General Discussions
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 11 of 14
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:05 AM
Quote:So, Mal kills the conscientious objector to impress the hell out of Jayne and Mal is without fault? I want you on my jury when I'm charged with murder. I know just the kind of story to tell you for a not guilty verdict.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Then He knew upon surrendering that he was takin' his chances. He should have stayed put & shut up, but he rolled the dice & he lost.
Originally posted by second:
He was just a military deserter. He was a stowaway. That's why he survived. He was not with the crew. He was in the back. He thought he could sneak away when the gunship landed on moon called Haven.
Still not Mal's fault.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:37 AM
Quote:SECOND, what you're doing wrong here is guiding everything towards your desired outcome.
Originally posted by second:
So, Mal kills the conscientious objector to impress the hell out of Jayne and Mal is without fault? I want you on my jury when I'm charged with murder. I know just the kind of story to tell you for a not guilty verdict.
Let's turn it around.
That conscious objector is ME. I stow away hearing that the ship is on its way to Haven. I'm stupid enough to think that it's not on a paramilitary black bag op. Then when there, I notice a lot of firing noises. Then I feel the crash. When it all calms down I peek outside & see the results of the strafing. I sit down in the ship, realizing that I'm the only one left intact here. I wonder what I'm gonna do now. Then I hear a ship land. I ponder for a good long while as to whether I should try surrendering to folk that are probably gonna think I'm just another Alliance creep deserving some of what they think I helped cause here.... I decide to try. Oops, too far away to hear me yelling that I wasn't part of- oh. I'm shot. That sucks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 2:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Well, I'm amazed at how institutions control our thinking to such a degree. A Cop shoots a kid he believes has a gun, that's acceptable. A Soldier shoots a kid he believes has a weapon, acceptable. Mal shoots a confirmed dirtbag killer not really caring if he might have a weapon or not, and he's a murderer.
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to save character and people they like from certain labels.
But an institution finding said surrendering soldier guilty of treason against Parliament & multiple murders sentencing him to death is okay, because, y'know, a body of men with titles is so much more morally correct than a single principled one with no shiny badge or active military rank.
Ugh, I got a piece of sarcasm stuck in my teeth....
Suprisingly I don't think it's okay for the state to sentence people to death.
An eye for an eye leaves the world blind!
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 2:38 AM
Quote:Okay, common ground; I don't either.
Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:
Surprisingly I don't think it's okay for the state to sentence people to death.
But I understand summary executions in times of war. In extreme circumstances, humanity must give way to expediency in order to survive.
Bottom line, first time I saw Mal shoot that guy I was truly shocked how cold he'd become. But I did not for one second care that the surrendering Alliance scum had been killed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 2:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You're assuming that 1) "killing unarmed" is a specific determination of "murder" (it is not), 2) the Alliance pilot didn't have a pistol on him (unlikely), and 3) that Crow's efforts to kill Mal just prior to the trussing him up in front of an engine to get some concessions doesn't count as facing Mal while armed.
You'd get better mileage out of focusing on the fact the Alliance pilot was surrendering.
In both cases those people were not a threat at the time in which Mal killed them. That is murder.
Can we understand why Mal killed them, yes. Does it change what it was, no.
Okay, agreed. I've even said that it is still murder.
But the unarmed thing and those poor helpless people Mal killed so immorally? Come on. No way.
For the pilot that's like saying a guy in a broken down tank that mowed over a bunch of pedestrians first is unarmed and harmless. He's still in an Alliance designed war machine at the time for cryin' out loud.
For Dobson that's like saying a guy who's trying to abduct a child for some seedy torture pr0n (government funded or not) and pointing a gun around when he's known to shoot on a hair-trigger is a cuddly teddy bear.
And for Crow... The guy couldn't be harmless and unarmed unless you literally sawed his arms off.
Regardless of what the pilot and Crow did or could do at the time Mal kills them they are not a threat to him. I understand why Mal killed them, but that does not make that a moral thing to do.
Keep in mind that when I was talking about Dobson I'm talking about the fact that Mal tells Simon that at some point Dobson is going to have to be delt with. Mal understand that he can't let Dobson live, because it will mean the crew being wanted. In the end Dobson puts himself in a position in which Mal was more then justified in killing him.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 2:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, common ground; I don't either.
But I understand summary executions in times of war. In extreme circumstances, humanity must give way to expediency in order to survive.
Bottom line, first time I saw Mal shoot that guy I was truly shocked how cold he'd become. But I did not for one second care that the surrendering Alliance scum had been killed.
I can understand that need as well, but need does not a moral act make.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 2:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by M52NICKERSON:
Regardless of what the pilot and Crow did or could do at the time Mal kills them they are not a threat to him. I understand why Mal killed them, but that does not make that a moral thing to do.
Only if it's assumed killing is never moral, or that killing is only ever moral or justified when the other person is armed, which I disagree with.
Quote:
Keep in mind that when I was talking about Dobson I'm talking about the fact that Mal tells Simon that at some point Dobson is going to have to be delt with. Mal understand that he can't let Dobson live, because it will mean the crew being wanted. In the end Dobson puts himself in a position in which Mal was more then justified in killing him.
Actually, Mal's question there is pushing Simon in that scene to try to figure out Simon's character. He himself is not sure what to do about the Fed, as is shown with a conversation where Zoe tells Jayne that outright killing the Fed would be the dumbest thing they could do, and Mal's attitude kind of suggests he agrees. That's why they end up tying Dobson up and locking him in a room instead of shooting him right away.
It's not until Dobson breaks out and goes monkey shit again threatening everyone with a gun that Mal finally shoots him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 3:00 AM
Quote:
He is none of those. He was just a military deserter. He was a stowaway. That's why he survived. He was not with the crew. He was in the back. He thought he could sneak away when the gunship landed on moon called Haven.
Where are you even getting this? Is this rhetorical?
If he was a military deserter or disagreed with them bombing the village then while he was on the ship he did a damn shitty job trying to stop it. That kinda standing aside and letting evil happen can be and in this case is just as culpable as the actual killing. Anyone on that ship had blood on their hands, whether they were flying at the time or target spotting or opening the bomb bay or cowering in a corner like a rat.
And if he was really intending to get help from the town, after his former crew bombed them, then he done screwed up even worse than I previously estimated.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 3:09 AM
Quote:It's his 'what if' to demonstrate how Mal could be more easily labelled a bad man.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Where are you even getting this?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 3:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Only if it's assumed killing is never moral, or that killing is only ever moral or justified when the other person is armed, which I disagree with.
If they are a danger to you or someone else at that moment, yes I think killing can be seen as moral. A person tied up or putting their hands up in surrender, not so much.
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Actually, Mal's question there is pushing Simon in that scene to try to figure out Simon's character. He himself is not sure what to do about the Fed, as is shown with a conversation where Zoe tells Jayne that outright killing the Fed would be the dumbest thing they could do, and Mal's attitude kind of suggests he agrees. That's why they end up tying Dobson up and locking him in a room instead of shooting him right away.
It's not until Dobson breaks out and goes monkey shit again threatening everyone with a gun that Mal finally shoots him.
We will disagree. I think by the time Mal has that talk with Simon is has come to the conclusion that Dobson is going to have to be killed in order to keep the ship safe. The only other real option they had was to dump Simon, River and Dobson on Whitefall and hope Dobson would simply not worry about pursing Serenity having what he was looking for. By the time Mal talks to Simon I thing he is thinking about asking Simon to stay, which leaves only one option.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME