Is it normal to actually feel some measure of pity for a sociopathic family-annihilator terrorist like Ian Doyle?

He really did love Lauren. He looked forward to having a life with her. He was happy that he had at least something wonderful, sincere and pure in his life full of danger, violence and uncertainty. He loves his son and was genuinely destroyed upon seeing the photos of his son being 'shot'. Yes, he made a devastating choice in wanting his son to continue his 'legacy', but it may have been all of what he knows to fight for in his world. He was driven by revenge because he felt wronged, betrayed and destroyed. For Emily to do what she did, gaining his trust and love, even if it was her duty, would be terrible for anyone at the receiving end. His pain and motivation was real and humanely realistic.

I'm not trying to make excuses for the murders and terrorism he did. But it made me quite uncomfortable to cheer "snuff it, Doyle!" readily after seeing this episode. For one, he isn't a textbook case of sadistic psychopath like Foyet - his usage of torture on his victims were based upon feelings of vindication. Yes, he might have derived pleasure from it - pleasure that his victims would suffer as he did. The one thing however, that separates Doyle from Foyet and Frank was that he only went after the people who were responsible for his incarceration - 'avoiding collateral damage'. Doyle is morally evil, we can make a distinction at that, with his terrorist activites and  murderous personal vendetta. However, while we can agree on classifying Doyle, Foyet and Frank as 'bad guys', Foyet and Frank were only caricatures of human beings with their bloodlust and senseless murders. Doyle is the more realistic villain with a mission and motivation. He was more human than Foyet or Frank was - we easily saw them as mere monsters who deserved to be put down.

CM may not be able to fully explore this aspect in just 42 minutes, but I'm grateful that the show at least showed some glimpses into this other side of Doyle. Some of the 'monsters' we face in real life have families, possess emotions, voice opinions and hold onto motivations. They are people as well.

All that's said and done, however, I'm still glad that Emily got a few punches (or maybe whacks, to say) in at him. Doyle might deserve some sympathy, but he isn't innocent. So the general consensus is, "So yes, you had hell in North Korea and you thought your kid was dead but that doesn't make killing other people (especially those who were not directly responsible for your pain!) justifiable."

Did Emily have feelings for him at all? She seemed genuinely shocked and distraught upon finding out that Doyle was in North Korea instead of Russia. I do believe she developed some measure of affection towards Doyle, and she only started to distrust those feelings when he relayed his intention to let his son 'continue his war'. That revelation might have served as a wake-up call, a reality check for her that a normal life with Doyle was never possible, that Doyle would never submit to peace for his son's future or his life with her over his bloody battles. She might have had some love for him - she begged him subtly to consider letting go his violent  past and settle down with Declan, and she would try to make that happen - but Emily is quickly disillusioned by the notion.  

It was wonderful though, the depth of her concern and attachment with Doyle's son. Yes, I agree with Morgan. Emily, what you did for Declan is a testament to you being an amazing, compassionate, and strong individual.

On the same issue about Declan though, why did Emily have to tell Doyle his son was still alive? Now, you will always have to worry Doyle would find Declan and ruin the kid's future, Emily. (Or maybe, she decided to go to France because, that's where Declan is! She could keep an eye on him! Then again, probably not.)

Okay...I did not meant to make this post an essay.