Davina wrote:

He beat up the CIA man because that is what had happened to Mrs. Hudson. He just carried it to an extreme to teach the guy a lesson, I suppose.

Oh, definitely.

But see, IMO he could have easily killed that guy he threw out the window-- in fact, although they only showed Mr. Stupid landing on Mrs. H's bins once, the guy was thrown down more than once, according to Sherlock. So as I said, what kind of mindset would a person need to see half killing someone in that way (forehead bash, followed by throwing him out a window onto some trash cans, more than once) as perfectly acceptable, but who wouldn't ever use a gun on someone, either to slow them down or to kill them, depending on the circumstances? As I said, I realize this is a rhetorical question.

kazza474 wrote:

Why kill someone?
He only uses violence when violence is needed. Anything more is simply a very primitive way of thinking. The law metes out enough punishment in his eyes otherwise he would not fight on the side of the law.
He does not need to 'go there' as does no-one.
It actually IS 'here nor there' ; it is part of the roots of the whole canon, Holmes never takes this path; it is not necessary. it is an age old message really, taking another person's life doesn't solve anything & does not make him a hero in any way.

Believe me, I'm not making an argument for the necessity of killing anyone! Far from it. But my question stands, even though I realize there is no answer for it-- why would Sherlock unhesitatingly use forehead and fists on someone else, with the express purpose of stopping what the bad guy is doing and also sending him a clear message-- you mess with mine, I mess with you-, and clearly risking accidentally killing whoever is being beaten up. And yet he wouldn't think of using a gun to shoot someone in the leg to stop them doing whatever or to teach them that same lesson.

I get that there is no canonical precedent for Sherlock using a gun on anyone. but he's highly trained in some kind of martial arts, no stranger to hand to hand combat, has no qualms about physically taking matters into his own hands to control and correct, and is obviously very familiar with handguns and how to shoot them. I believe you when you say he never shot anyone in the ACD canon, but did he brandish guns in those stories, the way he does in this BBC production? I just find that interesting is all-- beat someone half to death but never "go there" with guns.

saturnR wrote:

Scene set some time after Blind Banker but Before Great Game:

Setting: In Sherlock's study.

Sherlock: I'm bored!
John: Well have a look at the news, you'll find a case to work on from the papers.
Sherlock: More boring! Just opinion pieces they are, not really news at all.
John: Mugging at Central Park,
Sherlock: Next!
John: Dishonest banks,
Sherlock Next!
John: Asian woman found dead in her apartment,
Sherlock: Next!
John (shows Sherlock a photo from newspaper): Hang on a minute, is that... She looks like...
Sherlock: She's dead. The Black Lotus killed her. Case solved.
John: You're not the least bit curious to know "who" did the killing?
Sherlock: Nope.

Text on screen (actually, it's more like a thought bubble above John's head): What the?

SaturnR: My thoughts exactly, lol.

It's funny how you guys are arguing about whether or not Sherlock had the moral/ethical fibre to off her The real question should be: Why isn't he the least bit curious who did the killing?

kazza474 wrote:

...Such is the mystique and prowess of Sherlock Holmes.
The stories never have and never will find Sherlock Holmes as being the causer of anyone's death.
Welcome to the world of a true super hero for all ages.

There are few things about which I will say "never". I personally have no problem with a "hero' (which Sherlock himself says he is not anyway, for what that's worth) finding himself pushed into a corner and ending up killing someone. Sometimes, in this day and age we live in, people do things that they're philosophically against and never thought they would do. It's all in Motiss' capable hands at the moment, and I trust them to handle it all in any way(s) they see fit. I don't know of anyone who loves Sherlock the character more than they do.

My question is, if Sherlock is "pushed into a corner and ends up killing someone," will it affect him?

Arya wrote:

My question is, if Sherlock is "pushed into a corner and ends up killing someone," will it affect him?

If he's as philosophically against using those guns he brandishes around so carelessly on a human being, as Kazza says canon proves him to be, I would imagine it would certainly affect him, yes. I think it would (and should) affect anyone, after all-- anyone with a conscience and a heart, which I believe Sherlock has plenty of.

The Doctor wrote:

ancientsgate wrote:

Interesting how he has no qualms about brandishing a gun and shooting into the air or at inanimate objects, but he doesn't shoot people. I would love to see that explored

I understand that one of the canonical characteristics of this new BBC Sherlock is the realism. In other words, logic has to be applied to solving riddles etc.

I have seen people responsible for killing other people and it definitely changes them (unless they are psychopaths unable of empathy, I guess). Thus I already found it to be a stretch that John not only shoots but kills the cabbie. Real life shows that even soldiers on active duty will have rarely shot someone while on duty. Shooting at, yes. But actually killing - quite rare.

Thus I am not particular interested in seeing this further explored. We already seen Sherlock pushed very close to it, and that is enough for me. I cannot see the writers pushing this further as it would push the show further away from realism into Americanised story telling.. where such extreme violent by heroes becomes 'normal'. How is that possible?

So true. To push it further would mean it is no longer a story about Sherlock Holmes.

The whole essence of Sherlock Holmes is that he will never kill anyone. That is part of his mystique. This is part of the stories. The hero killing for any reason is part of other stories, but not this one.

We can't say he went too close with the CIA guy, after all the guy was up & working not long afterwards.
For anyone to say Sherlock might 'accidently' kill is selling him short; people are willing to believe the deductions, the insight he has but won't believe he has carefully planned something enough NOT to kill?

Doctor, I am glad that you said 'Americanised' first because that's my immediate reaction also. When in doubt, bump them off. That goes for entertainment & in real life from what I see from this corner of the world.

Killing solves nothing & every life is of some worth.
Sherlock does what he needs to do to overcome the bad guy & then either leaves them in the safe hands of the law or leaves them to pick up the pieces of their shattered surroundings as best they can.

It's nothing to take personally unless you move in the criminal circles to which I refer.
Every country has a criminal element, and that is what I am referring to when I say RL. It doesn't mean everyday, suburban life; people in general, etc.
We may not be in your country but we do have a very good news service and can even tap into your own country's news services and the fact is that there is an alarming percentage per capita of deaths by criminal means over there.
It is not the ONLY country to have such high rates but looking at the most recent data, it certainly is right up there near the top.

Africa has the worst homicide rate - 17.0 per 100 000 people
USA comes second, homicide rate - 15.4
Asia has a rate of - 3.1
Europe - 3.5
Oceania - 2.9

The world average is 6.9 so the fact remains, the homicide rate of what is supposedly such a 'leader' is only being surpassed by an area that has huge problems with wars, famine & disease to impact the psychological make up of its people.

When it comes to fiction, we see a wide variety down here and YES American fiction seems to be in love with killing people. One can only assume it's a mindset of the entertainment industry there delivering what they feel people WANT to see. Being that they make billions out of that industry, they must have the recipe needed to deliver what is wanted.

This is a forum; this is a place we can all give opinions. I've backed mine with fact. Your assumption as to what I do or do not know in itself is rather insulting, nut I'm well used to that & it affects me very little.
I am NOT saying all Americans are homicidal killers; I am saying I believe the criminal element there has a tendency to lean toward murder rather than subterfuge of a higher thinking.

If you take that as an insult to a whole population, that is your choice. It is NOT what I am saying at all.

ancientsgate wrote:

You see that as Americanized? I don't see much Brit TV, and what I do is only comedy (usually comedies from 20 years ago, like Keeping Up Appearances, Are You Being Served and As Time Goes By ) or Masterpiece Theater period pieces, like Downton Abbey and Sherlock or car shows, like Wheeler Dealers and Top Gear. So... I have no idea, but do Brit TV and movies eschew telling fictional stories that include violence, gun play, good v. evil? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, I really want to know--  would Sherlock actually killing someone, either accidentally or on purpose, with one of those guns he's always pointing around, would that make the show "Americanized", since there's so little of it in British-produced entertainment?

I lived in the States while gathering work experience in my field, and it is clear that there is a huge gap of what a typical American family lives like and what is portrayed as the 'typical American way of life' on screen. And violence and gun violence is, of course, global problem. In fact, despite my wide traveling I have been shot at -> in Australia, of all things! So violence, and a popular fascination with violence thinly disguised as 'public debate regarding crime' is not a sole American habit.

I was refering to screen plays often offering the hero an excuse to kill the baddie (aka, 'he threatened me first/my family/the child' etc, or, 'I let him go but as I turned around I got nearly shot in the back so I had to change my mind and kill him instead', and even the interesting change to have Greedo shoot first in the Mos Eisley Cantina etc). There are so many levels of 'it's OK to shoot baddies' and that is further mirrored in wider popular culture as well as politics/foreign affairs.

So yes, there is violence at all sorts of levels in British television, even childrens' shows. But overall it is not quite as common to deal with the baddies by killing them, and certainly not in 'bang, I killed someone, now moving on to another scene'. The killing of a person is typically still discussed in wider terms, questioned more, requires more justification and elaboration than in a typical American show. The eventual ending of the conflict is necessarily the physical destruction of the opposing (life) force, which is seen as too simplistic a solution. The American shows that I greatly enjoy (including Babylon 5, Buffy and Boston Legal to start with 'B') are atypical as they challenge the typical scripting and inject 'emotional realism'. However, these shows do not represent the mainstream.



And all this is a generalization. Of course. Also, I am aware that I have been doing a 15 hour shift and am not expressing nor referencing myself as well as I should. But I wonder if that helps you understand a bit more what I meant?

OK, to get back on topic slightly and away from politics, (although I have to say, we've already gone WAAAAAY off topic on the original title of "Who Killed Shan?" but meh, nevermind)...these are my thoughts on the question about Sherlock using guns and killing people:

We've seen both of them use guns fairly confidently and without worrying too much. John is obviously used to this anyway, being a solider (although an army doctor wouldn't exactly have to do much shooting he's still been trained), and he's quite comfortable about killing people when his friends lives are in danger. Moving away from John, to Sherlock...

We know he's comfortable with violence. EXAMPLES:

ASIP
He tortured the dying cabbie for information on Moriarty.

TBB
He beat up and knocked out the assailant in Baker Street during the beginning sequence
He fought with the Chinese gangsters at the circus show
He fought the gangsters at the end to rescue John.

TGG
He shoots the wall.
He fights the Golem.
He brandishes a gun at Moriarty.

ASIB
He fights with John.
He fights off assailants at Irene's place (vatican cameos).
He fires a gun in the air.
He beats up the American and throws him out of the window. (several times).

THOB
He fires a gun at the hound.

TRF
Lots of gun brandishing at various points
Moriarty knows that Sherlock is capable of torturing him for the information to call off the assassins, therefore he kills himself to force Sherlock into jumping.

I think if Sherlock was backed into a corner, then he would kill, if it was between the life of the assailant and his own life or John's, and there was no other way round it. I can't actually imagine this happening though, because you normally always have a choice - you can choose to shoot them in the shoulder or leg or something non-fatal, and I think Sherlock would go for that option. Not because he is afraid to kill, but because he enjoys bringing people to justice and seeing them go to prison etc. Thinking back to the Golem, Sherlock fired at him A LOT, and quite indiscriminately too, then was extremely angry that he got away. I don't think he was planning to kill him though. Just shoot him, injure him, then interrogate him.

There are no incidents in the canon of Holmes killing anyone so I don't think Moftiss will ever go down that road, although I think we must believe that Sherlock COULD kill someone if he wanted to. He isn't afraid. In the Three Garribeds, Watson gets shot by Killer Evans and Holmes says that if Watson had been killed, Evans wouldn't have got out of the room alive. And you have to believe him at that point, he's for real...

Sherlock enjoys hand to hand combat because I think he genuinely gets a bit of a thrill from fighting. He's trained in martial arts and boxing so why wouldn't he?