Was it because he couldn't stop Neeson from killing the son?
Was it because he fled the scene and didn't at least try to get revenge on Neeson and his son?
That was never fully explained.
Sure, you figure people in that line of "business" are irrational and will blame anyone who happens to be near the victim they care about, but at least some explanation of the specific reason would be helpful.
His father simply blamed his friend as being another reason (besides his own personal ones) of why he lost his son. Dude was a drug addict, Shawn blames dude for cultivating his son's bad habits and stupid ideas that lead to his death. Seemed obvious.
shareI found it VERY obvious but judging by this thread, we are in the minority.
shareI understood from Sam himself that he and Jimmy had killed friends & family in the past who threatened Sam's business. He killed his dead son's pal in order to keep him from being captured & interrogated by either the police or the Albanian mob.
shareFor all the reasons noted.
However, it also makes his decision to go after Neeson's son more credible. The need to kill an innocent -- instead of just Neeson -- would be hard to believe unless we know this is a guy who will lash out at anyone remotely close to his primary target. Anyone with any even theoretical responsibility.
This guy was a low-life, and probably a bad influence, who maybe helped his son get hooked on drugs, and encouraged his bad decisions. Add in the fact that he clearly didn't stop Neeson from killing his son, and that was enough to make this particular crime lord want to kill him. Painfully.
Once we know the crime lord will do this to someone like his son's loser friend, it becomes much easier to accept his compulsion to kill Neeson's son.
For all the reasons noted.
However, it also makes his decision to go after Neeson's son more credible. The need to kill an innocent -- instead of just Neeson -- would be hard to believe unless we know this is a guy who will lash out at anyone remotely close to his primary target. Anyone with any even theoretical responsibility.
This guy was a low-life, and probably a bad influence, who maybe helped his son get hooked on drugs, and encouraged his bad decisions. Add in the fact that he clearly didn't stop Neeson from killing his son, and that was enough to make this particular crime lord want to kill him. Painfully.
Once we know the crime lord will do this to someone like his son's loser friend, it becomes much easier to accept his compulsion to kill Neeson's son.
Because he was like a lot of parents. It's easier to blame everyone else than himself for the piece of sh.|t his kid turned out to be.
The kid's bad decisions got him killed. But when Sean killed the partner, he was probably just pissed off his son was dead. And in his head he was probably blaming the partner for his son's drug habit and the stupid deal with the Albanians.
He blames Conlon for killing his son, yet if his son had killed Michael, he would have been like, yeah, I told the kid to do nothing but he didn't listen. Sorry. Get over it.
Even if it were truly just about "business" and he had to kill Jimmy for killing his son, he didn't have to go after Michael who was an innocent bystander. He didn't have to set it up to look like Michael killed the Albanians. His son was dead. Even if he wanted to take the heat of his son with the rest of the Albanians, he didn't have to send a hitman after Michael.
All in all, his son was an aszhole because he made him that way because he was an azshole too.
I don't trust people who don't like pets and I don't trust people who pets don't like.