Might think differently with a wife and child in tow...
Anyhow, he sadly may lose them this series, anyway.

It might be difficult to prove that he was saving Sherlock's life.  Sherlock was with an unarmed, older, terminally ill man, who was posing no threat to his safety.     It was Sherlock's choice whether he took the pill or not.  So Sherlock couldn't (truthfully) have corroborated it, and he didn't even know it was John at first.  

To be honest, I don't think John really thinks it through, but acts on instinct.    But that just shows that it's possible he would do the same thing at Appledore - and Sherlock, knowing that, made himself the fall guy. 

Oh yes, I'm sure it would have gone through his mind (and we don't know what he'd have done if he'd been observed).   I'm very hazy on the law here, but I think it allows for self-defence of another person i.e. you could attack somebody to stop them killing somebody else.  But I don't think this would apply to somebody putting themselves in danger the way Sherlock was - not in danger from Jeff, but choosing to risk his life.  Now, it's possible John misinterpreted the situation and it looked like Sherlock was under more threat than he was.   And of course, in the pilot he was heavily drugged and helpless, which was different - but they chose to change that.  

I know Moftiss have said that their view of the original Milverton story is that they (I don't think they specified whether it was Sherlock or John) killed Milverton and John covered it up.  So I think they saw John as capable of killing him, and certainly of covering it up.  Maybe they've switched and had Sherlock kind of covering for John. 

And I agree, I want some cases along with my action and drama, and some mystery and deductions!

Sherlock says to John after: we might be able to get a way with a self-defence plea.

Re: Shooting the cabbie:

In most parts of the western world, the law allows not only for self-defense (or defense of another, as in this case), but there are also provisions for crimes committed in "mistaken self-defense". The legal term varies, but it all comes down to this:

If John THOUGHT he (or a third party, in this case Sherlock) was in immediate danger AND he couldn't 't be blamed for making that mistake, because the circumstances all implied that the danger was real, he'd be let off the hook, too. (That's what Oscar Pistorius tried to claim after shooting his girlfriend dead, that he thought there was a break-in at his house.)

These cases are complicated, though - it needs to be proved that you really couldn't avoid the mistake. Simply claiming that you thought there was a real danger isn't enough. So Sherlock's assessment of the possible legal consequences if John was caught is totally accurate - he'd very likely not be convicted of a crime in the end, but the court case would be complicated indeed and thus better avoided.

Quite apart from the fact that John would hardly have come out of it still in possession of that gun!

It's interesting what you say, Liberty, about the pilot vs. the aired episode! The self-defense (or defense of a third party) aspect was much, much stronger in the pilot. There are no moral shades of grey in John's action there. I'm not even sure they realised how different it looks in the aired episode, where John really is saving Sherlock more from himself than from Jeff Hope! If you think about it, that's a lot closer to shooting Magnussen at Appledore, in terms of moral vindication, than I'd like to think!

As for the original Milverton story - I remember that interview, and I think Moftiss said they thought Holmes did it and Watson covered it up. I prefer that interpretation to Watson doing the killing. Watson is usually the one wielding the gun in ACD's stories (don't you love how Holmes, in "Baskerville", has so little faith in his own marksmanship that he whacks the Hound across the head with the gun instead of shooting it!), but usually he isn't the one who takes the law into his own hands to dispense summary justice like that. He may go along when Holmes does it but he doesn't initiate it. So it would be more IC for Holmes than for Watson, even in ACD's version.

Last edited by La Jolie (August 5, 2016 6:59 am)

@ La Jolie, yes, I do think there's a big difference between the pilot and the aired episode.  I get the impression that John didn't even care how much Sherlock was under threat - he only knew his life was at risk and did what was necessary to stop him.  It's not something that John questions afterward  - he's not shocked to find out that Jeff Hope wasn't armed, for instance. 

The Moftiss quote I was thinking about is here http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/sherlock-series-3-secrets/

Moffat: Also, if you read [The Adventure Of] Charles Augustus Milverton, Dr. Watson in the opening paragraph tells you that he’s about to tell you a porkie. He says, ‘I even now must be very reticent.’ I think what Doyle is hinting at is that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson sat in Baker Street and said, ‘Right, we’re going to have to go and kill him, aren’t we? That’s the only way we can do this.’ So they break in, kill him, and then Dr. Watson writes up a version of the story that puts the murder [on someone else].

So given that they think Watson would sit and plan a murder with Holmes, it's not a leap for me to think that they would see John as doing it on impulse.   He has the extra motivation of knowing that his wife and child will probably die if he doesn't kill Magnussen.   So I think it's quite possible that he would have done it.   Unlike Sherlock, he has "previous" (Jeff Hope), which we have seen.   So I think that maybe Sherlock does it first, saving the three he vowed to protect. 

Last edited by Liberty (August 5, 2016 8:53 am)

Thanks for clarifying that, nakahara.
Wondered how I'd forgotten that detail!

And would have killed him, if Watson had died.

Maybe during Sherlockology Event?

Last edited by nakahara (September 14, 2016 11:01 am)

When is that?  What is this Sherlockology event, and when will it take place?