|
|
Post by sigasahab on Jul 9, 2017 14:53:49 GMT
I'll need to go back and watch the episode again but my gut feeling is that's no case to answer. I remember thinking that she'd be foolish to let him out but I don't think she had overwhelming reason to believe that he'd immediately start acting like a fox in a chicken coop.
Completely different situation, but Hunter executing that unarmed Hydra head (the actor who played the cop Hunter) always feels off to me, much more so than Coulson/Ward.
|
|
|
|
Post by ayanami on Jul 9, 2017 18:28:57 GMT
I'll need to go back and watch the episode again but my gut feeling is that's no case to answer. I remember thinking that she'd be foolish to let him out but I don't think she had overwhelming reason to believe that he'd immediately start acting like a fox in a chicken coop. Completely different situation, but Hunter executing that unarmed Hydra head (the actor who played the cop Hunter) always feels off to me, much more so than Coulson/Ward. Yeah, I remember when I first saw the episode, I was just thinking: "What the hell just happened?? Why would Hunter ever do that? (Shoot an unarmed guy.) Why would Coulson ever order that?" Then I read about that guy's actor apparently being famous for playing a character also Hunter and it dawned on me: They (the writers) actually turned Shield into a killer commando, and thereby Coulson and Hunter into murderers, for a joke! That's how much they care about staying faithful to their characters! Not. A. Bit. |
|
|
|
Post by beren44 on Jul 11, 2017 16:21:50 GMT
nicely written article! I can't even attempt to express myself in such formal terms, so I am just going to say, I feel that the act was commited in a war-time environment, Jemma had to make a snap decision on the spot, and given the fact that the inhumans WERE safely contained in the stasis pods, that there is no way she could have known that Lash would do what he did. Place ALL the blame on Lash--or none of it, he didn't ask for what happened to him, either. Jaiyiing is the one who started it all by booby-trapping the registry book. I first chose 'not guilty based on justifiable homicide', but changed my vote to 'other', because she did not commit the homicides. Now, if the trial were about splinter-bombing Bakshi, it would be a different story. Definitely some manslaughter went on with that one. Too bad it was the wrong man! Oh, and ms. Jemma Simmons , I'm pretty sure that defendants don't even get a vote in their own trial!  To be clear, she is charged with aiding and abetting homicide, not with the homicides themselves. The prosecutor concedes that Garner/Lash committed the homicides. The question (or one of the questions) is whether the defendant freeing Garner/Lash provided the necessary assistance. It is up to you as jurors to decide if it was reasonable for Simmons to believe that Lash, when freed in the presence of twelve of he preferred targets, would take the opportunity to kill them. The prosecutor, at least, believes that it is very reasonable to believe that freeing someone known to kill Inhumans in the presence of Inhumans would lead to the deaths of the Inhumans. Regarding whether defendants can serve as their own jurors, I noted that the defendant in this case had powerful friends who steered the case to a possibly friendly jury. These friends would not mind that the defendant herself is one of the jurors. I actually noticed that she was charged with 'aiding and abetting', after I had replied. But that brings up a question about the poll itself. How can she be judged 'not guilty by reason of justifiable homicide? Are you saying that by choosing this option, one agrees that Lash's murder of the inhumans was justified? I file a protest on the options offered in the poll! Also, the defense claims that due to the fact that Lash was selectively murdering only those inhumans he deemed to be a threat, (i.e., not Daisy), combined with the fact that the inhumans in the gel pods could hardly be considered a threat, there is no reason for Jemma to believe he would go after them. She simply accepted an offer of help, in order to save her life. She was indeed surprised, upset, and remorseful about what subsequently happened. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeKresge on Jul 12, 2017 5:35:47 GMT
To be clear, she is charged with aiding and abetting homicide, not with the homicides themselves. The prosecutor concedes that Garner/Lash committed the homicides. The question (or one of the questions) is whether the defendant freeing Garner/Lash provided the necessary assistance. It is up to you as jurors to decide if it was reasonable for Simmons to believe that Lash, when freed in the presence of twelve of he preferred targets, would take the opportunity to kill them. The prosecutor, at least, believes that it is very reasonable to believe that freeing someone known to kill Inhumans in the presence of Inhumans would lead to the deaths of the Inhumans. Regarding whether defendants can serve as their own jurors, I noted that the defendant in this case had powerful friends who steered the case to a possibly friendly jury. These friends would not mind that the defendant herself is one of the jurors. I actually noticed that she was charged with 'aiding and abetting', after I had replied. But that brings up a question about the poll itself. How can she be judged 'not guilty by reason of justifiable homicide? Are you saying that by choosing this option, one agrees that Lash's murder of the inhumans was justified? I file a protest on the options offered in the poll! Also, the defense claims that due to the fact that Lash was selectively murdering only those inhumans he deemed to be a threat, (i.e., not Daisy), combined with the fact that the inhumans in the gel pods could hardly be considered a threat, there is no reason for Jemma to believe he would go after them. She simply accepted an offer of help, in order to save her life. She was indeed surprised, upset, and remorseful about what subsequently happened. According to the defense, Hydra, and Malick in particular, intended to use the Inhumans as an army on behalf of Hive. The defendant assisted Lash/Garner in taking out this army. It does not matter that the Inhumans did not volunteer to be part of the army or that they were not, at the moment, in combat. It is still justified to take them out. Other precedents would be Mack taking out the Kree whose blood was being drained or Coulson making Lincoln and Elena wear homicide vests. The prosecution, on the other hand, agrees that this was not a justified homicide. There is a difference between an enemy who is bearing arms (e.g., the Hydra agents who were killed) and captives in gel-matrix cubes. Killing the former is justified. Killing the latter is not. Even if the remorse is genuine, that would play a role in sentencing, not in the determination of guilt. As to surprise, she knew that Lash/Garner was not merely a serial killer who would kill someone every few months for kicks. Instead, he was driven to hunt down and kill all Inhumans (except for Daisy and, maybe, Joey). What did she think he would do when presented with 12 targets? The defense responds by noting that a person sitting in the safety of a living room may realize that Lash/Garner would attempt to kill the Inhumans. The defendant was not in any state to stop and realize that, particularly when she was trained to be a scientist and not a field agent. Stepping out of character, the question is how should Hydra be viewed? Should Hydra be viewed as a criminal organization, like the mafia or a drug gang, in which law enforcement authorities attempt to arrest the members if at all possible and do not kill on sight? On the other hand, is Hydra closer to a terrorist organization, like al-Qaeda or ISIS, in which members are routinely bombed and SEAL Team Six or drones are sent to assassinate key members? In this discussion, the defense clearly sees Hydra as the latter and that It is justified to take out Hydra members . The prosecution says that even if this is true, it would be a stretch to call the Inhumans Hydra members. Part of the challenge of this thought exercise is determining which is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by sigasahab on Jul 12, 2017 6:22:50 GMT
SHIELD tend to use the euphemism 'cross off' rather than 'take out'. There's an article and comments on the wordwizard site here on the origins of 'take out' Eric Partridge isn't correct when he says that it originated as "one of the many disgustingly clinical euphemisms invented by the U.S. military to whitewash the Vietnam War" but I sort of sympathise with the skin-crawl reaction. |
|
|
|
Post by sigasahab on Jul 12, 2017 6:36:10 GMT
"Stepping out of character, the question is how should Hydra be viewed? "
...and, of course, how SHIELD should be viewed. At the time of the incident in question, wasn't it regarded by the international community as a terrorist organisation itself? I remember that the Director had just stepped down from his post and appointed a temporary replacement so that he could go off and kill somebody. It seems a bit rich to court martial a woman who had just escaped from her torturers during the same mess.
|
|
