silverblaze wrote:

shezza wrote:

Two things:

1) It was really heartbreaking to see Young Sherlock crying - his older version remains stoic in front of his self-imposed downfall while the child inside him (maybe the "truest" Sherlock) is vulnerable, desperate and most importantly, alone in front of his destiny.

Yes, but this was from Mycroft's POV, this is how Mycroft saw him. 
 

No, that was inner Sherlock imo.

SusiGo and Swanpride: I agree completely.

It was the only way to stop CAM. Letting him live would mean to have more peoples lifes destroyed.
The term "lesser evil" appears in my mind.

Mattlocked wrote:

Hm... interesting. I think it was from Mycroft's point of view, too. Never had the idea of "inner Sherlock". Will have to reconsider.

Ahh, okay, I never got the other idea. Hm, I was just thinking because the child was also in his mind palace, that this is a kind of inner Sherlock thing, too. He is crying deep inside, but looking frozen into the light of the helicopter, not letting his feelings out. This made me really feel bad, I have to say .
But maybe it´s both or open for our interpretation.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 15, 2014 1:38 pm)

Criosdan wrote:

Was there even another choice? There were no physical evidences against Magnussen. And if they would initiate a trail Magnussen would blackmail the judge, the jury and everyone who was involved.
Magnussen was far mor dangerous and evil than a usual murderer. Lord Smallwood even committed suicide. (It was in one newspaper)

Agreed.  The show opened with CAM being investigated by the government.  He reacted by blackmailing the central judge, Lady Smallwood, it is how and why the case was brought to Sherlock in the first place. 

In addition to this, Sherlock and John would be incarcerated, while CAM (without any evidence to say differently) would be free, free to make that phonecall he threatens John with, to alert Mary's enemies to her wereabouts and to end her.  Also, Mycroft is just arriving on the scene and CAM is about to make a play fo him too.

Whatever happens, has to happen now.  Sherlock has to remove the data on Mary, and restrict CAMS movements to stop him acting on that information to the detrement of Mary, and therefore John.  Actions that could be completed in 20 mins and could not be undone once initiated. 

Either he has to trust that Mycroft can do that and (considering he just drugged him, stole his laptop and put his position at jepoardy), he's probably not thinking he can trust him that far.  He's also got John who could figure it all out at any time, and has a gun in his posession (Mycroft might step up to the plate for Sherlock, but we still don't know if he would for John).  With the walls closing in and time being the essence, I think he took the only option open to him.

I don't get why John didn't react more when Sherlock took his gun.  I presume that he mistakingly thought Sherlock had a plan that had a much better ending.

I also think the child is Sherlock's own POV.  It's the image he has in his own mind palace and I take this to be him calling out to his big brother.  Help me brother of mine.

That being said (although I didn't see it at the time) I don't see why Mycroft can't have the same image in his head.  His immediate reference to Redbeard implies that he remembers Sherlock at this age foremost, and so it could be said that the image is shared.

(hehehe, just got a funny thought in my head.  Mycroft leaving his parents by helicopter and his mum saying fondly "Oh you boys and your silly little wars" having been so used to it prior.  Would n't be surprised if Sherlock tried to drug everyone every christmas so he could have a bit of silence to think in.  LOL).

Mxx

Last edited by Mirthxx (January 15, 2014 1:51 pm)

"I don't get why John didn't react more when Sherlock took his gun."

In the tension of the moment I don't think John even noticed he took it.  And remember, Sherlock has some skill at pick pocketing.  Just as Lastrade.

anjaH_alias wrote:

Mrs.Wenceslas wrote:

interesting question with that inner child or Mysroft´s POV...I thought it was Mycroft´s perspective as well, but remember Sherlock dying and imagining him with Redbeard.

Yeah, exactly - Sherlock - child - redbeard - child..... if you understand . For me it´s his inner feelings, and also the camera is moving around him, it´s not straight forward out of Mycroft´s POV.

Oh, but the scene is wedged between reaction shots from Mycroft. 

Sorry, I really don't see it that way. Sherlock is not in the mindset to think about his inner child, he'd just killed a man, for all he knows he's gonna get shot and he fearfully but accepting waits for it to happen. Not much energy left for musings about deeper emotions. 

It's different for Mycroft. He doesn't see a murderer, he sees his little brother who has just made a big mistake. It's interesting that he sees him crying, he probably always sees through his facade. 
 

I'll disagree. We are told multiple times that the inner Sherlock is just like a child so in that moment the writers are showing us what inner Sherlock is going through - despair. In that moment, deep inside, Sherlock knows he's just killed in cold blood and that his life is over. He's understandably distraught, but of course, he's not going to crumble in the spot and cry. 

Hm... did someone already wonder, how they managed to get the gun into CAM's house? ^^

Why can't it be both, inner-Sherlock and Mycrofts POV, at the same time? I love the idea of both seeing him the same way for a moment.

Swanpride wrote:

More important, Sherlock Holmes had his dark side, too. He was not all lawful, he often let criminals get aways with their crime when he considered their motives sound. Sometimes he acts himself like a blackmailer in a way, pressuring guilty parties to pay for what they want to keep secret. We have gotten so used to "Sherlock Holmes the Hero" that we have forgotten that he was not written as one, but as a flawed character - with a fascinating intellect.

In the Canon, Holmes never killed anyone, with the exception of Moriaty which was a bit complex. He did not kill CAM. He possibly killed Tonga in the Sign of Four but that's complex as several pistols are described as being fired and we don't know whether he was carrying a gun at all. And that was sheer self defence.

To me, there is a real difference between being willing to make a personal decision not to report someone to the police, which is what he did from time to time, and firing a shot that killed someone. There is no British legal requirement to report a crime, it IS discretionary. 

To have shot a blackmailer in order to save the marriage of a contract killer really does seem...well, its quite a different Holmes.

CAM was not self defence and there is no possibility that Sherlock felt personally threatened. Even with the taxi driver in SiP, John arguably believed, given what had gone before, that he was acting in defence of Sherlock's actual life. There would be no way in British law that Sherlock's shooting of CAM would be considered anything other than first degree murder (I went to law school-in Britain-, btw, - as well as being a graduate chemist :-) )

 

Last edited by beekeeper (January 15, 2014 6:49 pm)