Breaking Bad : Was Todd actually a bad guy? He never seemed malicious at all

nothing was personal. He seemed like the kind of guy who can go from your best friend to your murderer depending purely on circumstance. It didn't mean by killing you that he doesn't like or respect you.

They were ALL involved in a high stakes criminal organization. What did someone like Walt or Jesse expect? To be involved with GOOD people?

Todd was definitely not good, but he was not bad either. He was a reasonable guy at all times.

A bad person is someone who does bad for no real reason other than hate, envy, etc. That's a malicious person which Todd was not. Jesse said some awful things about him but Todd preserved his life and even rewarded him with treats for doing a good job cooking.

Yes he was a bad person. Anyone who would kill a child for cash/to keep them quiet is not a good person lol. Yeah, he didn't feel hate or malice but that's because he didn't feel anything, he didn't see other people as human or see any value in human life. Todd didn't even care when walt murdered his uncle in front of him.

Todd was a law breaker but to me not a bad guy. A police man would shoot a child who was threatening the lives of others (e.g. a school shooter) and people will call him a hero because he did his job the right way. Todd was shooting a child to preserve his business, so he was doing the right job.

If he killed people for entertainment that would make him bad. Todd is no different than a policeman or soldier at war.

Now you can call him bad for entering the business knowing what it entails. But then does that mean police and army men are also evil murderers? They knew they'd have to shoot people when they signed up.

I don't even consider myself a good person and I've never killed anyone lol. And I think even a child realizes the massive difference between someone signing up to be a police officer and someone signing up to be a drug supplier. Opposites are not equivalents.

Pigs in the US kill black kids with water guns, they're infinitely worse than Todd cause he's not paid by us to "serve and protect."

You must be one of those low-information morons I keep hearing about.

There was case recently near where I live where the police were vilified for shooting a 12-year old with a toy gun. Turns out the "toy" in question was an Airsoft pellet gun which is virtually indistinguishable from a real firearm, the boy was brandishing it in a threatening manner, and he refused to comply with police orders to drop his weapon and put his hands up.

What are the police supposed to do in that scenario? Wait to see if the perp shoots first? Give me a break.

---

the boy was brandishing it in a threatening manner, and he refused to comply with police orders

---

Talk about low-information . You believe everything the pigs say? The mutts use the same excuses everytime ("resisted arrest," "didn't comply") and fools like you buy it. How about the one who chased the guy and shot him, then lied about what happened and was only rolled cause someone else had a recording? What's your excuse for that one?

I love that morons like you always side with career nig criminals no matter the evidence and think it's some epidemic that cops are taking on blacks. No. Blacks are the majority of criminals in our country despite a small population, have the worst neighborboods for crime and overall, whites are killed more by cops. Is that ever talked about? Nope. Why? Cause it's easy to play blacks into the "I'm oppressed" mentality.

The best thing cops could do is just leave black areas and let them kill each other in record numbers, which is what happened in Baltimore last year.

"Pigs" ?? What were you a gangster in the '60s? Groovey, Man !!

---

There was case recently near where I live where the police were vilified for shooting a 12-year old with a toy gun. Turns out the "toy" in question was an Airsoft pellet gun which is virtually indistinguishable from a real firearm, the boy was brandishing it in a threatening manner, and he refused to comply with police orders to drop his weapon and put his hands up.

---

If anything this should count as a sign that you need stricter gun control. I mean only in the US, on active war zones and in countries with a high amount of child soldiers would someone automatically assume a child's weapon is real instead of a toy.

Sorry, I don't want to ignite some awkward political discussion but just felt like I had to say it.


Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.

The city of Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the United States and the highest rate of murder by firearm. This is because gun laws don't stop criminals from getting hold of them, and honest citizens who follow the law find themselves defenseless. On the flip-side, those cities with the highest rate of legal gun ownership also have the lowest rate of violent crime.

So say those two reliable paragons of reason, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and pal Trump. But of course the situation isn't as simplistic as they depict it. There's significant context to consider, which they've left out:

"The Problem With Using Chicago to Make the Case Against Gun Control"

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control

---

'I think that its more likely that if Chicago did not have tough gun laws they would have higher rates of gun violence than they do have,' said Philip Cook, a Duke public policy professor and economist who works with the University of Chicago Crime Lab, leading its multi-city underground gun market study.

Cook recently studied the origins of guns recovered in Chicago between 2009 and 2013 using data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. Of the more than 7,000 guns he studied, 'the great majority came from the people who were members of gangs,' Cook said, adding that 'the gang conflict in Chicago has been particularly lethal over the decades and part of the reason is those organizations are skilled at accessing guns'

A lot of that access comes from outside Illinois. Cook said he found that 60% of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state. Twenty-four percent of the total pool of guns came from Indiana, which is 'not regulated at all,' he said. Chicago gangs often have connections to gangs in Gary, Indiana, and the two cities almost butt up against each other.

The study also found that 22% of the recovered guns came from parts of Cook County outside the city, where gun dealers and gun shows are legal

Over a longer period the Chicago Police Department had similar findings to Cook. Between 2002 and 2012, CPD tracked the origin of 50,000 guns, finding that more than half of them came into the city from other states, the New York Times reported. Indiana and Mississippi were the two biggest feeders with a combined 24% of recovered guns originating from the two states. Almost a third of those 50,000 guns came from Cook County."

---

"Chicago gun laws not as strict as GOP candidates claim"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-gun-laws-not-as-strict-as-gop-candidates-claim-20151008-story.html

---

"The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a big blow to Chicago's gun laws in 2010 when it struck down the city's handgun ban. Chicago quickly enacted a gun ordinance that proponents said included some of the nation's toughest regulations, but the city was forced to scrap some of the provisions that most angered gun rights advocates.

Then, after a federal appeals court struck down Illinois' last-in-the-nation concealed carry ban in 2012, gun rights advocates took aim at Chicago's decades-old ban on gun stores. The city lost that fight, too, and last year passed an ordinance allowing gun stores.

WHERE ARE TODAY'S GUNS COMING FROM?

No gun store has opened in the city yet. That means that every gun owned legally or illegally came from somewhere else. Just how many is unclear, but Chicago's police department seizes more illegal weapons than any other in the nation nearly 20 a day for a total of 5,500 so far this year

Just days ago, a Chicago man was sentenced to nearly three years in prison after pleading guilty to helping purchase 43 firearms from gun shows and individuals in Indiana to sell on Chicago's South Side. Several Chicago residents filed a lawsuit this summer against three suburbs, accusing them of lax oversight of local gun shops that they say have been an easy source of weapons for criminals who bring guns into the city."

---

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

---

This is because gun laws don't stop criminals from getting hold of them

---

Yeah, but that wasn't my point. My point was, if legal guns weren't that common, a police wouldn't mow down a 12-year-old because it likely wouldn't occur to them that the child's weapon is real. If I saw a little kid with a gun I'd just assume it was a toy. Also, getting an illegal firearm isn't exactly that easy. With stricter gun control there would be less guns in circulation on a nation-wide level* and their price would go way up. This wouldn't stop all terrorists and school massacres but the grand majority of gun-related deaths are neither of those things. Going on an impromptu rampage with a knife is a lot less fatal than doing so with an assault rifle.

*)Looking at a map there are like 6 other states in the very near vicinity of Chicago/Illinois, so they can just take a little gun-buying joy ride to those to get their illegal weapons.

Anyways, on a related note, I don't understand this discussion in the US. The 2nd amendment (which I checked a few weeks ago when it came up in discussion) that all the gun-folk keep quoting refers to "a well-regulated militia". Is no back-up checks, no training, basically no regulation whatsoever "well-regulated"? Imho it's not gun control that is unconstitutional, since the Constitution clearly mandates control. But then I'm not American, so


Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.

---

Looking at a map there are like 6 other states in the very near vicinity of Chicago/Illinois, so they can just take a little gun-buying joy ride to those to get their illegal weapons.

---

Exactly! Like I said, gun laws don't stop criminals from acquiring them.

---

The 2nd amendment (which I checked a few weeks ago when it came up in discussion) that all the gun-folk keep quoting refers to "a well-regulated militia".

---

You need to learn some history, kiddo. Militia members were expected to provide their own weapons, and so the 2nd Amendment was written specifically to allow every citizen to own and maintain firearms in the event they were called up to a militia.

---

Exactly! Like I said, gun laws don't stop criminals from acquiring them.

---

Which is why I specified "on a nation-wide level". If acquiring guns was more regulated in the entire United States rather than just some individual states, getting a firearm wouldn't be just a car ride away but would require looking into black markets - which would hoist up the prices a lot and make the process much more difficult.

---

You need to learn some history, kiddo.

---

Thanks. If you notice, I did try to educate myself. I'm not American though so granted, my knowledge of your history is limited at best. My country was under foreign oppressors and invaders since the 12th century until World War I, and after that there was the continuous threat of the USSR looming just on the other side of a rather long border, so you'll hopefully understand why US history isn't something we focus heavily on in history class. Sure, it's been forever (well, quite some time) since I left school and I could have studied all about your founding fathers and militias since then, but the Cold War era has always held more fascination for me personally. It was just a point I made since it seemed relevant to me, but if not, that's fine. Point 1 still stands.


Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.

Even if you extend gun laws nationwide, criminals would still figure out how to get them. Look at England: they have a nationwide gun ban, but firearm crime still remains a significant problem.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-chief-gun-crime-remains-11440453

Yeah, every country has that problem. In that article they mention four (4) incidents in Birmingham, after 2 full years of zero (0) incidents. This link (http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/) says 3,916 so far in 2016. Sure Chicago is three times bigger, but that's still almost a thousand (1000!) times more. So no offense, you can hardly even compare the US and the UK in this particular issue. It's like comparing murder rates in Honduras v. Iceland.


Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.

Dumb.

For one, the U.S. is No. 1 in gun ownership in the world but guess what? They're 28th in the world in gun murder. That alone destroys the "If there were less guns, there'd be less murder" mentality.

Also, our gun crime is conflated with illegal weapons used by blacks and gangs (consisting of blacks and Latinos). If you remove those areas where they're constently committing crime and idolizing street culture, we'd have some of the lowest crime in the world.

Seriously, take our black population and dump it into any other country and the crime numbers will go through the flipping roof.

Also,to the morons wanting gun control, do you goofs still think that works despite being proven wrong constantly?
Did prohibition stop alcohol?
Did the War on Drugs stop people from using/selling drugs?

No. Just like criminals don't give an eff about any laws.

A policeman gunned down a 12 year oldWITH A TOY GUN! And you think thats ok? Do you hear what you're saying?

You're a conservative POS and people like you are lower than dirt.



Millennial = Homo Sapiens born 1990 or after; Losers who think they know everything but don't

---

Millennial = Homo Sapiens born 1990 or after; Losers who think they know everything but don't

---

This is really neither here nor there and is not trying to make a statement about the nature of millennials, but this is factually not what "millennial" means. What you are talking about are young people, and every person over the age of 40 always thinks young people are stupid - it's like that in 2017 and it was probably like that in 1957. In 2030 the Millennials will be complaining about what dumbasses the "iGeneration" or whatever are.

Millennial means people born between around 1982 and 1996, so anyone between 20 and 35 at the moment.

Yes I'm a millennial and yes in this case I do know better than you. Apparently.


Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.

Dear clean virgin, I wouldn't insult others before I learn the difference between fact (what I wrote) and incorrect ranting (what you wrote.)

Besides, I don't exactly need your approval to write on IMDb. Dis a 'Murican site, bruh, mah freedoms.


Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.

I like llamas..



Millennial = Homo Sapiens born 1990 or after; Losers who think they know everything but don't

Well, who doesn't. They're like dolphins - inherently impossible to dislike.


Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.

Don't think Todd realised it was Walt that had killed his uncle and everyone else, he was looking out the window 2 see who was attacking them when Jesse struck.

Todd was a utter psychopathic simpleton who didn't care about people yet was doggedly loyal to criminal schemes and criminal bosses, so that made him a very dangerous person with no moral brakes at all. An imbecilic version of Doug Stamper really.

Todd was fairly street smart. He learned Mr. White's cook good enough to have a higher purity percentage than Declan's cook. He was also thinking on his feet when he murdered Drew Sharp. His explanation was on point and his subtle threat to Walt/Jesse/Mike about his connections was well timed to spare his life.

Walt loved Todd's dedication and work ethic enough to make him an apprentice. Todd was not a simpleton just because he lacked emotions. Simple people are not ambitious like Todd.

Thinking on his feet and being able to cook higher quality than Declan doesn't make him a good person at all.

here I was defending his intelligence, not his morality.

Although once again I will state that I think left to his own devices that Todd would never hurt a fly. He just wanted to run/work in a lucrative business and be prosperous. Other people getting in his way (on purpose or by mistake) is what led to all of his killing.

He killed Drew Sharp because the kid posed a threat. Walt and Jesse did this to Gale it's really no different. Todd killed Andrea because Jesse refused to cook. He was willing to kill Mr. White only after he came back because he threatened the business. He was willing to kill DEA because they were after Mr. White his teacher. He had to kill Declan to take over the Meth business.

The only time he didn't need to kill (Skyler) he chose not to do it. He only threatened her instead of killing her because she was a minor threat.

Where was anything he ever did out of malicious intent? It was all business decisions.

Todd couldn't follow a simple recipe well enough to even get 80-90% purity when even Jessie's dumbass got to over 90% by just mimicking Walt lol

but according to the show it was not a simple recipe because there are many variable factors involved in the organic mechanisms. Walt mentions this as a reason he's more valuable than Victor.

Take a chef as another exampleI guarantee giving the same ingredients and recipe to a master chef and a normal person the meal will come out tasting differently by a wide margin.

Jesse had a ton of time with Walt and background cooking Meth. Perhaps the formula (and audible corrections) could be mastered but it would take time. Todd did not have the same time with Walt that Jesse did.

Todd may have actually spent more time cooking with Walt than Jesse did, at least with their S5 cook method. Todd cooked with him while making the $80 millionYou don't see it, since it happened during the course of the Crystal Blue Persuasion montage. Plenty of time to learn.

There were other factors yes, but it isn't like Jessie understood those either. Either way Todd had months of working with Walt as well and still was 20% under Jessie's purity level.

The show had to make his purity level lower cause they needed an excuse for Jesse to be kept alive. Also they made it clear that it takes a lot more than following instructions otherwise Gale wouldn't have needed so long to learn how to make it a couple points higher.

Is it true that Todd was the older son of Skank & Spooge? That would explain alot.

Hmmm yeah. Maybe spooge and jack were brothers, and jack became his legal guardian when they got all strung out on meth and heroin.

Todd was an emotionless robot. He wasn't good or bad in his own mind, but he was most definitely a textbook psychopath.

I dont think he knew it though. He just did what he thought would best serve him regardless of who suffered/died.

Though jokingit does seem to make sense that someone growing up like their kid in Peekaboo could turn out like Todd. Most likely when Jesse saved that kid, he may have prevented him from growing up like Toddand possibly saved some other lives, as a result.

Todd didn't really wrong anyone except Drew Sharp, which was pure rotten luck. Everyone else that he killed was involved in the business and deserved what they got. Even Andrea knew she was carrying dirty money from Jesse and received her fate. The fact that Todd uses people and doesn't care about them doesn't make him a bad guy. He does not go after innocent people. THAT is what a bad person does, they attack innocent people.

The fact that Andrea received money from Jesse had no connection to Todd killing her. Todd only knew she was his old girlfriend. If Jesse never gave her any money, Todd still would have killed her. He killed her because Jesse cared about herthat's all the leverage Todd needed.

Therefore, Todd killed an innocent person in Andrea. THAT makes Todd a bad person, by your definition.

Also by your reasoning, if Junior accepts the dirty money that Walt leaves for him, he deserves to be killed too? Who should kill him? Can anyone just go up and cap him in the head and say "I'm really a good personI only shot this guy because I heard he received dirty money from his drug dealer dad, thru these Gray Matter people. So don't blame me, it's OK that I killed himhe had it coming." Twisted dude.

Andrea was not innocent. She knew Jesse was a drug dealer and that the money he gave her was unclean, which is why she asked "is anybody going to come looking for this?" when he gave it to her. The fact that he said "No" changes nothing, since you cannot trust the word of a criminal.

You could argue that for all Todd knew she was innocent, but then again you can't say that for certain since we were not privy to the confession video. For all we know Jesse went into a lot of detail about Andrea and giving her and Brock money to get away from that bad neighborhood. The intentions were noble but the money was filthy, and Jesse later realizes this in the latter half of season 5 when he starts throwing away the 5 million.

As far as Walt Jr. is concerned he refused to take any money from Walt, making him an innocent. If he was gifted money from Elliot that means he's taking (what he considers) clean money. Andrea knew the money she was taking might come with consequences. It bought her a nice house in a good neighborhood, and paid for it with her life.

This is a little off topic but Todd reminds me of the villain Anton Chigurgh from No Country for Old Men in that he represents a immoral force of morality. He's an immoral man cleaning up the other immorals, kind of like the big bad predator who eats all the smaller nasty rodents. Does that make him "good" in some way, sort of a vigilante presence? Or maybe the other poster was right and labels like good and bad don't apply to Todd. He was just a force of nature reacting to his environment.

Trying to figure out if you're trolling or just have no moral compass. You sound like you really believe what you're saying, which makes me think it's the ladderwhich is a bit scary.

Would rather think there's just one more troll out there, than someone that believes what you're saying here.

If you think I'm saying that Andrea deserved to die for taking the money then we are having a misunderstanding. I'm saying she dipped her toe into the immorality ocean, a place where Jesse was surfing in the shallow end and Walter was diving in the deep. I'm saying that IMO Todd is an outlier to that ocean in that he's not really an "immoral" component of the ocean so much as he is like a force of nature that is capable of harming those in the water. Todd is like a tidal wave, shark or a riptide capturing the immorals in that ocean. Andrea made the mistake of dipping her toe and she got killed. Drew Sharp was playing on the sand, an innocent to that immoral ocean, but got hit by a tsunami because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. You just get near that ocean and you could be killed.

This is the same thing that happens in life to many people. They think that something bad happens to them randomly but this is usually not the case. The choices you make are constantly putting you into different circumstances, leading you down a different path. If you choose the wrong path then it's your fate. I'm not saying to avoid risks, we all have to get into our cars and drive or go cliff diving every once in a while for that adrenaline rush, but I'm saying avoid the wrong kind of people. If you are with immoral people then you are asking for trouble and perhaps death. Andrea got involved with a bad person (Jesse was a killer and drug dealer) and paid the ultimate price. Yes it was Jesse's fault she died. He got mixed into that dangerous business and then created enemies. Why do you think Spider-Man refused to date Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson? Because he loved them but he would always have enemies. The blood of Andrea is not on Todd's hands, the blood is on Jesse's hands.

If you look at it from Andrea's standpoint, yes, she put herself in a more vulnerable position. But that doesn't, in turn, clear Todd from being a bad person, which is the subject of your post.

If someone decides to walk thru a gang's territory and gets robbed or killed, you can say it's their own fault for being so dumb. But guess what, the gang that robbed or killed them is still bad, just like Todd.

Oh yeah, Todd was a good guy because he rewarded Jesse with treatswhile locking him in a cage like an animal, keeping him prisoner, and forcing him to cook indefinitely. Not to mention all the other stuff he did. Yup. Great guy.

Damn man i found someone who is like me.
I liked Todd very much. He was a honest man. sincere student of Walt. Never betrayed his teacher. Repayed walt's debt by saving him and his family. He punished jesse which he deserved for being Rat.
I liked Jack too.

we don't agree on everything because I thought Jack was an awful person. He is the type to hurt innocent people and probably why he was in prison.

Todd never hurt anyone who was innocent or uninvolved in the meth business. Drew Sharp happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think Walt/Mike would have had to kill him.

Todd just followed orders, because of orders and (love for her) of lydia he killed drew gang.

Jack was a wise and honest criminal. He saved walt and gave him money he didnt had to.
But i should have spared Hank.
I like him and his gang too but not much.

I dont think killing drew sharp was necessary for them to have gotten away with the train heist. There's a good chance that, like Jesse said, the kid didn't even know what he saw. He was just waving at them, being friendly and maybe curious as to what they were doing. But I dont think he would have been waving at them if he realized they were robbing at train. People who witness robberies aren't likely to stand and wave at the robbers. That would make no sense.

Not to mention, they probably could have just waved back to the kid, packed up the gear and methlymene and gotten out of there. The kid likely wouldn't have been able to id them or provide police with much information that would be enough to catch them. And they way they planned the robbery, nobody would have even known the train was robbed even if the kid did say something to his parents or the police.

But that's in the event the kid had a clue what he even witnessed. Todd killing drew sharp was not only incredibly psychotic, it was completely unnecessary imo. I kind of liked Todd until that moment. I find him a fascinating character, but he was a monster and it was well deserved when Jesse choked him to death.

Labels like good or Bad are too black and white. They don't really fit a person like Todd.

Todd was pure. There was no duplicity or self doubt in his actions. While virtually everyone else on the show was second guessing themselves, Todd would throw himself completely at everything he tried with childlike wonder and enthusiasm. That purity could make him likable even when he did reprehensible things.

Clever things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make them feel scared

perfectly explains why I loved Todd as a character and was rooting for him to win in the end. I think he was starting to develop great leadership abilities and, despite being such a hard ass, Jack having a soft spot for him would have helped for that type of transition.

I think Todd had everyone's respect because he was unapologetic about his learning curve and stubbornly refused to give up on any criminal endeavor. It's remarkable that a person of his limited talent could be worth tens of millions based on pure determination. He was a guy with the same ambitions as Mr. White but none of the talent, yet he maneuvered his way into becoming the alpha dog. It was Todd (not Gus, not Walter) meeting with Lydia in the finale.
Can somebody "simple" pull off acquiring such power?

I think of Todd as a pure force of nature like gravity. Todd killed people the way gravity kills people when they fall. You really can't blame Todd/gravity for your own mistakes. You chose to skydive, you chose to enter the deadly meth business, you chose risk over safety and will pay consequences.