Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open B5 questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Radhil
    replied
    Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
    But...WHY did John go so light on him? Even if a jury didn't see it, John could see it in his eyes, what he was thinking. I'd be furious.
    It was more complicated than that. John is probably keenly aware of Lennier's feelings for Delenn. That he probably understands more than anything else. Despite everything, it was also something John got out of himself, in the end.

    Ultimately though... he went light probably for Delenn's sake.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotKosh
    replied
    Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
    But...WHY did John go so light on him? Even if a jury didn't see it, John could see it in his eyes, what he was thinking. I'd be furious.
    Sheridan also saw him come back.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    But...WHY did John go so light on him? Even if a jury didn't see it, John could see it in his eyes, what he was thinking. I'd be furious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Radhil
    replied
    OK, so in a courtroom, amongst a jury of your typical modern day humans, no, nothing would happen to him.

    If the viewers are the jury though (and we so often are)... C'mon. All that's bull.

    Leave a comment:


  • grumbler
    replied
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by AislingGrey
    [B] ... As Jan said, I don't believe that, legally, he'd be able to be held responsible had Sheridan died. It's all too easy to say "I was paralyzed by fear - I'd never seen a man dying before." How could you disprove that? Last I checked, it wasn't against the law to be a yellow coward! <g> Agree 100%. Sheridan was in a room filling with poisonous gas. The defense that claimed that Lennier was afraid to let the gas attack him (and the ship) would be successful. He could even claim that he was going to get equipment that would allow him to successfully rescue Sheridan, and turned back when he realized that there was nothing on board that would help. No jury, I think, could fail to find a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

    Lennier's failure was a moral one, not a legal one. Whether he mediated aforehand on what he would do if he found Sheridan in mortal peril is also an issue of morality, not law.

    Leave a comment:


  • iamsheridan
    replied
    Originally posted by AislingGrey
    Regarding Garibaldi: I can't remember where I heard this story (a commentary track? a convention? Jan, help me out!), but I'm pretty sure that Jerry Doyle was instructed to draw a smiley face, but instinctively did the neutral face instead - which I thought was absolutely _chilling_. I don't think the mouth was really downturned; I think it was just him trailing off with the process of drawing the line.
    I took it (the downturn) as a subconcious way to display his inner, bad, self.

    /IamS

    Leave a comment:


  • AmyG
    replied
    Regarding Garibaldi: I can't remember where I heard this story (a commentary track? a convention? Jan, help me out!), but I'm pretty sure that Jerry Doyle was instructed to draw a smiley face, but instinctively did the neutral face instead - which I thought was absolutely _chilling_. I don't think the mouth was really downturned; I think it was just him trailing off with the process of drawing the line.

    As for Number One and her thirty witnesses, the "takedown" happened in a bar. We only saw part of the bar on camera - one part of one room. People could have been on the edges of the room, in the next room, passing by the door, etc. etc. I don't have a problem with that statement about the witnesses.

    Amy

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Here is an obscure question:

    I have been watching the civil war arc these past few weeks. In the episode where Garibaldi draws the face in the mirror, does the mouth curve down on one end because of that face he sometimes makes? I'd seen this episode a half-dozen times before, but this is the first time it has occured to me.

    Another question:

    Number One says she has thirty witnesses who saw Garibaldi dupe Sheridan...if about fifteen guys at the most jumped him, then where were the thirty witnesses? That wasn't a huge pub they were in. I could speculate on the thirty witnesses, but does anyone else have any other thoughts?

    Leave a comment:


  • AmyG
    replied
    Here's yet another take on "premeditation" (no hyphen necessary, folks):

    "Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing."

    Arguably, you could say that in those five seconds where Lennier looked at Sheridan through the partition, he was "fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing." However, in a court of law, I'd bet you dollars to donuts that he wouldn't be convicted of any level of crime that included premeditation: generally, in a legal sense, premeditation presupposes an amount of time in advance sufficient to _physically prepare for the deed_. Thus, buying lengths of rope to choke someone, finding a blunt object and hiding behind a door, etc. etc. Lennier found himself an observer in a mortal situation, and pretty much _instinctively_ chose not to act. The fact that the decision was made in the heat of the moment - granted, a longish moment, five seconds rather than a split second - pretty much quashes the "premeditation" argument.

    Yeah, okay, rereading this thread, NotKosh got it in one with "opportunistic" - that's really the heart of it. Lennier didn't sabotage the internal systems in any way; he found himself presented with an opportunity. As Jan said, I don't believe that, legally, he'd be able to be held responsible had Sheridan died. It's all too easy to say "I was paralyzed by fear - I'd never seen a man dying before." How could you disprove that? Last I checked, it wasn't against the law to be a yellow coward! <g>

    Amy (not a lawyer, but I play one on tv)
    Last edited by AmyG; 09-25-2004, 03:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
    I myself am talking about B5 and Lennier. He wanted John dead due to jealousy over Delenn. There was no "wait for someone else" element to this one.
    I understand that. But you also said:

    To me, whether or not it was "pre-meditated," Lennier should have been tried and convicted. A nice thirty year prison sentence make him rethink his actions.
    Which of necessity means discussion of law. My point is that, legally, doing nothing is not a crime today and probably isn't in that future, either.

    Jan

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Originally posted by Jan
    My (possibly flawed) understanding, though, is that from a legal standpoint, not taking an action isn't a legal offense. If it were, then hundreds of people would be guilty of crimes every day when they assume that somebody else will call 911 when they witness an accident or crime.

    The moral and ethical stands are a different matter. Perhaps you all should define which you're talking about?

    Jan
    I myself am talking about B5 and Lennier. He wanted John dead due to jealousy over Delenn. There was no "wait for someone else" element to this one.

    If you want to stretch the situation, you could say that in his blind loyalty to Delenn, he was performing some kind of test on John to see if he'd survive, thereby being "worthy" of Delenn. Something like a witch trial. Even then, it was not his life to test.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    Originally posted by Radhil
    In some (probably many) circles of thought, that does amount to murder, especially when the action to be taken involves no risk to the helper at all. Opening the door to let them out is an absurdly simple thing.
    My (possibly flawed) understanding, though, is that from a legal standpoint, not taking an action isn't a legal offense. If it were, then hundreds of people would be guilty of crimes every day when they assume that somebody else will call 911 when they witness an accident or crime.

    The moral and ethical stands are a different matter. Perhaps you all should define which you're talking about?

    Jan

    Leave a comment:


  • Radhil
    replied
    Originally posted by NotKosh
    Then, for some reason you use the word murder. That involves killing. Lennier took no action to kill Sheridan, he simply decided not to help him.
    In some (probably many) circles of thought, that does amount to murder, especially when the action to be taken involves no risk to the helper at all. Opening the door to let them out is an absurdly simple thing.

    Or to yank from further TV - last season of 24. A man is dying from a heart attack or some sudden onset. He has meds that can save him. You know this, and he can't get to them. You stand there and watch him die, instead of getting his meds. That amounts to murder, or is at the very least skating the thin-ice over the definition.

    A choice is an action, even if the choice is inaction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Taking a page out of Radhil's book, you, NotKosh, need to go back and read my posts.

    To me, whether or not it was "pre-meditated," Lennier should have been tried and convicted. A nice thirty year prison sentence make him rethink his actions.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotKosh
    replied
    Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
    <<Get yourself a clearer justice book.>>

    Sir! Yes, sir!
    He is right, and you are so wrong. Premeditation is the word. For some reason you have no clue what the mean pre means. It means before or prior to. That means you think about it ahead of time, not 5 seconds before the act. The second part of the word is meditation, which is deep concentrated thought. You meditate (usually) alone in silence, for an extended period of time. You don't do this leaning on an Impala watching traffic, or walking down the halls of a starship.

    Then, for some reason you use the word murder. That involves killing. Lennier took no action to kill Sheridan, he simply decided not to help him.

    Your example is poor, and you really need to consult a dictionary. You are showing flagrant disregard for the common definitions of words, that would get you an 'F' in grade school English classes.

    Lennier's actions were opportunistic, not premeditated. His actions were a crime of neglect.

    What are you going to say next, that something inflammable won't burn?

    As JMS says
    It makes it hard to have this conversation with you if your comments don't touch reality at any two contiguous points.
    Last edited by NotKosh; 09-25-2004, 11:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X