While actively serving with the Baltimore Police Department and patrolling the infamous streets of television lure, the author of Eliot contemplated the question how could a killer cop get away with it? The illusion of authority and safety had already revealed itself and the lure of vigilante killers and benevolent serial murderers as admired antiheroes had solidified itself in culture. A vigilante is a bit like a terrorist. To the British, the American revolutionaries were terrorists. To the Taliban, bin Laden is a hero. Robin Hood is a thief and a provider.
What defines justified transgressions? Is the use of dissociative state violence from the badge that adorned his chest any different than the instant gratification of vengeance? Maybe no two people can agree on what is acceptable, moral, right, wrong, deserving, heroic, or criminal in life and in Eliot and that is what pushes us to truly look inside our own souls. Do you see the actions of the vigilante killer set on revenge, the drug dealer just trying to survive, or the cop trying to preserve his legacy as justified, or is it all just excuses to mask our own hidden understanding that very little separates sanity and psychosis?