User Reviews

A female bartender serves a lonely guy a couple of drinks on New Year's Eve. She thinks he's had enough, but he wants another and she serves it to him. Then he gets into his car and drives away. She feels responsible and follows him in a taxi. He drives slowly but (kind of) safely to a house, gets out of his car and gets into the house. The bartender is relieved, and orders the cab back to the bar. Seconds later there's shooting in the house. Turns out, the man shot the other five people in the house, among whom his ex-wife. Then the police arrives and shoots him. Case closed, right? Wrong! Over a year later the DA's office decides to come after the female bartender for manslaughter, because her serving him drinks led to the slaughter, so they are convinced. This is already something I don't understand. The shooter is dead, so he's had his comeuppance. But America's obsession with "whenever something bad happens, someone has to be held accountable" is so big, that his death is not enough. Someone still alive should also be punished. Enter the female bartender into the courtroom. At this point in the show I immediately yelled at the screen: "Nonsense! Her pouring him a drink did not lead to the shooting. He would have shot the place up even when sober." This is exactly the point Benny Colon is arguing, and rightly so. And he is persuasive. He even interviews a friend of the shooter who knew what he was going to do three months before it happened. Missed opportunity: at that point Benny should have asked him: "Then why aren't YOU sitting here as a defendant?" He is more to blame than the bartender... So, the show goes on and in the end half the jury is for convicting and half for acquittal. And this I don't understand. ALL of the jurors should have gone along with Benny's line of reasoning, because he is 100 percent correct. There IS no causality. However, the writers decide to accomodate the part of the public with "an eye for an eye" mentality, and have six jurors hold on to their initial belief: the bartender pouring the shooter drinks led directly to five casualties. It did not. Why don't they get it?

A great episode to begin the season. A man shoots his family and the poor bartender gets arrested who didn't even want to serve him in the first place, but was forced to by the owner. The story was great and the relationship between Benny and Bull was good too, that is all I'll say on that. But what made it a strong 9 was a little touch of This is Us. I

Not a typical Bull episode but definitely worth watching for sure. Questions of causality is the thread in this season 4 opener, but really it's the ending that's surreal and puts a smile on the vier's face for sure. Who would have thought we would be taken forward 27 laters to Bull's daughter narrating the story!

The case in this episode was very weak. I doubt that even in a crazy country like the US this would actually make it to court. And even if there was any merit to the idea that a bartender could be held responsible for the actions of a person after they left the bar (even with DUI murder/manslaughter cases I've never heard of the bartenders having been sentenced for manslaughter too) the fact that several eyewitness accounts of patrons of the bar proved she was hesitant to pour him another drink instead of cutting him off and she did so under orders, should have been reason enough for an acquittal.