A walk through the clouds

I hated Taylor too; the writers never made him into a sympathetic character because he was such a hardass. And that stunt he pulled with Beecher, like leaving the blinds open for Keller to see them talking together, that was just plain manipulative. The guy was no bette than the criminals he was chasing.

From:

I know..that was very manipulative. Ahem..I wrote a Taylor-centric story once..
http://archiveofourown.org/works/2533196
I guess I've written a lot of Oz fic, and not just about B/K.

From:

Yes, I've noticed you're very prolific. Nice job! We need more authors who write fics aside from B/K.

From:

Thanks. And yes, even if I like them, it's always fun to write the others as well.

From:

The guy was no bette than the criminals he was chasing.

Wow, strong words. I totally disagree. Lawpeople use all sorts of "tricks" and even lies to get confessions, or cooperation.

Things they don't generally do include killing children with their cars, demanding sexual slavery for protection, decapitation via machete, cannibalism, putting ground glass in food, crippling/electrocuting/beating people for the fun of it, crucifying people in public, etc. Then, there's all of the murder, armed robbery, rape, and attempted murder that brought Ozzies to Oz.

I get that Agent Taylor is an interference in the Beecher/Keller relationship, and it's (obviously) totally cool to hate on him for that, but manipulating a set of circumstances in order to angle for information - and possibly justice - regarding murdered teenaged boys is never going to be worse than all the shit that's happened in (and pre-) Oz. I would want someone like Agent Taylor in my corner if my kid had gone missing -- he's sharp, dedicated, and ruthless for excellent reasons. His character doesn't need to be sympathetic in order to portray the commitment that is expected from law enforcement.

From:

You made valid points, but the thing I had a problem with was the method he used to get the information he wanted. Taylor knew what Keller was capable of; he knew there was a high possibility that if push comes to shove, Keller would kill Beecher so he wouldn't be able to talk. I saw that scene as Taylor pretty much throwing Toby under the bus; he was gambling with Beecher's life.

Plus, he wasn't completely innocent either. It was implied that Taylor gave Heekins insider details so he would make a great witness in Keller's trial. I'm all for a Fed doing his job to catch the bad guys, but he has to do it correctly. That's why we have criminal procedures and constitutional protections in place; to prevent that kind of abuse of power by the law enforcement. I certainly would not be comfortable to think that the police or FBI could just circumvent the laws for the sake of obtaining their goal.

I dunno. I guess I'm just a stickler for rules. There's a a doctrine by William Blackstone that said "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Law school had pretty much hammered that into me :P

From:

I still fail to see how setting up a situation designed to 'scare' Beecher is "no better" than torturing and murdering a bunch of people (or the other horrific acts that the other actual convicted criminals have committed). We'll have to continue to disagree on that!

It's murky territory, fortune-telling. There are a lot of things that Taylor knows about Keller, and there are the things that Taylor thinks he knows, and also a lot of theories that could hold threads of truth or be total horseshit. There's also all of the stuff that we know but Taylor doesn't, and all of the nuances in Keller and Beecher's relationship that can't be captured in pat answers like 'he sucks m[y cock],' and 'prison love.' (I'm reminded of a delightful Oz icon that reads: Looking for love? Try prison. *g*)

It was also stated that Heekins may have made the whole thing up as a way to lighten his third strike conviction sentence. Beecher may have a theory about Taylor's input, but it's unproven (he even says that he can only imply it). Beecher might also be putting things to Keller in a certain way. We can't know for sure. If it had been proven that Taylor had coached Heekins to that extent, there would have been consequences; doubtful that Taylor would still be hunting down criminals at Oz.

I don't think that Taylor is squeaky clean -- I don't think *anybody* is squeaky clean -- but in this situation Beecher is not a defenseless victim. Given their past interactions, I think Taylor crafted his approach so as to make an impression. (Twofer special!) Maybe Taylor was putting Beecher at more risk. Maybe that can be construed as unethical. Maybe it's ideal. But the people who investigate these kinds of crimes... it's drilled into them to look at every angle and then look again, to re-examine everything, and to pursue every scrap of a lead to its furthest conclusion. I would like to think that the police would work that hard to help me, if I had need for it. Laws are circumvented all the time for the purpose of obtaining other goals/bigger fish. Plea bargains immediately spring to mind, granting immunity, protecting sources/witnesses, and even laws for which the prosecutor (or judge(!)) has unwritten policies.

Blackstone is simply inferring that courts should err on the side of innocence, and in the United States, they do. In this case, we already know who in Oz is guilty of the crimes they were jailed for, from the canon flashbacks. Whether or not Keller committed the crimes that Taylor is accusing him of is moot; I'm not presenting an argument for Keller's guilt or innocence here. (POI: I detest the serial killer storyline for him, omfg.) I'm disagreeing that Taylor's actions in this particular scene with Beecher are on par with proven felonious acts from the "criminals [Taylor] was chasing."

Slightly off-topic -- funny that you mentioned the Blackstone ratio! I took a great ethics class where we explored the origins of his words, and then debated the follow-up question, "Better for whom?"

From:

Yes, my words regarding Taylor was a tad too strong. Morally, he's higher than them. He didn't commit murder or rape etc. But ethically, I'm still not on board with his methods. He could've just offered Beecher the deal, in a private room with the blinds closed. At that point, Beecher would've done anything just to be with his kids again. That scene struck me as plain overkill. There was no need for him to put Beecher at risk like that, it was plain cruel and unnecessary.

Yup, Beecher did say it was implied. But I do think it was Taylor who gave Heekins those details. It seemed that he was the one who was spearheading Keller's case. And it could go either way. Who actually monitors the FBI, to check if they are following the rules? What if Taylor's superiors at that time happened to just turn a blind eye? Most cops who commit misconduct are just given a slap in the wrist; unless it was truly egregious or there was a public outrcy. My point is, law enforcement agents have the duty to put wrongdoers to justice. But they have to do it without trampling due process or constitutional rights. We've seen how easy it is for this kind of power to be abused, God knows how many innocent people are in prison right now because of police misconduct, or serving longer sentences than what they actually deserve. I know it's naive and idealistic; but these people should be held at a higher standard.

From:

I agree that law enforcement should be held at a high standard. It's absolutely not naive or idealistic to want LE to do their jobs correctly and within the bounds of the law. (This goes for lots of professions!)

One thing that inmates lose in prison is their right to privacy (except with their attorney, ofc). Taylor could have interviewed Beecher in the middle of Em City and that would not have been illegal. I don't like what Taylor's trying to do either, intentionally attempting to pit Beecher and Keller against one another... though this isn't a revolutionary technique. Taylor's trying his hardest sell with Beecher, here, and I just can't translate that into professional misconduct (without knowing a lot more than Fontana gave us).

Thanks for a great discussion, btw. I'm glad to have had it! :)

From:

Absolutely. Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, Taylor could've talked with Beecher in the middle of Em City without breaking any rules. But that was still a dick move on his part. Taylor knew Beecher had two young kids; a single father at that. He knew their little chat would put Toby at high risk. Couldn't he have handled the situation a little more delicately, considering the circumstances? Just my two cents.

Thanks. You too!

From:

I liked Taylor before this winter, then I watched Making a Murder and I know that MAM is a real story so it's different but it made me think about Taylor's character. He manipulated a testimony to have a sentence of death for a murder for Keller. Now Keller is guilty and If you believe in death penalty (I'm not but this is me) he deserve that and for sure he deserve to be punished but if Keller was innocent? If Taylor wasn't right? Like for the first trial of Steven Avery. Maybe Taylor would have been sure to be right but without a good lawyer (like Toby) a man, an innocent man, would have die because he has manipulated the evicendes (and maybe if he wasn't so sure of himself and Keller's guilt they would find Gary still alive). So now, after that documentary, I don't like so much Taylor, or the cops like him. I think he was a smart man, a real good character (and ai like how he interferes in the relationshio between Beecher and Taylor) but meh.

But it's interesting how a character like Taylor, that has really few lines, wasn't bidimensional and we can talk about him even now. Good job, Tom!

From:

I saw MAM too. Yikes.
Taylor sparks a lot of feelings, and he was ruthless and his obsession with Keller caused the Television without Pity forums to name him "Agent Melonilust." Okay so they exaggerated that, and he didn't want to bone Keller but yes he was obsessed. And Keller was already doing life in prison for crimes he commited and he was guilty of killing those men too. It's telling that Toby doesn't ask him if he's guilty, but only asks if Chris has ever loved anyone like he loves Toby. Aw Toby you are so blinded by love.

Edited Date: 2016-02-19 09:42 pm (UTC)

From:

I mean, Keller has chemistry with drywall, so I have no problem picturing delicious hate!sex between Taylor and Keller.

Beecher knows (and doesn't want to know, or at least doesn't want it confirmed, I think) what Keller's done. Ugh, I was so mad at Beecher for pushing Keller away right before he was going to Gary's funeral. Toby's headspace right then must have been wild. Why is it I never remember to ask these kinds of questions at fan gatherings?! Either Lee brushes up on All Things Oz or he remembers a hell of a lot from the show.

From:

Toby knows, but can't admit it to himself, yes. I had no problem imagining the hatesex there no.
I think somebody once wrote drywall/Keller sex. Maybe.
I know..but that's our Tobe..wearing a hairshirt all the time.

From:

LOL, a hairshirt. Yes, well put. :)

From:

For me that scene is different, you know? It's funny but for me when Toby doesn't ask Keller if he has committed that crimes is not because he is blinded by love (I like this idea too, I just never thought) but because he knows that Keller is capable to do that kind of things. Keller can have killed those guys, he is capable to kill, Toby knows that but what he doesn't know if he is capable to love. He wants that Keller is capable to love, to really love him, but he really doesn't trust to him.
Maybe I have this idea of the scene because in my mind Keller and Beecher always see how they really are inside. It's my weakness.

From:

but what he doesn't know if he is capable to love.

Ahhhh, the crux of like, every B/K discussion ever! :D Honestly that's one of the most discussed things about their relationship. Was it really love? Did they truly love each other? Was Keller capable of love?

I don't think Beecher was blinded by love either; I agree with you that he already knows the kinds of things Keller is capable of, and he (stupidly) parlays that knowledge into thinking that Keller could have hurt Gary, too (oh grief, it takes over our minds). Is it more like 'real' love, to know things about someone, to know what they are capable of, and to still love them, all the parts of them?

Not that I blame Beecher at all for not trusting Keller, though this scene broke my heart a little!

From:

The scary thing is that this happens all the time in real life. I interned for a while with a criminal lawyer and he worked as a public defender. I saw in court trials how cops mishandled evidence, kept sloppy records, and failed to follow protocols. So if local cops could commit all kinds of misconduct and get away with it, what more with the FBI? These guys are given more leeway.

There was also the instance when Taylor was discussing the kidnapping with Toby and his family, and Taylor immediately pointed out Keller as the prime suspect. Like, really? He should've gathered more proof about Keller's involvement before divulging it to the Beechers. I know it was done to hurry the plot along and cause the rift between Chris and Toby, but still Taylor's motivations were still highly suspect to me. As you pointed out, he was more interested in finding Keller guilty than actually finding Holly and Gary. He was so preoccupied with his own agenda that he failed to do his job.

It's weird that in Oz we rooted more for the convicts because the supposed "good guys" like Taylor and the hacks weren't all that nice either. McManus smoked pot, Murphy cut Morales's tendons, and Glynn bullied Alvarez. So yeah.

From:

You've hit on an excellent point here: it's a television show, with Fontana's brain running things (ack!). Beecher and Keller are just two of a huge cast of characters, and there's not enough time for this rather minor character, Taylor, to explain each step of his investigative process to the audience. So we can only infer, infer, infer. (And hold personal opinions, natch.)

Taylor didn't even get a canon name until S5 I think? He was simply "FBI Agent."

Smoking pot =/= not being nice

From:

Lol. I meant if McManus had been caught, he would've ended in jail. Wasn't he all about keeping Oz drug-free? Shows that even the guy running Em City was a hypocrite.

From:

Well... maybe. Obvs. this varies state to state, but first- or even second-time offenders who are caught with small (personal) amounts of weed are not just automatically shipped off to jail.

I also think it's disingenuous to equate Tim puffing on a joint with the trafficking and widespread use of heroin, which was the real drug problem in Em City. Tim showed us in many ways how he could be hypocritical. :/

Edited Date: 2016-02-20 12:25 am (UTC)

From:

Yeah here in AZ if you're caught with less than 2 pounds of weed means 4 months to 2 years in prison. They are pretty strict here.

Well, marijuana is only legal so far in 23 states, and that's only for medical marijuana. It's still considered an illegal drug by the majority of US, not to mention the majority of countries. Not going to go on a debate whether marijuana is a "lesser" drug than heroin, or we are going to be going at this all night :P

From:

I talk about this to red_titan above: ...It was also stated that Heekins may have made the whole thing up as a way to lighten his third strike conviction sentence. Beecher may have a theory about Taylor's input, but it's unproven (Beecher even says that he can only imply it). Beecher might also be putting things to Keller in a certain way. We can't know for sure. If it had been proven that Taylor had coached Heekins to that extent, there would have been consequences; doubtful that Taylor would still be hunting down criminals at Oz. /c&p

Canonically, it hasn't been proven by a court of law that Taylor put all of the words in Heekins's mouth, and he's not saying he'd absolutely do that with Beecher either. The most that we can do is to infer things: telling Beecher Q *may* lead to more information on P, therefore M; ~rearranging Beecher's words *might* mean Taylor could then do X, followed by Y; making a deal with Beecher *could* get Taylor another interview with R; etc. My theory is that Taylor wanted any crumbs of additional information that he could get, in order to make his circumstantial evidence stronger, and in turn possibly being able to turn that into something even stronger to build his case. And yeah, they were crumbs. Maybe that should have been Taylor's cue to stop investigating. Maybe there was someone else that he could have been pursuing, or maybe Keller was just one of multiple leads he was tracking down that day. We just don't know enough information to draw absolute conclusions about Taylor's heart-of-heart motivations or how he planned on treating the information that Beecher did give him. (And I think Beecher gave away a lot more than he'd planned to, in this scene).

I'm standing by my original point, which is that how Taylor set up circumstances designed to 'scare' Beecher as a way of angling for information regarding murdered teenaged boys is in no way "no better" than torturing and murdering a bunch of people (or the other horrific acts that the other actual convicted criminals have committed). I'm disagreeing with red_titan that Taylor's actions in this particular scene with Beecher are on par with proven felonious acts from the "criminals [Taylor] was chasing."

I could talk about Ozzies all day. :D

From:

For the last part I totally agree with you. Taylor wasn't nice to try to scare Beecher but whatever, he has all the rights to do that. If Brice Tibbets or one of the othes victim was part of my family i would loved an agent like Taylor that do "not so friendly thing" to give me answers, to give me the responsable.
For the first part I'm not sure that Taylor would suffer the consequences of his actions. In real life most of the time didn't happened (MaM is an exemple but in Italy we have a lot of stories like this, we suck a bit). Maybe Toby couldn't prove is implication in the false testimony, maybe the police covered up everything. Maybe it's all false instead, Heekins is not a good witness that sometime forgets things and Toby is a really good lawyer.
In both cases is an interesting storyline.

From:

Police/federal agents absolutely fuck things up; they're not automatons and too often people in general do things while working with incomplete reasoning and/or shady motivations. I can only hope that if Taylor (or any cop) had been directly involved in feeding a witness a story about a crime, that there would be consequences for him. I think law enforcement should be held to a high standard, too! And there are big, thorny issues in the U.S. judicial system 'machine' that lead to cops not being reprimanded/punished for their actions (or non-actions). But, all of the problems with how things sometimes play out -- for better or for worse -- can't be laid solely at Taylor's feet. IMO. :)

It is such an interesting show. I love that the characters have flaws, and layers, and what is on the surface doesn't necessarily match what is underneath... so much to deconstruct! Thanks for adding your thoughts. I really enjoyed reading them.

From:

Thanks to you for trying to understand me when I try to write in english about things different from a recipe XD

From:

Oliska is dating TUCKER?!?!!?!!! FROM IAB?!?!?!?!!

Wow, I mean, I knew the show had gone off the rails and all, but, wow.

From: