Jump to content
whafrog

Solo: was it murder?

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sincereagape said:

Take it into context.  Beckett was going to kill him.  Beckett even admitted it himself after getting shot by Han.  So in essence it is self-defense. 

Greedo is a moot point - since we all know Greedo shot first.  So if Greedo shot first, once again Han shooting back is in self-defense. 

Doesn't even really matter if Greedo shot first, he was trying to kidnap Han and take him somewhere to be murdered later, still self defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack 32 people died in a fire. Cops did extremely little.

http://www.back2stonewall.com/2018/03/march-9-1969-police-beat-gay-man-death-los-angeles-hotel-raid.html
Police beat a person to death in front of several witnesses and nobody is convicted.

Granted, nobody was maimed or shot. So I guess they don't really fit your criteria.

Nope, 2 stories that aren't about a fight at the bar between patrons where two ended up dead, gutted and dismembered, and the nature of the authorities response in fact have nothing to do with the conversation at all.

It's also tangential because the actual thread is about murder and what defines it.  The reference to the cantina scene is simply about them not doing anything.  

I'm not getting drawn into inflammatory back and forth's over details of posted articles.

Edited by 2P51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sincereagape said:

Greedo is a moot point - since we all know Greedo shot first.  So if Greedo shot first, once again Han shooting back is in self-defense. 

Lies!!!! BLASPHEMY!!!!! Burn the witch at the stake!!!!! 

Lalalalala....I'm not listening to you.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Just as a courtesy so you don't waste your time quoting me I am not going back and forth in anyway about anything with you.  I think you're nothing but a clickbait antagonistic troll that contributes nothing to this community and you only show up in the middle of controversy to stir the crap stick in the poop pot.  I don't care about your politics.  I don't care about your opinions.  I'm going back and forth with whafrog because he does contribute to this forum and community in a meaningful way and deserves responses.  Have a great life and enjoy the ignore list.

"courtesy" from the guy who blathered obscenities at me,  right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Nope, 2 stories that aren't about a fight at the bar between patrons where two ended up dead, gutted and dismembered, and the nature of the authorities response in fact have nothing to do with the conversation at all.

Thought as much. It's not like one has a most likely suspect who was thrown out of the bar for a fight and then returned to set the place on fire. Or the other one is a very public beating to death in a public space with several witnesses. But these examples, from less than 10 years before the films are made aren't good enough. But I knew that going in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

Thought as much. It's not like one has a most likely suspect who was thrown out of the bar for a fight and then returned to set the place on fire. Or the other one is a very public beating to death in a public space with several witnesses. But these examples, from less than 10 years before the films are made aren't good enough. But I knew that going in.

I disagree.  I bet there's case files on both of those incidents.  The stromtroopers didn't even ask Han and Chewie their names.  So they aren't examples at all of what occurred in the cantina.

In fact the posted nightclub fire incident shows there was a significant investigation that was open for years.  It really only proves my point that in our society when people are killed in a bar there is an investigation, people's names get written down.  As opposed to Mos Eisley where the music stops for a few seconds when someone's disemboweled at the bar, a couple heads turn, and then everyone goes back to jamming and eating the their nachos.

Edited by 2P51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sincereagape said:

This potentially is in reference to the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy takes out his pistol and just shoots the big guy with the ancient sword.

Nope.  If there's only one person with a gun they always shoot first......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

So looking at this from a different tact...

Would a Force and Destiny character have gotten Conflict in this same exact situation?

Better question: wouldn't this be more of a moral engagement? Or part of one?

 

It wasn't just a moral choice, it was an important one at a dramatic moment.

So I probably would give a Conflict or five, but I'd have also rewarded playing to the character. 

 

Dock him a day's pay and give him four cartons of cigarettes as it were...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Firstly, Han didn't just out and out shoot Beckett.  He talked to the man, tried to get him to relinquish the coaxium and Chewie, to walk away a graceful loser.

An important piece of context I somehow neglected.  Chalk it up to post-movie haze.  For a movie I enjoyed but wasn't wowed by, it sure took up a lot of my dream time last night.

In the end I'm not that fussed about it, I don't think it represents a moral breakdown like some are suggesting.  If you're a person with compassion and trust, it would be a hard decision, but probably still required.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

Thought as much. It's not like one has a most likely suspect who was thrown out of the bar for a fight and then returned to set the place on fire. Or the other one is a very public beating to death in a public space with several witnesses. But these examples, from less than 10 years before the films are made aren't good enough. But I knew that going in.

the 1977 reference was that we have known Star Wars justice is different since then, not that stuff happening in 1970s is more relevant.

But since you are on it, comparing 1970s 'justice' to today's is still probably a bad idea. As a matter of fact, I think you proved that fairly well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, themensch said:

So ... I guess I wonder why we care?

Personally I found it contrasted, in an irritating way, with the later "you're a good guy, maybe you'll join the Rebellion someday".  Pure fan-sop, completely unnecessary.

But I'm swayed by some of the arguments made, it's not that big a deal.  In fact, I'd have been fine if they went darker.  This effort was good enough there could have been another movie about descent and self-doubt, ending with dumping cargo at the sign of Imperials...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, themensch said:

So ... I guess I wonder why we care?  We know Han is a sleazy smuggler with a checkered past even by the time we meet him in this prequel. 

I initially brought it up because someone complained that Han was made into too much of a good guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Personally I found it contrasted, in an irritating way, with the later "you're a good guy, maybe you'll join the Rebellion someday".  Pure fan-sop, completely unnecessary.

It was less "You're a paragon of virtue and should totally come with us because we're the good guys and all" and more "hey, you know how to handle yourself and aren't a complete disposable hygiene product, we could use some more people like you, because we're fighting a gigantic oppressive powerhouse and really desperate for help."

I actually would have been bounced off the screen harder if Enfy's Nest hadn't extended Han the offer, knowing how badly the nascent Rebellion is hurting for manpower at this point.

Edited by ErikModi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

In terms of legality, this particular murder would probably fall under justifiable homicide, perhaps even self-defense, with Han shooting first to avoid his own death and quite possibly also Chewie's death as well.

But the action in and of itself does serve to highlight that Han has become a darker individual as of the film's end, a portion of his youthful innocence lost but having become wiser for his experiences.

I think in most justice systems Han would face one problem. He design the situation. He is the architect of his own self-defense case and this counts as cold blooded murder. He could have Becket just get away. He did not need to fight for the stolen goods. Han did not want to lose, so he planned to kill Becket and Dryden Vos. Now he gets bonus points, because he did not do it for the money, but it was still Han's plan all along to kill those two, because leaving loose ends would have been bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 2P51 said:

So when the stormtroopers go into the cantina and put about as much effort into one guy having an arm chopped off and another gutted like a trout as the average cop does writing a ticket that's something we're all "familiar with"? BS.  We're shown in the first 47 minutes of this universe 41 years ago that law and order are absolutely not what we're familiar with at all.

Mos Esli, Tatooine is the *** end of the Empire, and Storm troopers are closer to Marines than city cops; it is akin to our military policing Basra Iraq. Tatooine is Hutt space, it never ever was part of the Republic.

The planet where Beckett’s crew refines the coaxium is also a lawless frontier.  If a murder happens in the wilderness and there’s no law enforcement around to see it, did it even really happen? I know morally it happened but as the saying goes no body, no crime.

Edited by Eoen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

I think in most justice systems Han would face one problem. He design the situation. He is the architect of his own self-defense case and this counts as cold blooded murder. He could have Becket just get away. He did not need to fight for the stolen goods. Han did not want to lose, so he planned to kill Becket and Dryden Vos. Now he gets bonus points, because he did not do it for the money, but it was still Han's plan all along to kill those two, because leaving loose ends would have been bad. 

I don’t think so there’s nothing to establish Han as a ruthless killer, even in his army service he sympathized with the Mimbans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ErikModi said:

It was less "You're a paragon of virtue and should totally come with us because we're the good guys and all" and more "hey, you know how to handle yourself and aren't a complete disposable hygiene product, we could use some more people like you, because we're fighting a gigantic oppressive powerhouse and really desperate for help."

That was my read on it, with the scene also serving as a juxtaposition of Han's offer to Luke to join his crew in ANH prior to the Battle of Yavin.

In ANH, Han is trying to get Luke to leave the Rebellion and not go off on what he considers a suicide mission that's only going to earn the kid (who quite possibly reminds Han of his younger, less jaded self) a terminal case of dead.  But in Solo, it's Han rejecting the offer to join something bigger than himself and perhaps make a real difference in the galaxy to instead embark on a self-serving style of life that lets him play by his own rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2018 at 10:12 AM, whafrog said:

Click bait!

Well I just saw the movie, and now the thread is closed, and I have so much to say!  Actually not really:  I enjoyed it, it was amusing, the acting was decent, the plot was alright, effects were good, and the inclusion of Maul was cool.  It sits comfortably alongside Rogue One in terms of re-watchability I think...which unfortunately isn't saying that much, but I do think it's a welcome addition to the canon.

But was it murder?  Yes, legally it was murder.  The reason people had to have their guns in their holster before a shoot out was so that witnesses could describe who drew first.  The person who drew first was the murderer, and the person who drew second was acting in self-defence.  That's why there's so much drama in the moment:  each participant is trying to get the other to go first.  If those weren't the rules, then who would ever wait?  Somehow this simple legal fact has been lost, and audiences these days have no clue.

(The irony is that, using today's technology with slow-motion and measuring reaction times, we can actually prove that reacting is faster than acting.  Reacting uses shorter circuits in the nervous system, which kind of makes sense when you think about evolutionary development.  The person who draws second can actually often get their shot off before the first mover has fired.)

In E4, when Han did shoot first, Greedo already had his blaster drawn, so Han shooting first doesn't make him the murderer...the gun is already in his face.  For some reason, Lucas got bamboozled by people who didn't know the simple duel rules, so he edited it differently later, sadly.  But the edit makes no sense:  was Han supposed to wait for Greedo to actually pull the trigger?  That's not a large window of opportunity for self-defence.

In Solo, Han is Greedo, he already has his blaster out.  But he also shot first, before giving his opponent a chance to draw.  Ergo:  murder.  It really is that simple.

So it was murder, but was it also the right thing to do?  Maybe.  That's a tougher question IMHO.  Beckett was a dangerous person and very handy with his own gun, not somebody you want to duel with, or want after you.  It seemed like they had a relationship where Han could have stunned him and left a vial of "Unobtanium" in his pocket when he woke up to smooth things over...but maybe not.  I'd have preferred that, personally, because the shooting takes away from the later assertion that Han is a "good guy".  Right now he's more like Cassian Andor from Rogue One.

Anyway, hopefully those who respond to this click-bait will keep it civil, or simply agree to disagree.

Regarding Han/Greedo, I'd definitely say it was self-defense, at least to a point.  Greedo was a known bounty hunter, the mark on his head I think included a reward for Dead, so it was a reasonable option to expect some hunter's to maybe decide it was easier to bring in his corpse.  And, Greedo flat out said he was going to kill Han.  When he mentioned taking Han's ship, and Han said "over my dead body", Greedo gleefully responds "That's the idea", you even hear him laugh after it.  So the implication of imminent death is pretty established.   

But there is one issue I think most people seem to overlook on this point.  Do we even know if it was a crime to kill people on Tatooine?  I mean, nobody gave a crap when it happened.  They all looked over their shoulder, the music stopped for a moment, but then the cantina shrugged it's collective shoulder and went back to revelry.  I mean, even the bartender didn't gripe at all.  Han just tossed him some money, presumably the typical cost to clean up a dead body (common enough apparently that there is an easily paid service for it), and then just walks out.   It was a relatively lawless planet, in a frontier society, where the risk of death is all around you.   

Regarding Han/Woody (don't remember the character's name), again, not sure if there were any laws being broken, given where they were.    But even if so, I think they pretty well established it was a fight to the death.  Woody had already had him at gunpoint earlier in the climax (when they were in the crime lord's display room), he told him multiple times that everyone will betray him eventually.   He threatened to kill a friend of his, using him as a bargaining chip, and I think when they were having their pre-shootout banter, he said several things that clearly implied that the only way that was ending was with one of them dead.   He wouldn't back down on giving up the stuff, and Han wouldn't let him leave with Chewie or the fuel.   The threat was already established, the intent to kill was already realized, the fact that he didn't wait for him to draw doesn't lessen the threat.  He knew how quickly Woody could draw his guns, as he'd displayed his gunslinger quick-draw skills multiple times during the movie.  So the fact that the gun was holstered, didn't mean there was no threat.


But really, who cares?   Han isn't supposed to be a good guy at this point, despite what the movie keeps trying to imply.  He's supposed to be learning the rough and tough rules of surviving the criminal world, and that means killing before they kill you, and tricking them before they trick you.  We don't need to make sure he's morally good and justified in what he's doing, as that kind of removes the weight of his later transition to genuine hero, in New Hope.   

I'm perfectly fine with leaving his vague moral code at "he'll forgo killing people if he can avoid it, out of a general sense of respect for life, and no profit in it, but if he feels the best course of action to make sure he survives is to shoot you first, he'll do it."    I mean he definitely values life more than say, bounty hunters, who will kill people for money, or assassins, who will do the same.  He's a criminal, and a killer sure, but it seems fairly obvious that it isn't his default response to every situation.  He'll try charm and guile, and sneakiness if he can manage it, but when the fur starts flying, he'll shoot his way to safety, and not worry about it. 

  And I see no reason to delve into it any deeper than that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't do it, don't post here. Don't.

Ok here I go.....

23 hours ago, whafrog said:

But was it murder?  Yes, legally it was murder. 

Since we are using modern standards, then I would have to say it depends on the jury pool and attorney skills. :)  Since Beckett is holstered and Han initiates the confrontation, Han's outlook isn't looking good. The case starts with Han arrested for Murder and the prosecutor thinking it is a slam dunk. But, if Han enlists one of Jabba's skilled defense attorneys who clarifies Beckett's murderous history, Beckett's skills with a blaster, and that Han obviously was the good guy just trying to rescue Chewie, then he stands a chance of a Not Guilty and thus it ends up not being murder. :) 

23 hours ago, whafrog said:

In E4, when Han did shoot first, Greedo already had his blaster drawn, so Han shooting first doesn't make him the murderer...the gun is already in his face. 

Completely agree. Greedo was pointing a gun at Han so the case starts as a slam dunk self defense for Han. Greedo even makes a statement that he is going to enjoy killing Han. But, again, it depends on the jury pool and attorney skills. In a Tattooine court? Not guilty. But, imagine if Han was somehow extradited to Greedo's homeworld of Ryloth or the blaster-free zones of Alderaan? :)

23 hours ago, whafrog said:

(The irony is that, using today's technology with slow-motion and measuring reaction times, we can actually prove that reacting is faster than acting.  Reacting uses shorter circuits in the nervous system, which kind of makes sense when you think about evolutionary development.  The person who draws second can actually often get their shot off before the first mover has fired.)

Unless I'm somehow reading this wrong...No, NO, NO!!

If you are saying that a reacting person somehow moves faster (not overall reacts faster, the actual movement itself) due to some nervous system mumbo-jumbo, then who knows, sure, possibly, I don't know.

But, if you are saying a person reacting to some other person's action is faster (overall, from start to finish), then a big NO from me. Two people holstered, the guy that waits for the other to draw is almost always (always?) going to lose unless there are some other factors involved. It takes time for your eyes to perceive the movement, your mind to recognize it, your mind to tell your hand to draw, your hand to react and draw. Google "force science institute" for real-world experiments of such. They break it down in extreme detail.

I'm made fun of at work for putting new rookies through what I call a "finger drill". I tell them to act as the cop with their finger pointed at me. I tell them to say, "bang", when they perceive a threat. I tell them I'm sitting down with my hand on a gun in my lap or at my side like I'm holstered, with my "gun" not yet pointed at them. They ALWAYS assume they have the advantage and can easily say, "bang", before I possibly could move my hand up, point a finger at them, and say, "bang", myself. They ALWAYS lose. Reaction ALWAYS loses to positive action. I reverse it afterwards and let them play the bad guy (they always win) to show it's all about who is reacting and I'm not some quick draw freak.

Go play Greedo vs. Han with your buddy (not real weapons please) and you'll see what I mean. Realistically, Greedo would lose every time even if it was a glass table and he knew Han had his hand on his blaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sturn said:

Google "force science institute" for real-world experiments of such. They break it down in extreme detail.

Participated in one of their studies as a guinea pig, so yah, mister 2nd place is in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who drew first? Who intended to kill who? None of it matters.

Based on the felony murder rule, any homicide committed during the commission of a serious offense is murder. No matter how justified you think it is, from a legal standard, it is murder no matter what. Applying some archaic “western law” is pointless.

Thanks for spoiling the movie btw because as soon as the showdown started, I knew exactly what was going to happen just from reading the thread name. Despite my best attempts to avoids spoilers, oh well. Classy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OriginalDomingo said:

Who drew first? Who intended to kill who? None of it matters.

Based on the felony murder rule, any homicide committed during the commission of a serious offense is murder. No matter how justified you think it is, from a legal standard, it is murder no matter what. Applying some archaic “western law” is pointless.

Thanks for spoiling the movie btw because as soon as the showdown started, I knew exactly what was going to happen just from reading the thread name. Despite my best attempts to avoids spoilers, oh well. Classy.

Was there a part in the movie where they went through refinery planet's penal code?  I missed that.

Spoiling the movie??  Really???  You come to an internet forum about Star Wars, and then click on the thread with the movie title in it, and read it apparently all the way through, after the movie has been out 3ish weeks???  Yah, you were really killing yourself to avoid spoilers......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...