I wanna do this one more time: Was Mal wrong when he shot that surrendering guy in Serenity?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, June 6, 2014 05:29
VIEWED: 19444
PAGE 7 of 14

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
But then you say, they're unarmed? They're not a threat? People like that are ALWAYS a threat. Because the threat isn't in the weapons they hold. The threat is in their minds and their attitude. They are far more dangerous than ANY weapon.

And if you let them go, they will kill again. These are not the kind of people who can reform. These are people who kill on order, or because they LIKE it, and believe themselves righteous for doing it.

Reading this led me mentally straight to...

Quote:

And before you say it, yes, I know my own attitude means the exact same thing applies to me. I myself could be subject to a just retribution. And I'd welcome it.

... this. Thanks, I guess, for anticipating and addressing it right away.

In that case, I don't know that there is much left to discuss. You describe a world where you consider yourself to be the problem: a righteous killer in need of putting down. In a world of righteous killers needing to do the killing and then be killed themselves.

Because in your view, I don't see room for the "normal" people who hesitate to kill. Either they are failing in their duty to eliminate The Threat, or if not, they are The Threat themselves.

Rejecting that view seems to be the only way to break the cycle you describe. So I'll continue to do that.

Quote:

Well, I'm just an amoral nutjob. What do I know about despising the darkness or morally right and wrong?

I hadn't had the impression that you are either of those things.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:21 PM

Quote:
Because in your view, I don't see room for the "normal"

Not involved. As they should be.

I'm not out to shock people out of where they live or undermine the choices they've made. They can live content.

If they reach out to this cynical and dark-hearted side of the world, they have to be knowing, it has to be wholehearted, and it has a high price. I can't live any other way. But other people, they can.

Quote:
Rejecting that view seems to be the only way to break the cycle you describe. So I'll continue to do that.

There's a balance in this world, and that is the balance.

MIKER

Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:37 AM

CHRISISALL

Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Killing for revenge may feel right. Doesn't mean it is right. It's a gratuitous act, an exertion of power to alleviate some lingering feeling of vulnerability. It's not a constructive act.

And there's an important word there you don't seem to totally comprehend the meaning of: revenge.
Mal did NOT shoot that soldier out of revenge, he shot him out of expediency. And did him a kindness in the process (like Byte said, he was dead any way you look at, and starving out alone ain't fun). Yeah, Mal was on the ice cold edge losing it like that, but what would you have him do with the guy? Please tell us. Just don't say anything like "they could have tied him up & taken him with them using precious time they couldn't afford to waste" or "They could have left him food they didn't have to eat after they left" because both sound pretty gorram ridiculous...
And please stop saying 'revenge' in every post- sounds like a sermon, and sermons make me sleepy.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OLDGUY:
in the case of the Train job - there was a real threat made that was completely believable..as soon as they would set that monster free, he would come back to kill members of the crew and ultimately Mal...I didn't see that as even an execution, just finishing the fight.

Quite. And let's not forget that Mal was still bleeding from a knife wound MEANT to KILL him... the momentum of the emotional reaction was still in flux, and Crow chose to overplay his weak and angry hand SEVERELY.
Like the man said to Han, "A Deathmark's not an easy thing to live with."
Mal just rid his crew of the Deathmark.
An ounce of Mal prevention is worth a pound of Crow/Niska cure, as it were.

OONJERAH

Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:35 PM

I still would have wanted the soldier's intel, the ship's intel, any intel
I could get!
But there really wasn't time, I guess.

Intel: All of you see a lot of stuff that I missed. My next viewing of
BDM & BDS will be more interesting.

Locally, I'm introducing a couple of FF deprived neighbors to it. My
best friend is already crazy for Morena from another show. I just told
him, "Well, Firefly has more beautiful women!"

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And there's an important word there you don't seem to totally comprehend the meaning of: revenge.

*nod-nod* Sure. Go on.

Quote:

Mal did NOT shoot that soldier out of revenge, he shot him out of expediency. And did him a kindness in the process (like Byte said, he was dead any way you look at, and starving out alone ain't fun). Yeah, Mal was on the ice cold edge losing it like that, but what would you have him do with the guy? Please tell us. Just don't say anything like "they could have tied him up & taken him with them using precious time they couldn't afford to waste" or "They could have left him food they didn't have to eat after they left" because both sound pretty gorram ridiculous...

Yes, they could have just left him there, if they didn't have the time for anything else. (I sincerely doubt they took the time to evacuate every last shred of food on Haven.)

I don't really care if you think it's ridiculous, but killing out of expendiency is the same thing the Operative did. Different targets, same logic. It was convenient. Mal wouldn't have shot any surviving person on Haven, he shot the guy because he judged he deserved it. That, to me, is revenge.

Quote:

And please stop saying 'revenge' in every post- sounds like a sermon, and sermons make me sleepy.

I'll say it however often I like, so you best grab your blanket and cuddly bear.

I'm not out to convince you, btw, before you pull out any more Mal quotes. I'm merely participating in this conversation, so that pissy tone you're using, as if I've personally insulted you in some way and you need to impress upon me how stupid I am? Not really called for.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:08 PM

Quote:
(I sincerely doubt they took the time to evacuate every last shred of food on Haven.)

I think it's more like the food and drink probably burned with their homes. The place looked wrecked. And the surroundings were a wasteland. Not a good place to be marooned.

And that's if Reavers don't show up, which was suggested to be a problem (and also why the people of Haven even had that big anti-aircraft gun).

Quote:
Mal wouldn't have shot any surviving person on Haven

He didn't shoot Book, but yelled for Simon to hurry up and administer medical aid despite the fact he was clearly dying. Perhaps to try to comfort himself and Book.

Although if Book had asked Mal to make it fast, I don't think Mal would have refused. And I actually think Book might have been the only person on Haven Mal would have tried to give medical aid they didn't really have and couldn't afford. He actually probably would have shot other survivors to end their suffering.

In fairness, I don't think Mal shot the soldier to preemptively end his suffering. That was more of a unforeseen side benefit.

Quote:
he shot the guy because he judged he deserved it.

I think he shot the guy because it was necessary, for all inherent meanings of the word necessary in this case. Because of what the soldier did, because it's HUMAN to be upset to the point of rage by someone who did what that soldier did, because they couldn't take him along, because the soldier wasn't going to survive. Because a surrendered soldier would be in his way, this after Mal giving a speech about the consequences of that. Because the soldier wasn't trustworthy (look at what he did) and would remain a threat.

All of that.

Necessary isn't a moral qualifier. It was murder. I'm not disagreeing there. But it was murder in the same way capital punishment is murder. And I get you don't agree with capital punishment - I don't really either, because two wrongs don't make a right and since when is a bunch of people who WEREN'T THERE piecing together the evidence (which might be incorrect) and voting on a stranger's life somehow civilized and acceptable?

But the thing in this case is, WE were there. As the audience. We know what the soldier did, and so did Mal.

More technically, it's manslaughter because it wasn't really planned but was a crime of passion, provoked by the fact that the victim JUST MASSACRED AN ENTIRE FRIKKIN VILLAGE OF NONHOSTILES. Even if the guy was or could become repentant, how do you even live with that, and if he wasn't, we're back to him being completely unsympathetic and very dangerous and the cold facts of necessity.

Now, this isn't a war time situation, Mal can't be considered a member of any existing opposing military. At that point he himself is a civilian, despite still wearing the colours of his unit.

But for perspective, ask yourself if during the war you think Mal would have tolerated anyone under his command pulling the same sort of shit, or if he would've just shot them. See also the Dead or Alive script, where Mal kills a former browncoat he'd known in the war who had turned civilian-murdering bombing terrorist. And in that case, law enforcement looked the other way instead of bringing Mal up on charges, because of the nature of the crime the terrorist was killed for.

The short version of it is, while this was VERY personal, Mal didn't shoot the soldier out of revenge. He would have done the same to anyone who'd destroyed a town for political reasons. Quite frankly, I have trouble seeing that as anything but understandable righteous anger and moral decency. And that's why I don't think it was wrong.

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 30, 2014 1:51 AM

Thanks Byte, you're my hero. You said all I am too, err... not good with speech to say!!

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 30, 2014 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

*nod-nod* Sure. Go on.

that pissy tone you're using, as if I've personally insulted you in some way and you need to impress upon me how stupid I am? Not really called for.

Not meaning to sound pissy as much as show you how your personal philosophy, however commendable (and it IS commendable) does not easily define EVERY situation you come across. But Byte put it all better than I ever could a couple posts north.
And I DON'T think you're stupid, bro.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE