beekeeper wrote:

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 :-) )

 

I agree. But we're kinda alone with that 'opinion', I guess.

beekeeper wrote:

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 :-) )

 

That's why it's called 'fiction'.
 

Hanka wrote:

sj4iy wrote:

beekeeper wrote:

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 :-) )

 

That's why it's called 'fiction'.
 

Because it displays ethically questionable actions as totally acceptable and not worth thinking of longer than a few minutes as well as changing major characteristics (referring to canon)? I don't think so.

"Fiction is the form of any work that deals, in part or in whole, with information or events that are not real, but rather, imaginary and theoretical—that is, invented by the author."

My point stands

Last edited by sj4iy (January 15, 2014 7:57 pm)

I keep going back and playing two very intense-emotionally touching scenes to me.The first is the  mind palace scene after Sherlock has been shot and the other is after CAM has been shot.  Symmetry in these two parts of the show can be telling.

I do not cry often when reacting to fiction.  However, watching Sherlock kneel after killing CAM was heartbreaking and so touching. A hero that isn't a hero. A brilliant man of competence that John calls out to for help during the "flicking" scene and two other times during that part of the show.  I think when you see Sherlock staring into the empty room that is when he realizes that the only way to beat CAM is by killing him (that is when I realized it) But I think Sherlock makes up his mind to kill CAM himself when CAM is flicking John Watson. 

As for perspective of the child crying-can't it be both? Sherlock feeling the weight of loss from his decision while also protecting those he loves. Mycroft viewing the boy who makes decisions with his heart-the same boy who chooses to believe that Redbeard has gone to live on a farm verses dealing with the loss of possibly his only childhood friend.

The chain of blackmail goes from Mary to John to Sherlock to Mycroft.  Sherlock-in the beginning- hints that Mycroft is already under CAM's thumb. Does Sherlock already know that he is used as a pressure point to Mycroft? 

Overall, even the writers hint that in the original canon-Watson was possibly covering for the true murderer of CAM-Sherlock Holmes himself. 

All I know is that Sherlock is soooooo human.  He exists at a level of us that no one would dare take a stand at.  It's almost as if this character is a hyperaware version of ourselves.  Afterall, how many of us have stood infront of a dragon and drawn the sword only to resheath the weapon to conform to what society expects of us.  Sherlock Holmes slays the dragon-when no one- not even his brother-was brave enough to do this.  Mycroft knows this-that it why he tried to seperate Sherlock from CAM while in the helicopter.  He knows Sherlock is a dragon slayer and that Mycroft is not.  He knows Sherlock will do whatever it takes to make things right...something Mycroft may be too lazy or indifferent to accomplish it. 
Sherlock acts to protect everyone around him. I do not think for a moment it is to protect himself.  I even think that Sherlock sees CAM as an alter ego of his own brother. Afterall, look at the way Mycroft can pull Sherlock's strings.  We only see Sherlock unleash fury toward's Mycroft when he is too high to reign in his impulses.  Maybe Sherlock has known what it is like to live under the tyranny of having one say jump and have to do so.  This may also indicate why Sherlock rarely seeks out Mycroft for help.  Trying to cut the strings that Mycroft has wrapped around him.

I loved HLV.  I have watched soooo many times now and am in awe of the true journey Sherlock took during these three episodes.

It almost seems that we were shown so much of the emotional side of Sherlock to better weight the scale for opinions of him after he killed CAM.  I wonder how the opinions would vary about Sherlock's action if it had happened before we had all the emotional development of him throughout this season?

sherlocked wrote:

I have to say, I belong to the faction, which has a lot of problems with Sherlock's action. Yes, CAM is particularly loathsome, but that doesn't give anyone the right to murder him. I believe in the integrity of human life. To take a life, you better have a very good justification, like self defense or saving another life. Sherlock's justification of saving the marriage of his friend to a freelancing assassin, seems to be an extraordinarily bad justification, IMO. If nothing new transpires in season 4 , which throws a new light on this business I really hate, what they have done to Sherlock's character with this plot development.

I thought CAM deserved to be murdered.  Sherlock had justification: he was protecting the livelihood of his friends.  I guarantee you, had CAM told anyone else he was blackmailing what he told Sherlock and John, he would have had a bullet in his brain a lot sooner.

I have yet to see anyone call John a murderer after what he did to the cabbie, but the cabbie was no more of a deadly threat to Sherlock than CAM was a threat to John and Mary.  The cabbie didn't force the pill down Sherlock's throat...he just found Sherlock's weakness and exploited that (just like CAM did with Mary).  If Sherlock had died, then would it have been the cabbie's fault?  Surely Sherlock was intelligent enough to not take a pill that might contain deadly poison.  I see no difference in either situation.  If John was justified, then so was Sherlock.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 15, 2014 8:33 pm)

You have a point there, sj4iy. And what is more, John shot the cabbie after knowing Sherlock for a day. Sherlock shot CAM after having been John's best friend for years. One qualification: John did not know the cabbie was unarmed. 

The thing with the cabbie is totally different. John saw, that Sherlock was about to take the pill, and he thought the cabbie was about to force him. He killed because he wanted to save someone's life, which is even a legal reason for justified killing under certain circumstances.

sherlocked wrote:

The thing with the cabbie is totally different. John saw, that Sherlock was about to take the pill, and he thought the cabbie was about to force him. He killed because he wanted to save someone's life, which is even a legal reason for justified killing under certain circumstances.

...except that, just like this, it never went to court because the murder was covered up in both cases.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 15, 2014 8:51 pm)

sj4iy wrote:

sherlocked wrote:

The thing with the cabbie is totally different. John saw, that Sherlock was about to take the pill, and he thought the cabbie was about to force him. He killed because he wanted to save someone's life, which is even a legal reason for justified killing under certain circumstances.

...except that, just like this, it never went to court because the murder was covered up in bother cases.

 No, I don't think, the cabbie's shooting by John was covered up. It was just never solved, IMO