'm crazy."
>> All well and good--except for Monroe.
>> He's definitive *convenient* proof monsters exist.
>
>I think it is also more likely that he is afraid that she will just leave him, truth or not. It's not something that all women can deal with. I've known women who didn't want to deal with a cop in the family or someone on the career military and getting that letter that their spouse has died. Those types of high-risk jobs can make a family unstable and unappealing. Now granted she is already involved with him as a cop, but being a Grimm, with monsters, justifiably takes it to a new level of commitment.

-----
That was exactly what Nick was afraid of.

[Hunter]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:51:24 -0700, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
wrote:

-----
It depends if they want to reveal themselves to a human. They have
their privacy issues as well.

>
>Put another way...
>There's absolutely no reason (1) he shouldn't have been able to convince
>Jules that he was speaking pure truth within a VERY short span of time -
>travel time between home and Monroe, the herb shop, or the beaver clan's
>house being the max.

----
Sure but again they may not want to. With Monroe they had time to
develop a bond of trust. Monroe trust Nick's judgment in this but that
tooktime

>
>I think the writers are doing Nick a disservice - He's obviously going
>to be ignorant about Grimms and Vessen, sure. And his learning about
>what both they and he are should be the core of the show. But come on...
>No matter how much you (Generic "you" intended to be read as "whoever is
>reading this post") might dislike police, you gotta admit, a person
>doesn't make police detective without having at least SOME smarts. The
>way the writers are handling him, Barney Fife is a more believable cop
>than Nick.

------
Totally disagree. Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
can be claimed otherwise.
(snip)

[Dragon Lady]

"Don Bruder" <dak...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:jpeuv2$5rt$1...@dont-email.me...

I agree. Taking her to the trailor was stupid. He should have started off
with Monroe, *then* taken her to the trailor. Monroe was proof of what was
in the trailor, which could otherwise have been simply madness.

>
> Put another way...
> There's absolutely no reason (1) he shouldn't have been able to convince
> Jules that he was speaking pure truth within a VERY short span of time -
> travel time between home and Monroe, the herb shop, or the beaver clan's
> house being the max.
>
> I think the writers are doing Nick a disservice - He's obviously going
> to be ignorant about Grimms and Vessen, sure. And his learning about
> what both they and he are should be the core of the show. But come on...
> No matter how much you (Generic "you" intended to be read as "whoever is
> reading this post") might dislike police, you gotta admit, a person
> doesn't make police detective without having at least SOME smarts. The
> way the writers are handling him, Barney Fife is a more believable cop
> than Nick.

I think the writers are idiots. I mean really, a police captain opens his
apartment door and finds his apartment has been turned upside down and he
walks in alone???? No backup? Not even a phone call? Then *two* (count
'em, two) professional police detectives do the exact same thing????? Are
these people supposed to be stupid???? It's the police who tell the rest of
us that you don't walk into a situation like that, you get out and call
them, and they don't show up alone when you do! I'm not sure even Barney
Fife would have done something this stupid!

>
> Don't get me wrong... I LIKE the show. But some of the stuff that's
> happening in the character handling department is off-putting. Changing
> that handling could make it even better than it is now.

See above.

>
> Of course, I'm not "Joe Average TV-Watcher", so maybe it's "just right"
> for the masses...

God, I hope not. That part really irritated me. It was like watching a
horror show where the secondary character walks into a dark
basement/room/woods alone despite all kinds of warning and knowing what has
happened to others, and gets him/herself killed.

>
> (1) Aside from milking the reveal for as much screen time as possible
> while still leaving her ignorant for the sake of the cliffhanger.

She didn't really get that much screen time until the end, did she? She
seemed to be a step behind the killer every step of the way, until the end.

[Dragon Lady]

"Sean Eric Fagan" <s...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:M4EM0...@kithrup.com...

Actually, I believe it was "they can only be seen by humans when they want
to be seen", with Grimms being the exception, able to see them any time.

[Don Bruder]

In article <jphbnn$ic9$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Don Bruder" <dak...@sonic.net> wrote in message

> > (1) Aside from milking the reveal for as much screen time as possible
> > while still leaving her ignorant for the sake of the cliffhanger.
>
> She didn't really get that much screen time until the end, did she? She
> seemed to be a step behind the killer every step of the way, until the end.

I didn't mean in the sense of "give Jules screen time" - Badly worded.

Perhaps better would have been "artificial suspense" - The same bogus
buildup that goes with game shows - "Is that your final answer? Yes. Ok,
so is that your final final answer? Yes. All right, is that your REALLY
final final answer? Yes. And when we get back from the block of
commercials, we'll find out if your answer is correct!"

Fake suspense to fill screen time doesn't do anything except piss me off
and convince me that whatever show is using it isn't worth bothering to
watch.

[Hunter]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:51:25 -0400, Horace LaBadie
<hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:

>In article <jpd3tv$76d$1...@dont-email.me>,

> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero trope
>> of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
>> allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".
>

>"Have you tried NOT being the Slayer?"
------
That was Buffy's mom wasn't it? :-)
>
>These conversations are always awkward. And, as it turns out, Nick did
>have a couple of valid concerns about telling her -- the exploding head
>thing of her not being able to cope, and the "are you crazy?" thing. But
>Nick being in denial is the most important impediment to telling her or
>Hank. So, it's understandable. Wise, no, but understandable.
------
True. It is a lot for the person being told to digest because the
premise in part of that show is that the humans grow up believing the
same things we do in the real world fairytale beings don't exist. It
would be much easier to bellieve in Aliens from outer space.

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <4fbc71dd...@news.optonline.net>,

Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:

> On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:51:25 -0400, Horace LaBadie
> <hwlab...@nospam.highstream.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <jpd3tv$76d$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
> >> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
> >> trope
> >> of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
> >> allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".
> >
> >"Have you tried NOT being the Slayer?"
> ------
> That was Buffy's mom wasn't it? :-)
>

Yes, Joyce took a while to grasp the situation, but we did learn that
Buffy's middle name was Anne as a result.

[Jim G.]

shawn sent the following on 5/21/2012 11:18 AM:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:12:49 -0500, BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:

>>> On 5/21/2012 4:03 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>>> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>>>> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
>>>> trope of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret
>>>> identity, allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting
>>>> her".
>>>>
>>>

>>> No, his rationalization was "Telling her that I'm a superhero who fights
>>> monsters she can't see would make her think I'm crazy."
>>

>> Which is just as stupid, since he had Monroe all along to prove it to her,
>> just as he was going to do in the finale.
>

> Which is where I think he should have started.

Yep. Have Monroe validate things on a macro level and *then* hit the
trailer and cover everything that Aunt Bea left behind. Of course, that
would have made it impossible for them to un-decide to tell her, which
is what I'm guessing is gonna happen next season. I hope I'm wrong,
though--and I *really* hope that they don't tease the whole "When will
she find out?" shtick for endless episodes or seasons...

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
If you are reading this, it means that I don't have anything better to
offer here at the moment.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ken from Chicago <ken...@ymail.com> wrote:

>Buffy
>Xena
>Gabrielle
>Aeryn
>Zoe
>Ziva
>Kara

>Altho showcasing her and Juliette and squeezing in Monroe, oh and this
>week's monster of the week, Hank's (justified) paranoia (and possible

>insomnia), the return of Adelaide, and whatshisname, the former

>lipstick-eating, coin-eating, random-object-eating cop who always seems to
>be introducing Nick and Hank to the weirdness, it looks like Captain Reynard
>got short shrift. Normally no way would someone human or ... otherwise ...
>totally catch him flatfooted like that.

Are they ever going to explain his secret for hiding himself from Grimm?

[Hunter]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:16:26 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>

wrote:

>On 5/21/2012 4:03 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
>> trope of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret
>> identity, allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting
>> her".
>>
>
>No, his rationalization was "Telling her that I'm a superhero who fights
>monsters she can't see would make her think I'm crazy."

----
Which he was totally right about but he had to do it for her safety
and honesty in the would be marriage..

[Hunter]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:18:59 -0400, shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 21 May 2012 11:12:49 -0500, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>

>>David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2012 4:03 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>>> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>>>> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
>>>> trope of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret
>>>> identity, allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting
>>>> her".
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, his rationalization was "Telling her that I'm a superhero who fights
>>> monsters she can't see would make her think I'm crazy."
>>

>>Which is just as stupid, since he had Monroe all along to prove it to her,
>>just as he was going to do in the finale.
>

>Which is where I think he should have started. Of course if you tell
>someone that you see things no one else does and have a higher calling
>to fight off these evil creatures they are going to think you have
>lost touch with reality. Hank might not immediately think that since
>he's seen some things that he can't explain but Juliette hasn't seen
>anything that odd so far so Nick really should have started with
>Monroe and explaining what Vessen are and then get into his role.

----
All this is premised on Monroe wanting to tell. I don't think he
would've at the beginning of the series (whch was something like six
months ago show time). He has a fear of being found out like the
others.

[Ken from Chicago]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:jphuea$77i$3...@news.albasani.net...

Renard's emotionally disciplined. Other vessen give themselves away by
reacting emotionally. Renard's almost vulcan in his level of emotional
control.

-- Ken from Chicago

[David Johnston]

Possibley it's what is expected of royalty.

[tdciago]

On May 22, 8:41 pm, "Dragon Lady" <sgts...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I think the writers are idiots.  I mean really, a police captain opens his
> apartment door and finds his apartment has been turned upside down and he
> walks in alone????  No backup?  Not even a phone call?  Then *two* (count
> 'em, two) professional police detectives do the exact same thing?????  Are
> these people supposed to be stupid????  It's the police who tell the rest of
> us that you don't walk into a situation like that, you get out and call
> them, and they don't show up alone when you do!  I'm not sure even Barney
> Fife would have done something this stupid!

That was really my only complaint about this episode, for exactly the
reasons you stated. Bad enough that they each wanted to be the lone
hero cop, going in without back-up, but at least call the station
first so they would be aware of what was happening.

I can forgive the dumb way they had Nick make the reveal to Juliette.
He was upset about the cat scratch to begin with, and then once he got
started in the trailer, he had an attack of verbal diarrhea. All that
pent-up information came spewing out, so he sounded like a lunatic.
That part was actually believable, because the revelation was
unplanned and made under stress.

[Jim G.]

Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:

> Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
> can be claimed otherwise.

Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,
as does that ridiculous mishandling of the cell phone in the episode
where Rendard tampered with evidence. I'm sure that I could come up with
plenty of other things if I gave it a moment's thought, but I'm already
pretty sure that the evidence indicates that Nick's detective
qualifications are spotty, at best.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI

"I find it's best if you just ... go with it." -- Lincoln Lee, providing
us with FRINGE's "Every question just leads to more questions" moment

[Don Bruder]

In article <4fbc27d1...@news.optonline.net>,

Oh give me a break!
The way they've been running Nick, if it isn't essential to the
storyline, he can't find his own ass with both hands, a roadmap, and an
assistant holding a flashlight for him! He's *FRIGGIN' BLIND* unless
it's something this week's episode requires. And they've been runnign
him as being dumber than a box of rocks. Stuff that leaps out from
behind a tree and says "Hey, look! I'm a clue!" to anyone with even a
grain of common sense might just as well be invisible to Nick, and to a
lesser extent, his partner.

Then let's not even get into the utter incompetence as a cop... A
competent cop doesn't walk away and leave a chunk of evidence laying on
his desk for any Tom, Dick or Harry to walk by and pick up -
particularly in a murder investigation. Think the cell phone that was
just left laying on his desk for his boss to pick up and swap SIM cards
in as a prime example - That sucker would have been logged into the
evidence room, if not shipped directly to the forensics team, in about 3
seconds flat by any cop worth the chrome plating on his badge. A little
concept called "chain of custody" would apply - *EVERYBODY* who shoudl
be able to lay a finger on it has to be documented from here to next
week, otherwise it's just a random piece of useless electronic
miscellanea so far as the court is concerned.

Or how about the murderer he put on the bus out of town just a couple
weeks ago? Regardless of how "right" (in story terms, at least) he might
have been in doing so, it's not like he was the only one who knew the
guy got into his car. So where'd this guy go? You damn well better
believe that more folks than just Nick are going to want to talk to him.
"Uhh... Sorry, boss - I put him in my car, then when I woke up from the
blackout, he was gone. That's OK Nick... we understand that cops
everywhere routinely have persons of interest vanish conveniently..."

Give it up Hunter - As I said, I like the show, but trying to turn a
blind eye to its faults - easily seen, and almost as easily corrected
ones - is at least part of the reason we're stuck with so much
mediocrity on TV today. Nobody cares enough to gripe about it when it's
so glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain and the will to use it as
more than stuffing for their hat-holder. So hollyweird keeps pumping out
swill for the brain-dead, instead of the good stuff we all know they
have the potential for.

[shawn]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:18:15 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:
>> Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
>> can be claimed otherwise.
>
>Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,
>as does that ridiculous mishandling of the cell phone in the episode
>where Rendard tampered with evidence. I'm sure that I could come up with
>plenty of other things if I gave it a moment's thought, but I'm already
>pretty sure that the evidence indicates that Nick's detective
>qualifications are spotty, at best.

You are thinking of the wrong sort of detective. Think of him as
Batman that has a cover of being a police detective.

[Obveeus]

You two are both correct. Early in the series, Nick was definitely the
typical TV detective (breaking the law left and right as if such things as
'search warrant' don't exist except in lip service). More recently,
however, the show has moved away from the idea that Nick is trying to do
police work and into the idea that he is doing GRIMM work. As a GRIMM, he
isn't going to be following the law and it really isn't important to the
plot to pretend otherwise.

[BTR1701]

In article <jpj3fo$cus$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
wrote:

> Give it up Hunter - As I said, I like the show, but trying to turn a
> blind eye to its faults - easily seen, and almost as easily corrected
> ones - is at least part of the reason we're stuck with so much
> mediocrity on TV today.

It's what Hunter does. It's his nature. He can't help but be an
apologist for anything a TV writer throws up on screen.

[Don Bruder]

In article <atropos-DC7E59...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

"Throws up"... Heh... I see what ya did there :)

PLEASE tell me it was deliberate :)

[Hunter]

On May 23, 10:18 am, "Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:
>
> > Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
> > can be claimed otherwise.
>
> Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,

-----
You will have to make sure you differentiate between him acting as a
cop and him acting as a grimm because they are often incompatible. I
mean he knows that Monroe once tore the arm of a person. Should he
turn him in? No.

>
>as does that ridiculous mishandling of the cell phone in the episode
>where Rendard tampered with evidence. I'm sure that I could come up with
>plenty of other things if I gave it a moment's thought, but I'm already
>pretty sure that the evidence indicates that Nick's detective
>qualifications are spotty, at best.

-----
I think you are talking about the episode "Love Sick" (S1XE17) with
the cell phone in which I believe you are talking about when Capatin
Renard stole the phone as everyone including Nick was checking to see
a collaped Sgt. Wu was okay and later removed the simm card and put in
a blank one. It is not as if Nick left it on some resturant counter
and left it while he went to the bathroom. Nick was in a room full of
his fellow cops. He has to trust them with what he puts on his desk.

As for illegal entries it depeneds on the circumstance. Was he
investigationg what he thought was a normal human crime or was he
knowingly going after a Vessen? Was it exergent circumstances or what?
--

[Ken from Chicago]

"Hunter (Hunter)" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message

news:4fbc8eba...@news.optonline.net...

> On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:16:26 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/21/2012 4:03 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>>> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
>>> trope of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret
>>> identity, allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting
>>> her".
>>>
>>
>>No, his rationalization was "Telling her that I'm a superhero who fights
>>monsters she can't see would make her think I'm crazy."
> ----
> Which he was totally right about but he had to do it for her safety

Except, as usual, with this tired bit of superhero trope, the loved one is
STILL endangered. Aside from Nick being attacked and Juliette being attacked
by vessen, many vessen know where they live, and Adelind or Adelaide or
whatever the blonde vessen lawyer's name is, knows all about her and has
been on a double-date with them.

So keeping the secret does NOT prevent her from being endangered.

> and honesty in the would be marriage..

He had to keep the secrecy FOR the honesty in the would be marriage???

> ------>Hunter
>
> "No man in the wrong can stand up against
> a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
>
> -----William J. McDonald
> Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jphbq1$ikr$1...@dont-email.me...

Actually, Grimms can see them when the vessens lose control emotionally and
trigger a brief changeover. Until that happens, even Nick hasn't recognized
them. Maybe with more training Nick can (ala Buffy learning to pick up signs
of someone being a vamp before they go all Argh-face on ya), but not yet.

Also if Renard is a vessen, Nick hasn't even suspected him at all.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:jphbnn$ic9$1...@dont-email.me...

GMTA!

>> Put another way...
>> There's absolutely no reason (1) he shouldn't have been able to convince
>> Jules that he was speaking pure truth within a VERY short span of time -
>> travel time between home and Monroe, the herb shop, or the beaver clan's
>> house being the max.
>>
>> I think the writers are doing Nick a disservice - He's obviously going
>> to be ignorant about Grimms and Vessen, sure. And his learning about
>> what both they and he are should be the core of the show. But come on...
>> No matter how much you (Generic "you" intended to be read as "whoever is
>> reading this post") might dislike police, you gotta admit, a person
>> doesn't make police detective without having at least SOME smarts. The
>> way the writers are handling him, Barney Fife is a more believable cop
>> than Nick.
>
> I think the writers are idiots. I mean really, a police captain opens his
> apartment door and finds his apartment has been turned upside down and he
> walks in alone???? No backup? Not even a phone call? Then *two* (count

To be fair, Renard has secrets he doesn't want the police to know--and he
has a history of handling stuff on his own, and doing so quite competently.
The fact that he got taken out, and rather easily and quickly was a way of
showing how tough this particular vessen was and would be when he faced off
against Nick.

> 'em, two) professional police detectives do the exact same thing????? Are
> these people supposed to be stupid???? It's the police who tell the rest
> of us that you don't walk into a situation like that, you get out and call
> them, and they don't show up alone when you do! I'm not sure even Barney
> Fife would have done something this stupid!

It seems an occupational hazard for cops to want to handle things on their
own until they have demonstrable proof they face overwhelming force, and not
even always then (e.g., Hank investigating his apartment solo or earlier in
the season going after an old case against someone that could withstand
major firepower when Captain Renard had assigned a squad to him).

>> Don't get me wrong... I LIKE the show. But some of the stuff that's
>> happening in the character handling department is off-putting. Changing
>> that handling could make it even better than it is now.
>
> See above.
>
>>
>> Of course, I'm not "Joe Average TV-Watcher", so maybe it's "just right"
>> for the masses...
>
> God, I hope not. That part really irritated me. It was like watching a
> horror show where the secondary character walks into a dark
> basement/room/woods alone despite all kinds of warning and knowing what
> has happened to others, and gets him/herself killed.

Yeah, I was screaming for Hank to at least call in for back up BEFORE
checking out his apartment--if not wait for back up.

>> (1) Aside from milking the reveal for as much screen time as possible
>> while still leaving her ignorant for the sake of the cliffhanger.
>
> She didn't really get that much screen time until the end, did she? She
> seemed to be a step behind the killer every step of the way, until the
> end.

It was hard to tell if she was working for him, with him or even for Adelaid
for a while.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Hunter]

-----
I disagree that Nick was breaking the law early in the series as a
cop. What one has to do is to differentiate between him acting as a
police detective or a Grimm. They are often incompatible mostly what
he should do as a cop he has to look the other way with because it is
outside human law. If people would bother to go back and check
virtually all of the time including at the begining of the series that
he flouted the lasw as a cop he was doing work as a Grimm and pursuing
a non human suspect.

[BTR1701]

In article <4fbe58fb...@news.optonline.net>,

His partner was just as willing to violate the law-- pretending to hear
sounds of a struggle inside a house to justify entering without a
warrant, or not even doing that and just knocking on someone's door, and
when they don't answer, walking inside. It's typical TV cop behavior and
the fact that Nick's partner-- who knows nothing about the supernatural
stuff-- was doing it too shows that it wasn't Nick pursuing Grimm
business. That's just how they both do their job, which is to say
illegally and badly.

As people have brought up repeatedly, the incident with Nick leaving
evidence on his desk-- the cell phone that Renard swiped-- was not only
incompetent police work, it violated the basic evidentiary procedures
that all police departments have in place to secure convictions against
the people they arrest.

[BTR1701]

In article
<3802bc7a-0d38-48d7...@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> On May 23, 10:18 am, "Jim G." <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:
> >
> > > Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
> > > can be claimed otherwise.
> >
> > Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,
> -----
> You will have to make sure you differentiate between him acting as a
> cop and him acting as a grimm because they are often incompatible. I
> mean he knows that Monroe once tore the arm of a person. Should he
> turn him in? No.
> >
> >as does that ridiculous mishandling of the cell phone in the episode
> >where Rendard tampered with evidence. I'm sure that I could come up with
> >plenty of other things if I gave it a moment's thought, but I'm already
> >pretty sure that the evidence indicates that Nick's detective
> >qualifications are spotty, at best.
> -----
> I think you are talking about the episode "Love Sick" (S1XE17) with
> the cell phone in which I believe you are talking about when Capatin
> Renard stole the phone as everyone including Nick was checking to see
> a collaped Sgt. Wu was okay and later removed the simm card and put in
> a blank one. It is not as if Nick left it on some resturant counter
> and left it while he went to the bathroom. Nick was in a room full of
> his fellow cops. He has to trust them with what he puts on his desk.

Nonsense. No police department allows officers to just leave evidence
lying around on their desks. It's called chain of custody and once the
chain is broken, then the evidence is useless in court.

When a cop collects evidence, it is *immediately* booked into the
evidence vault. If it's something like a cell phone that needs to be
forensically examined, the evidence is transferred from the vault to the
lab and back by the lab personnel. Cops not only don't leave evidence
lying around on their desks, they're prohibited from doing so by
department policy and the law. The moment Nick walked away from that
phone-- even for a good reason like helping another cop-- the chain was
broken and it became useless as evidence, precisely because someone
could come along and tamper with it, just like Renard actually did.

[Obveeus]

Fully agreed. The only reason that anyone could possibly mistake their
police work for good police work is that people are so used to seeing cops
violate the law continually on TV shows.

> As people have brought up repeatedly, the incident with Nick leaving
> evidence on his desk-- the cell phone that Renard swiped-- was not only
> incompetent police work, it violated the basic evidentiary procedures
> that all police departments have in place to secure convictions against
> the people they arrest.

I still give that one a bit of a pass because the cop's medical emergency in
the station and at that moment, interrupted the sequence of events for the
phone's custody.

[Hunter]

On May 23, 11:33 am, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <4fbc27d1.2888...@news.optonline.net>,

>  Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:51:24 -0700, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
> > wrote:
>

> > >In article <jpdtqf$a6...@dont-email.me>,

------
If you are refering to the epidsode "Love Sick" (S1XE17) it wasn't
like he left it on a resturant table to go to the bathroom. He was
surrounded by fellow cops. Cops he has to trust.

>
> That sucker would have been logged into the
>evidence room, if not shipped directly to the forensics team, in about 3
>seconds flat by any cop worth the chrome plating on his badge. A little
>concept called "chain of custody" would apply - *EVERYBODY* who shoudl
>be able to lay a finger on it has to be documented from here to next
>week, otherwise it's just a random piece of useless electronic
>miscellanea so far as the court is concerned.

------
He was in a station in a room full of cops. As for chain of custody a
cop can take it directly to forensics if he wants to. No need for the
CSI/CSU to recover it first. They handle things like blood fiber hair
fingerprints and the like. A detective can collect on site things like
cellphones. In this case Hank found it under a car, asked for an
evidence bag which Sgt Wu provided and he sealed it and carried it to
the station. Hank had it left it in Nick who was going to put it in
evidence control when Sargent Wu collapsed. The only think I would
question is not having a photographer take a picture of the phone "in
sutu" before collecting it but all that is sufficiant chain of custody
and he was in a room full of fellow policemen. Leaving that phone on
the desk for a moment doesn't make him an incompetant cop. You have to
trust your fellow officers including your captain .

>
>Or how about the murderer he put on the bus out of town just a couple
>weeks ago? Regardless of how "right" (in story terms, at least) he might
>have been in doing so, it's not like he was the only one who knew the
>guy got into his car. So where'd this guy go? You damn well better
>believe that more folks than just Nick are going to want to talk to him.
>"Uhh... Sorry, boss - I put him in my car, then when I woke up from the
>blackout, he was gone. That's OK Nick... we understand that cops
>everywhere routinely have persons of interest vanish conveniently..."

-------
If you are refering to " Cat and Mouse " (S1XE18). First of all Ian
Harmon/Lester Cullum was not a murder but a Lauffer resistance leader.
He killed the Verrat assassin that was trakinging with the intent of
killing him. When Nick was first brought by Monroe to Roselie's shop
where Ian was holded up he was ready to arrest Ian but Monroe and
Rosolie explained the situation including providing an alibii for a
murder Ian didn't commit but committed by Edgar Waltz. He didn't turn
Ian in because he was acting as a Grimm by that time and agreed to
help them provide false papers so he could get out of the country.

He soon after he told Hank and Captain Renard that Edgar Waltz was the
true murderer not Ian. Later Ian did kill Waltz in Rosolie's story
with her, Nick and Monroe witnessing but again it was part of the war
between the Resistance and the Verrat. Nick wnet along with it because
Ian was right. His frinends would be safe since Waltz was the only one
who knew about Rosellie and Monroe helping Ian. Putting Waltz in
custody would have let him talk to his fellow Varrat and put Nick's
friends in danger.

After instructing Monroe to get rid of Waltz's body Nick took Ian to
the bus depot gave him money and the new passport and told him not to
come back because if he took Harmond to jail for killing Waltz his
friends would be dead at the hands of the Varrat.

Remeber when Ian killed Waltz in Roselie's shop no other cops were
around only Rosolie and Monroe where there with Nick. Only they saw
Nick put Ian in his personal car, so no cop knew that Nick drove Ian
to the bus station, not even Hank so there was no need to explain to
the police what happened to him..

Monroe dumped the body in a vacant lot where it was later found by the
police. Captain Renard speculated that Ian may have done it but he had
no idea where Ian had gone or that Nick had him in custody at anytime.

>
>Give it up Hunter - As I said, I like the show, but trying to turn a
>blind eye to its faults - easily seen, and almost as easily corrected
>ones - is at least part of the reason we're stuck with so much
>mediocrity on TV today. Nobody cares enough to gripe about it when it's
>so glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain and the will to use it as
>more than stuffing for their hat-holder. So hollyweird keeps pumping out
>swill for the brain-dead, instead of the good stuff we all know they
>have the potential for.

------
Watch the episode again Bruder since you missed or forgotten all the
important things. None of his fellow cops or anyone else other than
Monroe and Rosolie saw Ian in Nick's custody at anytime so there was
nothing to explain and it was Grimm business.

I rewatched the first eight episodes of "Grimm" and I didn't see any
cases of Nick doing things without probable cause or a warrant when
neccessary as a cop. As a Grimm that is a different story. You have to
judge his actions based on which mode he is in Cop or Grimm. Some
cases he can be both at the same time like the case of the serial
rapist/breeder who kept women in cages "Lonely Hearts" (S1XE4) he was
able to capture the criminal while following the rules as a cop
(ironically Hank may have entered the perp's premises with or without
probable cause) but often he can't do that so yu have to have two
different standards. For instance in "The Three Bad Wolves" (S1XE6) he
did break into Blutbadan's Angelina Lasser's house without a warrant
or anything that could be construed as probable cause, but he was
doing it as a Grimm because the Blutbadan was suspected by him in the
murder of her brother so one has to pay attention to the
circumstances.

If people would only rewatch the episodes or at least a scene that
they find wrong. Eight times out of ten the scene or what ever it is
in question was correct after all.
--

[BTR1701]

Yes, but the phone would never have made it to his desk in the first place.
It goes straight into the vault the moment it's brought in.

[Hunter]

On May 24, 10:28 am, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <3802bc7a-0d38-48d7-84c6-9bf5e78cf...@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

------
Okay I can give you that one if it is against real life law and
procedure. He shouldn't have done that, but as to if he is incompetant
in terms of being dumb that he can't figure out clues and the like I
don't see it rewatching the season. And also you have to differenciate
between him acting as a Grimm or a police detective.

One thing though: If all that was agaisnt regulations then they are
all dumb, Hank, Wu and Renard (before it happened this time since he
he wated to take the evidence at that moment) not just Nick.

[Hunter]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:51:26 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Hunter (Hunter)" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:4fbc8eba...@news.optonline.net...
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:16:26 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/21/2012 4:03 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>>> Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>>>> beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
>>>> trope of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret
>>>> identity, allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting
>>>> her".
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, his rationalization was "Telling her that I'm a superhero who fights
>>>monsters she can't see would make her think I'm crazy."
>> ----
>> Which he was totally right about but he had to do it for her safety
>
>Except, as usual, with this tired bit of superhero trope, the loved one is
>STILL endangered. Aside from Nick being attacked and Juliette being attacked
>by vessen, many vessen know where they live, and Adelind or Adelaide or
>whatever the blonde vessen lawyer's name is, knows all about her and has
>been on a double-date with them.

----
See below.

>
>So keeping the secret does NOT prevent her from being endangered.
>
>> and honesty in the would be marriage..
>
>He had to keep the secrecy FOR the honesty in the would be marriage???
-----

Sorry if I wasn't clear when I said:

"Which he was totally right about but he had to do it for her safety

and honesty in the would be marriage."

I meant he *had* to tell her for the honesty of their marriage despite
his fear. He was correct that she would freak out and think he was
nuts but he must tell her if he wanted a more committed relationship
and more importantly they were living together.

Personally I thought he should've told her right after the events of
"Game Ogre" (S1XE8) when he was attacked their home by a Ogre and
Jusliette virtually saved Nick's life by throwing a sauce pan of
boiling water into the Ogre's face and Nick firing two parting shots
at him. I think Monroe would've trusted Nick enough to show himself to
her then desppite his desire for privacy..

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ken from Chicago <ken...@ymail.com> wrote:

>Buffy
>Xena
>Gabrielle
>Aeryn
>Zoe
>Ziva
>Kara

>Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero trope
>of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
>allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".

You know, it's ridiculous that he didn't tell his partner at the same
time. After all, his life's been in more serious danger than Juliette's,
and he's seen the change with his own eyes.

[Hunter]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:18:15 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:
>> Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
>> can be claimed otherwise.
>
>Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,

-----
You will have to make sure you differentiate between him acting as a
cop and him acting as a grimm because they are often incompatible. I
mean he knows that Monroe once tore the arm of a person. Should he
turn him in? No.
>

>as does that ridiculous mishandling of the cell phone in the episode
>where Rendard tampered with evidence. I'm sure that I could come up with
>plenty of other things if I gave it a moment's thought, but I'm already
>pretty sure that the evidence indicates that Nick's detective
>qualifications are spotty, at best.

-----
I think you are talking about the episode "Love Sick" (S1XE17) with
the cell phone in which I believe you are talking about when Capatin
Renard stole the phone as everyone including Nick was checking to see
a collaped Sgt. Wu was okay and later removed the simm card and put in
a blank one. It is not as if Nick left it on some resturant counter
and left it while he went to the bathroom. Nick was in a room full of
his fellow cops. He has to trust them with what he puts on his desk.

As for illegal entries it depeneds on the circumstance. Was he
investigationg what he thought was a normal human crime or was he
knowingly going after a Vessen? Was it exergent circumstances or what?

[Hunter]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:18:15 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:
>> Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
>> can be claimed otherwise.
>
>Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,

-----
You will have to make sure you differentiate between him acting as a
cop and him acting as a grimm because they are often incompatible. I
mean he knows that Monroe once tore the arm of a person. Should he
turn him in? No.
>

>as does that ridiculous mishandling of the cell phone in the episode
>where Rendard tampered with evidence. I'm sure that I could come up with
>plenty of other things if I gave it a moment's thought, but I'm already
>pretty sure that the evidence indicates that Nick's detective
>qualifications are spotty, at best.

[Dragon Lady]

"tdciago" <tdc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fc9141cc-ec33-41c1...@8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...

I agree. Although I thought it was kind of stupid to do it the way he did,
I could see how he would do it that way. People make mistakes. But when
you make mistakes that can get you killed and you're someone who should know
better because you've had to clean up the mess when someone who *isn't* in
your profession did the same thing - that's beyond stupid, it's moronic.
Nick's partner (sorry, I've spaced off his name again) especially should not
have done that - it was completely out of character given what he had been
through. The first thought in his head should have been "get away, get
help" when he opened his door and found someone had been in his apartment.
Instead, he draws his gun and walks in, obviously terrified? WFT?

[Dragon Lady]

"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jplei6$gin$1...@dont-email.me...

Good point. I hadn't considered that Nick didn't know about Renard. I must
have missed something in the explanations.

[Dragon Lady]

"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jplf17$jsr$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jphbnn$ic9$1...@dont-email.me...

>> I agree. Taking her to the trailor was stupid. He should have started
>> off with Monroe, *then* taken her to the trailor. Monroe was proof of
>> what was in the trailor, which could otherwise have been simply madness.
>
> GMTA!

??

>> I think the writers are idiots. I mean really, a police captain opens
>> his apartment door and finds his apartment has been turned upside down
>> and he walks in alone???? No backup? Not even a phone call? Then *two*
>> (count
>
> To be fair, Renard has secrets he doesn't want the police to know--and he
> has a history of handling stuff on his own, and doing so quite
> competently. The fact that he got taken out, and rather easily and quickly
> was a way of showing how tough this particular vessen was and would be
> when he faced off against Nick.

In his apartment? That's stupid. Renard I could sort of see acting this
way, as he is a Vessen and has reason to think he can handle things on his
own. Still, it was a stupid move. He isn't the only Vessen on the force.
He *could* have called for backup. It's just plain arrogance to think you
are never going to need help.

>
>> 'em, two) professional police detectives do the exact same thing?????
>> Are these people supposed to be stupid???? It's the police who tell the
>> rest of us that you don't walk into a situation like that, you get out
>> and call them, and they don't show up alone when you do! I'm not sure
>> even Barney Fife would have done something this stupid!
>
> It seems an occupational hazard for cops to want to handle things on their
> own until they have demonstrable proof they face overwhelming force, and
> not even always then (e.g., Hank investigating his apartment solo or
> earlier in the season going after an old case against someone that could
> withstand major firepower when Captain Renard had assigned a squad to
> him).

Only on TV, I hope. I'd hate to think real cops are this stupid.

>>> Of course, I'm not "Joe Average TV-Watcher", so maybe it's "just right"
>>> for the masses...
>>
>> God, I hope not. That part really irritated me. It was like watching a
>> horror show where the secondary character walks into a dark
>> basement/room/woods alone despite all kinds of warning and knowing what
>> has happened to others, and gets him/herself killed.
>
> Yeah, I was screaming for Hank to at least call in for back up BEFORE
> checking out his apartment--if not wait for back up.

He was the one that really irritated me. Unlike Nick and Renard, he has
absolutely no reason to think he can handle anything that goes down. In
fact, he has the exact opposite: reason to think he's either going mad, or
*can't* handle what might be coming his way. Yet he draws his gun and goes
alone into his trashed home, even though he's obviously terrified. WFT???

>
>>> (1) Aside from milking the reveal for as much screen time as possible
>>> while still leaving her ignorant for the sake of the cliffhanger.
>>
>> She didn't really get that much screen time until the end, did she? She
>> seemed to be a step behind the killer every step of the way, until the
>> end.
>
> It was hard to tell if she was working for him, with him or even for
> Adelaid for a while.

I've been trying to remember - when did she find the pictures? Were they
gone when she found the detectives body? I may have to rewatch this
one....thank heaven for On Demand. :P

[Dragon Lady]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:jpmnu1$ae4$2...@news.albasani.net...

And he seriously needs someone to tell him he's not crazy.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Dragon Lady <guess...@nospam.net> wrote:
>"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>>I agree. Taking her to the trailor was stupid. He should have started
>>>off with Monroe, *then* taken her to the trailor. Monroe was proof of
>>>what was in the trailor, which could otherwise have been simply madness.

>>GMTA!

>??

gimme tits 'n' ass

[BTR1701]

In article <4fbdfad4...@news.optonline.net>,

I guess you're going to continue to ignore the concept of 'chain of
custody' no matter how many times it's pointed out to you.

[Hunter]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 04:52:00 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:

>"shawn" <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sh6mr7t17o3m3iavl...@4ax.com...

>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 03:07:18 GMT, s...@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <jpeuv2$5rt$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>>> All well and good--except for Monroe.
>>>>> He's definitive *convenient* proof monsters exist.
>>>>Which is precisely where he *EVENTUALLY* went - but too late, since by
>>>>then, Jules was on her way to la-la land.
>>>
>>>But he isn't.
>>>
>>>They've established that only veschen and Grimms can see them when
>>>they're,
>>>um, transformed, whatever word they used. (That was, in fact, the big
>>>deal
>>>about the thing in "Big Feet" -- that *anyone* could see them that way.)
>>

>> He is proof. The Vessen don't have to be visible but they can choose
>> to be visible to others. So Monroe can show himself in his transformed
>> state to Juliet if he wants to which is what he tried to do but the
>> cat scratch did it's work before she could really see him.
>
>Yeah, Monroe said Vessen can chose to be visible when they want. Grimm can
>see them when the Vessen don't want to be seen when they are having a flood
>of intense emotions. Monroe wanting to be seen was how he scared those dogs
>hunting "Big Foot"--and how Hank saw him.
>
>-- Ken from Chicago
---
I've been rewatching some of the episodes of "Grimm". I just rewatched
"Organ Grinder" (S1XE10). Per your indictment of Nick for not telling
Juliette what he is. He did want to tell her. He spoke to Monroe about
it In fact he raised many of the same issues you condemn him for
including that she was putting her in danger by not telling her (He
also mentioned that Aunt Marie told him to break up with her because
she was in danger being with him) He even brought up the attack in
their house by the Orge in "Game Orge" (S11XE8) as a reason to do so.

However, Monroe discouraged him because Juliette will either not
believe him and think Nick was crazy or she would but would go crazy
with the knowledge. Nick then asked Monroe if he could change in front
of her before her, But Monroe discouraged him saying that the vast
majority of humans can't process that kind of information that they
can believe in all sorts of things in the abstract, God (s), Angels
and Demons, Dinosaurs, The Big Bang Theory, E=MC^2, etc, but that is
because it is not in front of them. "They are not looking directly
into the boiling core of the raw Universe; so confronted with that
short of reality, a lot of brains turns to mush." Monroe said.

He was totally against telling her. So if you want to blame Nick for
not telling Juliette, you should really blame Monroe. :-)

[suzeeq]

The isn't real life, it's tv so there's some SOD needed to further the plot.

[BTR1701]

In article <jpo3v4$g03$4...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

The claim is that Nick is a great detective. If I have to suspend my
disbelief in order to make him a great detective, he's not a great
detective.

[suzeeq]

Who made that claim?

[Hunter]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:49:55 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <jpj3fo$cus$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
>wrote:
>

>> Give it up Hunter - As I said, I like the show, but trying to turn a
>> blind eye to its faults - easily seen, and almost as easily corrected
>> ones - is at least part of the reason we're stuck with so much
>> mediocrity on TV today.
>

>It's what Hunter does. It's his nature. He can't help but be an
>apologist for anything a TV writer throws up on screen.
-----
Maybe if you all bothered and go back to check to make sure the
"mistake" you think you all saw actually happened then I wouldn't have
to fact check what really happened. Like in this case of when Nick was
up against Edgar Waltz in "Cat and Mouse" (S1XE18) what Don Bruder
described as to what he thought was some dumb thing supposedly Nick
did in fact didn't happen at all, like his fellow cops somehow knowing
he had the suspect they were looking for Ian Harmon in custody?. How
can I "apologize" for something that didn't happen?

And no it is by no means just this show. I guess you are all a bunch
of frustrated writers that are so certain that you all could do it
better you don't even bother checking, just run eagerly convince you
found another example of the writers asleep at the switch like puppy
bringing home a dead bird to its master.

[Don Bruder]

In article <jpo9ko$qbr$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:

> >> The isn't real life, it's tv so there's some SOD needed to further
> >> the plot.
> >
> > The claim is that Nick is a great detective. If I have to suspend my
> > disbelief in order to make him a great detective, he's not a great
> > detective.
>
> Who made that claim?

You must have Hunter killfiled, eh? He (she? I know another "Hunter" on
the groups that's definitely female) has been steadfastly claiming that

Nick is a great detective.

As far as SOD, yeah, that's needed for ANY fiction - no question
whatsoever. But the writers keep (seemingly on purpose) swinging a
sledgehammer at it with the way they handle Nick. At this point, WSOD is
not only broken, but I'm starting to wonder if it's even possible to
identify what remains of it as anything more recognizable than "powdery
residue".

--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.

[suzeeq]

Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <jpo9ko$qbr$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> The isn't real life, it's tv so there's some SOD needed to further
>>>> the plot.
>>> The claim is that Nick is a great detective. If I have to suspend my
>>> disbelief in order to make him a great detective, he's not a great
>>> detective.
>> Who made that claim?
>
> You must have Hunter killfiled, eh? He (she? I know another "Hunter" on
> the groups that's definitely female) has been steadfastly claiming that
> Nick is a great detective.

No I don't do KFs. I didn't believe Nick's a 'great' detective. He's
just an ordinary one.

[Jim G.]

shawn sent the following on 5/23/2012 11:36 AM:

> On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:18:15 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:
>>> Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
>>> can be claimed otherwise.
>>
>> Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,

>> as does that ridiculous mishandling of the cell phone in the episode
>> where Rendard tampered with evidence. I'm sure that I could come up with
>> plenty of other things if I gave it a moment's thought, but I'm already
>> pretty sure that the evidence indicates that Nick's detective
>> qualifications are spotty, at best.
>

> You are thinking of the wrong sort of detective. Think of him as
> Batman that has a cover of being a police detective.

Nick is not a particularly good detective. OTOH, Nick is starting to
show the potential to be a capable Grimm, especially if he keeps kicking
ass and taking names. But really, even after making allowances for those
occasions when his obligations conflict, he still doesn't exactly shine
as a detective.

--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"I find it's best if you just ... go with it." -- Lincoln Lee, providing
us with FRINGE's "Every question just leads to more questions" moment

[Jim G.]

Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/24/2012 4:07 AM:

> On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:18:15 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:
>>> Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
>>> can be claimed otherwise.
>>
>> Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,
> -----
> You will have to make sure you differentiate between him acting as a
> cop and him acting as a grimm because they are often incompatible.

Yes, I know, and I would have thought that "detective" clearly refers to
the former.

> I
> mean he knows that Monroe once tore the arm of a person. Should he
> turn him in? No.

Even making allowances for those conflicting situations, he's still not
a very good detective, and he's been far too willing to bend or break
the law, even in instances where he had no reason to believe that he was
working on something Grimm-related.

[Jim G.]

suzeeq sent the following on 5/25/2012 9:11 AM:

It's one thing if it's unavoidable, but that was hardly the case here.
They could have easily written things that would both work with the plot
*and* which wouldn't make the writers look clueless about basic police
work. Have Renard (or a grunt of his) break into the evidence room and
swap out the card, for example. There would still probably be reality
flaws, but they wouldn't be so in-your-face.

[Hunter]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:13:55 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:

>"suzeeq" <su...@imbris.com> wrote in message
>news:jpend3$gvg$1...@dont-email.me...

>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>> "Hunter (Hunter)" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message

>>> news:4fba4d95...@news.optonline.net...

>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 05:03:40 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
>>>> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Buffy
>>>>> Xena
>>>>> Gabrielle
>>>>> Aeryn
>>>>> Zoe
>>>>> Ziva
>>>>> Kara
>>>>>

>>>>> It looks like, especially next season after giving us a sample in the
>>>>> season
>>>>> finale, GRIMM will be adding Mama Burkhardt to that list of live-action
>>>>> warrior women (US edition). Aunt Marie was tough enough and she was
>>>>> literally getting out of her deathbed to fight off monsters. Nick's mom
>>>>> looks like she's more in her fighting prime, with not just the fighting
>>>>> skills, but the experience to have honed those skills to a laser's
>>>>> sharpness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice.
>>>> ------
>>>> Yes but the thing is the girls above were young and sexy. Nick's mom
>>>> isn't young or sexy. I mean she isn't ugly but she isn't going up on
>>>> my wall in poster form anytime soon. :-)
>>>
>>> Those two terms are not mutually required for either to be true.
>>>
>>> IOW different strokes.
>>
>> There's something to be said for 'mature' and sexy....
>>
>> [snipalot]
>
>So say we all.
-----
Not in her case. I would love to see Ming Na who is in her late 40s in
a bikini, but not Nick's mom. I am willing to be happily surprised
though. :-)
>
>>>> Like I said I agree in this case that he should've told Juliette
>>>> because she was in the middle of the action and didn't know it. That
>>>> is different from most girlfriends of Superhero in which they don't
>>>> live with the target and the super villains don't know he is the
>>>> target because of a totally different identity.
>>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> Agreed. That's what burned me so much about SMALLVILLE was that it was
>>> increasingly making Clark Kent for hiding the truth from Lana, after half
>>> a
>
>"... increasingly making Clark Kent [a jerk] for hiding the truth from Lana
>...."
>
>>> decade claiming to love her so much--and then later from Lois. YEARS had
>>> passed with him still hiding the truth--and she was still getting in
>>> danger regardless.
>>
>> Sometimes getting into dange *because* she didn't know the truth.
>
>After the first couple of years of the series you'd think Clark would clue
>in that. Worse is TPTB for SMALLVILLE didn't clue into it. I get that they
>were going with the Clark & Lana are doomed to be replaced by Clark & Lois,
>but he still could have trusted Lana. He trusted Pete and Chloe, why not
>Lana?
-----
He actually had no choice in almost all the times his secret got out.
As you mentioned Pete discovered Clark's space ship in "Duplicity"
(S2XE3). Even Clark's parents told him not to tell Pete the truth
about himself, but Clark told him anyway. Pete eventually got tortured
for knowing it by Dr. Hamilton.

Chloe saw Clark catch a car that was flying through the air on its way
to wrecking WITH HIS BARE HANDS in "Pariah" (S4XE12).

And after the events of "Reckoning" (S5X12) when Clark turned back
time to save Lana's life and undid Clark telling her about her secret,
Lana saw Clark use his super speed in Lex's wine cellar in "Promise"
(S6XE16), so I don't think Clark ever told a normal human his secret
unless he was trapped into it.
.
Another thing to consider in comparing Clark's and Nick's situation.
People already knew about people with strange superpowers called
"Meteor Freaks" people infected by the radiation from the "meteor
rock" that fell on Smallville in 1989, the one that brought Kal-El to
Earth, so the fact that someone was superpowered wasn't at all strange
to them. In part what made Clark so reluctant to tell his friends and
Lana was the fact that most if not all the "Meteor Freaks" the public
knew about including his friends and girlfriend were evil or mentally
deranged. The Kryptonite poisoning made affected their minds as well,
at least made them power hungry if not down right insane, so there was
a prejudice in the community against them which Chloe and Lana shared,
both of who spoke disparagingly of "Meteor Freaks" so that didn't put
Clark in a mood to tell them at all, including and especially Lana to
say the least but they wouldn't had thought he was crazy, at least not
in terms of imagining things

Connect all that with what happened to Pete once he knew, the
alternate timeline in which he did tell Lana and his parents hammering
home why it is important to tell no one on top of normal teenage
insecurities it is no wonder he didn't tell anyone but they either saw
him using his powers accidentally or they sussed it out; but at least
unlike Nick and those who tried to tell Emma that she was some magical
saviour in "Once Upon a Time..." if he told them out right they
wouldn't have thought he was crazy. :-)
>
>Lana thinks she can handle Clark's heroic activities but the stress of him
>often facing death, voluntarily, and him putting other people ahead of their
>relationship slowly wears her down and rather than try to change him from
>the hero he is and the hero people need him to be, she breaks up with him.
------
She realizes that the world needed him more than her and that the
stress of being a Superhero's significant other was great but I don't
think she left in part because he was putting others before her. It
was mostly what she was going through herself. However, after she got
superpowers herself, she wanted to join him and be a partner.
>
>That leaves the door open for Lois, who grew up as the daughter of a
>general, and was used to a loved one constantly being at risk of losing
>their life, and of the people in general needing his help. That would be a
>key factor in why Lois & Clark could last as a couple where Lana & Clark
>didn't.
------
That could be a factor, her family background in the military.
>
>But nooooooo. Instead we got years of Clark not trusting Lana, flat-out
>lying to the woman he claimed to love, and him being portrayed as a jerk. It
>was worst portrayal of Clark ever.
-----
The thing is that when he did tell her in "Reckoning" she died for it.
Another thing to consider. Clark and Lana were Teenagers, not adults
14, 15, 16 years old and had what happened to Pete for knowing what he
knew by Dr. Hamilton so you have to give Clark some slack on that. and
of course the final break up was not because they didn't want to be
together but Lana gained superpowers Lex literally poisoned the
relationship by putting Lana in a position that she had to infect
herself with a permanent dose of Kryptonite that didn't do her harm
but would be lethal to Clark if he came near in "Requiem" (S8XE14).
*That* cleared the way for Lois Lane. However, Clark never sat down
and told Lois that he was The Blur. She figured it out on her own in
"Salvation" (S9XE22). Later when Lois asked him if he was the Blur he
refused to acknowledge it.
>
>Until SUPERMAN RETURNS (Superman should not be a super stalker).
>
>-- Ken from Chicago
-----
In past times that was romantic courtship to have a secret admirer.
:-)

[Hunter]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:11:32 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

>On 5/22/2012 4:13 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>> After the first couple of years of the series you'd think Clark would
>> clue in that. Worse is TPTB for SMALLVILLE didn't clue into it. I get
>> that they were going with the Clark & Lana are doomed to be replaced by
>> Clark & Lois, but he still could have trusted Lana. He trusted Pete and
>> Chloe,
>

>No he didn't. Pete discovered the spaceship independantly and was about
>to bring the full weight of the world's attention down on the Kent Farm.
> Chloe found out about the superpowers by seeing him use them. He
>never said, "OK, you are my closest friends in the world, so I can just
>trust you with my Big Secret".
-----
Exactly!

[BTR1701]

In article <jpo9ko$qbr$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>

Hunter

[BTR1701]

In article <4fbfbf58...@news.optonline.net>,

Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:

> On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:49:55 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <jpj3fo$cus$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Give it up Hunter - As I said, I like the show, but trying to turn a
> >> blind eye to its faults - easily seen, and almost as easily corrected
> >> ones - is at least part of the reason we're stuck with so much
> >> mediocrity on TV today.
> >
> >It's what Hunter does. It's his nature. He can't help but be an
> >apologist for anything a TV writer throws up on screen.
> -----
> Maybe if you all bothered and go back to check to make sure the
> "mistake" you think you all saw actually happened then I wouldn't have
> to fact check what really happened.

You're not asserting facts. Your asserting an opinion that Nick is a
"great detective" and we're all supplying you with facts that show he
isn't.

[Hunter]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:20:56 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <4fbe58fb...@news.optonline.net>,
> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:47:45 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>>
>> >
>> >"shawn" <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:18:15 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:
>> >>>> Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
>> >>>> can be claimed otherwise.
>> >>>
>> >>>Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,

>> >>>as does that ridiculous mishandling of the cell phone in the episode
>> >>>where Rendard tampered with evidence. I'm sure that I could come up with
>> >>>plenty of other things if I gave it a moment's thought, but I'm already
>> >>>pretty sure that the evidence indicates that Nick's detective
>> >>>qualifications are spotty, at best.
>> >>

>> >> You are thinking of the wrong sort of detective. Think of him as
>> >> Batman that has a cover of being a police detective.
>> >

>> >You two are both correct. Early in the series, Nick was definitely the
>> >typical TV detective (breaking the law left and right as if such things as
>> >'search warrant' don't exist except in lip service). More recently,
>> >however, the show has moved away from the idea that Nick is trying to do
>> >police work and into the idea that he is doing GRIMM work. As a GRIMM, he
>> >isn't going to be following the law and it really isn't important to the
>> >plot to pretend otherwise.
>> -----
>> I disagree that Nick was breaking the law early in the series as a
>> cop. What one has to do is to differentiate between him acting as a
>> police detective or a Grimm.
>
>His partner was just as willing to violate the law-- pretending to hear
>sounds of a struggle inside a house to justify entering without a
>warrant, or not even doing that and just knocking on someone's door, and
>when they don't answer, walking inside. It's typical TV cop behavior and
>the fact that Nick's partner-- who knows nothing about the supernatural
>stuff-- was doing it too shows that it wasn't Nick pursuing Grimm
>business. That's just how they both do their job, which is to say
>illegally and badly.
------
I went back and watch all of the first season and I only counted four
times of quetionable violations, all regarding exigent circumstances:

In the case you mention above I think you are referring to "Plummed
Serpent" (S1XE14) when they went to the Daemonfeurer Ariel
Everheart's house and they speculated that if her father found out she
was helping them then her life could be in danger. Hank then proceeded
to break into her house by breaking the glass pane of the front door
under exigent circumstances (Ironically she snuck into Nick's house
and pretended to be Juliette and then she kidnapped her as Nick was in
Ariel's house).

Hank also entered a bread and breakfast home of a suspect with
questionable probable cause that surprised Nick (they were at two
different locations at the time) in "Lonely Hearts" (S1XE4) the
serial rapist episode but only Hank entered the premises because Nick
was following the suspect elsewhere in the city.

Another instance was in "Leave it to Beavers' (S1XE19) where a
possible witness to a murder who called 911 was missing (the traced
him through his 911 call on his cellphone).Hank and Nick arrived at
the witness's trailer home. He wasn't home but the front door
unlocked. Hank declared "Missing witness to a murder, Exigent
circumstances to any judge I know" and Hank and Nick entered the
trailer.

Then there was the pilot (S1XE1) in which after being let into a
suspect's house by the suspect himself and then leaving Hank
remembered that what the suspect was humming was playing on a victim's
ipod. They immediately turned around and broke down the door under
exegent circumstances believing the girl was there after all. She was.

So yes it could be argued that they misused exigent circumstances on a
couple of occasions but it was Hank that instigated all of them and
Nick was there for only three of them and further two instance, the
girl in the pilot and the missing 911 witness in episode 19 would
likely be okayed by a judge since a reasonable belief that a life
could be in danger. The one in episode 14 is questionable and the one
in episode 4 the most unjustifiable.

That said it was just four times out of 22 cases we saw hardly speaks
of serious violations of the law and half of them can be justified
plus it does not mean at all Nick is an incompetent cop that can't
solve cases.

Remember, that was the original change against him that he can't solve
cases. Like I said I rewatched all of season one and that is not the
case. Anyone saying different must tell me a *specific case* than just
boiler plate of saying he is incompetant without backing it up with an
instance.

All serious violations of the law happened when he was acting as a
Grimm like when he told Monroe on several occasions to hide a body of
a killed Vessen.
>
>As people have brought up repeatedly, the incident with Nick leaving
>evidence on his desk-- the cell phone that Renard swiped-- was not only
>incompetent police work, it violated the basic evidentiary procedures
>that all police departments have in place to secure convictions against
>the people they arrest.
-----
But remember the thread point that started all of this. That Nick was
a bad detective in terms of incompentancy. That he couldn't solve a
case. That is clearly not true even if he goes along with Hank
sometimes to enter private property under questionalbe probable cause
occasionally or left a piece of evidence unattended in a room filled
with fellow cops. Bad but not as bad if he left it in a civilian area.
If it is a lapse then Hank and Sgt. Wu are just as culpable as is
captain Renard who had Nick and Hank show him pieces of evidence
before.

[Hunter]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:12:19 -0400, "KalElFan"
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:

>"shawn" wrote in message
>news:eoqkr7tgmh30ede3a...@4ax.com...
>
>> ... we finally saw Nick taking [the Wesen villain] down fairly easily.
>> That felt a bit odd given past fights that Nick has gotten into and
>> how easily this guy took down other people. I'm not sure if it was...
>> some sort of change in Nick's abilities...
>
>His abilities have been strengthening over the course of the season,
>at a seemingly increasing rate. He was an average cop at first, but
>by the late eps he was rendering the Witch/Adalind powerless and
>the like, and then the peak seemed to be killing both reapers in the
>fight an ep or two back. That impressed the heck out of Monroe,
>and he suggested both heads be shipped back to the guy in Europe
>as we saw in that final shot.
-----
I agree. I wonder if Nick has noticed or does he think it is all him?
:-)
>
>Then the finale, Renard was caught off guard leaning over the dead
>housekeeper, then fairly quickly rendered unconscious and tied up.
>So it wasn't proof he couldn't have won, but it did strengthen the
>villain even more. They'd already established his rep, fighting skills,
>fearsome-looking Wesen creature persona and so on, setting him up
>as very difficult to beat. Again possibly because of the element of
>surprise, he gets in the first good shots at Nick and it looks like
>Nick might lose.
----
Exactly It looked like it was going to be business as usual for a few
moments.. BTW You can tell he was improving all this time. I am
rewatching the first season of Grimm and I had forgotten the "Fight
Club" episode "Last Grimm Standing" (S1XE12) in which Vessen was
capturing other Vessen to force them into Gladiator style to the death
combat. He fought a Vessen toe to toe and won, so yes his fighting
skills and enhanced strength have been improving steadily through out
the season.
>
>After those first few seconds though, it's a rout for Nick. He's
>tossing the critter around like a rag doll and surely could have
>killed the guy if he hadn't been distracted by what he thought
>was the bad female they'd been searching for. To Nick's surprise
>she finishes off the Wesen and turns out to be Mamma Grimm.
------
She could've taken sonny boy easily. :-)
>
>I guess we'll find out if protecting Nick from the Wesen baddie
>was her primary reason for showing up, but it didn't look like
>Nick would've needed it. So my guess is she's showing up to
>explain what has been and will be happening to Nick ability-wise,
>and tell him about other things Grimm and of course why she's
>been in hiding.
-----
I think so too. It is likely genetic. There actually seem to be very
little actual magic in "Grimm" but superpowers and potions of some
sort or another. The closest so far was the Zaubertrunk love cookies
that Adalind made to make Hank fall in love with her using the blood
of the deceived (Hank) and the blood of the deceiver (Adalind)-and
which poisoned Sgt Wu because he wasn't the one to be deceived. Any
other instances can be explained scientifically, except maybe the
selective morphing that Grimms can only see at will.
>
>We did get the line confirming that the Grimms were on his mother
>side. In that reaper ep we also had the planning meeting for the
>hit where one baddie asks if it was even possible to kill a Grimm.
>Technically, even Auntie Grimm on her death bed and life support
>died more from disease and actually won her last fight IIRC. Now
>we find out Dead Mama Grimm is very much alive, and judging by
>her abilities it doesn't look like anyone's going to be successfully
>killing her anytime soon. Maybe, like Auntie Grimm though, she's
>starting to succumb to something else.
------
I think Auntie Grimm was just suffering from cancer. These Grimms
maybe superpowered but they aren't immortal.
>
>We also saw Nick training with Monroe, and learning more and
>more, but again I think there's more going on than training here.
>Maybe this has been a kind of Grimm Apprentice phase he's gone
>through after his Aunt died, and now he's approaching Full Grimm,
>the stage where Wesen are asking if a Grimm can be killed and for
>good reason. There was that anecdotal kill of a Grimm a century
>ago in Europe that was mentioned, but for all we know that was
>reaper b.s. so they could start up their reaping business. :-)
----
Yes he has been improving. We saw it in the "egg" episode "The Thing
With The Feathers" (S1XE16) too where he kicked the abusers ass quite
easily.
>
>It was a great finale. I already loved the series but it makes for
>even greater anticipation of season 2, which has the August start
>a week or so after NBC's Olympics coverage.
-----
Sooner than normal which means it is only a three month wait instead
of three and a half to four months.

[Obveeus]

"Hunter (Hunter)" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:20:56 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>His partner was just as willing to violate the law-- pretending to hear
>>sounds of a struggle inside a house to justify entering without a
>>warrant, or not even doing that and just knocking on someone's door, and
>>when they don't answer, walking inside. It's typical TV cop behavior and
>>the fact that Nick's partner-- who knows nothing about the supernatural
>>stuff-- was doing it too shows that it wasn't Nick pursuing Grimm
>>business. That's just how they both do their job, which is to say
>>illegally and badly.
> ------
> I went back and watch all of the first season and I only counted four
> times of quetionable violations

You need to work on your counting skills...and you need to put the totals in
terms of percentages. GRIMM data would look something along the lines of:
there were 4 instances of police work shown in this episode, three of which
were done improperly.

> , all regarding exigent circumstances.

Ah, yes, the GRIMM lip service explanations as to why it is ok for the hero
cops to break the law in the instance being shown. Lots of cop shows do
that (and lots of cops do it in real life, too), but it doesn't mean that it
is legal for them to do so.

[Hunter]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 12:48:19 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>> His partner was just as willing to violate the law-- pretending to hear
>> sounds of a struggle inside a house to justify entering without a
>> warrant, or not even doing that and just knocking on someone's door, and
>> when they don't answer, walking inside. It's typical TV cop behavior and
>> the fact that Nick's partner-- who knows nothing about the supernatural
>> stuff-- was doing it too shows that it wasn't Nick pursuing Grimm
>> business. That's just how they both do their job, which is to say
>> illegally and badly.
>

>Fully agreed. The only reason that anyone could possibly mistake their
>police work for good police work is that people are so used to seeing cops
>violate the law continually on TV shows.
-----
But Nick doesn't do that if you watched carefully. His violations of
the law came mostly when he was doing Grimm work not Cop work and then
only three times out of 22 episodes he played fast and loose with the
law and then only perhaps abuse of the exigent circumstance exception
which Nick personally did at most three times out of those 22 episodes
and two of those times can be quite justifiable to a judge. If anyone
else can come up with instances where he broke the law as a cop let
see it.

>
>> As people have brought up repeatedly, the incident with Nick leaving
>> evidence on his desk-- the cell phone that Renard swiped-- was not only
>> incompetent police work, it violated the basic evidentiary procedures
>> that all police departments have in place to secure convictions against
>> the people they arrest.
>

>I still give that one a bit of a pass because the cop's medical emergency in
>the station and at that moment, interrupted the sequence of events for the
>phone's custody.
------
Which is precisely what happened. Perhaps he should've taken the phone
directly to forensics (as he had done at least once before) but he was
in a room full of cops. And if Nick was stupid then so was Hank and
Sgt. Wu and Renard who handed evidence as well. One lapse doesn't make
him a bad cop.

[Hunter]

-----
Your "facts" are mostly misremembering what happened on screen and
saying that Nick is a bad detective in terms of both competency and
following the law based on those misrememberings, the most egregious
so far was what happened in Don Bruder's example from "Cat and Mouse"
(S1XE18) when the cops supposedly had known that Nick had the
"murderer" in custody and lost him. That is not what happened. His
relation of the storyline of that episode to show that Nick was a bad
detective was highly inaccurate. If the opinions that Nick is a bad
detective is based on those misrememberings then they are invalid
opinions.

Give me more examples of Nick's "bad detective work" that is based on
an *accurate* relation as to what happened on screen. Cases that he
screwed up because he misread the clues or jumped to conclusions and
then it has to happen frequently not once and awhile.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>[Nick's] partner was just as willing to violate the law-- pretending to hear

>sounds of a struggle inside a house to justify entering without a
>warrant, or not even doing that and just knocking on someone's door, and
>when they don't answer, walking inside. It's typical TV cop behavior and
>the fact that Nick's partner-- who knows nothing about the supernatural
>stuff-- was doing it too shows that it wasn't Nick pursuing Grimm
>business. That's just how they both do their job, which is to say
>illegally and badly.

>As people have brought up repeatedly, the incident with Nick leaving
>evidence on his desk-- the cell phone that Renard swiped-- was not only
>incompetent police work, it violated the basic evidentiary procedures
>that all police departments have in place to secure convictions against
>the people they arrest.

Who the fuck cares if chain of custody is broken? His job description
is monster fighter, not police detective trying to jail monsters.

[Hunter]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 12:15:12 -0500, "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com>

wrote:

>Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/24/2012 4:07 AM:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:18:15 -0500, "Jim G."<jimg...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hunter (Hunter) sent the following on 5/22/2012 8:04 PM:
>>>> Nick has been a great detective. I can't see how it
>>>> can be claimed otherwise.
>>>
>>> Well, any number of illegal home entries comes to mind right away to me,
>> -----
>> You will have to make sure you differentiate between him acting as a
>> cop and him acting as a grimm because they are often incompatible.
>
>Yes, I know, and I would have thought that "detective" clearly refers to
>the former.

------
Just making sure and in any rate as outlined below it doesn't happen
often and when it does there is possible justification for it.

>
>> I
>> mean he knows that Monroe once tore the arm of a person. Should he
>> turn him in? No.
>
>Even making allowances for those conflicting situations, he's still not
>a very good detective, and he's been far too willing to bend or break
>the law, even in instances where he had no reason to believe that he was
>working on something Grimm-related.

-----
I just rewatched the entire season of "Grimm" and the only time that
he actually breaks the law was as a Grimm. He has "bent" the rules as
a cop sometimes but he was following Hank's lead, following Hank's
"liberal" interpretation of exigent circumstances and probable cause
on three occasions all season. ALL the times we saw Hank do it. At
least two could be justified in front of a judge.

In Episode 1 after being allowed into a suspect's house by the suspect
and looking and failing to find the boots they were looking for (to
link him to the abduction) they left. Then Hank remembers hearing the
suspect hum the exact thing on a earlier victim's ipod. They then
immediately turned back and kicked the suspect's door down. They would
probably claim exigent circumstances with that especially when they
rescued the girl because of it.

In the next instance "Lonely Hearts" (S1XE4) Hank entered a bread and
breakfast of a serial rape suspect with very shaky probable cause
reason but Nick wasn't there.

The third time in "Plumed Serpent" (S1XE14) they went to Daemonfeurer

Ariel Everheart's house and they speculated that if her father found

out she was helping them then her life could be in danger. Using shaky
exigent circumstances justification, Hank then proceeded to break into
her house by breaking the glass pane of the front door, unlocking it
and entering.

The fourth time was in "Leave It To Beavers" (S1X19) they tracked down
the home of a 911 caller finding the door unlocked and the resident
gone. Hank believed a missing witness to a murder with the door
unlocked justified them entering the trailer under exigent
circumstances. This instance was much more justifiable since the door
was open and the missing guy was a witness to a murder and so I think
a Judge would give them a pass, as Hank seems to think.

That is four times either Hank alone or Hank and Nick-but never Nick
alone-entered a house under questionable justification but at least
two of them could be almost certainly justified in court, mostly the
first and fourth time.

[David Johnston]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 5:48:38 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:


> Who the fuck cares if chain of custody is broken? His job description
> is monster fighter, not police detective trying to jail monsters.

But he does try to jail the monsters. Sometimes he even succeeds.

[Adam H. Kerman]

It's done in such a way that the monsters never bring up errors in
chain of custody, and I'm sure the police reports Nick writes are
less than accurate.

Who the fuck watches this show for legal procedure? I'm sure someone
can cite a litany of violations committed by Special Unit 2 cops as well.

[Ken from Chicago]

"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jpn7rv$rgl$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
> news:jpmnu1$ae4$2...@news.albasani.net...

>> Ken from Chicago <ken...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Buffy
>>>Xena
>>>Gabrielle
>>>Aeryn
>>>Zoe
>>>Ziva
>>>Kara
>>

>>>Speaking of Juliette, IT'S ABOUT FRELLING TIME! Finally Nick spills the
>>>beans to her. Bad enough Nick did the totally stupid asinine superhero
>>>trope
>>>of NOT telling the woman he claims to love about his secret identity,
>>>allegedly for the tired lame rationalization "I'm protecting her".
>>
>> You know, it's ridiculous that he didn't tell his partner at the same
>> time. After all, his life's been in more serious danger than Juliette's,
>> and he's seen the change with his own eyes.
>
> And he seriously needs someone to tell him he's not crazy.

It reinforces something Hunter posted up thread that I had forgotten. Nick
had wanted to spill the beans much earlier but Monroe convinced him not to,
that people tend to go cuckoo for cocoa puffs when they see the vessen
change.

In light of that, it makes sense that Nick would stall telling Juliette and
when she got scratched, keeping Monroe as the last option to convince her.

Tho it still doesn't explain why he didn't remind her of her own hypothesis
from the previous episode that the stories about animal hybrids are true.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Hunter (Hunter)" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message

news:4fc000bd...@news.optonline.net...

Touche. Clark didn't voluntarily trust them. But after a while of them
knowing and yet they proved faithful in keeping his secret. Moreover they
weren't in any MORE danger than Lana, and later Lois, when he hadn't
revealed the secret.

IOW they were still getting into trouble and needing ... somebody to save me
... about as often as any other Smallvillian.

-- Ken from Chicago

[tdciago]

On May 28, 4:14 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Tho it still doesn't explain why he didn't remind her of her own hypothesis
> from the previous episode that the stories about animal hybrids are true.

He did mention the hair samples that she had tested, and told her she
was right.

[Smokie Darling (Annie)]

On Monday, May 28, 2012 2:14:27 AM UTC-6, Ken from Chicago wrote:

> It reinforces something Hunter posted up thread that I had forgotten. Nick
> had wanted to spill the beans much earlier but Monroe convinced him not to,
> that people tend to go cuckoo for cocoa puffs when they see the vessen
> change.
>
> In light of that, it makes sense that Nick would stall telling Juliette and
> when she got scratched, keeping Monroe as the last option to convince her.
>
> Tho it still doesn't explain why he didn't remind her of her own hypothesis
> from the previous episode that the stories about animal hybrids are true.

But he did, and she blew him off. He asked her if she remembered the hair (he claimed it was found *on* the horse attacked, even though it was on the broken fence, not sure he knew that though), and she said that was different/not relevant (can't remember which now).