Solo: was it murder?

[Sith Interceptor 19]

With Greedo pointing a blaster at Han. If you pull it better be prepared to use it. Shooting first is justified. This is like the first rule of Scum & Villainy. Though some can argue Greedo just wanted to intimidate Han. With Becket, we can see he subtly places his hand on his blaster and finger on the trigger as fast as he is if Han didnt shoot then Becket may have. So that to is justified. Han is no murderer.

[Donovan Morningfire 9,341]

On 6/11/2018 at 3:18 PM, themensch said:

Brother, you got that right!  I mean come on, everyone wears a blaster in all but the most polite society or hardened venue. 

Well, most of the locations we see in Star Wars are either on the outskirts of the galaxy or are on planets with battles being fought.

In Rebels, we see Kanan, Hera, and Sabine openly walking around Lothal with pistols, but then they're not regular law-abiding civilians, but rather are insurgents fighting against the ruling despotic authority.  Most of the background populace on Lothal (an Imperial-held world) don't carry sidearms, and fairly certain a lot of the extras in Mos Eisley and Mos Espa on Tatooine aren't openly packing heat.  You do see a fair number of guns in Jabba's palace in RotJ, but then that's a crime lord's personal haven.

For all we know, the Empire has a galaxy-wide open carry permit system, in that so long as you have a valid license for your sidearm you can wear it openly.

[Daeglan 4,473]

On 6/11/2018 at 2:16 PM, 2P51 said:

That's  not the point. That's  the opposite of the point. In fact it makes my point. The authorities didn't  even ask Han n Chewie their names. Someone reported it to  them apparently since they said they asked the bartender about the " trouble" and they'd "check it out". We are clealy shown in Star Wars violence is not viewed in the same way. In regards to Tatooine being backwater, apparently not so much that someone calls space 911 and the strormtroopers show up on scene while those involved are still present. They walked in looked, quickly arrived 2 groups of scum and villainy and said F it.

 

 

They showed up to a reported lightsaber use. That is why they came.

[Daeglan 4,473]

On 6/15/2018 at 10:28 AM, Buddha Fett said:

With Greedo pointing a blaster at Han. If you pull it better be prepared to use it. Shooting first is justified. This is like the first rule of Scum & Villainy. Though some can argue Greedo just wanted to intimidate Han. With Becket, we can see he subtly places his hand on his blaster and finger on the trigger as fast as he is if Han didnt shoot then Becket may have. So that to is justified. Han is no murderer.

When you point a gun at someone you have escalated to deadly force. Intentnis irrelevant. The target can only assume you want to kill them.

[Donovan Morningfire 9,341]

51 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

When you point a gun at someone you have escalated to deadly force. Intentnis irrelevant. The target can only assume you want to kill them.

Very true.

Thus, one of the major things taught in gun safety courses is that you never point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them with it.

[Daeglan 4,473]

13 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Very true.

Thus, one of the major things taught in gun safety courses is that you never point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them with it.

Yup. Rule 1. Never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy.

Also with Becket self defense wise Han knew what he could do and was willing to do. Chewie was in danger and would be able to testify to that fact. One does not have to wait till someone points a gun at you to defend your self. You only have to establish their ability, desire, means to cause you or another mortal harm to act on it. IE a gang banger with in 30 feet of you saying they will kill you while you know they have a gun is justifiable homicide if you kill them. This is fairly basic self defense law. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Daeglan

[GroggyGolem 2,788]

On 6/8/2018 at 7:18 PM, 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.

*shrugs* he was told "you're a good guy" by criminals that planned to start a violent terrorist organization with the mission of overthrowing the current government. also he was told "you're a good guy" by a woman who lives in the criminal underworld and by the end of the film, intends to stay in that criminal underworld by choice.

[Stan Fresh 2,004]

6 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

a violent terrorist organization

Terrorism means spreading fear in the populace to affect political change. That's not what Enfys Nest or the Rebellion do.

[GroggyGolem 2,788]

3 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Terrorism means spreading fear in the populace to affect political change. That's not what Enfys Nest or the Rebellion do.

The empire is part of the populace, I'd say they're fairly afraid behind their veneer of superiority.

[Stan Fresh 2,004]

1 minute ago, GroggyGolem said:

The empire is part of the populace, I'd say they're fairly afraid behind their veneer of superiority.

Nah. Terrorism is primarily directed at civilian targets. Unless you're part of the military or the bureaucracy (which are so mixed as to be indistinguishable, as they often are in dictatorships) you're not part of "The Empire", you're the face under the boot.

[GroggyGolem 2,788]

10 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Nah. Terrorism is primarily directed at civilian targets. Unless you're part of the military or the bureaucracy (which are so mixed as to be indistinguishable, as they often are in dictatorships) you're not part of "The Empire", you're the face under the boot.

Maybe terrorist was the wrong term. Would extremist be more accurate? 

[Stan Fresh 2,004]

4 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Maybe terrorist was the wrong term. Would extremist be more accurate? 

Their outfits certainly are extreme!

But yes, it would be. Using asymmetrical warfare to topple a tyrannic government isn't automatically terrorism.

[whafrog 9,599]

21 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

Maybe terrorist was the wrong term. Would extremist be more accurate? 

Is it extremist to fight for justice and opportunity?  Wouldn't the Empire be more accurately labelled an "extremist" organization?

Propaganda is easy.  Basic moral tests are more difficult.

[2P51 32,543]

I prefer "we" and "them" when the shooting starts......much simpler.....

[Donovan Morningfire 9,341]

40 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Is it extremist to fight for justice and opportunity?

A lot of that can boil down to what methods one employs in the fight.

Saw Gerrara was an extremist, even though he had the same end goal as Mon Mothma's Rebel Alliance in seeking to depose the Empire.  If Saw and those of like mind are okay with massive amounts of immediate collateral damage so long as the Imperial base gets taken out, that's quite different from Mothma's preference for a targeted strikes that minimizes if not averts immediate collateral damage while taking out that same Imperial base.  Both methods results in an Imperial base being taken out of commission, but the second has far less ruined property and dead civilians left in the operation's wake than the first.

As Nietzsche said, "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster."  After all, if you build a philosophy upon the idea that "the ends always justify the means," then after a while you'll find that anything's acceptable in the name of accomplishing your goal.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Donovan Morningfire

[Daronil 300]

I'm pretty confident that the Empire would take Saw's cell's actions (and other like-minded cells) and use them as propaganda to label all Rebel cells terrorists. Imperial news - especially in the Core - would be rife with references to the Alliance "terrorist organisation", and how the brave Imperial military was fighting to protect the good citizens of the Empire from these anarchist fanatics. 

[Stan Fresh 2,004]

9 hours ago, whafrog said:

Is it extremist to fight for justice and opportunity?

Killing people IS as extreme as it gets, isn't it?

[OriginalDomingo 761]

On 6/18/2018 at 3:35 PM, GroggyGolem said:

Maybe terrorist was the wrong term. Would extremist be more accurate? 

I believe the proper term for the "Rebellion" in this nascent stage is an insurgency. According to Meriam-Webster, "the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency." Insurgency also has fewer negative connotations compared to extremism or terrorism.

Edited June 20, 2018 by OriginalDomingo

[Cifer 209]

Your terrorists are our freedom fighters. Of course, Mon Mothma does make a conscious effort to keep rebellion tactics as much above-board as she can and distance the main rebellion from people like Saw.

 

Back to the original question, I'd say it wasn't murder (it was self-defense in service of Chewbacca, who Beckett would likely not have allowed to live afterwards) as long as we ignore the existence of a stun setting, but if we don't, we also have to get back to the question why Jedi as the "guardians of peace" have a signature weapon that doesn't even possess a stun setting, but is instead mostly suited to lop off limbs. So best not to open that can of worms.

It also doesn't matter too much, because we have a much more clear-cut example a while before: The assault on the Kessel mines. Han entered into the whole thing relatively voluntarily (he did have a chance to back out when Beckett suggested simply not mentioning him to Dryden), but he stuck the course and killed people for no greater goal than profit - the slave liberation stuff was a by-product at best and killing people was included in their plan A, not just as a "stuff went wrong, we've got to shoot people between us and the exit" way. We can discuss whether the slavers deserved it, but "They had it coming" is traditionally not a successful defence when you're really just trying to take their things.

[Daeglan 4,473]

17 hours ago, Cifer said:

We can discuss whether the slavers deserved it, but "They had it coming" is traditionally not a successful defence when you're really just trying to take their things.

I think that has worked in Texas...And we know Correllia is Space Texas...

[Cifer 209]

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I think that has worked in Texas...And we know Correllia is Space Texas...

Because ships over there are just bigger than local bulk cruisers?

[Stan Fresh 2,004]

6 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I think that has worked in Texas...And we know Correllia is Space Texas...

Thankfully, Solo dismantled that stereotype.

[HappyDaze 9,580]

On 6/17/2018 at 11:19 AM, Donovan Morningfire said:

Very true.

Thus, one of the major things taught in gun safety courses is that you never point a gun at someone unless you intend to kill them with it.

Unless it's Star Wars. Then you also point a gun at people you intend to stun.

[Daeglan 4,473]

2 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Thankfully, Solo dismantled that stereotype.

Based on what?

[Stan Fresh 2,004]

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Based on what?

The movie has no trace of the Space Texas stereotypes that have plagued prior representations of Corellia. It depicts Corellia as a kind of Dickensian space Noir world of industrialization and moral decay. It feels much more like London during the industrialization than anything American.