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: 19484
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 3, 2014 4:19 AM

I've had this discussion many times, but I just wanted to see where it sits with y'all now.
My take:
Mal was pressed for time, a bit unhinged & stressed to the limit.
The surrendering dude was from the ship that killed Haven.
I would have done the same.
Some have said he might have been just a innocent cook or some such. That's gorram stupid. No cooks on an attack ship.
Yeah, Mal might have been quick with it, but how can you judge if you weren't there?

Oh, but you kinda WERE, seein' as it was a movie & all.

Thoughts? Again?

WHOZIT

Thursday, April 3, 2014 4:49 AM

The guy had killed a lot of people, it was more an execution.

WISHIMAY

Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:20 AM

Why we still talking about this??

You kill me and mine (AND KIDS) yer gonna get a bullet and I'm gonna be just thrilled you're dead...

P.S. Pretty sure the guy surrendering could have been doing so just to get them to lower their guard so he could kill them then.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:42 AM

I didn't see it that way, but could be...

MIKER

Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 3, 2014 10:55 AM

Were they inclined to take prisoners ?
Nope.

If anything the just-following-orders creep shoulda been glad Mal and company were pressed for time and he got it quick and clean - had Mal sicced Jayne on him with time to spare that coulda been pretty unpleasant.

Quote:
I was gonna get me an ear, too!
-Jayne Cobb

-F

SECOND

Thursday, April 3, 2014 9:20 PM

Quote:
I was gonna get me an ear, too!
-Jayne Cobb

Jayne is a little cruel, isn't he? Mal, not so much.

Mal did do wrong because he did things out of order to heighten the drama. Second thing Mal should have done is find Book. First thing is check for enemies.

Inside the Alliance gunship is the first place to look for enemies, yet doing things right would have thrown off the pace of the movie and Mal is not suppose to be aware that he is inside a movie.

Mal shooting the surrendering man was very much one of those movie moments – totally artificial and completely disconnected from law, rules of war, and morality. Killing the surrendering man was very cinematic and did make good tactical sense because Mal was facing a mutinous crew and needed to assert his authority.

Besides, dead men don't plead for mercy or wiggle around when wire-roped to Serenity's bow. Mal is very practical. So is Joss Whedon, who did not want an R rating for his movie. Get a PG-13 with some quick justice, limited gore, roll the credits, The End.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

OLDGUY

Thursday, April 3, 2014 9:50 PM

his journey started with "wars done...all just folk now..."

but he found himself once again at war..under attack...the captain who had to return to being a soldier knows how to find his way back to the dark places.

there was no time for taking prisoners
there was no value in the leftover dumb soldier who likely was just following orders..that guy was wanting to surrender..which means he had no purpose in the fight...else he would have made effort to engage rather than surrender.
it also presented a risk...not only that he might seek escape, etc like the original pilot episode, but that it would be a distraction for the crew he was about to lead into battle...anything that trooper might have said may have caused confusion and doubt for some of the crew...there was no room for doubt now...it was time to act..decisively....I don't know how much of this mindset Joss understands or has been exposed to, but I felt they captured it very well with his sudden and swift shooting decision.

MUTT999

Thursday, April 3, 2014 10:36 PM

Mal would never know it, but the guy he shot was the pilot of the ship that killed Book and the rest of Haven. Not that it matters. I always thought Mal did that guy a mercy by killing him quickly. Not too unlike the Alliance guy Mal shot back at the bank heist.

MIKER

Thursday, April 3, 2014 10:42 PM

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 3, 2014 10:46 PM

Frankly, judging by the state of the wreck the guy emerged from and the apparent climate of Haven and his chances of survival in general, he was already dead and didn't even know it. And that's even before he tried to peace time surrender (?) to a bunch of non-military personnel with a personal connection to the people he just massacred. That's just the cherry on top of the stupid.

The way people talk you'd think Mal was still in the Independent Army, and the war was still on. IHL doesn't apply because the events of the Serenity movie couldn't even qualify as a non-international armed conflict.

Only the Alliance pilot would've answered to a military tribunal, since he destroyed an entire town of civilians while theoretically in the service of the recognized government of that settlement. Most probably the operation would have been disavowed by the time he got to trial and he'd have been considered rogue. Seeing as how the Alliance isn't exactly gonna admit that it engages in state-sponsored terrorism.

There could be a criminal case for the shooting against Mal, but you couldn't really argue that what he did constitutes a war crime. He'd be tried in a civilian criminal court. And if it was up to the Alliance he would have been convicted of murder. But among us fans who know some of the context, there's probably an argument here for some pretty serious freakin' extenuating circumstances.

Quote:
Mal would never know it, but the guy he shot was the pilot of the ship that killed Book and the rest of Haven.

Oh he knew. Book said that the ship he shot down was the one that bombed them. It doesn't take a whole lot of figuring to realize that anyone emerging from that ship must have some responsibility for the attack.

SECOND

Thursday, April 3, 2014 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OLDGUY:
there was no time for taking prisoners
there was no value in the leftover dumb soldier who likely was just following orders...

When there is time to take prisoners and the prisoner is valuable, the prisoner often gets killed, anyway. What feels right at the moment is all that counts in the movies. And sometimes in the real world. I got a real example: killing bin Laden.

Legal and ethical aspects of Osama bin Laden's killing, such as his not being taken alive despite being unarmed and wounded and unconscious on the floor, were questioned by others, including Amnesty International. Also controversial was the decision to not release any photographic or DNA evidence of bin Laden's death to the public. As if the President did not want to be questioned. The Navy Seals would not keep quiet about how proud they were of themselves. I think Mal will not be writing about his proud day. He will have some doubts about what he did, but he's willing to burn in hell for what he has done. He is not wanting a book deal or a medal of valor or military pension.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden
www.amazon.com/No-Easy-Day-First-hand-Account-ebook/dp/B008MG1E4A/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

BROWNCOAT1

Thursday, April 3, 2014 10:59 PM

Chris, good to see you still around.

As for your question, I can say without a doubt I would have done the same as Mal. The guy was on an attack ship that strafed a village full of refugees, some of them women and children, and killed them. Some may argue they were "ordered" to do so, but having been a soldier I can tell you I would have disobeyed such an order. Perhaps they pilots of the gunship were lied to about who was on Haven, but honestly one pass and a sensor sweep would have showed there were no ships there, no real weapons to speak of, and that women and children were on the ground.

The fact that Mal ended the man with a single round from his sidearm is a tad more merciful than I would have been in the same situation.

_______________________________________________

Holding the line since December '02!

C.O. 76th Independent Battalion

http://76thbattalion.proboards.com

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 3, 2014 11:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OLDGUY:
I don't know how much of this mindset Joss understands or has been exposed to, but I felt they captured it very well with his sudden and swift shooting decision.

Sounds like experience talking, eh?

SECOND

Thursday, April 3, 2014 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
As for your question, I can say without a doubt I would have done the same as Mal.

We are not at tavern, drinking ourselves into a coma, so I call bullshit on "I would have done . . ."

Who, of us fans, would take a ride on Serenity with Mal? This is not hypothetical. Be truthful with yourself. Riding with Mal is like riding a class EF5 tornado into heaven. All of us would get off that boat at the first stop when we find out who the Captain really is. And sure as hell none of can be Mal. We could never make the decisions that Mal makes because we would not be there with him in those awful situations.

Mal would have a really hard decision to make if anybody had survived in Haven. Does Mal abandon survivors? Take them with him? Leave Doctor Tam behind to take care of them?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

MUTT999

Thursday, April 3, 2014 11:49 PM

In both the movie and Shepherd's Tale, Book is killed by the ship. What's interesting is that in the novelization, the Operative himself kills Book. Comes at him from behind, right after Book shoots the ship down, and does that paralyzing hand trick he pulls on Mal. So Book can only stand there while the Operative gives the order to shoot. Book is riddled by bullets and then falls to the ground.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 3, 2014 11:50 PM

Quote:
Who, of us fans, would take a ride on Serenity with Mal? This is not hypothetical. Be truthful with yourself.

Mal is pretty much a raging human mess who occasionally approaches normalcy, and Jayne would actually be intolerable at the best of times. There's shootouts every planetside and week long periods of travel punctuated by sheer terror every now and then. There's not much money and food and water is rationed.

Serenity and the connection between the crew has it's charms, which is why it appeals to us, but living there would require some very real hardship.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2014 12:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Mal is pretty much a raging human mess who occasionally approaches normalcy

Oh, Mal can be fun...
"How much did I have to drink last night?"

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 4, 2014 12:18 AM

Quote:
Oh, Mal can be fun...
"How much did I have to drink last night?"

Fun, but still a mess. And when he's a raging mess, either in the sense of emotionally raging or in the sense of the quantity of mess that is happening... *wince* That is when people are shot. Most often him.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2014 12:25 AM

Thing is I see a soft side to Mal, why else would he let Simon get away with that sucker punch when they got back from the Reaver chase? Way I see it, a hard man'd slap a beatdown on a fella for less.

SECOND

Friday, April 4, 2014 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MUTT999:
In both the movie and Shepherd's Tale, Book is killed by the ship. What's interesting is that in the novelization, the Operative himself kills Book. Comes at him from behind, right after Book shoots the ship down, and does that paralyzing hand trick he pulls on Mal. So Book can only stand there while the Operative gives the order to shoot. Book is riddled by bullets and then falls to the ground.

Let's compare how Book makes life/death decisions with Mal's methods. From the novelization, they are very similar: http://books.google.com/books?isbn=141652391X

Quote:
Bernabe fought in a brutal war. Throughout, even though he knew plenty who got wounded, and plenty more who died, he never got hurt his own self. Mal once called him a good luck charm, but Bernabe just figured he was good at ducking, was all.

So until this moment, he'd never felt a bullet rip through his flesh.

As he fell to the ground, his bizarre thought was, hotter than I figured . . .

The bullet had gone through his back and out through his belly, and was 'round about what having a hot metal pipe shoved through your stomach probably felt like, though that, too, had never happened to Bernabe. To make up for it, he supposed, he couldn't feel a damn thing in his legs.

He did manage to roll over onto his back, though, and so he saw the man who shot him. It was some Alliance man wearing some kind of armor and carrying a pistol. He was now aiming it at Bernabe's head.

Guess I'll be joinin' you and the kids soon, Mildred.

Then the Alliance man fell down. Only then did Bernabe see Shepherd Book standing behind him with a mining tool he'd hit the Alliance man on the back of the head with.

Book then knelt down beside Bernabe. "Lie still, son—it's pretty bad, but we'll get you to a doctor soon-like."

"Shepherds ain't—supposed to lie." Bernabe could taste the blood in his mouth as he spoke.

A shot buzzed by—Bernabe felt it more than heard it. Moving remarkable fast, Book rolled over to Alliance man he'd thumped, grabbed the same gun Bernabe had been shot with, and shot another Alliance man.

"Shepherds ain't—supposed to be—shootin' people neither." Bernabe knew that folks what came Haven had pasts they didn't talk about—he knew mainly on account of he was one—but a preacher who was a crack shot went beyond what he was expecting.

Without another word, Book ran over to the cannon. Gently removing Doane's body and laying it on ground all respectful-like, he then leapt into the firing chair and whirled it on the Alliance ship just as it finished raining down fire on the shepherd's own church and adjoining garden.

Though Bernabe didn't rightly recognize the specific class of ship, he was familiar with the design type behind it. Was fair similar to the Striker-class that the Alliance favored during the war. This was souped up beyond all good sense, but Bernabe figured the engine core was in the same place.

He knew this mainly because Book's first and only shot went right to the spot on the undercarriage where Bernabe reckoned the core was.

Ship blew up a second later, crashing to the ground not too far from the cannon.

Shepherds ain't supposed to shoot down no ships. Bernabe was unable to make his mouth work no more. though, so was he stuck with just thinking it.

Which also meant Bernabe couldn't warn Book about the man who was coming up behind him. The man, who wore funny glasses, struck Book in the back. Book didn't move after that.

"Impressive. I must confess, while I expected some minor damage, I hadn't expected this." Then the man's eyes widened. "Ah, Derrial. Given what I've read about you, this was the last place I expected to see you. And the last mode of dress, for that matter. Oh, you don't know me, so you don't need to widen your eyes like that. But I know all about

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2014 1:27 AM

I'd like to think it wasn't the Operative that personally killed Book- that's just a little too melodramatic/comic book for me. That he sent the ship in was enough.

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 4, 2014 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Thing is I see a soft side to Mal, why else would he let Simon get away with that sucker punch when they got back from the Reaver chase? Way I see it, a hard man'd slap a beatdown on a fella for less.

Not saying he's always hard. Not even saying he doesn't have his admirable qualities or his friendly side. Saying he's a mess. Sometimes with anger issues.

It's like, this kid you know was bright and cheerful and idealistic, and he signs up for the army and gets deployed in Iraq. When he comes back, turns out the family farm got taken by the banks, his parents died, and who even knows where his highschool sweetheart went.

He's got nothing, but somehow he scrapes together the money to buy a home and even gets some roommates and renters moved in who seem like nice people except for that one guy who seems like kind of a thug. He seems like he's doing okay, he can still crack a joke, even though he can also be grumpy and cynical and impatient and he doesn't really take to new people anymore and he's been stockpiling guns for some reason.

Then you find out that he and his roommates have started smuggling drugs from Canada and tequila and canned food from Mexico and sometimes they hold up banks and steal from gated communities and other zany schemes. They get into shoot outs a lot and whenever things go wrong, and it always does, they gets away by the skin of their teeth by him coming up with some randomly improvized plan. Despite all this, they're always poor, and they rarely can afford to eat better than ramen noodles most nights. His girlfriend is a nice lady, pretty classy, who's also a prostitute.

Taken altogether, is this someone who makes you think, wow, they've really got it together, they have control of their life and they know where it's going?

He's a mess. Yeah, he's got reasons he's like that, yeah he's still a likeable guy, but he's a mess.

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 4, 2014 1:52 AM

Quote:
Under other circumstances, I might consider using the blade on you, but that is a thing of honor— and a man of the cloth shooting down a fully staffed vessel hardly qualifies as honorable. It barely qualifies as human." The man shook his head. "If only Captain Reynolds could see you now."

Wow. The novel really makes the Operative even more of a self-righteous hypocrite.

Gotta give props for hitting exactly the psychological weak points that would get to Book though.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2014 2:06 AM

Yeah, but see, that ain't subtle.

WISHIMAY

Friday, April 4, 2014 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Who, of us fans, would take a ride on Serenity with Mal? This is not hypothetical. Be truthful with yourself. Riding with Mal is like riding a class EF5 tornado into heaven. All of us would get off that boat at the first stop when we find out who the Captain really is. And sure as hell none of can be Mal. We could never make the decisions that Mal makes because we would not be there with him in those awful situations.

I hate playin' hypotheticals. They're pretty much useless. Too many variables...

But yeah... Mal is my kinda crazy. You'd have to know me better than what I say here- and I doubt anyone ever will- but Mal is the reason I came here and the reason I'm still here I think... All I need is a reason and trust from a person and I'd join 'em in hell

I just wish he WAS a person, actual and whole.....

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 4, 2014 6:18 AM

Pilot who kills Book and wants to stay alive long enough to signal Alliance where Mal is and get picked up by his cronies - you are dead.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 4, 2014 6:25 AM

Good question. That shooting always bothered me even in the context of all the other casual violence in the FF verse. No matter how you slice it, Mal murdered the guy in cold blood. In a "declared" war it would be considered a war crime. In the nebulous criminal/rebel situation Mal found himself in, it was still nonetheless a despicable and cowardly act of cold-blooded murder of a surrendering soldier.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2014 6:35 AM

Jong, we must respectively agree to disagree here. Authoritarian judgements have no place where Authority fails to act within the confines of legality & moral legitimacy. The Operatives' strike on Haven was illegal AND immoral, hence any action(s) pursuant to said action involving force cannot be 'objectively' judged without prejudice, therefore, they cannot be judged at all IMO.
Law of the jungle, baby.

WISHIMAY

Friday, April 4, 2014 7:01 AM

Well, that was a lot nicer worded than what I would've said.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 4, 2014 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Jong, we must respectively agree to disagree here.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Quote:
Authoritarian judgements have no place where Authority fails to act within the confines of legality & moral legitimacy.

Who judges the authority? Anarchists? Bank robbers? Model makers?

Quote:
The Operatives' strike on Haven was illegal AND immoral,

That's one opinion.

Quote:
Law of the jungle, baby.

Is that what you advocate? Vigilantism? Chaos? Anarchy? Mob rule? What if the mob turns on you and yours? Are you the baddest badass in the jungle? You'll need to be if it ever comes to that.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2014 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Who judges the authority? Anarchists? Bank robbers? Model makers?

If you have to ask then maybe you should do some serious thinking...
Quote:
That's one opinion.
No man, not just mine- that's the opinion of the Operative himself- did you even SEE the film, bro?
Quote:
Is that what you advocate? Vigilantism? Chaos? Anarchy? Mob rule?
What gets set into play must be played upon; I don't make the rules.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, April 4, 2014 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

What gets set into play must be played upon; I don't make the rules.

I see how it is for you. In case we happen to meet somewhere in the Zombie Apocalypse you better come at me heavy then.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2014 8:15 AM

Silly silly British man.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 4, 2014 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
We are not at tavern, drinking ourselves into a coma, so I call bullshit on "I would have done . . ."

Who, of us fans, would take a ride on Serenity with Mal? This is not hypothetical. Be truthful with yourself. Riding with Mal is like riding a class EF5 tornado into heaven. All of us would get off that boat at the first stop when we find out who the Captain really is. And sure as hell none of can be Mal. We could never make the decisions that Mal makes because we would not be there with him in those awful situations.

Mal would have a really hard decision to make if anybody had survived in Haven. Does Mal abandon survivors? Take them with him? Leave Doctor Tam behind to take care of them?

Oh I would, if the alternative was having to live in Alliance turf I'd throw in without a blink even knowing what a personal and professional disaster the guy is, because by my very nature I'd have been one of them "independants" to begin with and not ever let the grudge go myself.
Sometimes in life, all the choices you got are ugly, and so you tend to go with the one that lets you live with yourself - that said, I'd be gettin *paid* for my troubles or I'd be on my merry right quick.

Worth remembering my actual employment is prettymuch front line security for a podunk apartment complex right across the street from the worst cesspool in this county, right smack in that damn polar vortex and at a time when some other complexes got bought out and pitched all their section 8 residents out into the snow just as their unemployment ran out and SNAP benefits were cut - leaving me in the unenviable position of playing goalie against hungry, angry people who's primary 'crime' was poverty, knowing that my actions might condemn some of them to freeze and starve.

Try for a moment to wrap your mind around just how *MUCH* I hate the bastards of this world who set us at each others throats to fight over scraps while they live the high life off our labors, and then tell me I wouldn't get along pretty well with Malcom Reynolds.

As for yon potential survivors, toss whatever supplies we could spare out the door and get the hell GONE before our presence brings more trouble down on em, simple as that.

-F

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2014 6:14 PM

Yeah, you sound like one of dem inipenents all right.

SECOND

Friday, April 4, 2014 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Try for a moment to wrap your mind around just how *MUCH* I hate the bastards of this world who set us at each others throats to fight over scraps while they live the high life off our labors, and then tell me I wouldn't get along pretty well with Malcolm Reynolds.

It is fun to pretend we're Mal and judge his actions as if we were him. It builds our ego and vanity. Except he is supernatural and we are not.

Mal is bringing justice to the 'Verse one extralegal killing at a time. He is NOT some kind of volunteer/social worker/armed security guard helping the poor & desperate. He flies down from heaven like an angel of death, gets a drink in a bar, then slays the wicked.

Mal is very satisfying to watch from a distance, through the legend creating process of a TV show. But if he were real, when you know all he can do, Mal is terrifying. Ask Tracey, the old war buddy from "The Message". Mal was once so friendly to Tracey!

Tracey thought Mal's legend as a stone cold killer was just hyperbole. Mal showed Tracey. Tracey could have lived if only Mal had explained Book's plan, but Mal preferred killing, presuming that the world is better without Tracey. That kind of Mal from "The Message" would never let the Alliance surrender on Haven. He would kill them all out of divine justice. (Joss Whedon is an atheist who writes screenplays with ideas ripped from the Bible.)

Mal is a force of nature and TV. We are not. Our opinions, morals, or rules of war are wasted breath to him. We are probably being very amusing to Joss, for he is God, at least on his own shows.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 4, 2014 9:24 PM

I'll have what you're having!

Look, if you're gonna be all like that then we can't make clear judgements on ANYTHING fictional at all, or even reality that WE ourselves don't directly experience.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 5, 2014 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Not saying he's always hard. Not even saying he doesn't have his admirable qualities or his friendly side. Saying he's a mess. Sometimes with anger issues.

It's like, this kid you know was bright and cheerful and idealistic, and he signs up for the army and gets deployed in Iraq. When he comes back, turns out the family farm got taken by the banks, his parents died, and who even knows where his highschool sweetheart went.

He's got nothing, but somehow he scrapes together the money to buy a home and even gets some roommates and renters moved in who seem like nice people except for that one guy who seems like kind of a thug. He seems like he's doing okay, he can still crack a joke, even though he can also be grumpy and cynical and impatient and he doesn't really take to new people anymore and he's been stockpiling guns for some reason.

Then you find out that he and his roommates have started smuggling drugs from Canada and tequila and canned food from Mexico and sometimes they hold up banks and steal from gated communities and other zany schemes. They get into shoot outs a lot and whenever things go wrong, and it always does, they gets away by the skin of their teeth by him coming up with some randomly improvized plan. Despite all this, they're always poor, and they rarely can afford to eat better than ramen noodles most nights. His girlfriend is a nice lady, pretty classy, who's also a prostitute.

Taken altogether, is this someone who makes you think, wow, they've really got it together, they have control of their life and they know where it's going?

He's a mess. Yeah, he's got reasons he's like that, yeah he's still a likeable guy, but he's a mess.

You put that all into some perspective pretty nicely, 'cept the world today ain't as effed as Mals' Verse, I think. It's still Earth that is.

BYTEMITE

Monday, April 7, 2014 8:46 AM

Quote:
You put that all into some perspective pretty nicely, 'cept the world today ain't as effed as Mals' Verse, I think. It's still Earth that is.

Yeah. And to be fair, I'd like to know Mal and be accepted on his crew and to have been an independent. But objectively speaking, I'd be dead.

Hehe. I don't think second realizes who he's talking to.

omigosh this's gonna be FUN.

LINGARN

Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:31 PM

Of course he was wrong.

The side that steals, smuggles, murders, etc? Those are the bad guys. We love the Robin Hood tale, and we enjoy seeing authority get its nose tweaked by someone with a good chin and witty dialogue.

Murdering an unarmed soldier who was injured in the course of his duties is wrong. It may feel good -- I for one enjoyed the vengeance, the certainty of strong leadership, etc. It is absolutely understandable, and very pragmatic. But that doesn't make it right.

We love Mal and the crew, and we want them to win. But that doesn't make them the good guys, even if sometimes they do good things.

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 11, 2014 12:21 AM

An unarmed soldier injured in the act of massacring civilians under an UNLAWFUL order. His "DUTY" was to refuse to kill civilians that he'd took an oath to protect.

Screw that guy, that's no good soldier. Nuremberg established just following orders isn't a valid defense. He gets no sympathy points, not any more than a Nazi should for killing their own people in a gas chamber.

WISHIMAY

Friday, April 11, 2014 1:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Hehe. I don't think second realizes who he's talking to.

omigosh this's gonna be FUN.

Second hasn't been in RWED as much, no...

BUT if there was a site that would allow points and wagering on a philosophical debates, my moneys on you Byte

Transmission error. Fixed now...

BYTEMITE

Friday, April 11, 2014 1:31 AM

Quote:
He hasn't been in RWED as much, no...

If there was a site that would allow points and wagering on a philosophical debates, my moneys on you Byte

Uh, I was talking about Frem.

I don't always talk about me, you know. I know it seems like it, I know you all think I think everything's about me. But sometimes I'm making a metaphor or an analogy.

I wouldn't have shot the Alliance soldier myself.

But I'd have punched him.

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 11, 2014 1:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Nuremberg established just following orders isn't a valid defense.

I am forced to agree with my esteemed colleague here.

FONGLUH

Friday, April 11, 2014 10:26 PM

I'd have to say that Mal was carryin' a bullet for that guy for a long time before it found him. Guess he didn't know the trick about dying of old age first ;)

In all seriousness though, he was on an alliance ship that kill a preacher and civilians, including kids. He had it comin'.

BWAH!

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:14 AM

I have to say, when Mal kicked Crow off his ship & into the engine, just after he had a look of borderline disgust on his face, as if he surely hated doing that; when he shot the surrendering dude, there was no such look. He was sweeping away a speck of dirt. That was Mal almost consumed by the dark side.

OONJERAH

Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:40 PM

The Surrendering Soldier.
(It's not his fault; I can justify all that he did.)

Probably I'm less honorable than Mal.
Take him prisoner, but as a war criminal, he can expect no mercy.
Maybe Simon's got a truth drug handy. Maybe not. Get all the informa-
tion he has about this Alliance expedition. If he cooperates, execute
him mercifully, in spite of he's just shown himself a traitor.

It was a clear No Win for him. War is Hell.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

The Shadow Knows ~Lamont Cranston

M52NICKERSON

Monday, May 26, 2014 9:47 AM

Yes it was wrong. However you want to slice it Mal murdered the guy, he also murdered Crow.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Monday, May 26, 2014 10:29 AM

Depends on whether you view individual moral judgement and vigilantism as valid ethical conduct, which I suspect you don't, and thus you probably believe that justice can really only be administered by a trial provided by a recognized government with legal jurisdiction.

Even if said government in this case would be corrupt as hell and almost certainly rule in favour of the civilian killing dickhead and against the misrepresented criminal cyber terrorists.

Crow was murder, though justifiable, the guy threatened them after trying to kill them. This after Mal offered the guy a way out without fighting.

Quote:
Many countries agree that it is lawful for a citizen to repel violence with violence to protect his or her own or another's life and limb, or to prevent sexual assault. However, there is less agreement on the extent to which it is justifiable to kill the attacker, as opposed to disarm or disable. The degree of response to the degree of threat may be tested. If the level of force used in defense matches the force threatened and the "winner" of the conflict first retreated or showed a clear intention not to fight (assuming this was possible in the time available), the killer may be exculpated.

The soldier... Is a bit more grey from my point of view. But I don't think Mal was wrong. Not practically and not ethically.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:03 AM

If someone tries to seriously harm me, I might kill them. Given the choice, I'd rather not. But truthfully, I'm no Rambo. I can't take a lot of abuse & still come back swinging. And honestly, I shouldn't have to worry on someone else's well being who was out to do ME harm. I'll throw everything I have in 5 seconds. He drops before I'm done, fine. He don't drop after I finish, I'm in deep trouble. Hope he lives, won't cry if he doesn't.

Way I see it, you can't murder someone who's trying to kill you.

Crow was trying to KILL Mal. I don't get how some don't get that...

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, May 27, 2014 1:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Way I see it, you can't murder someone who's trying to kill you.

Crow was trying to KILL Mal. I don't get how some don't get that...

Actually, he was not. He was tied up and threatening to kill Mal. With no way of doing it right then and there.

I can see how you can declare blurred lines, what with neither party having recourse to a proper authority to legally deal with that threat, but it's still not the same as "he was actively trying to kill Mal right then".

As for the soldier, I will never ever find it justifiable. This is from the same source inside me that finds the death penalty despicable and wrong. Killing in revenge is a moral surrender to the darkess we profess to despise.

I think that is exactly what that scene was supposed to show: Mal going over the edge. That speech and that shot is his darkest moment. He doesn't come back to his senses until later around the kitchen table when he actually starts treating his crew like human beings again, as opposed to tools/obstacles.

I love Mal as a character, but he utterly IS a murderer, out of convenience.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, May 27, 2014 8:23 PM

Quote:
This is from the same source inside me that finds the death penalty despicable and wrong.

Well sure. I can be against the death penalty. In theory.

But when Quisling sells Norway out to the Nazis, you can guess where those nice good-hearted sentiments go.

They actually re-instated the death penalty just for him. So that just goes to show that even the most civilized people have limits of they're willing to put up with before they resort to killing.

Me, I draw the line at a number of places, but a big one is being a jackboot civilian killing piece of trash in a line of work intended to protect civilians and thus violating all kinds of oaths and ethics pertaining to not killing civilians.

Quote:
Killing in revenge is a moral surrender to the darkness we profess to despise.

Unifying darkness and light with minimal casualties is what the human experience is all about. Despising darkness is despising part of yourself. It's denying entirely valid emotional states, that we evolved to ensure our survival.

And sometimes, it is oh so very RIGHT to act on them. Because anything else would be less than human. It's like expecting a mother to not defend her children to the death.

Mal's a murderer. Doesn't make him wrong.

OLDGUY

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:12 AM

gotta disagree...Mal is a "killer" not a murderer..

he made that clear to the good young doctor in the pilot epi.

he has been a soldier..in which he was a killer

he has shot and killed men with guns held to Kaylee's head, and 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.

it's a level of clear headed justice that this country in real life has long ago lost sight of, which is in great part why we have such evil living among us..openly...not even bothering to "lurk" any longer..just openly making youtube videos of what they plan to do and then doing it.

i'm not saying I wanna be Mal or even hang with the guy..although long from now when an oppressive govt has left me little liberty I might find his offering of free sky worth more than the rations given by my slave holders.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 5:05 AM

Woah! Late to the fray here and some very interesting debates... I didn't read 'em all though.

To answer this question of:
"Was Mal wrong when he shot the surrendering guy in Serenity?"

Yep! It's uncool to kill peeps.

°...Well here I am.°

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well sure. I can be against the death penalty. In theory.

There are plenty of people who are against it in practice.

Quote:

But when Quisling sells Norway out to the Nazis, you can guess where those nice good-hearted sentiments go.

They actually re-instated the death penalty just for him. So that just goes to show that even the most civilized people have limits of they're willing to put up with before they resort to killing.

And I find that shitty and sad of them.

"If something very bad happens to you, you will want to kill people, too!" doesn't seem like a very valuable argument in determining whether actions are morally right or wrong.

Quote:

Quote:
Killing in revenge is a moral surrender to the darkness we profess to despise.

Unifying darkness and light with minimal casualties is what the human experience is all about. Despising darkness is despising part of yourself. It's denying entirely valid emotional states, that we evolved to ensure our survival.

Emotional states are valid. Actions based on them are NOT all valid. The things we do in the height of trauma and emotion tend to not be proportionate, constructive, thought-through or necessarily compatible with our own long-term values.

People regret shit they DO all the time, they rarely have to regret shit they feel. Because feelings are valid but temporary.

Quote:

And sometimes, it is oh so very RIGHT to act on them. Because anything else would be less than human. It's like expecting a mother to not defend her children to the death.

That makes no sense. Self-defense from an immediate threat is entirely different from killing someone who is NOT an immediate threat, killing for revenge.

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.

Quote:

Mal's a murderer. Doesn't make him wrong.

I disagree. Murder is pretty much the definition of wrong.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:46 PM

Quote:
There are plenty of people who are against it in practice.

I like to keep my options open.

Am I somehow entitled to decide who lives and dies? To judge someone for what they've done? Definitely not. But if a person courts death, by killing others and bringing the possibility of retribution down on them, who am I to deny someone rushing headlong towards it?

The difference between the two of us is that you think that when someone stands down, the threat they pose has ended. But we're not talking about normal people. We're not talking about people like you, who would hesitate at the thought of killing anyone.

We're talking about people who DON'T hesitate, and WILL kill those who had never done any worse than try to live their lives. Because of the job, because of their boss, because of madness, because of their DUTY, the reasons are irrelevant.

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.

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.

Quote:
doesn't seem like a very valuable argument in determining whether actions are morally right or wrong.

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

SECOND

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

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

Let's change the movie just a tiny bit: What if the soldier had stayed hidden by playing dead? That's a sensible tactic for a soldier. When Mal grabs the corpse to chain it to Serenity, the "dead" body suddenly comes back to life and Mal, startled, shoots him dead, for real.

The soldier still is killed by Mal with only a tiny difference: Mal was startled by soldier. There isn't time for Mal to premeditate murder or use the soldier as an example to the crew of what will happen to them if they mutiny. Was Mal wrong in this new case?

Personally, I think it's more realistic than what was in the movie. (Joss does love too much his fake folksy Mal language.) I would have preferred to skip all the Mal speechifying: Mal does not explain his plan to the audience by talking to the crew and does not put down a mutiny. He is giving nobody any choices.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:25 PM

The soldier was dead to begin with, due to his own actions. The question of when he died isn't really consequential.

If he died from the anti-air-craft gun perforating the cockpit, if he died in the crash, if he died bleeding out from injuries, if he died surrendering to Mal, if he died because he played dead and tried to surprise the crew, if he waited out the crew and died from starvation in the wasteland of Haven with no civilization around him and no way off world, it doesn't matter. He was dead anyway.

Why should Mal shooting the soldier bother us when he was merely finishing off the job the Shepherd started? Book was responsible for the death, do we disagree with why Book killed the soldier? Do we think leaving the soldier alive to suffer or holding him captive would have been a better fate?

SECOND

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 10:09 PM

I agree that the soldier has to die. What I don't agree with is Joss having Mal use the soldier as an example of what will happen to the crew if they don't obey. Everything stops in the movie while Mal gives another speech, like he's addressing his troops and concerned about their morale. Then he underlines a point by executing a soldier. Mal really means business now, Jayne. You better shut your mouth or you're next.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

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.

BYTEMITE

Friday, May 30, 2014 3:02 AM

Quote:
however commendable (and it IS commendable) does not easily define EVERY situation you come across.

Few things do.

Even Jesus and one of the incarnations of Buddha killed people. And as philosophers they're thought to be the pinnacle of morality by a lot of people, whether or not you're at all religious. Both very anti-killing as well, I note.

AR's beliefs are valid, logically consistent, and a worthwhile endeavor. No killing at all would be a great goal for everyone. I'm not sure it's achievable - we kill to eat, and grow our food, we kill to defend ourselves from both illness and human and animal attackers. We kill some of our own cells every day, let alone terminate pregnancies for various fully justifiable reasons. Death and life are two sides of the same coin, just as light and dark. But as something to strive for both as a person and as a society, I can respect no killing, yes.

No-killing, as I said, balances with other workable moral frameworks out there. Morality can and often is relative, and sometimes an inflexible law is not sufficient to address all possible applications of morality. Sometimes, morality must be left up to personal judgement outside of law. Sometimes, a person who kills can and must still be innocent, and sometimes, even someone who commits intentional murder could still be considered free of wrong-doing.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, May 30, 2014 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
however commendable (and it IS commendable) does not easily define EVERY situation you come across.

Few things do.

Even Jesus and one of the incarnations of Buddha killed people.

Jesus did? Was that in one of the apocryphal gospels, in his childhood? I vaguely recall reading about it, but I didn't think it was official canon, so to speak.

Quote:

AR's beliefs are valid, logically consistent, and a worthwhile endeavor. No killing at all would be a great goal for everyone. I'm not sure it's achievable - we kill to eat, and grow our food, we kill to defend ourselves from both illness and human and animal attackers. We kill some of our own cells every day, let alone terminate pregnancies for various fully justifiable reasons. Death and life are two sides of the same coin, just as light and dark. But as something to strive for both as a person and as a society, I can respect no killing, yes.

No-killing, as I said, balances with other workable moral frameworks out there. Morality can and often is relative, and sometimes an inflexible law is not sufficient to address all possible applications of morality. Sometimes, morality must be left up to personal judgement outside of law. Sometimes, a person who kills can and must still be innocent, and sometimes, even someone who commits intentional murder could still be considered free of wrong-doing.

I want to emphasize that I do not condemn all killing in all circumstances. I find abortion to be a tragic but justified killing, I wouldn't condemn anyone who killed necessarily in self-defense. I can get behind euthanasia if carefully crafted around consent and information.

I also understand mitigating psychological circumstances.

But any killing of people remains a tragedy and a violence on victim and perpetrator alike, to me. So if it is not avoided when not utterly necessary, I'm going to see it as a crime, as a perpetuation of abuse.

I really appreciate the discussion, even if we have different opinions.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:27 AM

Quote:
Jesus did? Was that in one of the apocryphal gospels, in his childhood? I vaguely recall reading about it, but I didn't think it was official canon, so to speak.

Well, he WAS a revolutionary rebelling against Roman rule and hypocrites in his religious community. He talked about trading in swords for plows, but he also told them to grab their swords when he went to turn out the money lenders in the temple.

He told his followers to go grab people from the streets who wouldn't follow him and kill them in Luke 19:27. "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

A time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build. For everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven.

Christian beliefs. Ecclesiastes.

Thou shall not kill is one of the ten commandments, but it's also pretty clear there are exceptions to the rule.

What's more, if you follow their logic that Jesus was an incarnation of the old testament God... Implications.

And yeah, the one you mentioned, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, though I'm not sure that one is recognized by church authorities.

Quote:

But any killing of people remains a tragedy and a violence on victim and perpetrator alike, to me. So if it is not avoided when not utterly necessary, I'm going to see it as a crime, as a perpetuation of abuse.

Sure. I agree.

Just I think sometimes it isn't necessarily wrong. Still sad though I suppose. Although I'm a bit too pissed off still about the soldier in question to really feel sad about his lost chances or for his family.

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, May 31, 2014 4:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Jesus did? Was that in one of the apocryphal gospels, in his childhood? I vaguely recall reading about it, but I didn't think it was official canon, so to speak.

Well, he WAS a revolutionary rebelling against Roman rule and hypocrites in his religious community. He talked about trading in swords for plows, but he also told them to grab their swords when he went to turn out the money lenders in the temple.

He told his followers to go grab people from the streets who wouldn't follow him and kill them in Luke 19:27. "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

A time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build. For everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven.

Christian beliefs. Ecclesiastes.

Thou shall not kill is one of the ten commandments, but it's also pretty clear there are exceptions to the rule.

What's more, if you follow their logic that Jesus was an incarnation of the old testament God... Implications.

Yikes.

Not being a Christian, I'm glad I don't have to try and reconcile his more peaceful messages with.. this.

Quote:

Quote:

But any killing of people remains a tragedy and a violence on victim and perpetrator alike, to me. So if it is not avoided when not utterly necessary, I'm going to see it as a crime, as a perpetuation of abuse.

Sure. I agree.

Just I think sometimes it isn't necessarily wrong. Still sad though I suppose. Although I'm a bit too pissed off still about the soldier in question to really feel sad about his lost chances or for his family.

He was a criminal participant in murder. It's not sympathy for his plight that motivates my feelings, necessarily.

But I think we both understand each other's view points pretty well by now. Mine strains against emotional and practical limits, yours harbors the trappings of a vicious cycle. There is no easy or perfect approach that will satisfy everyone.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:53 AM

That last bit was very well put, AGENTROUKA.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, May 31, 2014 7:26 AM

Quote:

Yikes.

Not being a Christian, I'm glad I don't have to try and reconcile his more peaceful messages with.. this.

In fairness, Oonjerah pointed out to me that Luke 19:27 is a parable where Jesus compares how people will have to look into his face on Judgement Day with that specific quote from a king who was doing all that killing...

but, uh, yeah. Judgement Day is some pretty hardcore blood bath torture stuff. And that's without getting into the tribulations, and the last battle against the army of the antichrist.

Quote:
But I think we both understand each other's view points pretty well by now. Mine strains against emotional and practical limits, yours harbors the trappings of a vicious cycle. There is no easy or perfect approach that will satisfy everyone.

Also agreed.

OONJERAH

Saturday, May 31, 2014 7:38 AM

Quote Bytemite quoting Jesus: He told his followers to go grab people from the streets
who wouldn't follow him and kill them in Luke 19:27. "But those enemies of mine who
did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

I love this sort of thing. Sorry I'm late.

I am no Bible authority, but I had to look that up. 'Cause if Jesus
said that, it would have been a very famous part of his story.

Luke 19:11-27 The Parable of the Ten Minas.
Jesus is reciting the parable in which "A man of noble birth went to
a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return."
It is the nobleman ordering the killings. But yes, I suppose it is
common for readers to see this as an instruction from Jesus to his
followers. Probably it's what Luke heard/felt.

Matthew 25:14-30 also tells The Parable of the Ten Minas. Very
different from above.

In that version, there is no mention of enemies or killing; there
is a journey, no mention of being appointed king. I'd interpret
Matthew's version to mean that Jesus will die and then return.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 1, 2014 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
the last battle against the army of the antichrist.

He's a coward, and a pisspot.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, June 1, 2014 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
the last battle against the army of the antichrist.
He's a coward, and a pisspot.

Hmm? No, he actually rides at the front of what followers he has left against all the human followers of the anti-christ of which there are legion.

He then kills all his enemies by shouting at them with God's voice. It's pretty anti-climactic. Which after trashing the entire world and rendering it uninhabitable, and only a thousand humans survive the whole thing, I guess it would make sense for the earth's last gasp to be understated.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 2, 2014 2:12 AM

Oh, I meant the Anti-Christ was a coward & a pisspot.
And stupid too, seeing as he'll do all this knowing his outcome in the matter.

OONJERAH

Monday, June 2, 2014 7:05 AM

I guess the real and only relevant question here is:
Would Jesus shoot that surrendering guy in Serenity?
I mean ... if he were in Mal's situation.
.
.
OT, re: Bible.
A neighbor has a (recent?) Catholic Bible, very heavily annotated. Jesuit
style digging. It claims that "Luke" was written 90 years after Christ's death.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 2, 2014 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
I guess the real and only relevant question here is:
Would Jesus shoot that surrendering guy in Serenity?

Not if he wasn't under pressure to survive. I conjure either way he'd have no trouble sending that killer to Heaven, though (I don't believe in Hell, other than what we make here on Earth).

M52NICKERSON

Monday, June 2, 2014 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Depends on whether you view individual moral judgement and vigilantism as valid ethical conduct, which I suspect you don't, and thus you probably believe that justice can really only be administered by a trial provided by a recognized government with legal jurisdiction.

Even if said government in this case would be corrupt as hell and almost certainly rule in favour of the civilian killing dickhead and against the misrepresented criminal cyber terrorists.

Crow was murder, though justifiable, the guy threatened them after trying to kill them. This after Mal offered the guy a way out without fighting.

For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder. This is after Mal tells Simon that if he was going to killing Simon would be awake, facing him and armed. Perhaps that was just for the Doc.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

OONJERAH

Monday, June 2, 2014 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder. This is after Mal tells Simon that if he was going to killing Simon would be awake, facing him and armed. Perhaps that was just for the Doc.

Since Simon is not a gunslinger like Mal, it still would be murder.
But if River was on hand for this, maybe she'd just kill him with her mind.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

SECOND

Monday, June 2, 2014 6:16 PM

You know what is also convenient as Mal killing "that guy"? For Joss Whedon to kill everyone in Haven.

Realistically, somebody would have survived, somebody would have the commonsense to stay in the mine or inside the buildings. Not everybody will stupidly stand in the open to be a target for the bullet with their name on it.

But with all townspeople ( but Book ) dead in a few overhead passes of a lone gunship strafing from the air, the movie moves faster.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

BYTEMITE

Monday, June 2, 2014 8:16 PM

Quote:
You know what is also convenient as Mal killing "that guy"? For Joss Whedon to kill everyone in Haven.

I'm not sure why the question of survivors on Haven would even come up, but in that case we can add another way for the soldier to die - killed by any survivors if Serenity left him with them.

The buildings looked completely trashed to me, as I already said. The mine... Maybe. Might also have collapsed depending on what kind of bombs were being dropped and how many entrances there are and how deep it is.

BYTEMITE

Monday, June 2, 2014 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder. This is after Mal tells Simon that if he was going to killing Simon would be awake, facing him and armed. Perhaps that was just for the Doc.

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.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 2, 2014 9:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder.

Maybe you missed a piece of Firefly wisdom "When someone tries to kill you, you try an' kill 'em right back."
Mal was willing to ignore that until pushed to it by Crow.

I had a fight once where a kid got me in a headlock & banged my head into a wood door. I got out of the lock, twisted him about, got him in a similar headlock & banged HIS head into a brick wall, which ended the fight. So, m52, I guess I was wrong to use force in excess of what my attacker had used, eh? I should have banged HIS head into a wood door, right? I should have calmed my adrenaline surge and talked down my need for pugilistic irony... measured the situation more carefully... considered the law as it applies to personal combat...

Have you EVER had a fight in your life where blood was drawn?

Here are some simple rules of reality, bro:
Don't jump off a tall building if you don't want to die.
Don't fight a tiger bare handed if you don't want to die.
Don't tell a guy you just unsuccessfully tried to kill that you'll never stop until he's dead if you don't want to die.
Basically, once you set actions in motion, the consequences may or may not be to your liking.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 12:00 AM

Quote:
Have you EVER had a fight in your life where blood was drawn?

Ahahaha, I suspect he has actually, he just has a weird sense of law and morality above and beyond what even most people have, and way beyond what shitstains like me got.

Actually I get military vibes from Nick to be truly honest. He's got that same sort of unbreakable rules attitude that they get drilled into them that can seem really contradictory to people inclined to not play by the rules.

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 12:06 AM

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.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 12:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder.
Maybe you missed a piece of Firefly wisdom "When someone tries to kill you, you try an' kill 'em right back."
Mal was willing to ignore that until pushed to it by Crow.

I had a fight once where a kid got me in a headlock & banged my head into a wood door. I got out of the lock, twisted him about, got him in a similar headlock & banged HIS head into a brick wall, which ended the fight. So, m52, I guess I was wrong to use force in excess of what my attacker had used, eh? I should have banged HIS head into a wood door, right? I should have calmed my adrenaline surge and talked down my need for pugilistic irony... measured the situation more carefully... considered the law as it applies to personal combat...

Have you EVER had a fight in your life where blood was drawn?

Here are some simple rules of reality, bro:
Don't jump off a tall building if you don't want to die.
Don't fight a tiger bare handed if you don't want to die.
Don't tell a guy you just unsuccessfully tried to kill that you'll never stop until he's dead if you don't want to die.
Basically, once you set actions in motion, the consequences may or may not be to your liking.

You did not do anything wrong in your fight. The fight was still going on, you were still in danger. Had you stomped on the guys head once the fight was done, that would have been to far.

As I said I can understand why Mal kill Crow, I can also understand why Mal knew someone was going to have to kill Dobson. Those reasons don't change what we call Mal's actions. They don't make Mal a good person in those instances.

I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to save character and people they like from certain labels.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 12:25 AM

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.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 12:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to save character and people they like from certain labels.

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.
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....

SECOND

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 7:26 PM

You guys have been far too harsh on the Alliance's soldiers. If the massacre of the townspeople of Haven happened in Baghdad, 2007, it would have been legal.

There is a classified US military video depicting the slaying in 2007 of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement". www.collateralmurder.com/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:42 PM

Quote:
You guys have been far too harsh on the Alliance's soldiers. If the massacre of the townspeople of Haven happened in Baghdad, 2007, it would have been legal.

Because the US's steady march towards fascist authoritarianism and thus moving the goalposts on what is and isn't acceptable behaviour in terms of military conduct, it's interpretation of the Rules of Engagement, and interrogation/torture should be embraced whole-heartedly by it's citizens.

This should also be our primary consideration in determining whether an action was legal or ethical.

*RASPBERRY*

How about no. That shit don't fly.

SECOND

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 9:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
You guys have been far too harsh on the Alliance's soldiers. If the massacre of the townspeople of Haven happened in Baghdad, 2007, it would have been legal.

*RASPBERRY*

How about no. That shit don't fly.

It would fly in Hollywood. Once the Alliance propagandist-screenwriters get to work, it will fly in the Alliance.

I've got a more outrageous and real example that turns the Alliance soldier that Mal kills into the hero. You can ridicule me it you wish. This one might have even been noticed by Joss Whedon because it happened in 1993 in the real world. Or, at least, Joss might have seen the movie. It is very similar to the Haven Massacre – it is the Battle of Mogadishu (1993). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

It has a helicopter shot down just like the Alliance gunship is shot down by Book. Thousands of people, mostly townspeople of Mogadishu, get wounded or even killed, just like townspeople of Haven.

Imagine the Alliance, rather than Americans, going into Mogadishu looking for the terrorist leader using the alias "Malcolm Reynolds". See the movie Black Hawk Down where 1000 Somalians die, which is even more people than died at Haven.

The few Americans that died were the heroes of the movie. High schools were named for them. The soldier that Mal kills will get a high school once the Alliance’s Hollywoodization of the Battle of Haven comes out.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:50 PM

Ah. You're talking about propaganda instead of what outsiders like us might say is moral/ethical.

In that case, yes, child-killing village massacring butchers have been hailed as heroes before, and probably will be again. And according to the Alliance, Mal is the real terrorist.

Doesn't mean that's right. But that point of view because of the inherent corruption we have seen in the Alliance and the real world will always exist.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 11:58 PM

Byte, you GO, girl!

SECOND

Wednesday, June 4, 2014 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Ah. You're talking about propaganda instead of what outsiders like us might say is moral/ethical.

In that case, yes, child-killing village massacring butchers have been hailed as heroes before, and probably will be again. And according to the Alliance, Mal is the real terrorist.

Doesn't mean that's right. But that point of view because of the inherent corruption we have seen in the Alliance and the real world will always exist.

Just a quick note: everyone, and I mean you, too, have assumed that the man Mal killed was a killer of the townsfolk. Everybody is assuming he's either pilot or weapons officer or ship commander. 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. When he pops up, Mal kills him to underline a point so that even that jackass, Jayne, will understand. Mal is a very troubled man.

See how easy it is to make Mal into the bad guy? And nobody, not even Joss, can prove from what is in the movie or comics that the man Mal killed was not some conscientious objector who was deserting by stowing away in the gunship.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 4, 2014 12:35 AM

Quote:
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 Hawen.

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.
Still not Mal's fault.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE