He's no better than the dozens he sent to the gallows, because in the series finale, he too killed someone. True, the victim was complete asshole and possibly his most formidable foe, but he still killed them, all the same! What a frickin' hypocrite!
Poirot kind of had to kill that man, so he would stop him from causing more death. It sounds very terrible, but that is what was going on. Also, Poirot was dying already from an illness at the time and had nothing to lose at that point.
shareHe was already complicit in the covering up of a murder, as per Orient Express, but again it can be strongly argued that both murders served the public good and meted out justice where perhaps none could be found through legal means.
shareA murderer killing innocent victims, and Poirot (or anybody) killing a murderer to end his crimes and protect others, are very different. They are not morally the same.
shareSACRE !
Did he say he was better than them? Because if not then you are a liar and nothing you ever wrote can be accepted.
share