Walking Dead

[MediumHigh]

You guys are thinking about it wrong. The scene was not about whether Carl was right to shoot the kid and more about why shot Carl the kid. In war there are two basic reasons to shoot someone; out of self defense or because their the red team to your blue team. We liked to assume its always the former because "self defense" is understandable and you can argue all day about whether the person you shot was really intending to kill you. There is a legal argument in self defense and we are fond of arguing.  We'd like to think we can negotiate ourselves out of the situation, and let by gones be by gones. The latter, the "you're wearing the wrong team colors" has no argument. No grand debate, no witty recourse or moral dilemmas. Carl looked shocked because that was the first time he pulled the trigger for that reason. It was always for self defense before, and we can justify that, we can defend that, we can do it bravely or reluctantly. It also assumes that if the "threat" wasn't threatening we wouldn't shoot, or better yet wouldn't have to shoot. Makes you feel good about committing murder now that the basics of the human justice system is behind you. Carl doesn't have that luxury, he shot someone not because he had to but because that person wasn't directly behind him. No argument, no debate.

[KallDrexx]

You guys seem to be trying to put more thought into that scene than the writers or director did.

[TheWalrus]

To be fair, that's not hard to do.

[Tale]

[MediumHigh]

Well to be honest, Carl acts and behaves a lot like Shane, minus the unhinged.

[Signe]

I really liked the episode and I thought the boy who plays Carl did an awesome job.  That last bit when he was talking to his dad especially.  He went from confused little kid to stone cold killer.  Everything about him changed right then.  His eyes, demeanour and body language became completely different.  Nice bit of acting and from a kid, no less.

[kaid]

Given all of carls experiences to date really when in doubt there is no doubt just shoot. Sure maybe that guy would have handed his gun over maybe he would not have wound up back stabbing them or selling them out later. Given what carl has seen to date on what happens if you give mercy to somebody who was hostile to you a short time ago he chose correctly.

[calapine]

You guys are thinking about it wrong. The scene was not about whether Carl was right to shoot the kid and more about why shot Carl the kid. In war there are two basic reasons to shoot someone; out of self defense or because their the red team to your blue team. We liked to assume its always the former because "self defense" is understandable and you can argue all day about whether the person you shot was really intending to kill you. There is a legal argument in self defense and we are fond of arguing.  We'd like to think we can negotiate ourselves out of the situation, and let by gones be by gones. The latter, the "you're wearing the wrong team colors" has no argument. No grand debate, no witty recourse or moral dilemmas. Carl looked shocked because that was the first time he pulled the trigger for that reason. It was always for self defense before, and we can justify that, we can defend that, we can do it bravely or reluctantly. It also assumes that if the "threat" wasn't threatening we wouldn't shoot, or better yet wouldn't have to shoot. Makes you feel good about committing murder now that the basics of the human justice system is behind you. Carl doesn't have that luxury, he shot someone not because he had to but because that person wasn't directly behind him. No argument, no debate.

Uh, the only red team vs. blue team I can possibly imagine in that situation is zombies vs. humans. Else its self defense or murder, not many other options left.

[shiznitz]

Carl made the right call. His group was not taking in strangers.  What would they do with a prisoner?  He didn't know Rick was going to change his tune.  The fact that Carl is only 12(?) makes the right call hard to watch, though.

[kaid]

Also the kid was coming with a gun in a position it would have been pretty easy to quickly go back to a shooting pose. Had he dropped the gun altogether that would be one thing but he was an active hostile who was still armed. Had the guy really wanted to surrender he should have dropped the gun completely and put his hands up not keep inching forward with the gun almost at the ready position.

The kid pretty much is following through with shane type thinking with less douche bag. Shane was right in many ways he just went about it in a bad manner. Seriously what would they have done if the kid surrendered there is no good jail to stick him that is not wasting the groups food. If you let him go they had every reason he would regroup and be sent back to attack them again by the governor. What option did they have but to off him carl is not a psychic to know what the governor would do to his people and that the survivors of woodbury would come to the prison for sanctuary.   

[calapine]

Carl made the right call. His group was not taking in strangers.  What would they do with a prisoner?  He didn't know Rick was going to change his tune.  The fact that Carl is only 12(?) makes the right call hard to watch, though.

Murder a person? I am going to bite my tongue here, else this is would turn into a big derail with everyone being mad at me for shitting up a (another?) thread.

[Tebonas]

Thats one point you shouldn't press too much outside of politics and just write it off as cultural differences.

[croaker69]

There's no murder without a system of justice is there? 

[HaemishM]

Yes, there is. Next question?

[croaker69]

If murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of someone else with a twist of optional malice then how is what Carl did murder? There are no laws, it wasn't premeditated, and there was certainly no malice.  Murder is a loaded word that doesn't pertain here.

[MediumHigh]

You guys are thinking about it wrong. The scene was not about whether Carl was right to shoot the kid and more about why shot Carl the kid. In war there are two basic reasons to shoot someone; out of self defense or because their the red team to your blue team. We liked to assume its always the former because "self defense" is understandable and you can argue all day about whether the person you shot was really intending to kill you. There is a legal argument in self defense and we are fond of arguing.  We'd like to think we can negotiate ourselves out of the situation, and let by gones be by gones. The latter, the "you're wearing the wrong team colors" has no argument. No grand debate, no witty recourse or moral dilemmas. Carl looked shocked because that was the first time he pulled the trigger for that reason. It was always for self defense before, and we can justify that, we can defend that, we can do it bravely or reluctantly. It also assumes that if the "threat" wasn't threatening we wouldn't shoot, or better yet wouldn't have to shoot. Makes you feel good about committing murder now that the basics of the human justice system is behind you. Carl doesn't have that luxury, he shot someone not because he had to but because that person wasn't directly behind him. No argument, no debate.

Uh, the only red team vs. blue team I can possibly imagine in that situation is zombies vs. humans. Else its self defense or murder, not many other options left.

And here is where the understanding fails. The red vs blue was Ricks group vs the Governors group. That's how Carl saw it and that's why he pull the trigger. In our normal world, we call that murder.

[HaemishM]

If murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of someone else with a twist of optional malice then how is what Carl did murder? There are no laws, it wasn't premeditated, and there was certainly no malice.  Murder is a loaded word that doesn't pertain here.

If you don't believe in an absolute morality, then sure, murder doesn't pertain. I happen do so.

Murder also does not have to be premeditated or have malice to be murder, and murder is a concept that transcends legal classification.

[MediumHigh]

Pssh, without absolute morality, which no one believes in anymore, something like murder is only a crime if not justified. Or done to someone you're suppose to be close to.

[Velorath]

I have nothing to add except that this debate reminds me of Ed O'Neil's character from Wayne's World.

[Lt.Dan]

Carl shooting the kid is commentary on society. It's saying that shooting someone is the easy and obvious way to solve a situation - something a 10 year old would rationalise - not a considered solution of an adult.  That's what shocked Rick and Hershel. Rick saw that as the dark tunnel he'd come out of. Hershel because he's the shows moral Everyman.

The whole greedo debate is incidental.

[Selby]

And here is where the understanding fails. The red vs blue was Ricks group vs the Governors group. That's how Carl saw it and that's why he pull the trigger. In our normal world, we call that murder.

We do this all the time in war.  Other bastard gets to die for his country\cause.  And Rick did say they were going to war with the Governor's group.  Doesn't necessarily make it right, but I can see both sides of it - especially considering the kid didn't drop the weapon right away and was still inching forward.  Hesitate in a war and it could cost you your life or others theirs.

[apocrypha]

The context is what the group is trying to be. They've always presented themselves as "good people" and a large part of that identity is not killing other people unless they have to.

Hershel is the good conscience, Shane was the bad one, and 80% of the show is about watching Rick getting pulled in two directions by those opposing philosophies.

By the unwritten laws of what the group wants to be then Carl didn't need to kill that kid and it was murder. By the opposing tenets of Shane's alienation it was the safest thing to do. Alienation vs cooperation, it's kind of the whole point of the show.

[Surlyboi]

Season 4 trailer from SDCC...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSi2fJALDyQ

[schpain]

looks good.  there was alot in there though, i'm worried how many episodes they have spoiled from that trailer already

[Setanta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxg27QsaIEY for those not in the US

Looks goo, I just spent a few nights re-watching the first three seasons and am looking forward to this.

[Threash]

New black guy introduced, scene with old black guy getting mobbed by zombies.  Don't ever change Walking Dead.

[Ironwood]

I think that's a Canon one, actually.  So we won't talk about it yet.

[Yegolev]

New black guy introduced, scene with old black guy getting mobbed by zombies.  Don't ever change Walking Dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xyhVO-SWfM

[schpain]

what the walking dead needs is a 'in memoriam' video similar to game of thrones.

[HaemishM]

New black guy introduced, scene with old black guy getting mobbed by zombies.  Don't ever change Walking Dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xyhVO-SWfM

Still one of my favorite K&P skits ever.

[Surlyboi]

All it needed was a little Liam Neesons or Bruce Willy.

[MahrinSkel]

Normally I would make a zombie thread joke here, but that seems redundant.  This started up again tonight, one thing we certainly don't have is a shortage of SFX budget for zombies.  New Black Guy did not get killed, but they introduced a new boyfriend for the younger girl just so they could redshirt him.

Actually, they introduced a Newer Black Guy, should we start a dead pool for which gets killed?

--Dave

[Selby]

Actually, they introduced a Newer Black Guy, should we start a dead pool for which gets killed?

First thing I said when I saw him.  Although all the fresh faces who didn't get names probably means the body count is going to be high...

[Nevermore]

Although all the fresh faces who didn't get names probably means the body count is going to be high...

Between the end of this episode and the teasers for what's going to happen this season, that's a given.

[jgsugden]

In Walking Dead, there is only one safe character... and he isn't entirely safe despite the story being about him.