BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Was anyone else uncomfortable...

April 16, 2014 10:29 am

Some time ago I mentioned a case where somebody found himself in a situation where whatever you do you end up in a tragic trap. It actually happened in Germany some years ago where a boy was abducted and killed. The police chief decided to allow a threat with torture to try to get the suspect to talk about the whereabout of the hostage and made a note in its file about this severe crossing the legal lines.

The police chief was found guilty later, but was only reprimanded which is rarely done in German courts. He got the lightest punishment possible. The usual verdict is a sentence between six months and five years of prison.
The defence argued with a (non-existent) construct of collision of duty/responsability while the prosecutor talked about the weight of human rights in any case and the function of a role model.
The judges mentioned that the threat with pain to get a statement from a suspect is not justifiable under any conditions whatsoever. It's unlawful and especially considering the German history not tolerable, but a breaking of a tabu. The judges also argued that not all possibilities were explored.

I think the situations with CAM and the cabbie give us a lot to think about.

Arabella Trefoil · April 16, 2014 11:45 am

That's exactly why CAM and the cabby are so frightening. It's a zero sum game, no matter how you look at it. Do nothing = lose. Do something = lose.

There are no winners, and there is no inspirational uplift. We are staring into the abyss.

That's real horror,

besleybean · April 16, 2014 11:51 am

It is partly because Sherlock deems it as a game to be won, though that deosn't really cover John and the cabbie.
But I think he has gone past this simple analysis, by the time of HLV.
Sherlock shoots CAM for John. Well for Mary, but vicariously for John.

April 16, 2014 11:59 am

And it is similar to Sherlock's situation on the roof when presented with the choice to jump and die or be the cause of desaster for other people.

besleybean · April 16, 2014 12:09 pm

Oh that was easy for him.
He would do anyhthing to protect those he loves, as we see only too well in HLV.

Arabella Trefoil · April 16, 2014 12:24 pm

besleybean, I've been thinking about that too. Would I kill for my own gain? No. Would I kill for someone I love? Yes. Very troubling. When you are emtionally invested in others it changes how you make decisions. You can't be abstract. Well, I can't anyway.

There are people in my life whom I love with a ferocity that frightens me.

besleybean · April 16, 2014 2:07 pm

I would kill in self defence.
Sherlock committed murder.

Arabella Trefoil · April 16, 2014 2:11 pm

Yes, Sherlock Holmes commited murder. But I could not sit on a jury and judge him. At least not in the legal system as I know it in the USA.

besleybean · April 16, 2014 2:22 pm

He's only lucky he has a brother who virtually is the British government.

Kittyhawk · April 12, 2015 12:47 pm

SusiGo wrote:
....And remember, this is Sherlock before John. They have only just met and John has not yet started telling him about "a bit not good" and "timing".....

So the murderer is expected to have a good influence on the torturer???

It took me a few viewings (when Jeff Hope talks the brains of the listeners seem to switch off) to realize it, but John shoots without knowing anything about the situation! He knows that the phone is probably with the serial killer, he knows that Sherlock got into a taxi - presumably the same one that's standing there. He knows that he is very much afraid for Sherlock and when he finds him he sees that Sherlock is talking to a guy and about to put something into his mouth.

Which could be a Tic-Tac for all John knows. And the Cabbie could just be telling Sherlock where he found the phone.

Yet John shoots... I still think the shot was impossible but I accept it as movie magic. Hmm, or maybe, (in memory of Desmond Bagley and other writers) John didn't aim at the Cabbie at all but hit him by accident. For I believe that any kind of distraction - like a shot shattering the window and hitting the wall - would have brought Sherlock back to his senses. (I mean, really! Why swallow a posssibly poisonous pill if you want to find out what it contains? Pocket it and have it analyzed...) But that's not how it is presented in the show ("excellent shot with nerves of steel, strong moral principle" - quoted from memory).

Frankly, if there had been a court case, I'm not sure that John would have walked away free.

And in view of that it really bugs me that John seems to keep the pistol. Which Sherlock then uses to shoot at the wall. Which should bring the police in about 10 minutes flat (what works in Belgravia works in Baker street), who then confiscate the gun, run a test and have the weapon for an unsolved crime.... (admittedly, I know next to nothing about the British justice system, but whereas the Cabbies death closes the 4 murders he committed, the crime that leads to the Cabbies death should remain an open case).

The pilot was a lot better in that respect: John at least sees Sherlock being abducted by the Cabbie and the pistol ends up "at the bottom of the Thames" (even if Baker street is a bit far from that river, but who cares - the pond in Regent's Park is probably not deep enough and might be cleaned regularly, for all I know).

By the way: Why does the Cabbie even die? There's only one shot that hits the upper left lung (judging by the dark spot on the clothes - under Sherlock's toes), apparantly there's no major artery hit (there's not all that much blood around) - shouldn't that be survivable?

Unless, of course, the aneurysm chooses that moment to rupture... Would that make it a death by natural causes?

Questions, questions - and that's why I like the show!

Vhanja · April 12, 2015 12:50 pm

I personally find this scene to be one of the most horrible in the series, I can barely watch it. This is Sherlock torturing a dying man to satisfy his own curiousity. It doesn't really get much worse than that, in my opinion.

nakahara · April 12, 2015 6:40 pm

Kittyhawk wrote:
It took me a few viewings (when Jeff Hope talks the brains of the listeners seem to switch off) to realize it, but John shoots without knowing anything about the situation! He knows that the phone is probably with the serial killer, he knows that Sherlock got into a taxi - presumably the same one that's standing there. He knows that he is very much afraid for Sherlock and when he finds him he sees that Sherlock is talking to a guy and about to put something into his mouth.

Which could be a Tic-Tac for all John knows. And the Cabbie could just be telling Sherlock where he found the phone.

Yet John shoots... I still think the shot was impossible but I accept it as movie magic.

Frankly, if there had been a court case, I'm not sure that John would have walked away free.

You are right, of course.
And yet I think John could be well aware that he is aiming at the murderer.
John knows that the murderer is in possession of a victim´s mobile phone. He knows that the phone was at Baker Street for a short while. And through GPS he suddenly sees the phone moving away in certain direction. When he follows, he knows he is pursuing the murderer.
Now when he comes to the school building, the place is entirely deserted but a cab is parked right there.
And who was at Baker Street for a short while? A cabbie. Quite insistent cabbie who wanted to speak with Sherlock. Who drove Sherlock away, actually.
Since the only two people John sees through a window (and they are alone in the building) are Sherlock and cabbie and Sherlock doesn´t have the phone, then cabbie must have it.
If he only wanted to give Sherlock a phone, he could do it right at 221B - so no, that´s not why he drove Sherlock into such a deserted place.
Also, John certainly remembers Sherlock´s description of the murderer as a person who takes his victims from the street and remains unnoticed. That matches cabbie perfectly.
He also knows that murderer´s victims are poisoned through something they digest - and so he can quite actually presume they are not taking tic-tacs there.
John is no moron - he can make two and two. He shoots only because he is sure he is shooting at the mass-murderer.

Cabbie in the original dies at aneurysm. It´s quite possible here it was also like that.

Kittyhawk · April 13, 2015 6:23 pm

nakahara wrote:
....

Cabbie in the original dies at aneurysm. It´s quite possible here it was also like that.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your arguments in favour of John's shooting, I just think that they are not quite sufficient for killing the cabbie
But I still think he shouldn't have died from this wound, and when you say that in ACD's story the cause of death was the aneurism, then at least some of my problems are solved: The autopsy shows the real cause of death, case closed, nobody is looking for the gun.

Kittyhawk · April 13, 2015 6:25 pm

Vhanja wrote:
I personally find this scene to be one of the most horrible in the series, I can barely watch it. This is Sherlock torturing a dying man to satisfy his own curiousity. It doesn't really get much worse than that, in my opinion.

Well, next season Sherlock will throw a tied-up guy out of the flat's window...

nakahara · April 16, 2015 9:14 am

Kittyhawk wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
I personally find this scene to be one of the most horrible in the series, I can barely watch it. This is Sherlock torturing a dying man to satisfy his own curiousity. It doesn't really get much worse than that, in my opinion.
Well, next season Sherlock will throw a tied-up guy out of the flat's window...

I personally don´t find this throwing a guy out of the window to be as dark as Sherlock stepping on a dying cabbie. Cabbie was nasty and made an attempt at Sherlock´s life but only through his cunningness and persuation, he didn´t break up into the fits of violence suddenly. Sherlock could stop it at any time, if he wanted to. This CIA bully on the other hand:

As a citizen of another state he had absolutely no jurisdiction in the UK, still he threatened the people of the UK with the gun in hand.
He hired a bunch of gorillas instead of somebody with brain, then, because he was unable to deal with Irene Adler that way, he violently abused Sherlock and his friends - when he could civilisedly ask him for help any time.
He ordered the shooting of John Watson for the kicks of it, as if John´s life had no value whatsovever - playing God and an arbiter of life nad death over the citizens of another country that never did any harm to him, in this case even the war-veteran who really fought terrorrism on the battlefield, not in the save country, abusing his power and terrorrising civilians randomly.
He was throttled by Sherlock for it, still, he had not enough and attacked Sherlock´s loved one, Mrs. Hudson, again, slaping the old lady in the face, planning to do even worse to her.

Honestly, the man was allegedly an agent, but judging from his actions, he was a terrorist himself. If Sherlock threw him into the Thames, it would be completely justified and a good riddance. And I can´t comprehend how Lestrade (who investigated the shooting in Adler´s house) and Mycroft didn´t deported this wile individual immediately. Mycroft was OK with the abuse and planned up killings of UK citizens, his own brother no less, by the hand of this bully? It is beyond me how he could stand him a minute more after he threatened Sherlock the first time....

Davina · April 16, 2015 9:19 am

If that man was an agent he was pretty useless, frankly!

Kittyhawk · April 16, 2015 10:58 am

nakahara wrote:
..... If Sherlock threw him into the Thames, it would be completely justified and a good riddance....

Interesting attitude to law and order - but that's not how things work in the European countries I know!

nakahara wrote:
Let′s face it the cabbie was a scum who gleefully poisoned four people. Three people were in the prime of life, enjoying successful careers and one was just a young man on the verge of adulthood, practically a child. If Sherlock not only stepped on cabbie′s bleeding shoulder but kicked him to his head or clawed his eyes out, it would be rightfully delt – the scum deserved every single bit of it.

I agree that the cabbie was scum, but even scum has rights. At least in real life...

In fiction I'm absolutely not bothered by "bad guys" getting what I think they deserve (maybe I've read too many Jack Reacher novels: "“We splattered a thousand bugs on our windshield yesterday. A thousand more today. One extra won’t make any difference.” - The Hard Way - the extra bug of course is a man).

I just wanted to point out that Sherlock is not some fluffy teddybear but a potentially dangerous man who goes from torture (which probably wouldn't have made any difference to the cabby living or dyeing) to grievous bodily harm with intent (the fall could have easily killed the guy) to murder (or is it "only" homicide?) None of which particularly bothers me, but I would think twice before seriously annoying Sherlock or pushing him into a corner (and decide to not do it)!

ukaunz · April 16, 2015 11:12 am

And certainly don't appall him when he's high!

nakahara · April 16, 2015 12:11 pm

Kittyhawk wrote:
Interesting attitude to law and order - but that's not how things work in the European countries I know!

As I pointed up above, if a normal order of law was valid in the case of CIA guy, he would be arrested and thrown out of the UK after he pulled that stunt in Irene Adler´s house. But he wasn´t. I guess, he had some diplomatic immunity or Mycroft and his cronies allowed him to continue with his shenanigans out of political reasons. Anyway, it is apparent that he was somehow exempt from the law. Which means that other people, who actually obeyed the law (as John or Mrs. Hudson), were at serious disadvantage here. The man could do as he pleased with them, even kill them at will, while they had absolutely no chance to apply any legal proceeding against him successfully.

So one person, Sherlock, threw the law out to the wind and applied illegal, but potent means to protect his friends from the man. Could happen to you if you are a bully. Note how man´s attacks stopped immediately after he learnt that lesson.

Kittyhawk wrote:
I just wanted to point out that Sherlock is not some fluffy teddybear but a potentially dangerous man who goes from torture (which probably wouldn't have made any difference to the cabby living or dyeing) to grievous bodily harm with intent (the fall could have easily killed the guy) to murder (or is it "only" homicide?) None of which particularly bothers me, but I would think twice before seriously annoying Sherlock or pushing him into a corner (and decide to not do it)!

I don´t take Sherlock (or John) for teddybears, it is apparent that the story presents them as dark characters from the very start (John´s thin, ominous smile after he admits that he shot the cabbie comes to mind). Still:

Sherlock would not have tortured the cabbie if the cabbie was not dying. Why didn´t he attack him sooner, the moment they were actually speaking about Moriarty, if he wanted to have his name that much? The cabbie would not be able to defend himself.... It was precisely because the cabbie was not dying then. Sherlock knew he could get it out of him eventually while speaking with him. But after the shot cabbie was in his last throes, clearly fading out, Sherlock knew that he has less than a minute to get the name from him and if he would not get it then, it would be all over. That´s the only reason he stepped on him. He would not bother with it otherwise, that´s simply not his style.

Sherlock´s universe is a peculiar one. In S3 it was established, that you can choose the place near person´s heart and shoot the person into it with such precision, that the person would not die but remains only incapaciated.

So I´ll give Sherlock the benefit of the doubt in the same manner in case of a CIA guy and I would presume that he could actually and with precision throw him on Mrs. Hudson´s bins in such a way, as not to kill him, but only incapaciate him.

Last edited by nakahara (April 16, 2015 12:13 pm)

Sherlock Holmes · April 16, 2015 1:33 pm

Remember that in ASIP, John is a man who has only recently come back from a war zone. In conflict situations, you don't have time to think about the consequences of the actions, you don't have time to start second guessing yourself or wondering whether your instincts are right. You have to go with your gut and you act. You act or people die, basically. John is a man of action.