 Originally Posted by Wyldwraith
Here's the thing:
1) As to the argument that killing Randall paints the group into a corner regarding any potential dealings with Randall's group. Rick & Co. left 3 of their men dead on the ground already (or was it four, my memory isnt terribly sharp regarding last Sunday)...so any damage that's been done by killing members of the other group has already been done.
2) As to taking Randall a long, long way off and dumping him. Besides the already mentioned hazards/difficulties of such a trip there's this: Say they do have to deal with Randall's group at some point. If they can't produce a living breathing Randall, why wouldn't the group Randall belongs to assume that the people who've killed multiple members of their group haven't done away with Randall and buried him in a shallow grave? So as far as painting Rick & Co. into a corner, making Randall "disappear" by dumping him far enough away that he can't find his way back either to the farm or his own group would amount to the exact same thing as shooting him so far as the reaction of his groupmates would be affected.
3) The argument being made against shooting Randall, Ie: That once done, it's something that can't be undone applies with just as much force if you turn the logic around. If Randall isn't killed, and at some point contributes to or outright causes the death of one of "our group"...that's just as final. To me, YES it's a simple question. "Am I willing to tolerate any significant risk to the lives and well-being of my friends and loved ones that is in my power to eliminate? For me, that answer is no, no, a thousand times NO. Yes, the facts as the group knows them don't convict Randall 100% as a confirmed monster...but when it comes to civilization being gone and the responsibility for the lives and safety of the people you care for having become a direct and immediate personal responsibility...circumstancial evidence is enough for me to make the call, BECAUSE there is no positive offsetting factor that increases the safety/well-being of my people in letting him live.
There's a REASON our ancestors lived in small tribes that were constantly at each other's throats. It's the inevitable result of having no umbrella-overwatch to mitigate conflicts of a serious nature between separate social groups. Ie: If a "tribe" of strangers = in number to your people are sighted setting up camp relatively nearby, what stops them from killing you all in your sleep if they're so inclined if you don't do unto them before they do unto you?
Yes, I am talking about abandoning the morality forged in a civilized society. Such a morality is ONLY a positive thing so long as such a society endures. This is the core failing that makes Rick a less effective survivor than Shane, and why Dale would quite realistically have died in the situation he placed himself in. Following sounds of severe distress into the darkness, without even having your weapon in your hands and ready to fire. (Yes, I understand the character was being killed off for out-of-story motives...but if you look at the events leading up to his death, someone in that situation would UNDOUBTEDLY have fared better with a rifle in their hands than barehanded when they went down in a clinch with a ghoul. Even if you couldn't get a shot off, or even bludgeon the zombie, by holding it between the two of you and pushing upwards, the limited surface area concentrates the force you're exerting with your upward push. Compared to trying to hold another man-sized, man-shaped attacker away from your body barehanded, it's entirely possible you might even be able to open enough space between you and the zombie atop you that you're pushing back/upwards to draw your knees up and between the two of you. Which would a) prevent being manually disemboweled as Dale was, and b) More than DOUBLE the amount of force you're able to exert. Under THOSE circumstances, even an aged man like the Dale character represents would stand at LEAST a 50/50 chance of dislodging the zombie completely, if not send it over backwards and onto its ass/back and OFF YOU. Yet Dale didn't think of his moment-to-moment life in raw survivalist terms, and that's why the rifle was still slung over his shoulder when he went down, despite having enough auditory information to put a more aware individual on their guard 10x over.
Rick and the late Dale though, they think FIRST in terms of the life they lived up until civilization collapsed, and in practical/pragmatic terms of cut and dried survival afterward. Which is why, for example, Rick never even CONSIDERED stopping the search for Sophia. Not after Carl was shot, not after Andrea was attacked and almost infected but for Maggie's miraculously-timed intervention, not after Daryl was thrown from a horse, attacked by Walkers, and nearly killed by Andrea because as a consequence of his injuries/exhaustion, Daryl was staggering & lurching forward just like a Walker. Not after Shane and Andrea nearly got swarmed in the residential neighborhood. Any ONE of these events would have been enough to cause a PRACTICAL leader to at LEAST stop, and re-evaluate the current course of action in depth before continuing on with it. Instead, Rick made his decision based ENTIRELY on emotional reactions to his long-held moral code.
I'll say it again. When your actions, and those of a small group of family/friends/allies are ALL that stands between you and yours dying on any given day, it's CRAZY to take ANY risk that isn't offset by a reward/benefit of GREATER value than the severity of the risk taken. Randall has a 0% benefit-value to Rick and Co. so even if Randall was 99% likely to be a scared, mixed-up, non-threatening kid, what you're saying isn't that you're doing what you believe to be the right thing based on a 99% probability that things are as you would like to believe them to be. No, what you're REALLY saying is you consent wholeheartedly to a 1-in-100 chance that by not shooting Randall, one of your people will die as a result of that decision.
With as many threats and dangers in a post-apocalyptic environment that you'd be subjected to and could do nothing to eliminate, how could you possibly justify ADDING to those life-and-death risks/dangers when doing so in no wise aids you and yours?
Here we go 
If Randall isn't killed, and at some point contributes to or outright causes the death of one of "our group"...that's just as final.
No, it's not. Killing Randall is final, him contributing to someone's death is based on conjecture. No, not conjecture, nothing as rational as that, I mean fear. You know, base emotions.
YES it's a simple question. "Am I willing to tolerate any significant risk to the lives and well-being of my friends and loved ones that is in my power to eliminate? For me, that answer is no
When in fact the question isn't simple, at all. The situation the characters are in is not black and white. You see having to decide wether another human should live or die is never simple. Especially when the only argument you have for doing so is based on a hunch or gut feeling or other mumbo jumbo standing in for paranoia and fear. Shooting someone in the head is something you should not take lightly and has to be thought through.
I recommend '12 Angry Men' if you haven't already seen it and wish to explore this moral dilemma further.
a confirmed monster...
Labelling a fellow human as a 'monster' or a 'devil' always crops up when dealing with people defending the death penalty. It's easier to kill something than someone. It also implies that the acts the 'monster' commited could never be done by someone in our 'humane' group when in fact ...
when it comes to civilization being gone and the responsibility for the lives and safety of the people you care for having become a direct and immediate personal responsibility...circumstancial evidence is enough for me to make the call, BECAUSE there is no positive offsetting factor that increases the safety/well-being of my people in letting him live.
But there is. You see, when you abandon all morality and cross that line like Shane did when he tried to rape Lori, and almost killed his (former?) best friend you will eventually become a threat to your beloved group yourself. It's a short distance from going 'we have to execute this kid because him being alive is a threat to my beloved ones' to 'we need to use violence to make Rick step down as a leader because his leadership is putting me and my beloved ones in jeopardy.'
In fact I'm willing to bet that the guy you name as the ideal leader will be as great a threat, perhaps even greater threat to the group or one of its members than Randall. Might not happen this season, but it will eventually.
We'll just have to wait and see.
how could you possibly justify ADDING to those life-and-death risks/dangers when doing so in no wise aids you and yours?
I do agree with you that a certain utilitarian approach is necessary in this zombie apocalypse. But when dealing with a persons life, especially if you have no evidence, it will open the door to a lot of trouble. YOu not only lose your humanity, you might end up destroying the group from within.
YOu name RIck and Dale weak characters because of their morality and emotions when Shane is the one character whose emotions might put the group in danger.
|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks