Line #10 Headscratchers/Flashpoint


1	!Headscratchers for the TV series ''Series/{{Flashpoint}}''
2	* Why did the Women's Bathroom only say Jules until Leah Kerns joined the team? It makes sense if Jules is the only female S.R.U. member, but we know for a fact that Donna Sabine joined the team on a temporary basis, then joined Team Three, then ended up leading Team Three. Is there a bathroom just for Team One? Does Donna have a bathroom on a different floor with Donna on it now that she's (hypothetically) the only female member on Team Three? What about Kira and Winnie? Where do they get dressed at? Is Team One the only team that has locker rooms/showers in the Barn? We saw other teams working out in the Barn in "Haunting the Barn", so what gives?
3	** Most likely, each team has their own staging area, which would be a logical way to avoid tripping all over each other, and occasionally uses each other's facilities when maintenance or something similar is taking place.
4	* In "The Other Lane", Ed's brother Roy had stolen $100,000 from the police evidence locker. In a real life situation, Roy would not only go to prison but won't be trusted as a cop again after pulling off police misconduct even if it was to help bring down a gunrunner. So why did Ed say he'll put in a good word for Roy?
5	* 5x05 was a plot that could have been solved fast if not for Canada's gun laws. The boyfriend of the victim follows the VillainOfTheWeek, a SerialKiller, and manages to cut him off. The villain gets out of the car and charges the boyfriend, stabbing him. If he were allowed to own a firearm, the boyfriend could have blown him away the second the villain got out of the car. Result: rescued girl and dead serial killer.
6	** Logical fallacy: the assumption is that if guns are easier to get, the victim would be saved because the bystander would be armed. In reality, the killer would likely ''also'' be armed. And guns are not difficult to get in Canada, they're just somewhat more difficult than the US, and tracked much more easily.
7	** Second logical fallacy: This entire scenario is based on one specific individual (the boyfriend) having a gun on him or in his car, one that he is supposedly unable to buy because of Canada's gun laws. But even in countries where gun ownership is less regulated (like the USA), there are plenty of people who make the personal choice not to carry a gun despite the fact that they would be permitted to do so. Canada could have the loosest gun laws in the world and that still wouldn't guarantee that this particular person would have one.
8	** Third logical fallacy: Your scenario leans into PossessionImpliesMastery rather heavily. Just having the gun does not mean the boyfriend was a crack shot with it, and even if he is it does not mean he is sufficently trained or cool-headed enough to do the right thing in a life or death situation (his recklessly attempting to attack the serial killer, in spite of warnings from SRU 1, would point to him possessing neither). Had he engaged the serial killer with a firearm, he would be just as likely, if not more so, to hit innocent bystanders or even his girlfriend as he would his intended target.
9	*** Truth be told, this Canadian series is pretty clear in its position on the American BadassBystander fantasy. In episodes like Grounded and Eyes In, civilians (and insufficiently trained cowboy cops, as seen in episodes like Unconditional Love) who play hero only manage to put lives in danger, including their own. If they had the episode play out as the op suggests, it would run afoul of one of Flashpoints main thematic lessons; Leave These Things To The Professionals.
10	* In "Severed Ties," the mother was never told she wasn't going to regain custody of her children until she was well out of prison and able to get a stable job and home. Why wasn't she informed sooner? It could have saved a lot of heartbreak and gave her more time to process it! Maybe it won't stop her from trying something stupid but it is better than have them misleading her the whole time. Is that legal?
11	** It's probably legal, but that doesn't mean it's ethical. And you're correct, it would have made more sense to let her know right away. What she did was largely impulsive; if she'd been told right away, then by the time she was in a position to do something stupid, she'd have had a long cooling-off period to come to terms with the situation, which might have been enough to prevent her from doing what she did.

Context Headscratchers / Flashpoint