Board Thread:Legitimate Canon Questions/@comment-141.224.199.87-20140730014502/@comment-25222572-20140809075626

Jestermonkey4u wrote: ^ If you think about it Peter has one major fallacy...complete blind-rage whenever he seeks vengeance against those that have personally attacked him.

S1's killing of Laura? I imagine his reasoning was that she wasn't using her abilities as the Hale Alpha to kill those responsible for the massacre their family had endured; well mostly, if not entirely, for what HE endured. So as soon as he was able - he took it.

S4 and Mute? Well he said he was a "creature of habit". Yeah.....I'll cop to the Laura thing. That meshes with my understanding of how Peter's mind works.

But I've never bought the Mute thing. Like I said in another thread, Peter was completely disabled, taken by surprise, barely able to whisper the word,"Derek", in hopes of a miracle rescue. How did he go from that to overpowering the Mute and chasing him from the loft? While simultaneously snagging the Mute's communication device, which conveniently led Derek into a trap at the school.

Then, once the Mute was subdued, Peter showed up where he had no reason to be and brutalised him, rather than interrogate him, which would have been the "Peter" thing to do (never one to throw away a useful tool). I always read that situation as Peter making a deal to save his own ass, and killing the Mute to cover his tracks. Suits the character. But hey, if they want to go with something as boring as Peter magically defeating the Mute and killing him for no more reason than he hurt him, then go figure. Just want to point out that killing the Mute for that (relatively minor) transgression, and making a deal with freaking KATE simultaneously, makes zero sense.