anjaH_alias wrote:

Hanka wrote:

Weirdness wrote:

In reference to "I know everybody else is very happy about this, however, I am not. It seems very "Yeah, he did kill someone, but it's okay, since, you know, Magnussen was a bad guy." Not really my way of thinking.", in the canon it was very much the same. Even though Sherlock was not the one who killed him, he condoned it enough to hold John back and they did nothing to stop it.

Just curious, did you feel the same about John killing the cabbie in the first episode?

Interesting question. I do remember finding it wrong (as I already implied, I am opposed to murder in every situation), but it was at the very beginning of Sherlock - as you said, the first episode - and I did not yet care about the characters as much as I do now. Also, John killing the cabbie can quite easily be classified as self-defense (through a third party), especially if one begins to like the characters and everything. The cabbie was kind of threatening Sherlock's life (again, not the clearest case of self-defence, but it's possible to get away with that if you want to). With Magnussen, the case is completely different. He's not threatining anyone's life.

Not? The husband of Lady Smallwood e.g. committed suicide as we could see from a newspaper during HLV. And with a blackmailer like him this is surely not the first person he has driven to death.

That is, of course, true, but he is not directly threatening a life. He does not have a weapon. To me, killing/hurting somebody is only an option if they actively threaten your own/somebody else's life, and if it is the only remaining option. For cases like Magnussen's, there's something called a justice system. I obviously do see the problem here. One would have to keep Magnussen away from everyone, literally no contact at all, and accuse him of calumny (in about 2000 cases). I mean, calumny is accusable, isn't it? And as he said, he does not have evidence in a lot of cases. And I am sure there's no shortage of victims. Only problem would be that Magnussen would try and blackmail the judges, jury, prison officers, ... 

And did Sherlock really suspect Magnussen having it all in his head? I mean, he thought it was his glasses... I think John's gun was supposed to be the last resort - if possible to be avoided at all costs. Also, he sounded very convinced when talking about Appledore (to John) and looked utterly shocked when Magnussen told him about his mind palace.
 

But drawing on canon, where a victim of CAM shoots him dead and Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson as witnesses do nothing about it; no police, nothing. They collude completely in the murder, therefore accepting that this is an acceptable action and a form of justice.

Hanka wrote:

That is, of course, true, but he is not directly threatening a life. He does not have a weapon. To me, killing/hurting somebody is only an option if they actively threaten your own/somebody else's life, and if it is the only remaining option. For cases like Magnussen's, there's something called a justice system. I obviously do see the problem here. One would have to keep Magnussen away from everyone, literally no contact at all, and accuse him of calumny (in about 2000 cases). I mean, calumny is accusable, isn't it? And as he said, he does not have evidence in a lot of cases. And I am sure there's no shortage of victims. Only problem would be that Magnussen would try and blackmail the judges, jury, prison officers, ... 

And did Sherlock really suspect Magnussen having it all in his head? I mean, he thought it was his glasses... I think John's gun was supposed to be the last resort - if possible to be avoided at all costs. Also, he sounded very convinced when talking about Appledore (to John) and looked utterly shocked when Magnussen told him about his mind palace.

There is no justice system for people like Magnussen.  People in high places tend to have dirty little secrets, and he owns people in high places...do you think they would ever dare put him on trial?  How often are rich people convicted of crimes in comparision to those of the middle class and poor?  It's not because they are better people...it's simply because they can buy the best lawyers or know the best people.  And Magnussen was even more brilliant...he had no evidence.  It was all in his head.  That's why Sherlock knew he had no recourse but to kill him- a case against Magnussen would go nowhere, and would simply serve to make Magnussen get vengeance the best way he knew...by ruining the lives of Sherlock's loved ones in the newspapers.

It's the way the world works, and Sherlock knows it.  So do I.  It has nothing to do with conspiracy or belief...my mother in law has worked for lawyers all her life and some of the stories of 'buddyism' she tells would turn your stomach.  Politics is even more corrupt the higher up you go.  There isn't a judge or jury in the Western world that would have convicted Magnussen, and that's the long and the short of it.  And he was responsible for the death every person who committed suicide (like Lord Smallwood in the episode when he was face with the threat of being condemned as a pedophile for an honest mistake) and every life he destroyed (Lady Smallwood is now a widow).  I don't understand how people would see a man with a knife and say that he's more of a threat than a man like Magnussen when they know what he's capable of.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 14, 2014 1:45 pm)

I think in one of the newspapers there was also a mention about a politician being arrested for corruption - I think the one member of the commission we see speaking in the beginnig and whose "pressure points" Magnussen verifies.Also, I do agree that they would never bring Magnussen to justice in the tribunal - this is the whole purpose to introduce the opening scene of the episode: he pretty much "owns" everyone, English prime minister included: he doesn't do "much harm" to important people as Mycrof put it, only as long as they do what he wants them to do.What's more, in this moment he has a leverage on Mycroft, as well, because he managed to trap his little junkie brother, about the only person in the world Mycroft cares about.

I do agree with most of you, and I never denied that Magnussen was a bigger threat to humanity than a man with a gun/knife. He is a threat to a lot of people- to their sanity, their happiness - but not directly to their life. He ruins lives, but he doesn't end them. And yes, there is a big difference. By stabbing somebody with a knife, you actively decide for this person to stop existing. By making their life horrible, you may give them a LOT of arguments for killing themselves, but you do not make a decision for them. I'm not saying that what Magnussen did isn't horrible, of course it is, but it isn't concrete, you know? But, yeah, even if it was, even if he'd single-handedly killed five people, it still wouldn't justify killing him. It would only prove him/everybody who thinks like him, right.
Nobody should end another person's life, whatever the other person may have done. I mean, I do know that this is not how our world works. Sherlock is being very realistic in having its main character kill Magnussen because that's what people do in desperate situations. The problems I have are that a) it is very un-sherlocky to make this big of a sacrifice (I mean, Sherlock expects his life to be over) for somebody else (yeah, I know, character development, but that was just too much for me) and b), more importantly, that this murder, because that's what it is, is presented as an okay thing to do. Sherlock doesn't face justice. He does not get any kind of punishment for what he's done, but is called to come back and save the world. Yes, granted, it's a TV show, but this is just very, very morally wrong and unrealistic - to me. If you tell people that in this one case, murder is an acceptable action, you concede this point to every murderer out there. You tell them that, yes, there is a reason to kill another person. But it is upon none of us to decide who should live and who shouldn't. And, I guess, because of this opinion of mine, I am quite displeased with the ending. It doesn't seem to have any consequences, you know?
Also (sorry): Why not try and hoist Magnussen with his own petard? He is an important person in this country, in the whole world, and as he knew all too well, an accusation, a rumour, is very often enough to destroy somebody's reputation.

Last edited by Hanka (January 14, 2014 4:22 pm)

Hanka wrote:

I do agree with most of you, and I never denied that Magnussen was a bigger threat to humanity than a man with a gun/knife. He is a threat to a lot of people- to their sanity, their happiness - but not directly to their life. He ruins lives, but he doesn't end them. And yes, there is a big difference. By stabbing somebody with a knife, you actively decide for this person to stop existing. By making their life horrible, you may give them a LOT of arguments for killing themselves, but you do not make a decision for them. I'm not saying that what Magnussen did isn't horrible, of course it is, but it isn't concrete, you know? But, yeah, even if it was, even if he'd single-handedly killed five people, it still wouldn't justify killing him. It would only prove him/everybody who thinks like him, right.
Nobody should end another person's life, whatever the other person may have done. I mean, I do know that this is not how our world works. Sherlock is being very realistic in having its main character kill Magnussen because that's what people do in desperate situations. The problems I have are that a) it is very un-sherlocky to make this big of a sacrifice (I mean, Sherlock expects his life to be over) for somebody else (yeah, I know, character development, but that was just too much for me) and b), more importantly, that this murder, because that's what it is, is presented as an okay thing to do. Sherlock doesn't face justice. He does not get any kind of punishment for what he's done, but is called to come back and save the world. Yes, granted, it's a TV show, but this is just very, very morally wrong and unrealistic - to me. If you tell people that in this one case, murder is an acceptable action, you concede this point to every murderer out there. You tell them that, yes, there is a reason to kill another person. But it is upon none of us to decide who should live and who shouldn't. And, I guess, because of this opinion of mine, I am quite displeased with the ending. It doesn't seem to have any consequences, you know?
Also (sorry): Why not try and hoist Magnussen with his own petard? He is an important person in this country, in the whole world, and as he knew all too well, an accusation, a rumour, is very often enough to destroy somebody's reputation.

So accusing someone of being a pedophile in the newspapers doesn't directly threaten their life?
 

Criosdan wrote:

I guess there are things worse than death.


And I honestly think that everyone is able to kill under certain circumstances. Just the circumstances differ. If anyone dares to hurt the people I love and care for there will be no place to hide for them. Or - of cause - if my life was threatened.

sj4iy: Agree totally.

Magnussen knows that he plays a dangerous, dangerous game.  It's one thing to threaten someone's life...it's another to threaten their family.  Up until Sherlock, everyone assumed that he had the physical proof, and therefore never did anything to him for fear of that proof being found after his death.  If he had ever told anyone else what he told Sherlock, I guarantee you he would have been dead much, much sooner.

Hanka wrote:

sj4iy wrote:

Hanka wrote:

I do agree with most of you, and I never denied that Magnussen was a bigger threat to humanity than a man with a gun/knife. He is a threat to a lot of people- to their sanity, their happiness - but not directly to their life. He ruins lives, but he doesn't end them. And yes, there is a big difference. By stabbing somebody with a knife, you actively decide for this person to stop existing. By making their life horrible, you may give them a LOT of arguments for killing themselves, but you do not make a decision for them. I'm not saying that what Magnussen did isn't horrible, of course it is, but it isn't concrete, you know? But, yeah, even if it was, even if he'd single-handedly killed five people, it still wouldn't justify killing him. It would only prove him/everybody who thinks like him, right.
Nobody should end another person's life, whatever the other person may have done. I mean, I do know that this is not how our world works. Sherlock is being very realistic in having its main character kill Magnussen because that's what people do in desperate situations. The problems I have are that a) it is very un-sherlocky to make this big of a sacrifice (I mean, Sherlock expects his life to be over) for somebody else (yeah, I know, character development, but that was just too much for me) and b), more importantly, that this murder, because that's what it is, is presented as an okay thing to do. Sherlock doesn't face justice. He does not get any kind of punishment for what he's done, but is called to come back and save the world. Yes, granted, it's a TV show, but this is just very, very morally wrong and unrealistic - to me. If you tell people that in this one case, murder is an acceptable action, you concede this point to every murderer out there. You tell them that, yes, there is a reason to kill another person. But it is upon none of us to decide who should live and who shouldn't. And, I guess, because of this opinion of mine, I am quite displeased with the ending. It doesn't seem to have any consequences, you know?
Also (sorry): Why not try and hoist Magnussen with his own petard? He is an important person in this country, in the whole world, and as he knew all too well, an accusation, a rumour, is very often enough to destroy somebody's reputation.

So accusing someone of being a pedophile in the newspapers doesn't directly threaten their life?
 

Nope. It may give other people the idea to threaten the person's life, but it's not direct. (Please note that I have never said and will never say that it's an okay thing to do, or less severe than murder. It's just different, and not directly life-threatening.

And I agree, certainly a lot of people would be able to kill somebody in a specific situation. Agony can drive people to do lots of horrible things. I'm just saying it's wrong, and it shouldn't be portrayed otherwise.

Harriet: The scenes with Mycroft/John being disbelieving and horrified are great! I liked those, they seemed fitting! I just have a big problem with the phone call in the end. It makes people forget what just happened, what Sherlock just did, and basically makes it look like he'll just keep solving crimes now because nothing's really changed - even though a lot should have changed.

They never once said "Murder is okay".  But this show isn't about the morality police...these characters aren't Dudley Do-Rights, who are always on the side of right and justice.  Sherlock takes on cases, not because they want to help people, but as an alternative to doing drugs.  The point is that, at some point, when you do what they do, there ISN'T a right or wrong answer.  Not everything is black and white, and not everything can be explained away with "Well, it's bad to kill," because there are all sorts of layers to that.  Some people are beyond the law and break it with alacrity.  Others are oppressed by it.  It's the way of the world and Sherlock and John are simply two adrenaline junkies wading through it all.  

Not a pretty picture?  No, it's not.  But it's the truth.  And the point is that we can see them, faults and all, and still empathize with them.  We don't have to like the decisions they make, but we simply have to see it from their POV.  There's a lot of that with this episode.  And that's why I like it.

Lily, you have my admiration for speaking out some of my feelings which I´m fighting last days. thanks.

Well, thanks for your opinions, guys. I do like discussing, but sometimes it's nice to be bolstered

sj4iy, I am aware that these characters aren't angels. They're imperfect, like all of us. And I don't mind them failing, being obnoxious or even killing people. It happens, it's realistic, it should be brought up on TV. Not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that, even though they didn't say "murder is okay" directly, they did heavily imply it by having Sherlock come back to solve crimes again. In this world, no court procedure, no punishment means: It's legal. It's fine. Do it again, if you want! The main character just shot someone and two minutes later the writers are already done with that problem, since, hey, Moriarty (or whoever) is back! It becomes meaningless, not worth a few more thoughts. It's not the fact that it's part of the show that bothers me, but the way it's dealt with. 
However, I guess our differing thoughts on whether there are cases in which murder is justifiable (in any way) are what makes an agreement impossible.

Last edited by Hanka (January 14, 2014 8:56 pm)