The Shane Topic..

[AcesandEights]

Shane would discard you like yesterdays chip wrappers. Shane with power over the group = Captain Rhodes. Well, to be fair, I wouldn't say he's that bad. He has highly dangerous tendencies and slants towards amoral and selfish behavior, and has been written to be the guy torn apart by doing what he feels needs to be done to keep himself, and to some extent the rest of the the group, alive even if that means doing things no one else is willing to (or at least this is what he tells himself). To me, he just goes too far too often too easily.

[Andy]

This. If you were in a bad situation, Rick would go balls out to save you, Shane would discard you like yesterdays chip wrappers. Shane with power over the group = Captain Rhodes. I Dont think its fair at all to compare Shane to captain rhodes, for one Shane genuinely cares for members of his group, particularly Carl (as has been mentioned) and volunteered to save the boys hide without a seconds thought. Shane also, i believe, showed genuine restraint when dealing with dale in the swamp. Personally if it was me, i would of been beating his old ass all over the place. He's no rhodes by a long shot. Rick as the groups leader on the other hand i genuinely believe would willingly endanger my life for his own purposes, as we've seen with the group in season 2. We all knew sophia was dead, we have been saying for weeks on here and several members of the group have hinted at it. after 72 hours they are looking for a body and that was before the zompocalypse hit. Rick felt guilty about losing sophia out in the woods and i think alot of the prolonged search for her was down to his personal guilt and wanting to redeem himself in the groups eyes. There are several examples of this behaviour in the comics aswell but i wont go into that as i dont know how much youve read. Shane would kill a injured (otis) or dangerous (ed) member of the group if their presence endangered the rest of the group. He is not a cold blooded killer or else both rick and dale would be dead now. He's had motive and opportunity at them both. Rick while having more honourable intentions, i genuinely believe would inadvertently kill me while trying to ease his own conscience. Thats why im going with shane.

[AcesandEights]

Rick while having more honourable intentions, i genuinely believe would inadvertently kill me while trying to ease his own conscience. I certainly won't deny that's a possibility based on his actions this season! He just needs some seasoning. Get him a little more toughened up, like Shane, but without Shane's head start into the wilderness of amorality.

[Andy]

I certainly won't deny that's a possibility based on his actions this season! He just needs some seasoning. Get him a little more toughened up, like Shane, but without Shane's head start into the wilderness of amorality. I Thought of this after i typed my post out, but i think a fairer comparison to GAR characters here would be Ben and Cooper from NOTLD. Rick, like Ben, beleives that what he is doing is right and has nothing but good intentions and acts on his conscience. but ultimately his actions will lead to the demise of the group. Shane, like Cooper, Also beleives what he is doing is right but is alot more forceful and aggressive, as a result people see him as the villain. but ultimately, he is actually right. What he wants to do is sensible. I Think thats fairer than calling Shane "Rhodes".

[AcesandEights]

I Think thats fairer than calling Shane "Rhodes". I agree that's probably an unfortunate comparison...at least at this point (though it could be said Shane lost it at the barn and had a bit of Rhodes moment, but I still think that was more of a Roger moment). Ben and Cooper is a better comparison, though I don't think either of them was expressly correct then and I don't think Shane or Rick are without fault in their choices. More to the point as...Krisvds or Sammich pointed out some pages back, they could tackle a lot more by coming at things from a more reasonable and communicative approach. Just with Ben and Cooper, there's a whole stretch of middle ground often overlooked.

[Wyldwraith]

Here's one element of what "went wrong with Shane" in the finale that hasn't been touched on to any great extent, Shane looked to Rick REPEATEDLY for an answer/resolution to the Walkers-in-the-barn situation, and instead of communicating in any meaningful way with Shane or really anyone else from their group besides Lori (who due to certain emotional factors is currently overcompensating by supporting Rick 150% as a knee-jerk reaction), Rick has been communicating with Herschel, doing things to "prove himself" to Herschel, and all while telling the people who are trusting him with their lives by looking to Rick as leader what amounts to "I'll get back to you on that, after I talk to Herschel again." Unlike the others in the group (except Daryl in an equal but very different way) Shane is the only man whose conduct is exemplifying the old military saying "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow." Rick knows this quite well, as they've argued over the very predisposition of Shane's before, and how it conflicts with the way Rick thinks things should be done. Possessing intimate knowledge of how Shane looks at decision-making in the post-apocalyptic environment means that RICK is the proximate cause of what Shane did at the barn. Why? It's as simple as this. Having already been told on at least 3 other occasions in a 48hr period "I'll get back to you on that after I talk with Herschel again"....Rick has NO excuse to fail to understand what a VERY serious overt act that indicates AT LEAST passive compliance with Herschel's delusions about the nature of the Walkers would be perceived as by Shane under those specific circumstances. Rick tells Shane over and over basically "Sit tight, I'm handling this" in response to Shane's grave concerns about the proximity of a great many Walkers to their unsecured campsite. So (at least initially) Shane trusts Rick and sits tight. As a result of trusting Rick's judgment, Shane witnesses Rick being willing to CONTINUE risking all their lives to appease Herschel's delusional decision-making. From there, what happens at the barn is simply another example of Shane seeing the situation as a "do or die moment", and Shane decides to take matters into his own hands because he (rightly) feels that Rick's misguided good intentions are steadily increasing the danger to all of them. It bears remembering that Rick, Herschel and the teen from Herschel's group seemed (because Herschel wanted it that way, as we see in his turning down Andrea's offer of help in favor of taking just Rick) intent on completing the zombie-wrangling without anyone else's involvement. Shane has a rough idea that there are around 20 Walkers already in the barn. Is it unreasonable to believe that it's POSSIBLE Shane took such drastic action because he felt that the act of zombie wrangling occurring constituted a threat by potentially releasing the Walkers if the wrangling went wrong? Viewer's perspective note: Shane didn't see this, but WE saw NUMEROUS instances of (possible) bites, and potential losses of control of the catch-poles, and by extension the Walkers on their ends as Rick, Herschel and that kid struggled to get the Walkers out of the bog. Is it so unreasonable for a person whose looking to another to resolve what he sees as an ongoing danger to himself and others to take matters into his own hands upon viewing as seemingly crazy an operation as trying to manhandle Walkers where you want them to go for the first time?

[Trin]

I don't necessarily think that Shane's actions with Otis were unjustified, and maybe not evil, but the man has shown a tendency to hide his actions, and his moral code has some warts when there's no accountability to the group. I'd feel a whole lot differently about Shane if he showed an ounce of remorse. That's really it right there. He shows no remorse. I don't get how people can excuse Shane and condemn Dale. If we're okay with Shane shooting Otis in the leg and leaving him for zombie food because it's the "tough choice" to save lives... then why is it wrong for Dale to coerce Andrea to leave the CDC and thus save her life? We are starting to see shades of her expressing a desire to live now. And the notion of keeping the guns out of Andrea's hands should seem a lot different now that she shot Darryl in the head. His decisons have been very much in the category of making tough choices to protect/save lives. The big decision of Dale's that I think was awful judgement was hiding the guns. And personally, I think that decision would've been a fine one had he told someone else of his plans to do so. I agree with Wyld that no single person should have that knoweldge given how easy it is for any one of them to die with it. But really, would Dale have tried to hide the guns at all if Shane hadn't caused him to think he was about to do something aggressive? Dale's concerns were clearly justified because as soon as Shane got the guns back he went and did something aggressive, so even that decision wasn't a bad one from the perspective of his instincts being right or wrong. I think that if Shane were ever in a position to save Dale or let Dale die, and there were no witnesses or ways to determine what happened... he'd let Dale die without a second's thought. And I think that goes for several others of the group. Personally, I hope Otis shambles into the farm with a bullet hole in his kneecap. Let's see Shane explain that.

[Thorn]

I dunno Trin I think there is a big difference between talking someone into living instead of throwing their lives away and killing a guy who is trying to help you in cold blood. I may be missing you point but that just seems like a night and day situation.

[krisvds]

I dunno Trin I think there is a big difference between talking someone into living instead of throwing their lives away and killing a guy who is trying to help you in cold blood. I may be missing you point but that just seems like a night and day situation. I don't know, seems like Trin's question is valid? Why do some condemn Dale for a moral choice involving saving someone's life (be it against her will) but excuse Shane for killing Otis to save Carl's life (and his own)? In the end both acts can be seen as ultimately altruistic and/completely selfish. I am enjoying this moral ambiguity in the series a lot, it's classic TWD. That route has more 'drama' (look the ongoing discussions here)cthan the standard soap fare it can sometimes dish out as well.

[babomb]

I'd feel a whole lot differently about Shane if he showed an ounce of remorse. That's really it right there. He shows no remorse. That might come down to what you consider to qualify as showing remorse. Because it seems obvious to me that Shane feels remorse for the Otis thing at least. Which is really the only deed that he should feel remorse for. There was the scene in the bathroom, then his discussion with Andrea. Which IMO, showed that he is capable of remorse and does feel it. People show and feel remorse in different ways. Shane might not be brought to tears over it, or allow it to overtake him, but that doesn't exactly indicate an absolute lack of remorse. This holds true in real life. People don't always respond to emotion just as we would, or as we expect them to or prefer them to. I'm one of those kinds of people. I don't show emotion overtly, and I'm terrible at verbalizing emotion. This doesn't mean I'm not capable of it or feel it less than others. It just means my response to it is different. I don't get how people can excuse Shane and condemn Dale. If we're okay with Shane shooting Otis in the leg and leaving him for zombie food because it's the "tough choice" to save lives... then why is it wrong for Dale to coerce Andrea to leave the CDC and thus save her life? We are starting to see shades of her expressing a desire to live now. And the notion of keeping the guns out of Andrea's hands should seem a lot different now that she shot Darryl in the head. His decisons have been very much in the category of making tough choices to protect/save lives. Carl was an innocent child shot by accident, not an adult that chose to die in order to escape the world they live in. What Dale did was take away Andreas choice that was by all rights hers to make. He did this not because she was "accidentally" put in harms way and otherwise wanted to live, but because he didn't want her to die because of his own personal reasons. He also did it in a shifty way by making her responsible for his death should she choose to end her own life. Shane did what he did because he saw it as the only way for either one of them to survive and bring back needed medical supplies to save a childs life who didn't choose to die. Otis understood that the chances were good that he may not make it back alive from that mission. He chose to do it anyway because he felt it was his responsibility because he shot Carl. Andrea shooting Daryl was more of an indication that she needed to be properly trained in using firearms, not that she shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon. It's not like those are Dale's guns and he's reserving the right to choose who he gives them to or who he allows to have access to them. That was Andreas sidearm and nobody else had the right to say she couldn't have it. Realistically, that would be a situation that has a person like Dale coughing up his balls or spittin out his teeth. The big decision of Dale's that I think was awful judgement was hiding the guns. And personally, I think that decision would've been a fine one had he told someone else of his plans to do so. I agree with Wyld that no single person should have that knoweldge given how easy it is for any one of them to die with it. But really, would Dale have tried to hide the guns at all if Shane hadn't caused him to think he was about to do something aggressive? Dale's concerns were clearly justified because as soon as Shane got the guns back he went and did something aggressive, so even that decision wasn't a bad one from the perspective of his instincts being right or wrong. That depends on your personal perspective though. I personally think that what Shane did was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Shane clearly stated to Rick that the farm was no longer safe and that the right thing to do was to leave. Rick dismissed that in favor of further "negotiations" with Hershel. Which IMO wasn't the right course of action. THEN, Rick takes it further into the realm of insanity and complies with Hershel to the point of putting himself and everyone else at risk by helping put more walkers in the barn. But for some reason there's this pervasive idea that because Rick has good intentions that he can do no wrong, and his wishes are complied with regardless of whether they make sense or not or if they endanger the entire group. Which is ridiculous! Good intentions don't mean anything if the plan is stupid and reckless. But this doesn't seem to be getting anyones attention. All anyone seems to be focusing on is their reaction to Shane's hard edged methods. People seem to dislike him so much that they're willing to completely overlook the mitigating circumstances that lead to his so called "meltdowns". IMO, this is a very naive and unrealistic way to evaluate the situation. Dale on the other hand, consistently deceives the group in order to tip the scales toward an outcome that he himself favors, and no one ever really knows about it. One of these days it's gonna end up bad for everyone.

[Thorn]

I guess, to me I just see it in more terms of the motives involving the people directly impacted. Shane killed a man to get to where he wanted to go, the old fella saved a life that did not want to be saved... but he saved a life all the same. You would agree I am sure lying is not as bad as rape. Deceit is not as bad as murder. Manipulating someone into making a choice about living is wrong, I get that but shooting a man and feeding him to zombies is far worse in my opinion. Andrea has a gun right now, if she wanted to die she still could she has choice here. Otis had NO CHOICE. HE was betrayed and fed to walkers... period. -- -------- Post added at 08:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 AM ---------- IMO, this is a very naive and unrealistic way to evaluate the situation. Dale on the other hand, consistently deceives the group in order to tip the scales toward an outcome that he himself favors, and no one ever really knows about it. One of these days it's gonna end up bad for everyone. Rick can and does do wrong, trust me, as a fan of the comics at least his flaws and errors are very obvious. To me it is not about being a perfect leader, there is NO PERFECT leader in this world there is no perfect anything there is just surviving as best you can. It comes down to whose methods you find most palatable, who you most identify with, and to me that is the guy who works from a point of good intentions who holds on to a semblance of his old moral code especially in the face of some of the worst horrors imaginable. That said preference, and choice... I will error on the side of honor, defend compassion, and give a pass to people following the path I most identify with. If he is wrong I will call him on it, I don't think Rick agreeing to try Hershel's way short term is a major failing on his part. It shows him having an open mind, also let's not forget they were being evicted Rick was doing what he had to do short term at least to make sure that did not happen. It would buy him time to work on Herschel with logic and reason. Ultimately though, leaving the Farm would have been my first choice. Baby or no. Not my place, not my rules, and I don't like the idea of having a barn full of land sharks sitting next to where my kid sleeps. Beyond that there is no way I force my will on those who live on the farm, nor do I force my opinion on them. I try to teach them, get my point across, and illustrate . I discuss debate, and frame my argument. I take Herschel, one of his other people, and one of my people into the wilds and set a scene that shows the walkers for what they are without the dramatic shoot the guys wife in the face. It is a less personal display that I feel could get you where you needed without destroying the man. Might not work but it makes more sense than Shane's way and it keeps the farm and the group out of harms way.

[shootemindehead]

This. If you were in a bad situation, Rick would go balls out to save you, Shane would discard you like yesterdays chip wrappers. Shane with power over the group = Captain Rhodes. +1 Can''t believe there are people supporting Shanes actions. Very strange indeed. The man's a liar, a murderer and a damn near rapist. -- -------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ---------- Shane would kill a injured (otis) or dangerous (ed) member of the group if their presence endangered the rest of the group. He is not a cold blooded killer or else both rick and dale would be dead now. He's had motive and opportunity at them both. Rick while having more honourable intentions, i genuinely believe would inadvertently kill me while trying to ease his own conscience. Thats why im going with shane. Shane had enough time to WOUND Otis and wrestle with him for the goods for several minutes before the zombies got near the spot. They probably could have both made it, but Shane opted for the cowardly approach. He didn't even have the decency to put a round in Otis' head for jesus sake, but instead condemed him to a horrifying and incredibly agonising death. Also, he only used Ed for an outlet for his own frustrations. Again, a purely selfish action, that had beneficial and unintended side-effects. He drew down on Rick, his best mate and only didn't fire because he was caught in the act by Dale and probably didn't kill Dale because he thought he wouldn't get away with it in that instance. Shane is a dangerous c*nt to EVERYONE in the group. He's no better than Merle. In fact, I'd sooner trust Merle, as he advertises his particular nastiness very clearly. I also don't believe that Rick has put anyone in direct danger yet, despite his obvious flaws and possible potential to do so. That's why I'm going with me and sod the lot of them.

[Thorn]

+1 Can''t believe there are people supporting Shanes actions. Very strange indeed. The man's a liar, a murderer and a damn near rapist. -- -------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ---------- Shane had enough time to WOUND Otis and wrestle with him for the goods for several minutes before the zombies got near the spot. They probably could have both made it, but Shane opted for the cowardly approach. He didn't even have the decency to put a round in Otis' head for jesus sake, but instead condemed him to a horrifying and incredibly agonising death. Also, he only used Ed for an outlet for his own frustrations. Again, a purely selfish action, that had beneficial and unintended side-effects. He drew down on Rick, his best mate and only didn't fire because he was caught in the act by Dale and probably didn't kill Dale because he thought he wouldn't get away with it in that instance. Shane is a dangerous c*nt to EVERYONE in the group. He's no better than Merle. In fact, I'd sooner trust Merle, as he advertises his particular nastiness very clearly. I also don't believe that Rick has put anyone in direct danger yet, despite his obvious flaws and possible potential to do so. That's why I'm going with me and sod the lot of them. I want to know how people would feel if they were the ones Shane sacrificed for the good of the group in his own mind as judge jury and executioner. Or their kid... honestly. All BS and trying to support your argument aside.

[SymphonicX]

Would you rather shane had allowed himself, otis and carl to all die by trying to do the "right" thing? I Honestly dont see his act as evil. It sucks for otis but it was nesscessary and shane knew it. Oh come on man there was no justification for doing that to poor Otis! What shane did was create himself an advantage in that situation - the fact is shane could have ran ahead and got in the car in exactly the same amount of time it took him to cap Otis and leg it. Otis wouldn't have caught up with Shane, no way - the dude was gone anyway, Otis knew it...Shane helped the situation happen earlier and for that, he committed an act of evil... My point is it took Shane the same time to get back to the car and Otis wouldn't have survived anyway - Shane didn't even have the respect to pop Otis in the head - he left him alive to be eaten, Otis has himself ripped apart limb from limb whilst still alive - so I don't think it's fair to say what Shane did was humane....it was evil.

[babomb]

Shane killed a man to get to where he wanted to go, the old fella saved a life that did not want to be saved... but he saved a life all the same. Well, that's not exactly the entire truth though. It's not like Shane killed Otis so he could take his truck and go get drunk. It wasn't exactly to get "where he wanted to go". It was done, as has been said, to make sure one of them got back to the farm to save Carl. Had the mission gone smoothly and neither of them were hurt, I really don't think Shane would've shot Otis and left him for dead. It wasn't an action driven by purely selfish "want", it was in Shane's mind the only way to "ensure" the success of the mission. Had Shane left it to chance there's a good possibility that Otis would be mobbed by walkers and Shane wouldn't be able to retreive the contents of the pack Otis was carrying. Then Hershel wouldn't have had all the necessary supplies to do Carl's surgery and he would've probably died. MAYBE fortune would've shined on them and they both would've got away clean and made it back without incident? Or maybe if Otis was mobbed Hershel could still do the surgery without the stuff in Otis' pack? But maybe not? Shane wasn't prepared to gamble with Carl's life like that. I'm not saying that it was an honorable thing to do, or that Shane shouldn't be concerned with remorse regarding the decision. Just that I personally don't see it as such a cut and dry case of cold blooded murder for purely selfish motivations. You would agree I am sure lying is not as bad as rape. Of course. But then again, Shane didn't actually rape anyone either. He forced himself on Lori but stopped before it actually turned into a full blown rape. He had no intentions of outright raping her, he forced himself on her hoping she would go along with it. Think about it. Would a simple scratch on the face stop someone that was fully comitted to a rape? No. Deceit is not as bad as murder. Manipulating someone into making a choice about living is wrong, I get that but shooting a man and feeding him to zombies is far worse in my opinion. Agreed. But let's not forget that saving a childs life was the motivation for a man getting shot and left as walker food. Dale disregarded Andreas wishes to save himself the heartache of dealing with her death, then he also denied her the ability to defend herself for the exact same reason. So the ultimate motivations for the acts on the part of Shane and Dale are very different. If you look at the act itself based solely on how it appears in words squeezed into a single sentence, then yeah shooting a man and leaving him for dead is worse than manipulating someone to make them choose life. However, that isn't an accurate representation of the circumstances surrounding the 2 acts. The severity, motivations and circumstances surrounding the 2 acts make them unable to be accurately compared like this. Andrea has a gun right now, if she wanted to die she still could she has choice here. Otis had NO CHOICE. HE was betrayed and fed to walkers... period. Again, these 2 situations don't boil down equally like this unless you disregard certain aspects of the bigger picture. And if you disregard those aspects you're essentially rewriting the script to suit your position better. Which brings us back to the point where this doesn't accurately reflect the larger picture. If he is wrong I will call him on it, I don't think Rick agreeing to try Hershel's way short term is a major failing on his part. It shows him having an open mind, also let's not forget they were being evicted Rick was doing what he had to do short term at least to make sure that did not happen. It would buy him time to work on Herschel with logic and reason. That's my problem with it. Staying at that farm shouldn't be so all important as to put everyone in the danger they were put in by staying there. I would seriously question Rick's ability to lead if I were in that group. And his justification for it IMO makes it all the worse. I take Herschel, one of his other people, and one of my people into the wilds and set a scene that shows the walkers for what they are without the dramatic shoot the guys wife in the face. It is a less personal display that I feel could get you where you needed without destroying the man. Might not work but it makes more sense than Shane's way and it keeps the farm and the group out of harms way. That might be a better way. I don't disagree with that at all. But it's likely that if that were proposed, either Rick would block it or Hershel would make it extremely difficult to get him out in the woods and in the situation. You'd have to lie to him. Which would upset him greatly from the start. Then you'd have to put him and one of his people in harms way, which would upset him. Then you'd still be killing what he thinks is a sick person, which would upset him. So even if you changed his mind about the walkers, he'd probably still want you to leave. So I think we can both agree that the best thing to do would have been for the group to leave. Forget the negotiations, just pack up and put the show back on the road. Which is also what Shane said to Rick, and Rick immediately dismissed.