When I work with a director and dare to bring something like this up, they usually shrug and say, "you know, that was debated in the writers' room, but we decided not to spoon-feed the audience and instead opted to make them fill in the blanks." They generally want to avoid exposition when they can. In this case, to me it seemed like a lapse. On the other hand, Darlene didn't have a lot of guards hanging around her place... with tragic results. And yet with Omar Navarro, he always, always had a few guys lurking in the background. Well, except for prison and being transported from prison. BTW, the various critics out there agree with you that the ending was not that satisfying. I think the shock -- and maybe the central difference between this show and Breaking Bad -- was that the Byrd's kids had no problem joining in with their crimes. Maybe that's winning and losing, simultaneously. Didn't see the connection. I need complete sentences, or I can't figure out the references. The point I was trying to make is how and why the writers bend logic to suit story purposes. The good ones will laugh and say, "yeah, it is a bit of a stretch, and it kind of makes no sense, but it makes the show work." And even in comic books (and fantasy and science fiction), there is an attempt to create a sense of logic and continuity so the story and characters work. The moment you start moving outside the lines, the readers will complain.