Issue(s): Punisher War Journal #59, Punisher War Journal #60
Cover Date: Oct-Nov 93
Title: "The house that hate built" / "Dogged"
Credits:
Chuck Dixon - Writer
Gary Kwapisz - Penciler
Gary Kwapisz - Inker
Tim Tuohy - Assistant Editor
Don Daley - Editor

Review/plot:
The Punisher's taxi got destroyed in the last arc, so even though that arc ended with the Punisher and Lynn Michaels seemingly about to part ways, it turns out that the Punisher had to bum a ride home from her. He has her take him to one of his safehouses, the one where his dog, Max, lives.

The Punisher seemingly mercy-killed Max in Punisher #57 but a later lettercol explains that the negative response to that was so overwhelming that they decided to reverse that (without explanation, but as i suggested at the time, i guess we were seeing emergency surgery, not a killing blow).

Lynn is impressed with the Punisher's set-up and how it allows him to fight crime without all the red tape of being a police officer.

The Punisher, on the other hand, is just using Lynn ("Another half hour and I'll be rid of her. Until I need her again.").

Meanwhile, some drug addicts across the street from the safehouse have spotted the Punisher, and they call a gang that is looking for him.

That is quite a gang. I can't tell if that one guy is meant to be dwarf or what.

By the time the gang gets to the house, the Punisher is gone. But a combination of booby traps and Max wipe out most of the gang.

However, the leader of the gang decides that he wants Max for himself.

Meanwhile, continuing Lynn's anti-due process kick, she returns to work where she and her partner are investigating a series of thefts. But it turns out that the thief, Clyde Allen Durkin, is also a child murderer.

It seems like an open and shut case, but it turns out to be more complicated.

The bulk of my knowledge of the criminal justice system admittedly comes from Law & Order reruns, but it feels like Chuck Dixon has repeatedly been setting up impossible situations to demonstrate how normal police procedures just can't work.

By the way, even in this scenario, the criminal is sentenced to 10-15 years for manslaughter. And it's said that he has a history of mental illness. I don't want to trivialize the mass killing of children, but 10-15 years ain't nothing.

Meanwhile, the Punisher is working to get his dog back. The gang leader couldn't handle Max, so he turned him over to a guy that trains dogs for dogfights. The Punisher turns to his criminal contact Mickey Fondozzi and the two of them go undercover as wannabe dogfight gamblers.

The Punisher (and Mickey) manage to infiltrate the fighting ring but wind up having to shoot their way out. And the fact that many of the people getting shot were just there to bet on the fights doesn't bother the Punisher because "nobody's innocent".

The whole time, the Punisher is saying that "It's not about Max. I don't care about Max." because the Punisher's whole persona is based on the idea that anything human about him died when his family was killed. But it's clearly the case that the Punisher does care about Max.

In the end, the concern is that Max may have been so warped by being involved in the dogfighting that he might not recognize the Punisher anymore, but that's not the case.

Good doggy. You've got to respect a story that has you rooting for the sociopath and his killer dog to get back together.

Quality Rating: C+

Historical Significance Rating: 1

Chronological Placement Considerations: The events of the previous arc happened "last night" and this story begins with Lynn Michaels driving the Punisher home from that adventure.

References: N/A

Crossover: N/A

Continuity Insert? N

My Reprint: N/A

What a load of crap! Chuck Dixon is very clearly showing his conservative political leanings here. This is worse than an episode of Law & Order, where you have evidence and convictions getting tossed out for the most ridiculous reasons. ("My client was arrested on a day of the week ending with the letter Y, which is a clear violation of his Constitutional rights!")

Admittedly back in 1993 the internet was a lot less expansive. But even so, if Dixon had bothered to do just a little bit of research, like maybe talking to an actual lawyer, he'd have learned that when the police are executing a valid search warrant, if they happen to come across evidence of a completely different crime, it is absolutely admissible. For instance, if the cops have a valid warrant to search someone's apartment for drugs, and when they enter said apartment they happen to find a dismembered body lying on the floor, of course it's admissible!

https://www.quora.com/If-the-police-get-a-search-warrant-and-they-find-something-that-is-related-to-a-different-crime-than-they-were-investigating-can-they-get-another-warrant-to-investigate-that-different-crime

Little person.

And he totally is in my reading of this story.