In “A Killer Paradox”, Lee Tang is a young man who was bullied in school. He thought of himself as a loser, someone living a life with no purpose. After he completed his mandatory military service, he went to work at a convenience store. There is nothing much to his life. But one night, he got into a fight with a stranger.
When he was bullied as a kid, he never fought back. But now that he is an adult, fighting with the stranger brings back painful memories. Should he just take the beating like he always did? Not this time. This time he decides to fight back and ends up killing the man.
Lee Tang did not intentionally set out to kill killers. The murders he committed were not premeditated. When he killed a killer the act was … ??? What was it? An accident? A coincidence? A fluke? Is there a logical explanation? When he hears the news reports that the people he killed were killers, it’s a surprise to him. It kind of makes him wonder if he did a good thing. Maybe his life does have a purpose.
OK. So! The people who were murdered turned out to be murderers who had somehow slipped through the cracks of the justice system. Even though police were investigating and trying to bring them to justice, they had committed murder and had gotten away with it.
How do you view their deaths? How do you interpret the fact that they killed and were, in turn, killed. It wasn’t killing for the sake of killing. It certainly wasn’t an act of justice. Especially not Divine justice or retribution. The law has a word that describes their deaths. The word is MURDER.
Just because the police did not apprehend a murderer and bring him or her to justice and you seem to have an “instinct” or a “knack” for killing murderers, that doesn’t mean you’re not a murderer too!
Of course, evidence of each killing has to be examined and then the “fine lines” have to be drawn. Was it self-defense? Was it involuntary manslaughter? If it was murder was it … first degree? Second degree? Third degree? According to law, murder is defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought.
The word “paradox” has various definitions, but how is it used in the phrase “A Killer Paradox”? Here is the likely definition. This dictionary states: A paradox is a logical puzzler that contradicts itself in a baffling way. A killer killing killers is puzzling, kind of contradictory, and baffling.
On the one hand, killing the killer sort of makes a detective’s job easier, but it also creates another job for the detective. The detective no longer has to capture a murderer who was on the loose, but now has a capture the murderer’s murderer.
For some investigators, the fact that murderers were found dead and their cases are conveniently wrapped up, doesn’t mean the investigation is over. There are some “puzzle pieces” that are just not fitting together.
Jang Nan-Gam is a detective and Song Chon is an ex-detective and neither one of them are satisfied with closing the murder cases with conveniently logical explanations for how the murderer/victim died. Just because a case is closed doesn’t mean they’ve closed their minds to “possibilities”. So they keep digging because there is something about the cases that is nagging them. They have their suspicions about Lee Tang, but they need proof.
Where to Watch: Only on Netflix
My personal rating is 7 out of 10 stars. “A Killer Paradox” moves very slowly and it was a wise decision to limit the K-drama series was only 8 episodes. There was nothing intense or exciting to keep you on the edge of your seat, and a Season 2 is highly unlikely. But there was one really good quote that I lifted from one of the episodes: “Death is not something that should exonerate any sin if it wasn’t repented for.” Agree or disagree?
Netflix K-Content. “A Killer Paradox | Official Trailer | Netflix.” YouTube Video. YouTube, January 29, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rXQ0rEfPI.