Mary didn't do the easy@ sensible thing for John....leave when Magnussen first contacted her...  Or just tell John Or Sherlock the truth...even when offered help....she knew that would probably mean her seperation from John.
When Sherlock shot Magnussen.....he knew it would.
Sherlock put John first. Mary put herself first.

Yes. But is Mary also on the side of the angels? 

Does it really matter if she kept her equipment or just knew how to procure it? Not really. Most people would not even know where to get that stuff, she did. And "this one attack" is enough if you look at the consequences. 

Which would have changed nothing. Moriarty did not target John because he was living with Sherlock but because he knew Sherlock cared for John. Leaving him would not have changed that. 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 28, 2015 10:55 pm)

I wonder if the rise in Sherlock 'bashing' is connected to the lack of a defence for Mary . Ignoring facts about Mary with unrelated acts of Sherlocks....doesn't work , Sherlocks behaviour is irrelevant to Marys , even if it is comparable - the motives and means are entirely different.

I found an interesting, very well written meta that explains Mary´s behaviour as a typical behaviour of a psychopath. Especially the explanation of Mary´s strong possessivenes in regard to John which goes hand in hand with subtle contempt towards him rings very true, IMHO:

http://ifyouhaveenoughnerve.tumblr.com/post/77363398901/penitence-paradox-and-psychopathy-why-mary-is-a
 

It's really as simple as that the show would be finished by that, that's fact. And apart from that, still nothing to back up that Sherlock would shoot Mary if needed.

Not only risked killing him, but disregarded his death, yes.

tonnaree wrote:

Swanpride wrote:

I didn't wrote that Sherlock would kill Mary if necessary. I wrote that he would shoot her. Mary didn't try to kill Sherlock either.That's firmly established in the episode, even if there are some fans which firmly ignore the little fact. And it is a fact, because if it weren't true, Sherlock would be dead. It's really that simple.

 
There's a difference between "ignoring" a fact and questioning wether it is actually "a fact."

For example, questioning a fact requires you to think. 

And, as I said, show ended.

Harriet wrote:

Because she wanted to keep John in doubt whether she actually wanted to kill Sherlock.
She knew she would loose him if she had shot Sherlock in the head and John found out about that.
But by killing him with a shot in the chest she could make John doubt it was by intention.

That doesn't quite follow, though.  It takes Sherlock's explanation for John to believe that Mary didn't mean to kill him.  That wouldn't exist if Sherlock was dead.  (I mean the story really struggles to be plausible as it is.   It really needs Sherlock to be alive to have any hope of it being at all believable). 

And also, if Sherlock was dead, John wouldn't have found out about Mary.
 

Because John could come in any minute and she needed time to escape the building the same way she entered. If John had found Sherlock dead, he would have immediately called the police and had started to look for the killer himself, which would have been pretty dangerous for her..

That said, I really believe Sherlock´s explanation is meant to be true, believable or not. So, Mary didn´t try to kill him.. just overestimated her bullet-surgery-skills.. well, that can happen, nobody´s perfect *argh* ^^. 
She didn´t try to kill him, just was okay with putting him through an incredible amount of pain, bloodloss and shock to avoid John finding out the truth about her. She didn´t try to kill him but was okay with putting his life in immediate danger to get her out of her corner. She didn´t try to kill him, but was okay with hospitalizing him to strengthen her position for negotiation. Somehow it doesn´t get better for me.. Mrs. Psychopath indeed. ^^

Last edited by Zatoichi (January 29, 2015 8:27 pm)