besleybean wrote:

I'm finding it a tad difficult to even imagine when murdering an unarmed man in cold blood, could ever be described as ' on the side of the angels'- whatever that ridiculous expression means.

I think Sherlock agrees with you; that's why he accepted the suicide mission.
 

besleybean wrote:

I both understand that and agree.
But I remain unhappy with the summary execution.

I agree, I'm not happy with it either. To me the writing in of that was just to mirror that John shot the poisonous cabbie to save Sherlock. I think we would both have written something different. It's not Holmes of canon, is it . 
 

besleybean wrote:

Well Sherlock knew what would happen to him, but felt John's peace of mind was worth it..

No. I really don't think Sherlock shot CAM because of John. I simply don't accept a reading of Sherlock predicated on the assumption that he would do murder just to give his best friend 'peace of mind'; it's an insult to Sherlock and an insult to John.
 

Concerning CAM, I think it′s clear that it would be impossible to punish him for his despicable blackmail by any legal method.
 
Collecting of evidence against him would be virtually impossible – his victims would never speak about his crimes to a detective. They wouldn′t risk they own secrets being uncovered that way. (That′s exactly why Mary didn′t ask for Sherlock′s help either.) And even if Sherlock did obtain some evidence against CAM, CAM was so politically powerful and so rich at the same time, it would be no problem for him to escape any punishment. He would certrainly be able to corrupt the judges or to influence the trial by the media at his disposal.
 
So the only realistic solution for HLV would be that, in which CAM escapes punishment completely and remains in power, consuming and destroying more human lives.
 
Or the other, which both ACD and Moftiss used – one of CAM′s victims actually snaps and shoots him in retribution or in an attempt to finally stop him. Not a clear and legal solution, surely, but lets face it, the first solution would be a real downer, wouldn′t it?
 

Last edited by nakahara (March 16, 2014 11:45 pm)

I agree, there´s no neat and legal solution for the threat CAM posed, someone had to get his hands dirty. I´d have preferred another client putting a stop to him with Sherlock and John as witnesses like in canon, but well.. they chose another direction, so I guess (and hope) they have something in mind for the show as they really put Sherlock in this horrible position. I hope it wasn´t just for the shock and the dramatic ending .

But one thing´s for sure, it made me feel with CAMs cornered victims much more than if for example Mary or Lady Smallwood had shot him.. I felt much more involved and it made me think about uncomfortable topics I usually avoid.. like the right way to react to something completely wrong, justice vs. legality, means and confines of self defence.. violence in crisis situations.. not bad for a TV show that´s really fun and entertaining at the same time! 

It would be maybe easier to accept this situation if it was another person shooting CAM (as it was in the original story). But the writers of „Sherlock“ don′t like to involve their heroes in dangerous, morally dubious problems only to have it all solved by some convenient „deus ex machina“ at the end. The story is much more gripping and relevant if the main protagonists must overcame the challenges and trials of the storyline themselves. Therefore it′s understandable that they allowed Sherlock to make that fateful decision and shoot CAM by his own hand.
 
I don′t think that the story tried to convey that such praxis is right. HLV is built like the antic tragedy, in which the strange forces of fate inevitably lead heroes of the story to utter ruin and death, no matter how noble character they possess and what selfless acts they have done.
 
HLV sometimes reminds me of antic play „Antigone“ penned by Sofocles. In the story, young girl Antigone breaks the law and commits high-treason because she buried the body of her fallen brother who sided with the enemy and who attacked her homeland as the chief of enemy warriors. Antigone is rightfully convicted of the crime and killed by being buried alive in the tomb. From the legal point of view, she was undoubtably guilty – she really broke the law and by burying her brother she appeared to approve of his treacherous deeds. But from the human point of view, she was absolutely innocent – it was her very natural, human feeling of sisterly love and compassion that forced her to save the soul of her brother who would be transformed to a vengeful, vagrant ghost without the proper burial.
 
In „Antigone“, the tragedy stems from the inevitable discrepance between an abstract idea of law and justice and the unpredictable twists of actual human life. The idea of justice being administered by the force of law looks good in theory. Still, the unpredictability of human life often proves that law is an inadequate instrument when dealing with our chaotical human existence ruled by mere chance and blind force of fate. Law is only a human construction, it could never cover all the complex problems of human life.
 
So, even if the rule of law is good as it saves us from the injustice of vigilante society where only a strong individual prevails, it is wrong to adulate it. Because there are some situations in life where legal solution is equally unjustified as an actual crime that was being commited.
 
Sherlock′s personal tragedy is similar to Antigone′s. He murdered CAM and by commiting that murder he inevitably broke the law, presumably proving that Sally was right about him. But here we can see the tragical irony of his deed which stems from the fact that it was actually a good side of Sherlock′s character that led him to commit the crime. If he was a cold-blooded psychopath as Sally claimed he is, he wouldn′t hesitate to leave John, Mary and Mycroft to their fates, valuing his own life and well-being above their safety. So Sally was right and wrong about him at the same time. He did commit murder, but not as a psychopath but as a somewhat misguided idealist who was left with no choice to react in another manner.
 
Comparing Sherlock to Mary is not exactly fair, because Mary never acknowledged that she was in any way wrong when assassinating people. But Sherlock values the rule of law even if he was forced to break it - that′s why he accepts the punishment for CAM′s murder. His tragedy is made much deeper by the fact that he didn′t sacrifice only his body and name for his friends – as in TRF – he sacrificed the very principles for which he stood for such a long time, just to save the people whose safety depended on him and his fateful choise.
 

Thank you, Suzi, I′m very glad that you enjoyed it!
 

Sherlock should not have committed murder.

Last edited by besleybean (April 15, 2014 9:30 pm)

Sorry, I was referring to Sherlok shooting CAM.
I don't feel quite so bad about John shooting the cabbie.
Sherlock hurting the cabbie was awful, but I agree...he was dying anyway.

Phil is a great actor.