The whole point of his family getting into witness protection was to get away from "mafia contacts" if any kind. Even one contact could and would tell others. Why would he trust any contacts at all? because they gave him their word they were loyal to him?
Again,
his son was dead. He was killed and, as far as he could see at the time, nobody was being held responsible for it. I don't even have any children (
at least, none that I know of...), but I can still imagine how under those specific circumstances he would willing to take the risk to his safety in order to get revenge on whoever killed his son. Even if you still think it's unlikely, okay maybe it is, but I just don't think it's so incredibly unbelievable that it exemplifies a downward spiral in writing for the series overall.
Pearce gave his word to the mafia that he'd never snitch. He took the code of Omertà. You never snitch on fellow mafia members. It's considered unforgivable, which is why he had to get into witness protection..
First, the actual name was Lombardi, Pearce was the fake identity. Regardless of what is shown in certain Mafia films and TV shows, there are plenty of examples of real life Mafia members who gone into and come out of Witness Protection and survived. Some even getting back into crime. Look up Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, the leading witness who turned against a little figure by the name of John Gotti (among his many other crimes, he's the one who voluntarily killed the man who accidentally killed one of Gottis's children, just as a favor to Gotti), and helped the Feds finally convict the former "Teflon Don." If anyone was in serious danger of retaliation, it was him. He was in Witness Protection for 5 years until he voluntarily left, because he said it was too restraining of his lifestyle, and while he still took actions to protect himself, he made public appearances, wrote a book, and then eventually got back into crime, leading an Ecstacy selling ring, which eventually lead to his re-arrest an imprisonment (ironically, some of his new gang turned witness against him). And while in jail he was able to order a hit on a judge (which failed). So, yeah, the notion of a major crime figure still having contacts in the underworld isn't so implausible.
There's also Frank Lucas, played by Denzel Washington in the movie American Gangster, who also turned on may former associates (and crooked cops) and was in Witness Protection for 5 years, but then still managed to get back to dealing drugs and was re-arrested, not to mention Nicky Barnes (played by Cuba Gooding Jr. in that same film) who also turned on his partners and was put in Witness Protection, and while he stayed in it until his death, he still managed to write a book and give interviews. So if real-life gangsters would risk their safety for greed or fame, I don't think it's so hard to believe a fictional gangster in a similar position would risk his safety to avenge his son's murder.
No, that's not true. He still had his other son and his wife. They had a baby too - Joseph Pearce's grandson.
You got me there, I don't recall that. Still, the risk is usually primarily towards the individual, not their families, although they can sometimes be collateral damage. But usually, they're in Witness Protection to be with their loved on, they're not required to do so. One of Frank Lucas' daughters run an organization for children whose parents are in jail, because she knows what that's like.
Nicholas was to blame for his own death, and to a degree, Sue Ellen because she had him come in with her when they illegally broke into JR's home. They were trespassing, they didn't leave when JR pointed a gun at Nicholas and told them to leave, and then Peace assaulted JR in his own home. He was fighting JR on the balcony, of all the dumb places to fight somebody. It's as clear cut a case of self-defense as there is. Nicholas started the fight. All JR asked was for them to leave. So, once he attacked JR physically, what choice did JR have but defend himself?
Yes, I agree with all that (as did Mr. Lombardi, when Sue Ellen confessed the events of the night in question & took responsibility), in fact, if you really want to complain about unrealistic plot-points,
that's the part that you should be focused on and complaining is unrealistic. A man was dead, and the only two witnesses (both high-profile figures in the state) to that death were each blaming each other, and the police were just like
"oh well, I guess we can't tell which one of them is telling the truth, & they don't want to testify against each other, so I guess we'll just drop the matter and forget about it." And that's it? It didn't even become a major news story outside of the original reports of J.R. being shot and surviving? How realistic was
that?
As you rightfully point out,
all the evidence backed J.R.'s side of the story. It was his home that Nicholas and Sue Ellen broke into (and they could check the door to see the evidence that Nicholas kicked it open), so pretty much right at that point J.R. has the right of self-defense (especially in a state like Texas), even before the actual fight. And then Sue Ellen shoots him, at point-blank range, with his own gun, claiming that
she was worried for
her safety? Please! Even if J.R. ultimately would have refused to testify against her I don't see how the police wouldn't have at least arrested her and tried to charge her for
something, some kind of charge in relation to Nicholas' death. I've known that to happen in real life, where if two people were committing a crime together and one of them gets killed during the commission of that crime, even if it's by police, the other gets charged for it. But this is one of those cases where the writers didn't clearly think through the consequences of the cliffhanger when they wrote it.
In fact, now that I think about it, wouldn't have been something if they'd saved that storyline for Sue Ellen's exit from the show? Instead of her flying off to Europe to be with her new man, they could have gone through the repercussions of the shooting and had a trial throughout the next season, and the finale would be the reading of the verdict, where Sue Ellen is found guilty of 2nd-degree murder and sent away to jail. That would serve the purpose of removing the character from the show, in a way that leaves open the possibility for her return someday (like early parole for good behavior or something).