i love john gavin, but i find this episode disturbing. even fifty years later, all a policeman has to say if he wants to gun someone down in cold blood is that the victim had a weapon. what's even scarier is if the victim didn't have a weapon, it's still ruled that the policeman acted in good faith...how can there be good faith when someone is dead and unarmed. yes, a policeman leads a dangerous life, but what's wrong with disabling someone or crippling them as opposed to killing them. once someone is dead there's no way to try them and bring them to justice by a jury of their peers.if being a criminal is a choice, then being a murdering policeman is a choice. because a policeman wields the power of life and death, sober judgment should be made before he fires that gun even if he has to act in a split second. i won't even get started on how many minorities and people of colour are often shot by policeman and later its found out that the victims were unarmed or the weapon in question was a wallet or a cellphone or at one convenience store the so-called armed assailant was holding a snickers bar in his hand. how can any competent cop confuse a snickers bar with a deadly weapon?hitchcock was really ahead of his time with this one...

The Indians would have a hard time scalping Mr. Hitchcock. Good thing he's bald headed, otherwise there'd be a lot of this sort of thing going on.Cool, twisted ending. I think one thing that makes it interesting, you never know how he'll end these things. Must have been a genius.