PDA

View Full Version : Elayne The role she plays and why she just won't die.


final death
03-04-2012, 11:30 PM
I would appricate it if everyone keeps this thread civil and does not mention The Amrylin Seat The Watcher of Lost Seals,;) The Flame of Tar Valon.:D This Thread is about Elayne.

I think Elayne plays the role... oh screw it!:mad: Elaynes complete lack of a self preservation instinct, her lack of a conscience, and her lack of intelligence combined with her massive sense of entitlement, Massively inflated ego, and her incredibly manipulative nature make her a character i could never like. I have know a few people like her and in general I hate them. If she has a good point its that she holds Birgitte bond. I would not wish her on anyone. Rand at his darkest was never as bad as Elayne. I have wanted her to die again and again. Yet the worst that has happened to her was being stabbed by that Hanlon fellow which i might add she is healed from before anything unseemly happens. At this point I would be happy having her 13X13ed. I would feel bad for rand yet in another way it would be good for him because she is terrible for him. For that matter she would be terrible for anyone. I would also feel bad for Bridgette but she is tough she should be able to get through it. On the bright side though from avi's visit through the glass columns, while tragic, there was a glimmer of hope. Elayne isn't on the throne in 2 generations, which means a quiet off screen death somewhere. I know she deserves much worse unfortunately we will probably have to just settle with that.

Tomp
03-04-2012, 11:47 PM
Who is Bridgette?

final death
03-04-2012, 11:58 PM
It's how i pronounce Birgitte.

GonzoTheGreat
03-05-2012, 04:37 AM
Look on the bright side: according to all indications, the first girlfriend the Dragon had in his previous life was even worse. So there's a definite improvement, and in a couple of more turns, he might only date nice and sensible girls.

Zombie Sammael
03-05-2012, 07:07 AM
Look on the bright side: according to all indications, the first girlfriend the Dragon had in his previous life was even worse. So there's a definite improvement, and in a couple of more turns, he might only date nice and sensible girls.

You're discounting the Gay Dragon theory, then?

GonzoTheGreat
03-05-2012, 07:23 AM
You're discounting the Gay Dragon theory, then?
If that had even a shred of evidence, then Terez would be all over it.

Zombie Sammael
03-05-2012, 08:03 AM
If that had even a shred of evidence, then Terez would be all over it.

There's plenty of evidence for it. Rand's "flaming sword" made of Saidin? Countless hours spent "working the sword forms" with Lan? Whilst topless, and admiring Lan's well-muscled, scarred, rugged frame? Plus, Rand only feels alive when he "touches" something male.

Davian93
03-05-2012, 10:20 AM
I dont get the Elayne hatred. For one, its important to understand her perspective. She's been taught her entire life that to be a proper Queen of Andor she must lead from the front...remember the vignette about the Queen who took her own banner and rode into the enemy army to rally her troops on the field? That's the model she's been given as appropriate to emulate.

Yeah, she lives dangerously but she's also very intelligent, quick to fix mistakes and she has many great qualities of a queen. She demonstrates empathy towards her subjects, she is stern when she needs to be and she successfully saved Andor from a brutal civil war through her political and military machinations.

Seriously, you're completely offbase with ripping Elayne.

Also, the glass columns that Avi sees is a possible future...not a guarantee. Odds are that future wont happen now that Avi has seen it and she will likely intercede to prvent it from happening.

David Selig
03-05-2012, 10:36 AM
OP - don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. ;)

The male main characters are just as reckless as the Supergirls, if not more, yet don't get 1/10 of the fan bashing for it that the girls get. I don't understand that.

TruthSeeker
03-05-2012, 05:41 PM
OP - don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. ;)

The male main characters are just as reckless as the Supergirls, if not more, yet don't get 1/10 of the fan bashing for it that the girls get. I don't understand that.

Its their mindset

Perrin, the Dragon Reborn is arrogant and cold but thats because he has everyone trying to kill him and steal power and influence from him. Also he is rabidly insane.

Matt is reckless but with a good heart. He doesn't believe he has a divine right to be RULER OF EVERYONE unlike Egwene and Elayne.

I don't know who else you could be referring to.

Heinz
03-05-2012, 05:48 PM
*facepalm*

Or as the rest of us view it as 3 people, not two...

Perrin has received his share of bashing.

Edit for afterthought: And how many pages did the 'I hate Gareth Bryne' thread get up to?

Great Lord of the Dark
03-05-2012, 06:52 PM
Unlike the Two Rivers women and most Aes Sedai, Elayne has not grown up thinking men need to be managed. Her first words to Rand when she tells him her feelings, is that he is to be himself and she will accept him as he is, and she will be herself and he will ahve to accept that.

Mother's Milk in a cup, it's Bloody reasonable, if you ask me.

sleepinghour
03-05-2012, 06:54 PM
I dont get the Elayne hatred. For one, its important to understand her perspective. She's been taught her entire life that to be a proper Queen of Andor she must lead from the front...remember the vignette about the Queen who took her own banner and rode into the enemy army to rally her troops on the field? That's the model she's been given as appropriate to emulate.

Yeah, she lives dangerously but she's also very intelligent, quick to fix mistakes and she has many great qualities of a queen. She demonstrates empathy towards her subjects, she is stern when she needs to be and she successfully saved Andor from a brutal civil war through her political and military machinations.

I agree with all of the above, which is why I do like her, but her recklessness is particularly grating since she was not only putting her own life at risk, but also that of her children, Birgitte, and Rand (and in turn the entire world). Not to mention the whole Black Ajah debacle in KoD and her refusal to feel guilt over the loss of life that resulted in. So I don't think it's wholly unfair that Elayne gets more criticism than others for being reckless—it's one of her biggest flaws, and it took for her to get stabbed by Hanlon before she learned that lesson.

I think another, more unfair reason for the Elayne hatred is that a lot of people were bored to tears by her dealings with the Sea Folk and the Succession storyline. Few things build resentment as much as boredom. Perrin also received a fair amount of hatred for having a boring storyline ("Faaaaile!") in the later books.

Weiramon
03-05-2012, 07:05 PM
for being reckless—it's one of her biggest flaws, and it took for her to get stabbed by Hanlon before she learned that lesson.

Burn my soul, that's right! After that minor altercation, she wouldn't . . . dream . . . of putting herself into danger, and certainly not without giving warning to her allies.

sleepinghour
03-05-2012, 07:17 PM
Burn my soul, that's right! After that minor altercation, she wouldn't . . . dream . . . of putting herself into danger, and certainly not without giving warning to her allies.

Well, mostly learned that lesson. Somewhat. All right, maybe just a little bit...

professorskar
03-05-2012, 10:34 PM
You know, for Egwene and Elayne haters, Avi's possible-future visions don't seem so bad. We have Elayne not queen when she should probably still be alive, AND the fall of the White Tower when Egwene is probably still Amyrlin.

Tomp
03-06-2012, 06:20 AM
I think the recklessness in KoD was RJs way of hanging a lantern on Min's viewing about Elaynes babies.

Seth Baker
03-06-2012, 11:36 AM
You know, for Egwene and Elayne haters, Avi's possible-future visions don't seem so bad. We have Elayne not queen when she should probably still be alive, AND the fall of the White Tower when Egwene is probably still Amyrlin.

I'm not an Egwene hater (but I'm definitely an Elayne hater).

I don't want her to die though, I just want her to be less of a flaming milk-faced chit.

sleepinghour
03-06-2012, 11:39 AM
I think the recklessness in KoD was RJs way of hanging a lantern on Min's viewing about Elaynes babies.

Well, KoD provided a scenario in which Min's viewing could come true in the worst way possible: Elayne could still have given birth to healthy babies while held captive by the Black Ajah. So that really should have been a wake-up call that she shouldn't stake everything on that viewing.

I think Elayne's storyline in the later books would have been far more tolerable without the pregnancy. Her relationship with Rand was never believable in the first place, but even less so when she neglected to tell him about her pregnancy, despite knowing he could die any day. Even when Rand completely lost hope in TGS, talking about how much he wished he could leave something good behind, it never occurred to either Min or Aviendha to tell him he was going to be a father (of six children, no less). I get why it couldn't happen—Rand had to hit rock bottom in TGS—but it still made it seem like Rand was just a sperm donor they didn't particularly care about. It's one of the series' biggest flaws, IMO: too often, people behave stupidly just because the plot wouldn't work if everyone acted rationally and shared important information.

Davian93
03-06-2012, 11:42 AM
Um...in real life, people act stupidly and people dont share information. This isn't the age of the internet...people often operate with incomplete facts and make bad judgments.

GonzoTheGreat
03-06-2012, 11:51 AM
Um...in real life, people act stupidly and people dont share information. This isn't the age of the internet...people often operate with incomplete facts and make bad judgments.
Yeah, now, in the age of the Internet, no one would think of invading another country based on false accounts of WMD.

Seth Baker
03-06-2012, 11:56 AM
Yeah, now, in the age of the Internet, no one would think of invading another country based on false accounts of WMD.

I agree, although I think that there are some things that realistic people would do no matter what. Telling a depressed guy that he's going to be a father is one of those things, as I see it.

Davian93
03-06-2012, 12:06 PM
I agree, although I think that there are some things that realistic people would do no matter what. Telling a depressed guy that he's going to be a father is one of those things, as I see it.

You'd also be telling a guy who thinks he's destined to die that he wont ever be there for his kids...which could simply depress him further. Think about it, Cat's In The Cradle would start playing, he'd have a flashback of Tam teaching him how to shear a sheep or something, start crying, and then just off himself.

sleepinghour
03-06-2012, 01:45 PM
Um...in real life, people act stupidly and people dont share information. This isn't the age of the internet...people often operate with incomplete facts and make bad judgments.

Sure, but how many people would refrain from telling a man 1) they were in love with, 2) who was extremely depressed and 3) had nothing to look forward to in life except for an imminent and probably very gruesome death, that he was going to be a father? That seems callous in the extreme.

You'd also be telling a guy who thinks he's destined to die that he wont ever be there for his kids...which could simply depress him further.

It's more like the opposite, only nobody (including genius philosopher Min) seems capable of figuring that out. Aviendha isn't pregnant yet; she and Rand aren't sleeping together; the Last Battle is about to start in a matter of days. So how exactly is Aviendha going to end up pregnant with quadruples unless he survives the Last Battle?

I kept waiting for Min to say something about that, but instead we got scenes like:

RAND: Hey, Min, any viewings you haven't told me about? Remember, it's important that you tell me everything you see, particularly anything that concerns me. The fate of the world depends on you. No pressure, though!
MIN: Umm...I see an inn with a Dragon's Fang on its door. That looks pretty cool. Oh, and that chick over there is going to become Aes Sedai.
RAND: Thanks, Min. That really helps a bunch.

Grig
03-06-2012, 03:05 PM
Aviendha isn't pregnant yet; she and Rand aren't sleeping together; the Last Battle is about to start in a matter of days. So how exactly is Aviendha going to end up pregnant with quadruples unless he survives the Last Battle?

You missed the part where all parties involved in that conception can Travel, huh? We don't know what was happening for the month before Merrilor, and it's reasonable enough that Rand went for a Holy Trinity as a final hurrah beforehand. The only reason Avi wasn't up for a little fun was she felt she needed to be a Wise One first, which Min had no way of knowing, but that hurdle has been conveniently taken care of.


FWIW, I'm a fan of Elayne getting 13x13'd just because of how much she hangs her hat on the whole "kids are safe, I can go wild" thing.

Seeker
03-06-2012, 07:56 PM
Elayne would be all right if Admiral Ackbar followed her everywhere she went.

"What do you think, Admiral? Shall we go in and capture the Black Ajah?"

"It's a trap!"

eht slat meit
03-06-2012, 08:18 PM
Sure, but how many people would refrain from telling a man 1) they were in love with, 2) who was extremely depressed and 3) had nothing to look forward to in life except for an imminent and probably very gruesome death, that he was going to be a father? That seems callous in the extreme.



It's more like the opposite, only nobody (including genius philosopher Min) seems capable of figuring that out. Aviendha isn't pregnant yet; she and Rand aren't sleeping together; the Last Battle is about to start in a matter of days. So how exactly is Aviendha going to end up pregnant with quadruples unless he survives the Last Battle?

I kept waiting for Min to say something about that, but instead we got scenes like:


I'm guessing she had her confidence in her own abilities profoundly shaken by the apparent death of Moiraine. It's one of those "hope against hope" things, that is probably what is being hinted at when she tells him he will survive.

And really, how would it look having one of your wives tell you that you can't have sex with the other one in order to ensure you survive TG?

"Oh hey, sheepherder, you could even be IMMORTAL if you never had sex with her again!"

The future viewing gimmick isn't as easy as it looks when you tie in human emotion.

Seth Baker
03-06-2012, 11:15 PM
"Oh hey, sheepherder, you could even be IMMORTAL if you never had sex with her again!"


No way the Wheel lets that trick work. Somehow Rand's little swimmers would find there way through ta'veren luck. :cool:

final death
03-08-2012, 02:31 AM
No way the Wheel lets that trick work. Somehow Rand's little swimmers would find there way through ta'veren luck. :cool:

Well avi has started to enjoy baths. Also please stay clear of the hot spot of thread destruction that is Her holiness the Amyrlin Seat, the watcher of lost seals, the flame of Tar Valon.:D Actually scratch that, does anyone think that they will get rid of the watcher of the seals part after the last battle. They probably won't because they kept it for the entire length of the 3rd age despite not knowing where a single one of the seals were. Also i don't truly hate any character in the WOT. It would be accurate to say i hate being bored by anything. Even more so if it is something i chose to do or read or play on my own. I can put up with something that is unbelievable and even enjoy it as long it is entertaining. For example The game Bayonetta was ridiculously unbelievable but it was also incredibly fun from the beginning to end. I mean driving a motorcycle into space by jumping from one piece of falling debris to another.

Seth Baker
03-08-2012, 11:00 AM
I find Perrin and Elayne's storylines from Winter's Heart to The Gathering Storm to be intolerably boring.

I'm in the middle of a reread, and when I was back on Fires of Heaven or Lord of Chaos, I swore to myself that I wasn't going to just skim over all the Perrin and Elayne POVs anymore. The end result is that, now that I'm on Winter's Heart, I'm reading at about 1/10th the pace of the first 6 books, because of how comparatively dull those two storylines are.

:(

GonzoTheGreat
03-08-2012, 11:11 AM
You may be on to something there. The first thing I found when looking for "dull":
Perrin set the length of iron aside. It cooled immediately, fading from yellow, to orange, to crimson, to a dull black. Perrin had pounded it into a misshapen nugget, perhaps the size of two fists. Master Luhhan would be ashamed to see such shoddy work. Perrin needed to discover what he was making soon, before his master returned.

Terez
03-08-2012, 11:34 AM
You may be on to something there. The first thing I found when looking for "dull":
I'm sometimes amazed when people say Perrin got boring in the later books. No, Perrin was just awesome in TSR. Read his first POV in TEOTW; it's the most boring thing RJ ever wrote.

Davian93
03-08-2012, 12:11 PM
I'm sometimes amazed when people say Perrin got boring in the later books. No, Perrin was just awesome in TSR. Read his first POV in TEOTW; it's the most boring thing RJ ever wrote.

Is that the "Perrin wakes up on the side of the river" POV?

I kinda liked that one. It was boring but still informative.

Perhaps Perrin shouldnt get so much screen time...he probably is up there near the top for # of words in his POVs despite being Sir Not Appearing in this novel in tFoH.

Grig
03-08-2012, 12:37 PM
I'm sometimes amazed when people say Perrin got boring in the later books.

It's the same reason a lot of people say that the books started getting slow with [The Path of Daggers | Winter's Heart | Crossroads of Twilight]. They didn't have to wait for the earlier books to be released, so those ones flowed nicely and weren't too boring. Whereas the latter books they were waiting for, and there was little chance they could live up to expectations built up over a couple years each.

I actually rather liked Perrin's POVs in tEotW. It fit his characterization. You can tell RJ's a "method writer".

Seth Baker
03-08-2012, 03:47 PM
I'm sometimes amazed when people say Perrin got boring in the later books. No, Perrin was just awesome in TSR. Read his first POV in TEOTW; it's the most boring thing RJ ever wrote.

People say Perrin was boring in TSR? That's ridiculous. The Scouring of the Two Rivers is one of my favorite storylines of the series. It's after that that I find Perrin boring. After leaving the Two Rivers, he frees Rand, cools his heels for a while, then goes off on a needlessly complex quest (Masema's refusal to go via a gateway to respond to Rand's summons seems like a deus ex machina to enable the rest of the plotline), and spends a significant amount of time chasing his wife with little advancement (while sharing most of the screen time with Elayne, who is playing "The West Wing" in Caemlyn).

The reason I hate Elayne's storyline is the same reason I hate Perrin's - they're the two dominant stories of that stretch of books, and both of them are spinning the tires - sitting in relatively stagnant conditions.

But none of that reflects on TSR!

Grig
03-08-2012, 04:25 PM
People say Perrin was boring in TSR? That's ridiculous. The Scouring of the Two Rivers is one of my favorite storylines of the series.

Terez is saying that the only time Perrin wasn't boring was in TSR, when he was awesome. Before and after, the assertion goes, he was boring.

Heinz
03-08-2012, 04:26 PM
Grig beat me.

I have to agree on the Perrin front. I found the Perrin sections of TEotW to be very slow as well. Though his PoV in TDR, which I suppose was much of the 'main' story as we're chasing Rand at that point instead of getting his view, was good also. I can't recall if he had a section in TGH. He's picked back up some in the most recent books though. Slow start in ToM, but it got better, IMO, about half-way through when he was done 'figuring out what he was trying to make'.

Seth Baker
03-08-2012, 04:40 PM
Grig beat me.

I have to agree on the Perrin front. I found the Perrin sections of TEotW to be very slow as well. Though his PoV in TDR, which I suppose was much of the 'main' story as we're chasing Rand at that point instead of getting his view, was good also. I can't recall if he had a section in TGH. He's picked back up some in the most recent books though. Slow start in ToM, but it got better, IMO, about half-way through when he was done 'figuring out what he was trying to make'.

Okay, I misread it. Yes, I find Perrin tolerable in EOTW, TGH, FOH, LOC, and TGS; I like him in TDR, TSR, and TOM; the rest of the series I find him boring as sin.

Nazbaque
03-08-2012, 06:04 PM
People people you must step outside yourselves and dispassionately analyze your emotions. You don't hate Perrin. Perrin kicks ass. Even his first POV in TEOTW is cool because it's the first that isn't Rand's POV (though one of the reasons TEOTW kicks ass is that it's almost all from Rand's POV). No you all like Perrin. The one you hate is Faile she is the boring one and the only reason Perrin's storyline gets boring is that Faile tries to steal the spotlight by getting kidnapped by Shaido.

But seriously back to the original topic. I don't hate Elayne, not at any point in all the books. Her storyline gets as boring as hell when Nynaeve gets a better offer from Rand's storyline, but I never hate her. In fact the only ones of the young female main characters I do hate are Egwene and Faile and even stop hating Egwene when the siege of Tar Valon begins. I hate Faile because she is a selfish bitch and I hate early Egwene because she is shallow and quite frankly an idiot. She steadily improves book by book to the point that in KOD, TGS and TOM she almost likeable but TEOTW Egwene is worse than Faile.

professorskar
03-08-2012, 10:15 PM
Okay, I misread it. Yes, I find Perrin tolerable in EOTW, TGH, FOH, LOC, and TGS; I like him in TDR, TSR, and TOM; the rest of the series I find him boring as sin.

He's awesome in FoH, where he didn't bother to show up for the whole book. :D

Seth Baker
03-08-2012, 11:49 PM
He's awesome in FoH, where he didn't bother to show up for the whole book. :D

...good call.

Terez
03-09-2012, 08:09 AM
Is that the "Perrin wakes up on the side of the river" POV?
No, that's his second POV. This is his first:

Perrin sat his horse in the shadows, watching the open gateway, some little distance off yet, and absently ran his thumb along the blade of his axe. It seemed to be a clear way out of the ruined city, but he had sat there for five minutes studying it. The wind tossed his shaggy curls and tried to carry his cloak away, but he pulled the cloak back around him without really noticing what he was doing.

He knew that Mat, and almost everyone else in Emond's Field, considered him slow of thought. It was partly because he was big and usually moved carefully – he had always been afraid he might accidentally break something or hurt somebody, since he was so much bigger than the boys he grew up with – but he really did prefer to think things all the way through if he could. Quick thinking, careless thinking, had put Mat into hot water one time after another, and Mat's quick thinking usually managed to get Rand, or him, or both, in the cookpot alongside Mat, too.

His throat tightened. Light, don't think about being in a cookpot. He tried to order his thoughts again. Careful thought was the way.

There had been some sort of square in front of the gate once, with a huge fountain in its middle. Part of the fountain was still there, a cluster of broken statues standing in a big, round basin, and so was the open space around it. To reach the gate he would have to ride nearly a hundred spans with only the night to shield him from searching eyes. That was not a pleasant thought, either. He remembered those unseen watchers too well.

He considered the horns he had heard in the city a little while earlier. He had almost turned back, thinking some of the others might have been taken, before realizing that he could not do anything alone if they had been captured. Not against – what did Lan say – a hundred Trollocs and four Fades. Moiraine Sedai said get to the river.

He went back to consideration of the gate. Careful thought had not given him much, but he had made his decision. He rode out of the deeper shadow into the lesser darkness.

Verin Mathwin
03-14-2012, 09:49 PM
Back to Elayne... in TGS in one of Aviendha's view points she describes Elayne as very level headed, she talks about how proud she is of Elayne in how she always thinks through everything and doesn't rush into things. Does Aviendha know a different Elayne than we do?

Nazbaque
03-15-2012, 09:14 AM
There is absolutely nothing new in Aviendha ignoring character traits that might force her to like someone she wants to dislike or dislike someone she wants to like. But to be fair most of Elayne's idiotic moments happen when Aviendha isn't there.

eht slat meit
03-15-2012, 05:37 PM
Back to Elayne... in TGS in one of Aviendha's view points she describes Elayne as very level headed, she talks about how proud she is of Elayne in how she always thinks through everything and doesn't rush into things. Does Aviendha know a different Elayne than we do?

Her basis for comparison are the Maidens and the Wise Ones. I'd say her assessment falls somewhere safely between the two. Just enough recklessness to ensure she isn't viewed as a completely soft wetlander...

Toss the dice
03-15-2012, 11:42 PM
Elayne obviously is selfish, arrogant, has a sense of entitlement, etc. - which fits in with her background. However, considering her background, in my opinion Elayne came out pretty well personality-wise among the nobility/royalty. My main gripes against her are her stupidity and lack of forethought for others. All in all, pretty good for a daughter-heir.

Believe it or not, I think her mother is 10 times worse than she is. While reading through the series, I can remember multiple times when I read something about Morgase and thought "Wow, what a stupid, spoiled, arrogant bitch."

And Morgase was probably better than most royalty, as she actually cared for and helped her people. Horrible individual personality, though.

Terez
03-16-2012, 12:55 AM
Most of the times Morgase was stupid, spoiled, and arrogant, it was while she was still struggling against the Compulsion. If she'd known what she was fighting against, she'd have probably done better.

Seth Baker
03-16-2012, 01:37 AM
Most of the times Morgase was stupid, spoiled, and arrogant, it was while she was still struggling against the Compulsion. If she'd known what she was fighting against, she'd have probably done better.

Agreed. I developed a ton of respect for her based upon how she broke out of the Compulsion, escaped Caemlyn, and how she handled herself over the remaining course of the series (although she probably should have told Galad to go piss up a rope when he wanted to try Perrin).

GonzoTheGreat
03-16-2012, 04:55 AM
Morgase should have asked to be allowed to put the Whitecloaks who'd gone into the TR on trial too. The major failure in Perrin's trial was that she did not question the right of the Children to engage in lethal violence.

Enigma
03-16-2012, 07:19 AM
Morgase should have asked to be allowed to put the Whitecloaks who'd gone into the TR on trial too. The major failure in Perrin's trial was that she did not question the right of the Children to engage in lethal violence.

That might have been very satisfying but not very productive. At that point they were trying to turn a potentially hostile group into a neutral one with some hope that they may even become allied. Picking over the past crimes of the whitecloaks is not going to inspire an alliance. It would just alienate everyone.

Perrin's trial on the other hand was the price Galad had to get to keep his people on side as well as satasfy his own sense of right and wrong.

Grig
03-16-2012, 11:02 AM
The major failure in Perrin's trial was that she did not question the right of the Children to engage in lethal violence.

This was no failure. They were separate events. Even if the Whitecloaks (not all the same ones) committed violence afterwards, that does not absolve Perrin regarding any blame he has for the earlier Whitecloak killings. As the only person subject to lethal violence in that incident was a wolf, and Andor does not recognize a wolf's right to life, liberty, and prosperity, there was no failure on that front.

Granted, since Morgase was anti-Whitecloaks in Andor she should have beat them down for just being there and shaking down travelers in the first place. Unlawful detention, etc.

GonzoTheGreat
03-16-2012, 12:03 PM
Well, in the first encounter with Perrin, there was also the fact that it was the Whitecloaks who initiated the violence.
And Perrin had the extra excuse (which he didn't use, for some reason) of having been actively hunted by the Shadow at that time, and thus having had a good reason for paranoia.

Seth Baker
03-16-2012, 12:06 PM
Well, in the first encounter with Perrin, there was also the fact that it was the Whitecloaks who initiated the violence.
And Perrin had the extra excuse (which he didn't use, for some reason) of having been actively hunted by the Shadow at that time, and thus having had a good reason for paranoia.

Really? You think they initiated violence?

They killed a wolf, then he jumped out of the shadows and killed two of them. I'm on Perrin's side, but he definitely initiated the violence.

Grig
03-16-2012, 12:14 PM
Well, in the first encounter with Perrin, there was also the fact that it was the Whitecloaks who initiated the violence.

In Perrin's case, Hopper was killed then Perrin killed the Whitecloaks. You could say they initiated intimidation, but no actual violence against a human.

With Elyas it's more questionable (we don't see what happened, so the order of violence is unclear...perhaps they killed a wolf first there, too, or he attacked the pre-emptively, or they attacked him first), but it was not Elyas's trial.

GonzoTheGreat
03-16-2012, 12:36 PM
Really? You think they initiated violence?
Lemme see. Dozens of them (about a hundred, I think, but I'm not sure) came upon a place where a handful of people had been camping. Those people had fled away upon the arrival of that many armed and armored men. Then they set out aggressively hunting for those fugitives, apparently thinking that anyone who might be out there had to be evil.

"If you can understand human speech, come down and surrender. You'll not be harmed if you walk in the Light. If you don't surrender, you will all be killed. You have one minute."
That's what they said. Suppose that you were given those options: prove to Questioners that you walk in the Light, or be killed on the spot, would you then still maintain that they hadn't initiated the aggression?

Seth Baker
03-16-2012, 12:49 PM
You're all bringing a whole lot of baggage from the rest of the series to that encounter. Killing a wild animal constitutes aggression? Telling someone to reveal yourself when you're about to make camp (in a dickish way) constitutes aggression?

I'd hate to see any of you ever interact with a hunter (the first) or a police officer (the second). "Yes, your honor, I killed that policeman, but he threatened me if I refused to comply with his reasonable request."

The first time I read the book, I thought they were acting completely unreasonable. The inclination to not reveal yourself to the Children and to attack when they say, "COME OUT, OR WE'LL ASSUME YOU'RE HOSTILE" seems to be mostly based on our understanding that there are a lot of loonies in the Children.

I'm not saying Perrin was wrong, but that from the Whitecloak's perspective, it's perfectly reasonable to say that Perrin initiated violence. They told him to come out if he wasn't a Darkfriend, and he attacked them after they killed a wolf.

Toss the dice
03-16-2012, 05:27 PM
Lemme see. Dozens of them (about a hundred, I think, but I'm not sure) came upon a place where a handful of people had been camping. Those people had fled away upon the arrival of that many armed and armored men. Then they set out aggressively hunting for those fugitives, apparently thinking that anyone who might be out there had to be evil.


That's what they said. Suppose that you were given those options: prove to Questioners that you walk in the Light, or be killed on the spot, would you then still maintain that they hadn't initiated the aggression?

I agree with this. Even though the Whitecloaks didn't initiate actual physical violence (on a human), the fact that the other party (Perrin, etc) was given no choice in the matter fully constitutes aggression.

In fact, there is absolutely no difference between this scenario and someone putting a loaded gun to your head and telling you that if you don't willingly cooperate to be Questioned/tortured to determine your allegiance to the Light, they will blow your head off. Perrin did the equivalent of grabbing the gun out of the attacker's hand and killing him with it. Except...in the gun scenario, if you stole the gun, under these hypothetical conditions you could simply walk away. Perrin didn't have the option of simply walking away. Hundreds of armed, zealous fanatics on horses saw to that.

Am I wrong?

Grig
03-16-2012, 05:39 PM
In fact, there is absolutely no difference between this scenario and someone putting a loaded gun to your head and telling you that if you don't willingly cooperate to be Questioned/tortured to determine your allegiance to the Light, they will blow your head off.

Another way of looking at said example. And the only way to look at it, unless one is willing to deem Whitecloaks as a whole to be rabid creatures that one can put down at will (even Morgase doesn't go that far, AFTER she's held by Valda). A military force is making camp. They hear a noise that could indicate something hostile. They give said maker of noise a chance to come out to demonstrate that they're not hostile. A wild animal threatens them and they defend themselves. Wild animal's friend kills members of the armed force.

Friend guilty or not guilty of killing said men?

Nobody is saying Perrin was in the wrong, or had a better course of action. Just noting that neither was Morgase in determining that Perrin was responsible for the killings, as Andor doesn't recognize killing a wolf as the moral equivalent of killing a human (or even morally comparable in the least). Law is hell, and just because you have no choice does not justify the choices you make (especially when you play by different axioms as the standard law, such as considering wolves to basically be people).

Incidentally, everyone's assuming they're Questioners. That's not really supported in text, is it? They're presented as bog standard Whitecloaks.

Seth Baker
03-16-2012, 05:43 PM
Another way of looking at said example. And the only way to look at it, unless one is willing to deem Whitecloaks as a whole to be rabid creatures that one can put down at will (even Morgase doesn't go that far, AFTER she's held by Valda). A military force is making camp. They hear a noise that could indicate something hostile. They give said maker of noise a chance to come out to demonstrate that they're not hostile. A wild animal threatens them and they defend themselves. Wild animal's friend kills members of the armed force.

Friend guilty or not guilty of killing said men?

Nobody is saying Perrin was in the wrong, or had a better course of action. Just noting that neither was Morgase in determining that Perrin was responsible for the killings, as Andor doesn't recognize killing a wolf as the moral equivalent of killing a human (or even morally comparable in the least). Law is hell, and just because you have no choice does not justify the choices you make (especially when you play by different axioms as the standard law, such as considering wolves to basically be people).

Incidentally, everyone's assuming they're Questioners. That's not really supported in text, is it? They're presented as bog standard Whitecloaks.

Bingo.

What was Perrin's alternative? Come out and say, "Hey, sorry, it's us. We saw armed men coming and hid because we were afraid. Thank the Light that you're Children and not brigands or something."

...yeah, maybe not smart. A bad situation overall. But the aggression was definitely on Perrin's side.

Toss the dice
03-16-2012, 06:06 PM
I have a feeling people would have different feelings if they were in Perrin's shoes and looking at it from his perspective. And I'm not talking just from a "viewing from that angle" emotional slant either. The Whitecloaks were openly aggressive with their movements and actions, had a reputation for hostility, killed wolves, and clearly stated that if any humans could hear them and hid from them...they would be killed.

The other option of surrender obviously was no good as well, and that threat by itself was enough to constitute aggression, aside from all the rest. There wasn't physical aggression to a human yet, but that doesn't matter. The ball was in their court, it was their decision to initiate the aggression the way they did. Perrin had no choice but to hide.

I agree that attacking (and killing) the Whitecloaks was stupid of him to do, but that doesn't mean he INITIATED the aggression, and really has nothing to do with it.

Uno
03-16-2012, 06:56 PM
Well, considering the issues at stake, and the participants involved, one should think of this as a political trial. As such, expediency outweighed purely legal matters of guilt or lack thereof. Morgase handled that situation as well as might be expected, if you ask me.

Grig
03-16-2012, 07:26 PM
I have a feeling people would have different feelings if they were in Perrin's shoes and looking at it from his perspective.

How so? We agree that he had no choice. We're just not pretending that he didn't likely murder a couple guys based on the relevant local laws. To him, Whitecloaks killed his friend and he avenged him. To the law, Whitecloaks killed some human-hating wolf, then a crazy guy killed two of them. I doubt even if Hopper was classed as a pet that it would provide Perrin justification for killing his killers.

Morgase was, if anything, lenient with the legal matters. Which is why I had to respond when someone was saying she flubbed the situation.

Toss the dice
03-16-2012, 07:50 PM
How so? We agree that he had no choice. We're just not pretending that he didn't likely murder a couple guys based on the relevant local laws. To him, Whitecloaks killed his friend and he avenged him. To the law, Whitecloaks killed some human-hating wolf, then a crazy guy killed two of them. I doubt even if Hopper was classed as a pet that it would provide Perrin justification for killing his killers.

Morgase was, if anything, lenient with the legal matters. Which is why I had to respond when someone was saying she flubbed the situation.

I agree with all of this, including everything regarding Perrin killing the Whitecloaks, except I don't count it as murder. I count it as self-defense.

The way Perrin's trial played out and the legalities that Morgase talked about, it counted him a murderer. I don't dispute that. However, the trial also discounted the fact that Perrin was employing self-defense, whatever his motives. I agree, the line is awfully blurry in this situation. I guess I'm keying more on the fact that the Whitecloaks initiated the aggression (mind you, with lethal tones - this is important), and so that makes pretty much anything Perrin did (including kill Whitecloaks) count as self-defense. Even though his motive was mostly or entirely based around pure rage and revenge.

GonzoTheGreat
03-17-2012, 05:34 AM
Another way of looking at said example. And the only way to look at it, unless one is willing to deem Whitecloaks as a whole to be rabid creatures that one can put down at will (even Morgase doesn't go that far, AFTER she's held by Valda). A military force is making camp. They hear a noise that could indicate something hostile. They give said maker of noise a chance to come out to demonstrate that they're not hostile. A wild animal threatens them and they defend themselves. Wild animal's friend kills members of the armed force.
Let's be a bit more precise, shall we?
From their own testimony:
"When we arrived," Byar continued, "we found that the campsite had been used recently. That concerned us; few people knew of the stedding. We determined, from the single firepit, that there were not many of these mysterious wayfarers."
So they knew very well that only a very small number of people had been there. They knew that those few people had fled away upon the approach of a large group of armed men. So what did they do?

They could consider the possibility that those few travelers had been frightened by this strong and potentially dangerous force. Or they could assume that 3 or 4 frightened people were a threat to a hundred Whitecloaks, and start hunting them.
They chose the second.

Now, if those Whitecloaks had been led by Carridin, who was a DF, and Perrin had surrendered as asked, then what would have happened?
Perhaps nothing, since Ishamael hadn't given specific orders, yet. On the other hand, Perrin might have been killed, and the cause of the Light lost, because capturing or killing Perrin was then a potentially winning move to the Shadow.

So from Perrin's point of view, there were only risks and no gain in approaching the Whitecloaks.
From the WC point of view, ignoring those few travelers, apart perhaps from setting a few more sentries than normal, would have been a completely adequate solution.

Perrin took the smart approach, the Whitecloaks escalated the situation.

Or, to take a somewhat different take on things:
Why didn't Perrin point out that if he had taken the Whitecloak approach to Morgase, then she would have been shy a couple of hand and feet?
When she met Perrin, she did what he did when he met those Whitecloaks: she ran away. According to WC logic, that was sufficient to brand her a DF, so Perrin should have put her to the question. As you remember from the Aiel he did that to, that would mean chopping off her hand and feet.
Yet if he had done that, then both Morgase and Galad would think that he had acted unjustly and inexcusably.

Seth Baker
03-17-2012, 01:17 PM
That's not how military or paramilitary organizations work. You don't figure that unknown people hiding in the vicinity of your camp will probably not be dangerous because there are less of them than you.

The consequences don't matter. Raising the threat to the cause of the Light is both hindsight bias and a mere mitigating factor or affirmative defense; it's a justification argument. Justified murder is still murder.

Avenging a friend (especially a non-human friend) is not self-defense. Responding to a demand that you show yourself by killing two men is also not self-defense.

GonzoTheGreat
03-17-2012, 02:28 PM
Would explain why there are so many civilian casualties in Afghanistan, I guess. Any time a US patrol meets any locals, either the locals prove they're innocent on the spot, or they are considered terrorists and consequently attacked.

Decent military organisations do not simply assume that anyone they meet is an enemy until proven differently. Especially not when they're moving around in what is at best the territory of a not very trusting ally.

Seth Baker
03-17-2012, 03:36 PM
This was not a populated area or a home invasion.

Grig
03-19-2012, 11:37 AM
Now, if those Whitecloaks had been led by Carridin, who was a DF, and Perrin had surrendered as asked, then what would have happened?

If this is your argument, then it is valid to meet any show of force by any law enforcement or military organization with a sneak attack intended to kill, since there are Darkfriends in high-up places in basically all said organizations.

Would explain why there are so many civilian casualties in Afghanistan, I guess. Any time a US patrol meets any locals, either the locals prove they're innocent on the spot, or they are considered terrorists and consequently attacked.

Is this sort of thing allowed on the WoT threads? Seems like a rather uncalled-for cheap shot. Yes, if you kill a wild animal in self-defense and then someone kills several of your men for it, you're justified in taking them into custody to be tried. I can't believe this requires defense. That is the only act that has been justified or attempted to be by the posters in this thread.

GonzoTheGreat
03-19-2012, 12:00 PM
Is this sort of thing allowed on the WoT threads? Seems like a rather uncalled-for cheap shot. Yes, if you kill a wild animal in self-defense and then someone kills several of your men for it, you're justified in taking them into custody to be tried. I can't believe this requires defense. That is the only act that has been justified or attempted to be by the posters in this thread.
Suppose it had been the other way around, a bit later in the series: Perrin with a bunch of his Two Rivers men had come upon half a dozen or so Whitecloaks, they'd killed the WC's horses, then given the Children the choice "prove that you walk in the Light or fight to the death" and then some of Perrin's men had died in the ensuing fight.
Would the WC then really be guilty of murder?

They did not just "kill some wild animals in self defense", they were deliberately and purposefully hunting them. They were also deliberately and knowingly hunting the few people who had been camping there until those few people fled upon the approach of a large number of rather hostile armed men. You can not honestly claim self defense when it is you who starts the killing.

Grig
03-19-2012, 12:13 PM
You can not honestly claim self defense when it is you who starts the killing.

You can when what you're killing has no rights under local law. And I'm not saying it was actual self defense by the Whitecloaks from the reader POV, which is very different from the POV of Morgase judging the case. Even if the law might have to take that as a valid finding based on whatever laws are in place. I suppose it would depend on what statutes Andor has regarding whether intimidation to reveal one's presence in the wild is grounds for killing without warning.

As much as I agree about there being too much collateral damage in Afghanistan, I'm not interested in reading posts by someone who is going to be making cheap anti-American cheap shots casually (to win an argument about fictional applications of mostly undefined Common law, ffs). There's enough of that other places on the internet, and it's one reason I stay away from off-topic forums on fan sites. Any possibility I can get the ability go block Gonzo, since I get an error message since he's a Mod/Admin? As much as I appreciate his other posts, it just kills my interest in participating on the forums to read that sort of thing.

eht slat meit
03-19-2012, 12:57 PM
They did not just "kill some wild animals in self defense", they were deliberately and purposefully hunting them. They were also deliberately and knowingly hunting the few people who had been camping there until those few people fled upon the approach of a large number of rather hostile armed men. You can not honestly claim self defense when it is you who starts the killing.

You certainly can when what you're killing has absolutely no legal standing. What Andoran law is going to take the WC to task for killing wolves? They're animals, untrusted, unwanted, and because of human lack of awareness, often considered the Dark One's own pets. There is not a single Andoran law that would call them to account for killing wolves.

In short, they did NOT start the killing. They may have provoked it, by attempting to capture someone they had no legal standing to capture, but the killing was initiated by Perrin.

Why? Because wolves do not count.

suttree
03-19-2012, 01:40 PM
They did not just "kill some wild animals in self defense", they were deliberately and purposefully hunting them.

Might make this my new sig...so good.

Seth Baker
03-19-2012, 02:38 PM
Apparently hunting is illegal in Gonzo's Randland.

Suppose Perrin and some Two Rivers men established a camp and found evidence that someone had been there recently. Then they get attacked by grolm. They kill the grolm, then see what they think is a person hiding. They say, "Come out! You won't be harmed unless you mean us harm or are a Darkfriend!"

Then another grolm attacks, they kill it, and hidden Seanchan soldier comes out laying about with his sword, and kills Wil and Ban.

I think that's a better example. You're bringing baggage - about how important the wolves are, and about how villainous the Whitecloaks are - that's not warranted or relevant to a discussion about whether what Perrin did constitutes murder.

Frenzy
03-19-2012, 05:59 PM
Were the Whitecloaks in Andor legally? Did they have permission to bring an armed force into the country and move about armed, unescorted, and with free rein? That obviously isn't a question Morgase wants to think about, let alone answer. But it does muddy up an already murky legal case.

Seth Baker
03-19-2012, 07:15 PM
Fair question. But considering that Perrin's a seditious traitor by legal technicalities, let's not worry about that overmuch.

GonzoTheGreat
03-20-2012, 05:29 AM
If anyone wants to muddle the case further, then adding Owein to the mix might be an interesting idea. He was one of Alanna's Warders, and the Children killed him when they saw a chance to do so.
Which shows that Perrin did indeed have reason to fear for his life, even if you ignore the fact that the DO himself* was hunting him.

Oh, and for further murkiing up the waters: does Andor have any hunting laws?

* Technically: Ishamael. Doesn't really make much of a difference, though, since at the time, only Ishamael and the DO knew about this distinction.

Seth Baker
03-20-2012, 11:35 AM
If anyone wants to muddle the case further, then adding Owein to the mix might be an interesting idea. He was one of Alanna's Warders, and the Children killed him when they saw a chance to do so.
Which shows that Perrin did indeed have reason to fear for his life, even if you ignore the fact that the DO himself* was hunting him.

Oh, and for further murkiing up the waters: does Andor have any hunting laws?

* Technically: Ishamael. Doesn't really make much of a difference, though, since at the time, only Ishamael and the DO knew about this distinction.

(1) Owein was a warder.
(2) Owein didn't die in TEOTW.
(3) Nobody's arguing the Children are good, but you don't have to be morally perfect in order to be a victim of a crime, up to and including murder. Perrin was NOT in the last defense of his life. They effectively told him that he had to come out with his hands up. They weren't Trollocs. They weren't Ishamael. They weren't attacking him. And Hopper was a wolf.

Nazbaque
03-20-2012, 12:08 PM
Everyone seems to be ignoring a major detail. The act of which Perrin is accused took place in a stedding and therefore his judgement is Ogier business.

GonzoTheGreat
03-20-2012, 12:20 PM
Everyone seems to be ignoring a major detail. The act of which Perrin is accused took place in a stedding and therefore his judgement is Ogier business.
A detail which is indeed quite relevant. Also a detail of which Morgase probably was not aware at all, so it wouldn't be fair to blame her for ignoring it.

Then again, she wasn't asked to adjudicate because it had happened in Andor, but because she was the nearest they could find to an impartial judge acceptable to all parties. Still, I agree that it should have been brought before the Stump, rather than letting Asunawa (who would've been the judge if Moiraine and Lan hadn't interfered) handle it.

Seth Baker
03-20-2012, 12:27 PM
A detail which is indeed quite relevant. Also a detail of which Morgase probably was not aware at all, so it wouldn't be fair to blame her for ignoring it.

Then again, she wasn't asked to adjudicate because it had happened in Andor, but because she was the nearest they could find to an impartial judge acceptable to all parties. Still, I agree that it should have been brought before the Stump, rather than letting Asunawa (who would've been the judge if Moiraine and Lan hadn't interfered) handle it.

The Stedding was abandoned and Andor had adversely possessed it.

GonzoTheGreat
03-20-2012, 12:31 PM
The Stedding was abandoned and Andor had adversely possessed it.
Did any Andoran official know that the Stedding had been abandoned?

Seth Baker
03-20-2012, 01:07 PM
Did any Andoran official know that the Stedding had been abandoned?

As far as I know, the Stedding was never occupied after the Breaking.

Toss the dice
03-22-2012, 03:43 PM
I know that particular stedding is talked about when Rand tells Elder Haman he missed placing it on the map.

I forget what exactly is said, but if I remember right, Elder Haman says that stedding was never reclaimed due to its close proximity to humans. I forget the timeframe or date, if one was given.

finn
03-24-2012, 05:42 AM
If anyone wants to muddle the case further, then adding Owein to the mix might be an interesting idea. He was one of Alanna's Warders, and the Children killed him when they saw a chance to do so.
Which shows that Perrin did indeed have reason to fear for his life, even if you ignore the fact that the DO himself* was hunting him.

A better case could be made for the 3 Tinkers who went "missing" following an interrogation by Fain who was with the Whitecloaks. Before taking them into custody, the first thing the Whitecloaks did was kill the Tinker's hounds that were trying to protect them. This put the Tinkers completely at the Whitecloaks' mercy.

Seth Baker
03-24-2012, 12:43 PM
This is all extrinsic, irrelevant evidence.

GonzoTheGreat
03-24-2012, 01:16 PM
This is all extrinsic, irrelevant evidence.
Why would the Whitecloak standard operating procedure be irrelevant when deciding whether or not what they did is justified?

If, as seems likely, they have a habit of first killing off any animal which might give warning and then torturing or killing the humans they can catch, then having Perrin consider their killing of the wolves a threat to himself and Egwene makes sense.
If you rule out Perrin's relationship with the wolves, then you should also rule out the relationship of the two men he killed with the Children. In which case Galad doesn't have a case at all.

Zombie Sammael
03-24-2012, 01:41 PM
I wonder if the law of Andor has any legislation or precedent concerning pets? It seems to me that the wolves could be considered pets. Depending on what laws apply to provocation and the defence of oneself or another, that might, if not absolve Perrin, at least knock the charge down from murder to manslaughter. I'm not sure what steps you are allowed to take to defend a pet in England or the United States, but I would expect the law of Andor to be similar, so knowing that might be of some assistance.

GonzoTheGreat
03-24-2012, 02:03 PM
Pets or farm animals, or something like that.

Remember how Rand and Mat were now and then chased away in TEOTW, with a clear threat of lethal violence, by farmers. If that was legal (sort of, at least), then protecting your animals would indeed be enough to justify the kind of violence which Perrin used.

Seth Baker
03-24-2012, 02:38 PM
The purpose of law is to provide predictability in human interactions. There is an extreme, gigantic, humongous gap between killing a wild animal that attacks you in the wild and trying to steal or injure a person's domestic animals.

Seriously, it's not like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and ball peen hammers.

Getting back to the purpose of law, is it reasonable for Whitecloaks to kill a wolf that ATTACKS THEM!? YES YES YES IT IS. So it can't be that the law would allow someone who likes wolves to attack and kill people who killed an aggressive wolf in the wild, because that would defeat the purpose of having predictable human interactions.

Is it reasonable for a paramilitary organization to secure the area when camping for an evening? Yes. Yes it is.

The only leg you have to stand on is that OTHER Whitecloaks, under the direction of an amalgam of extreme Darkfriend and ancient, terrible evil, tortured people after killing their dogs. It's such a strained argument that it strains credulity.

What other Whitecloaks would do later has NOTHING TO DO with what we're talking about here. You think that it speaks to justification, but it doesn't. What makes Perrin justified, or not, is his reasonable fear for his own life. He's not a Darkfriend, so the words they use to convince him to come out cannot give him that reasonable fear. Seeing men kill a wolf that attacked them does not give him that reasonable fear.

You're arguing that killing a wild animal that's attacking you should subject you to murder if someone hiding in a cave nearby happens to like wolves.

That's absurd.

You're arguing that Perrin had a reason to fear for his life because in 2 years some other people affiliated with the same organization are going to hurt others.

That is beyond absurd.

This entire argument is inane, and the only reason any of you are entertaining this as a justified killing is because Perrin is one of our story's heroes. Everything else seems to be a desperate, grasping attempt to justify that.

That's not how law works. You don't start with the presumption that the story's hero is right, and try to justify it by making an aggressive wild animal out to be like chickens in a farmer's coop.

It does not make sense.

You must convict.

Zombie Sammael
03-24-2012, 02:48 PM
The purpose of law is to provide predictability in human interactions. There is an extreme, gigantic, humongous gap between killing a wild animal that attacks you in the wild and trying to steal or injure a person's domestic animals.

Seriously, it's not like comparing apples and oranges, it's like comparing apples and ball peen hammers.

Getting back to the purpose of law, is it reasonable for Whitecloaks to kill a wolf that ATTACKS THEM!? YES YES YES IT IS. So it can't be that the law would allow someone who likes wolves to attack and kill people who killed an aggressive wolf in the wild, because that would defeat the purpose of having predictable human interactions.

Is it reasonable for a paramilitary organization to secure the area when camping for an evening? Yes. Yes it is.

The only leg you have to stand on is that OTHER Whitecloaks, under the direction of an amalgam of extreme Darkfriend and ancient, terrible evil, tortured people after killing their dogs. It's such a strained argument that it strains credulity.

What other Whitecloaks would do later has NOTHING TO DO with what we're talking about here. You think that it speaks to justification, but it doesn't. What makes Perrin justified, or not, is his reasonable fear for his own life. He's not a Darkfriend, so the words they use to convince him to come out cannot give him that reasonable fear. Seeing men kill a wolf that attacked them does not give him that reasonable fear.

You're arguing that killing a wild animal that's attacking you should subject you to murder if someone hiding in a cave nearby happens to like wolves.

That's absurd.

You're arguing that Perrin had a reason to fear for his life because in 2 years some other people affiliated with the same organization are going to hurt others.

That is beyond absurd.

This entire argument is inane, and the only reason any of you are entertaining this as a justified killing is because Perrin is one of our story's heroes. Everything else seems to be a desperate, grasping attempt to justify that.

That's not how law works. You don't start with the presumption that the story's hero is right, and try to justify it by making an aggressive wild animal out to be like chickens in a farmer's coop.

It does not make sense.

You must convict.

As has been said above, it's more like killing a pet or guard dog that is attacking you. That changes things. Possibly, Perrin should be had up under Andor's version of the Dangerous Dogs Act in the first instance.

Seth Baker
03-24-2012, 04:17 PM
As has been said above, it's more like killing a pet or guard dog that is attacking you. That changes things. Possibly, Perrin should be had up under Andor's version of the Dangerous Dogs Act in the first instance.

Right. A wolf is like a pet dog. Except it's not.

Zombie Sammael
03-24-2012, 04:18 PM
Right. A wolf is like a pet dog. Except it's not.

Perhaps not a pet dog or cat, but people keep pet tigers. The point is that the wolves were wholly or partially domesticated at the point in time the crime(s) were committed, in that they were being kept by a human.

Seth Baker
03-24-2012, 08:07 PM
Perhaps not a pet dog or cat, but people keep pet tigers. The point is that the wolves were wholly or partially domesticated at the point in time the crime(s) were committed, in that they were being kept by a human.

Well, that argument makes a ton of sense until you pay a little attention while reading The Eye of the World.


"Are they tame?" Egwene asked faintly, and hopefully, too. "They're... pets?"

Elyas snorted.


Because that's a stupid question.


Elyas snorted. "Wolves don't tame, girl, not even as well as men. They're my friends..."



Elyas snorted. "Wolves don't tame..."


E: Courtesy of Terez:


Vaguely, she heard Elayne say, “Remember to ask her again.” Sleep took her. She stood outside the wagon, in the night. The moon was high, and drifting clouds cast shadows over the camp. Crickets chirruped, and the night-birds called. The lions’ eyes shone as they watched her from their cages. The white-faced bears were dark sleeping mounds behind the iron bars. The long picket line stood empty of horses, Clarine's dogs were not on their leashes beneath her and Petra’s wagon, and the space where the s'redit stood in the waking world was bare. She had come to understand that only wild creatures had reflections here, but whatever the Seanchan woman claimed, it was hard to think that those huge gray animals had been domesticated so long that they were no longer wild.

And wolves are in Tel'aran'rhiod. Where tame animals are not.


“Was it real?”

All is real, what is seen, and what is not seen. That seemed to be all the answer Hopper was going to give.

“Hopper, how are you here? I saw you die. I felt you die!”

All are here. All brothers and sisters that are, all that were, all that will be. Perrin knew that wolves did not smile, not the way humans did, but for an instant he had the impression that Hopper was grinning. Here, I soar like the eagle. The wolf gathered himself and leaped, up into the air. Up and up it carried him, until he dwindled to a speck in the sky, and a last thought came. To soar.

Cortar
03-24-2012, 09:11 PM
Couldn't Perrin make the defense that armed troops in Andorian borders without permission constitutes and invasion so he was merely defending his homeland in a time of war.

Seth Baker
03-24-2012, 09:17 PM
Couldn't Perrin make the defense that armed troops in Andorian borders without permission constitutes and invasion so he was merely defending his homeland in a time of war.

No.

finn
03-25-2012, 01:25 AM
Is it reasonable for a paramilitary organization to secure the area when camping for an evening? Yes. Yes it is.

The only leg you have to stand on is that OTHER Whitecloaks, under the direction of an amalgam of extreme Darkfriend and ancient, terrible evil, tortured people after killing their dogs. It's such a strained argument that it strains credulity.

What other Whitecloaks would do later has NOTHING TO DO with what we're talking about here. You think that it speaks to justification, but it doesn't.

What makes Perrin justified, or not, is his reasonable fear for his own life. He's not a Darkfriend, so the words they use to convince him to come out cannot give him that reasonable fear. Seeing men kill a wolf that attacked them does not give him that reasonable fear. Perrin's reasonable fear came from being hunted and stalked by armed men with weapons acting without authority or legal sanction. The killing of the wolf that was protecting him was merely the final trigger. The whitecloaks had no business operating in that area. Securing one's camp is not an excuse for a foreign militia to stalk, hunt down, interrogate or persecute locals. Their claim of suspecting brigands being in the vicinity is hollow because you'd have to have reports of a specific crime as well as a warrant from a local magistrate and legal sanction to hunt those brigands down yourself (as opposed to the Queen's guards or other homegrown forces doing it), none of which the whitecloaks had.

As such the whitecloaks were nothing more than foreign troops provoking an armed confrontation with locals/travellers without any reasonable or justifiable cause. The tinker incident establishes a modus operandi.

You're arguing that killing a wild animal that's attacking you should subject you to murder if someone hiding in a cave nearby happens to like wolves.

Actually in this case the status of wolves as wild animals would have to be questioned because the term implies that they are mindless beasts when they clearly aren't. Andoran law is limited in that respect but this case could have been used to expand the legal definition and status of wolves with Perrin's & Elyas' testimony. Wolves in the Randverse are beyond self aware, are proven to be able to communicate, think & feel and are culturally the equivalent of a people.

While I don't expect the whitecloaks to know that, Perrin did and it goes beyond merely liking wolves. He knew they weren't mindless savages so his actions while fighting alongside wolves are justified from his point of view. Just like his rescue of Gaul from a cage and the subsequent killing of whitecloaks.

Seth Baker
03-25-2012, 02:21 AM
Perrin's reasonable fear came from being hunted and stalked by armed men with weapons acting without authority or legal sanction.

You're using a lot of loaded terms there. Hunted and stalked? Armed men came to where they were camped. They proceeded to perform an orderly search of the area while securing their camp. They stated outright that he would not be harmed if he walked in the Light - which he did.

They showed no hostility except by bearing weapons. That's hardly enough, considering that he was bearing weapons too. That's a cultural norm in Randland. Nobody glances twice at Lan and Rand's swords or Perrin's battleaxe.

The killing of the wolf that was protecting him was merely the final trigger. The whitecloaks had no business operating in that area. Securing one's camp is not an excuse for a foreign militia to stalk, hunt down, interrogate or persecute locals.

And he had no knowledge of their ability to operate in that area. We know that Morgase didn't like Whitecloaks, but we don't know if she had forbidden their presence completely in Andor. Seems unlikely. They're too strong, and she's too politically savvy. If you have evidence that she had completely forbade the presence of Whitecloaks within the borders of Andor, feel free to present it.

Again, more loaded words. Stalk, hunt down, interrogate, persecute. They came upon evidence that there were people in the area. They formed search parties. Some of those parties came under attack from Elyas. Surely they're justified in being less than courteous in ensuring the safety of their camp.

They didn't do ANYTHING to harm or threaten Perrin, unless you think he's a Darkfriend, until he attacked and killed two of them. Judging the Whitecloaks on the basis of what they did AFTER Perrin attacked and killed two of them is absurd when we're talking about the justification of Perrin in that attack.

If a man hiding in an alley shoots two police officers who are securing a crime scene, you'd seem to argue that his shooting was justified if, upon apprehending him, the other officers treated him roughly. It's all sorts of upside down, inside out, twisted logic.

Their claim of suspecting brigands being in the vicinity is hollow because you'd have to have reports of a specific crime as well as a warrant from a local magistrate and legal sanction to hunt those brigands down yourself (as opposed to the Queen's guards or other homegrown forces doing it), none of which the whitecloaks had.

Are you Randland's resident attorney? You're citing to a lot of law in this and the Elayne thread without really justifying yourself. I don't know what the background of your legal training is, but I'm about 5 weeks from receiving my J.D., and while pursuing my B.A. in History, I spent quite a lot of time reading about the legal history of medieval cultures. So I do have some grounds to speculate about the legal foundations of Andor. And I disagree with the pure speculative claims that you're making.

There's not a legal system that I've encountered that would consider a killing justified where an individual attacked a non-hostile military force that was securing their camp. Despite all your loaded terminology, they were not persecuting or torturing or pillaging or raping Perrin. They were investigating the area when they had reason to believe that there were other people around, to ensure the security of their camp.

The only ground that you have to base your claim on is that the Whitecloaks were operating in Andor illegally. That's a gray area. If they're operating illegally, that still doesn't subject them to attack from locals unless they're actively hostile to Andor, under the law of war as it's existed since we developed a CONCEPT of the law of war. The Whitecloaks were certainly not actively hostile to Andor. They were passing through. Traveling in a group, sure, but they were not disturbing the peace (that is, until they were attacked by a wild man, his wolf friends, and a crazy kid with an ax).

As such the whitecloaks were nothing more than foreign troops provoking an armed confrontation with locals/travellers without any reasonable or justifiable cause. The tinker incident establishes a modus operandi.

They didn't provoke. They were securing their camp. They're foreign troops, but you haven't established that they were there illegally. The Tinker incident doesn't establish shit, because it happened a year later, and under the influence of one of the greatest and most corrupting evil creatures in the world.

Actually in this case the status of wolves as wild animals would have to be questioned because the term implies that they are mindless beasts when they clearly aren't.

Don't conflate mindlessness with wildness. You're trying to argue the right to defend one's property. They're wild. That's incontrovertible. We actually have canon statements on that that I've already cited.

Perrin cannot justify a lethal attack because men killed a wild animal that was attacking them. I can emphatically say that that has no grounds in the law of any nation in the history of this earth. There's no basis for the argument.

Andoran law is limited in that respect but this case could have been used to expand the legal definition and status of wolves with Perrin's & Elyas' testimony. Wolves in the Randverse are beyond self aware, are proven to be able to communicate, think & feel and are culturally the equivalent of a people.

Oh, sure, yes, the wolves are sentient. But what we're talking about is whether Perrin can be legally justified in killing people who kill a wild animal that's attacking them.

And he can't be, because no matter what, the Whitecloaks were justified in killing Hopper. Unlike your strained argument that the Whitecloaks threatened Perrin by being armed and demanding he show himself, they were actually in immediate and direct threat of death. Hopper killed one of them before he was killed. Killing Hopper was self defense against imminent deadly force. So even if he's sentient, the Whitecloaks aren't culpable.

So here are a number of reasons why Perrin was not justified:
-Killing for revenge is not justified.
-Killing to prevent the death of an aggressor at the hand of someone acting in self defense is not justified.
-Killing to prevent the death of a wild animal is not justified.

While I don't expect the whitecloaks to know that, Perrin did and it goes beyond merely liking wolves. He knew they weren't mindless savages so his actions while fighting alongside wolves are justified from his point of view. Just like his rescue of Gaul from a cage and the subsequent killing of whitecloaks.

The Whitecloaks with Gaul were justified. They were actually attacking him. It's self defense. This is a completely different situation. Perrin actively attacked people who were fighting off an attack by a wild animal.

IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS:Yes, he knew much more about wolves than the Whitecloaks did. But your concept of justification would have far-reaching consequences. Instead of using it in the abstract, in a fantasy story, as a justification for why your hero can do no wrong, let's apply it to the real world.

Who else thinks they know more about animals than do the people who are hurting him? Greenpeace. PETA. Is a PETA activist justified in shooting someone who's out hunting deer? Even if that hunting is taking place on land that the hunter might not have the right to hunt on?

Is a Greenpeace operation justified in torpedoing a whaling ship, killing all hands?

No. The answer is no. If we're talking about real law, you're not even justified in killing someone who is threatening the life of your own pet. But we don't need to get that far, because, as I've conclusively established, Hopper was not a pet, he was a wild animal. And it's an unworkable standard to allow anyone to kill anyone else who is threatening a wild animal.

We don't know everything about the Wheel of Time universe. What if there are Rabbitbrothers? Perrin's just blithely trotting along with Elyas and Egwene, and trying to kill rabbits with his sling to eat. Would our hypothetical Rabbitbrother be justified in killing Perrin to protect his friend Thumper?

By your reasoning, most certainly.

In summary, Perrin was not justified in avenging Hopper or in protecting him. He was also not justified in defending himself because he had no reasonable fear for his life. The Whitecloaks were not aggressive towards him, beyond demanding that he show himself, and even stated that he would not be harmed unless he was a Darkfriend.

Stop ruining the story by trying to make every Light character's action morally praiseworthy or morally justified. This isn't a child's morality play. Sometimes the good guys in this act bad. And, in this case, this was a place where Perrin did an unacceptable thing, but RJ wrote the passage in a very kind light towards him.

GonzoTheGreat
03-25-2012, 05:12 AM
You're using a lot of loaded terms there. Hunted and stalked? Armed men came to where they were camped. They proceeded to perform an orderly search of the area while securing their camp. They stated outright that he would not be harmed if he walked in the Light - which he did.
The same guarantees that Morgase got?
That means that she has absolutely no reason at all to complain about how the Whitecloaks then treated her once she was in their power, doesn't it?

I mean, they'd promised not to harm her if she walked in the Light - which she did - so she had no reason to fear them at all.

Be serious. The Children are like a rabid version of the Spanish Inquisition. And Perrin even knew that:
"There are a lot of men coming, on horses. They came up behind the wolves, but the men didn't see them. They're heading toward the pool. Probably they don't have anything to do with us; it's the only water for miles. But Dapple says..." He glanced over his shoulder. The evening sun painted odd shadows on her face, shadows that hid her expression. What is she thinking? Is she looking at you as if she doesn't know you anymore? Does she know you? "Dapple says they smell wrong. It's ... sort of the way a rabid dog smells wrong." The pool was lost to sight behind them. He could still pick out boulders – fragments of Artur Hawkwing's statue – in the deepening twilight, but not to tell which was the stone where the fire had been. "We'll stay away from them, find a place to wait for Elyas."
So, if you're approached by a pet dog which you happen to know is actually rabid, would you:
A) Act as you would with any other pet dog, and trust it until after it bit you and made clear through continued attack that that was no coincidence?
B) Protect yourself against it, by trying to avoid it and if that does not work, actually fighting it?

As the chapter title explicitly says, Perrin knew that they were Children of Shadow. At a time when he knew he was personally being hunted by Ba'alzamon.

finn
03-25-2012, 06:07 AM
You're using a lot of loaded terms there. Hunted and stalked? Armed men came to where they were camped. They proceeded to perform an orderly search of the area while securing their camp. They stated outright that he would not be harmed if he walked in the Light - which he did.

They showed no hostility except by bearing weapons. That's hardly enough, considering that he was bearing weapons too. That's a cultural norm in Randland. Nobody glances twice at Lan and Rand's swords or Perrin's battleaxe.

People would react differently if they had those weapons drawn. Is it also a cultural norm to surrender to armed persons to whom you are in no way accountable, drop your weapons and submit to their whims when threatened with death? Was Perrin supposed to take them at their word that they wouldn't harm him after he had revealed and put himself within their grasp? The only two choices he was given was either surrender or be killed if he failed to make a decision in a minute. If he had been killed, what would his crime have been? Hiding? Refusing to obey an unlawful order?

They had no business going after him in the first place. Instead, why not withdraw and allow the unknown camp people to leave? Why not send out a single man unarmed or with weapons sheathed as an act of faith to prove they truly meant no harm? Or call out for them from a reasonable distance to tell them they were free to leave as opposed to coming forward. Why the search?

Can a purported search for potential brigands as Byar later claimed be anything other than a manhunt?

And he had no knowledge of their ability to operate in that area. We know that Morgase didn't like Whitecloaks, but we don't know if she had forbidden their presence completely in Andor. Seems unlikely. They're too strong, and she's too politically savvy. If you have evidence that she had completely forbade the presence of Whitecloaks within the borders of Andor, feel free to present it.
They weren't banned from Andor if that's what you're trying to suggest but they weren't authorized to police or conduct their darkfriend hunting activities in the area, which would include a hunt for thieves. They didn't declare themselves to be acting under the law of the land or under the authority of the Queen, so why would anyone trust them or take them at their word?

They didn't do ANYTHING to harm or threaten Perrin, unless you think he's a Darkfriend, until he attacked and killed two of them. Judging the Whitecloaks on the basis of what they did AFTER Perrin attacked and killed two of them is absurd when we're talking about the justification of Perrin in that attack. "Surrender or be killed" not a threat in your part of the world? Having deadly weapons pointed at you not a threat? Are you really a law student?

If a man hiding in an alley shoots two police officers who are securing a crime scene, you'd seem to argue that his shooting was justified if, upon apprehending him, the other officers treated him roughly. It's all sorts of upside down, inside out, twisted logic.
The core problem with this analogy is the whitecloaks weren't police officers. There was no crime, so they were not justified in securing anything but their own persons.

If 2 armed North Korean naval officers supposedly on shore leave had asked an American in a Los Angeles alley to surrender and come out peacefully or else he would be killed, he'd be justified in doing whatever he thought fit to protect himself. If other Americans had been killed after they had surrendered, a court of law may accept arguments from his defense terming it the modus operandi of some in the North Korean military.

Are you Randland's resident attorney? You're citing to a lot of law in this and the Elayne thread without really justifying yourself.Sorry, thought I was following your lead. We know Andor has magistrates and queen's guards. We know they are in charge of maintaining law and order. It's canon that Morgase had once issued a warrant for Thom's arrest, Elaida has one out for Moiraine and Rand orders arrest warrants for rebel High Lords, so we know warrants are in use and are probably required to make arrests. We also know the whitecloaks were an unauthorized military group in Andor from Morgase's verdict on Perrin's trial. Bornhald Jr. worries about the Queen finding out about the unauthorized presence of half a legion of whitecloaks in the Two Rivers. And while Elayne says she may look away when vastly powerful Borderlander armies flog actual horse thieves on Andoran soil instead of handing them over to said magistrates, they as well as the Black Tower are expected to hold pretty tightly to her nation's law. Just a few examples you could easily look up, or were you looking for something more specific? Basically the Children had no call to do the things they did.

There's not a legal system that I've encountered that would consider a killing justified where an individual attacked a non-hostile military force that was securing their camp. Despite all your loaded terminology, they were not persecuting or torturing or pillaging or raping Perrin. They were investigating the area when they had reason to believe that there were other people around, to ensure the security of their camp.
You seem to be suggesting that Perrin has to be raped and pillaged for him to be able to defend his life, when threatening a person's life while holding him at lance point should be all the provocation needed.


The only ground that you have to base your claim on is that the Whitecloaks were operating in Andor illegally. That's a gray area. If they're operating illegally, that still doesn't subject them to attack from locals unless they're actively hostile to Andor, under the law of war as it's existed since we developed a CONCEPT of the law of war. The Whitecloaks were certainly not actively hostile to Andor. They were passing through. Traveling in a group, sure, but they were not disturbing the peace (that is, until they were attacked by a wild man, his wolf friends, and a crazy kid with an ax).

They threatened to kill that kid. And if you think whitecloaks don't disturb the peace by their presence then I suggest you read the books again. Their awful reputation is deserved and doesn't count the worst of their crimes.


Don't conflate mindlessness with wildness. You're trying to argue the right to defend one's property. They're wild. That's incontrovertible. We actually have canon statements on that that I've already cited.

Perrin cannot justify a lethal attack because men killed a wild animal that was attacking them. I can emphatically say that that has no grounds in the law of any nation in the history of this earth. There's no basis for the argument.

Oh, sure, yes, the wolves are sentient. But what we're talking about is whether Perrin can be legally justified in killing people who kill a wild animal that's attacking them. So you're saying it's ok to kill them as long as they're wild, no matter how sentient they are? How about a wild pygmy or tribal warrior or feral child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child)? Is it ok to kill them, even if they're only trying to defend themselves or those they care about?

And he can't be, because no matter what, the Whitecloaks were justified in killing Hopper. Unlike your strained argument that the Whitecloaks threatened Perrin by being armed and demanding he show himself, they were actually in immediate and direct threat of death. Hopper killed one of them before he was killed. Killing Hopper was self defense against imminent deadly force. So even if he's sentient, the Whitecloaks aren't culpable.
Hopper attacked the whitecloak who had shifted his lance to point directly at Perrin's chest. Don't tell me they aren't culpable. The conflict here was again initiated by the Children with a renewed threat of violence, when they had no cause nor right to do so. It was mutual self-defense on Hopper and Perrin's part. If a person points a gun on me or my family, I'll do whatever I can to protect us.


The Whitecloaks with Gaul were justified. They were actually attacking him. It's self defense. This is a completely different situation. Perrin actively attacked people who were fighting off an attack by a wild animal.
The whitecloaks had weapons drawn and charged. Perhaps they had only intended to surround and recapture. However Gaul struck first and Perrin joined him soon after. It's justified because they were an active threat.


IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS:Yes, he knew much more about wolves than the Whitecloaks did. But your concept of justification would have far-reaching consequences. Instead of using it in the abstract, in a fantasy story, as a justification for why your hero can do no wrong, let's apply it to the real world.

Who else thinks they know more about animals than do the people who are hurting him? Greenpeace. PETA. Is a PETA activist justified in shooting someone who's out hunting deer? Even if that hunting is taking place on land that the hunter might not have the right to hunt on?

Is a Greenpeace operation justified in torpedoing a whaling ship, killing all hands?

No. The answer is no. If we're talking about real law, you're not even justified in killing someone who is threatening the life of your own pet. But we don't need to get that far, because, as I've conclusively established, Hopper was not a pet, he was a wild animal. And it's an unworkable standard to allow anyone to kill anyone else who is threatening a wild animal.

We don't know everything about the Wheel of Time universe. What if there are Rabbitbrothers? Perrin's just blithely trotting along with Elyas and Egwene, and trying to kill rabbits with his sling to eat. Would our hypothetical Rabbitbrother be justified in killing Perrin to protect his friend Thumper?

If Greenpeace or rabbitbrothers could establish that whales/rabbits were sentient to a degree that qualified them for the same protections humans enjoyed, that they didn't deserve to be killed out of hand, then yes they could be justified in certain proven actions that were taken to protect them in the extreme defense of life. Or do we simply draw the line at Ogier and Nym, as long as they're not too unlike us?

Or allow me to put it this way. If you had a friend belonging to a different race and had to protect him in an era where it was widely believed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization) that some racial groups were no better than monkeys. Say some people attacked him, wouldn't you be justified in killing them in his defense.

It comes down to how we define living beings. In this case, the definition of wolves deserves to be expanded.

GonzoTheGreat
03-25-2012, 07:15 AM
So you're saying it's ok to kill them as long as they're wild, no matter how sentient they are? How about a wild pygmy or tribal warrior or feral child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child)? Is it ok to kill them, even if they're only trying to defend themselves or those they care about?
Or how about Ogier?
I don't know of any Andoran law that explicitly states that Ogier are to be considered the legal equivalent of humans. So obviously, killing them as "wild animals" would be all right, and any human who tried to use force to stop such killings would be in the wrong.

And, just to make this scenario even more believable: we know that lots of people failed to recognise Ogier for what they are (Loial complained about that a lot), so this is not as unlikely a scenario as it may seem.

Zombie Sammael
03-25-2012, 11:19 AM
Nope, wolves who spend time being socialised around humans aren't domesticated at all (http://io9.com/5896191/watch-a-tail+wagging-reunion-between-a-woman-and-her-wolf-friends?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)...

Seth Baker
03-25-2012, 11:44 AM
As the chapter title explicitly says, Perrin knew that they were Children of Shadow. At a time when he knew he was personally being hunted by Ba'alzamon.

Nope. He knew that Dapple said they smelled wrong. Robert Jordan called them Children of Shadow.

Objection. Hearsay. What Dapple said about them is inadmissible in a legal proceeding unless Dapple herself testifies, and the prosecution has the opportunity to confront her as a witness.

People would react differently if they had those weapons drawn. Is it also a cultural norm to surrender to armed persons to whom you are in no way accountable, drop your weapons and submit to their whims when threatened with death?

That's the problem with your theory, though. He wasn't threatened with death. He was told to come out and told he would not be harmed if he walked in the Light. If he failed to do so, they would attack. There's a massive gulf of difference in meaning there.

Was Perrin supposed to take them at their word that they wouldn't harm him after he had revealed and put himself within their grasp? The only two choices he was given was either surrender or be killed if he failed to make a decision in a minute. If he had been killed, what would his crime have been? Hiding? Refusing to obey an unlawful order?

If they had killed him, they would have committed murder. He didn't give them the chance to commit murder. He attacked them. When people are mutually aggressive toward one another, the first one to strike a blow is at fault.

They had no business going after him in the first place. Instead, why not withdraw and allow the unknown camp people to leave?

Why do you assume that the unknown people were friendly or neutral, or that they'd leave, rather than trying to steal horses or attack the camp during the night? That's why military organizations secure their campsites.

Why not send out a single man unarmed or with weapons sheathed as an act of faith to prove they truly meant no harm?

Why should they assume that the unknown people were not hostile? That's a death sentence, and military organizations don't risk their men like that. The only reason that you're suggesting that they should have is that you KNOW that it's Perrin and Egwene, and are on their side. Geofram Bornhald didn't benefit from your knowledge of the events when he was planning out how to secure the campsite.

They didn't know what they were going to find because the people broke camp and went to ground once the Children came near.

Or call out for them from a reasonable distance to tell them they were free to leave as opposed to coming forward. Why the search?

I already answered that, but because they had no way of knowing that the unknown people would take advantage of that offer rather than attacking them as they slept.

Can a purported search for potential brigands as Byar later claimed be anything other than a manhunt?

...yes, it can be a completely legitimate procedure when securing a camp in an uninhabited stretch of land where you find evidence that someone was just at your campsite then fled at your approach.

They weren't banned from Andor if that's what you're trying to suggest but they weren't authorized to police or conduct their darkfriend hunting activities in the area, which would include a hunt for thieves.

You keep on using words like "hunt" and "police." They weren't scouring the countryside looking for Darkfriends. They were traveling to Caemlyn. They made camp. They were securing their camp.

They didn't declare themselves to be acting under the law of the land or under the authority of the Queen, so why would anyone trust them or take them at their word?

There are a lot of things they didn't do. They didn't declare at every step that they were servants of the Creator. You're just grasping for anything you can find to make their actions seem unjustified. You're failing. They had no obligation to declare themselves to be acting under the law or under the authority of the Queen. When have we EVER seen ANYONE in the series do that? Are we to assume that every action taken without that announcement is illegal and subjects the character to justified immediate deadly attack?

"Surrender or be killed" not a threat in your part of the world? Having deadly weapons pointed at you not a threat? Are you really a law student?

Yes, that's why I understand that Perrin was in no imminent apprehension of his own death when he acted. Because I've actually studied Anglo-Saxon criminal law, upon which Andor's law is based.

Incidentally, that's why the legal expert who wound up trying Perrin, Morgase, said the same damn things that I'm saying, albeit in less painstaking detail, because she didn't have critics objecting at every turn with irrelevant things that the Whitecloaks did or did not do.

The core problem with this analogy is the whitecloaks weren't police officers. There was no crime, so they were not justified in securing anything but their own persons.

A military organization has the right to secure its own camp against attack, and that includes searching the area to ensure that there are no hostiles. So long as the Whitecloaks were in Andor legally (they were), their actions in that limited regard were valid. If they were scouring the countryside looking for Darkfriends, you'd have a point. But they weren't, so you don't.


If 2 armed North Korean naval officers supposedly on shore leave had asked an American in a Los Angeles alley to surrender and come out peacefully or else he would be killed, he'd be justified in doing whatever he thought fit to protect himself.

The United States is a horrible example because we do not allow any military units to operate within our borders without express consent. The Whitecloaks were not prohibited from being in Andor, and were not in hostilities, so a better example is if a United States troop convoy traveling in Somalia, and bound for Mogadishu, establishes a camp in an unpopulated area. They establish a camp and find evidence that someone had just fled before them. They search the area, and upon finding people hiding, tell them to come out with their hands up.

That's a little better example.

If other Americans had been killed after they had surrendered, a court of law may accept arguments from his defense terming it the modus operandi of some in the North Korean military.

You keep on using that phrase, modus operandi. It's not legally significant, so you should stop.

And no, it's a blatant and fundamental violation of the rules of evidence in the Anglo-Saxon tradition to introduce evidence of other alleged bad acts to try to prove that they're guilty of the bad acts in the present case.

As many legal scholars have recognized, the genius of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence (and, by extension, likely a theory shared in Andor) is that you judge the facts and issues present in the current case only, and don't judge parties based on their prior or subsequent conduct.


Sorry, thought I was following your lead.

The difference is that I'm explaining how the legal system of the country that Andor is based upon works. If you want me to cite cases or something, forget about it. I argue about the Wheel of Time for free, but I don't open law books or Westlaw for less than my hourly rate. You'll have to accept my (true) representation that I know what I'm talking about, that I've studied criminal law extensively. However, if you want to claim that Andor's law DIFFERS from the laws of England (and, indeed, from the laws of every country in the world to the best of my knowledge, as have some of your more off-the-wall claims), you're going to need to cite to the book to show where it gave you the impression that that's how Andor's law works.

We know Andor has magistrates and queen's guards. We know they are in charge of maintaining law and order. It's canon that Morgase had once issued a warrant for Thom's arrest, Elaida has one out for Moiraine and Rand orders arrest warrants for rebel High Lords, so we know warrants are in use and are probably required to make arrests. We also know the whitecloaks were an unauthorized military group in Andor from Morgase's verdict on Perrin's trial. Bornhald Jr. worries about the Queen finding out about the unauthorized presence of half a legion of whitecloaks in the Two Rivers. And while Elayne says she may look away when vastly powerful Borderlander armies flog actual horse thieves on Andoran soil instead of handing them over to said magistrates, they as well as the Black Tower are expected to hold pretty tightly to her nation's law. Just a few examples you could easily look up, or were you looking for something more specific?

They're all separate situations. The Children were not prohibited from traveling through Andor, and a military organization is permitted to secure its camp against attack. Demanding that Perrin and Egwene show themselves in the context of securing a camp is COMPLETELY different from bringing an entire district under indefinite military command under duress.

You seem to be suggesting that Perrin has to be raped and pillaged for him to be able to defend his life, when threatening a person's life while holding him at lance point should be all the provocation needed.

At law, we place a very high burden against a presumption that a killing is justified, unless you live in Florida and the victim is black. We do this to prevent people from being under the impression that it's okay to kill others with impunity. At common law, you're permitted to kill someone who is invading your home (not your homeland, your home), or in last defense of your life when you're under imminent apprehension of gross bodily harm or death, and you've taken every opportunity available to retreat from the confrontation. Merely being threatened is not sufficient to raise that defense.

They threatened to kill that kid. And if you think whitecloaks don't disturb the peace by their presence then I suggest you read the books again. Their awful reputation is deserved and doesn't count the worst of their crimes.

Again, the genius of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, which I'll from now on refer to as the genius of Andoran jurisprudence: their other acts are irrelevant to the judgment in the case before us. You only judge them on the acts that they committed in this individual dispute. Everything else is irrelevant and prejudicial.

So you're saying it's ok to kill them as long as they're wild, no matter how sentient they are? How about a wild pygmy or tribal warrior or feral child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child)? Is it ok to kill them, even if they're only trying to defend themselves or those they care about?

No, I'm saying that your claim that Hopper was a pet or at least partially domesticated was bullshit, as my passages unequivocally demonstrate.

It's Morgase that you should be complaining to - she's the one who said that Hopper's killing was not on a par with killing a human.

But even if it was, Perrin STILL wouldn't be justified. Hopper was the aggressor. You cannot intervene in a fight to kill someone who kills their aggressor. Their self-defense was justified - your revenge-killing is not. And that's EXACTLY what happened here.

If Greenpeace or rabbitbrothers could establish that whales/rabbits were sentient to a degree that qualified them for the same protections humans enjoyed, that they didn't deserve to be killed out of hand, then yes they could be justified in certain proven actions that were taken to protect them in the extreme defense of life.

Whales ARE sentient to a degree that qualifies them for protection, as are some great apes, and dolphins. But our law doesn't recognize protection for them.

The fact that one or two people are aware of it does not mean it's legally recognizable, as Morgase says in her decision.

Or do we simply draw the line at Ogier and Nym, as long as they're not too unlike us?

It may not be morally perfect, but yes, that's exactly what we do.

Or allow me to put it this way. If you had a friend belonging to a different race and had to protect him in an era where it was widely believed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization) that some racial groups were no better than monkeys. Say some people attacked him, wouldn't you be justified in killing them in his defense.

I'm sure we'd say so in the 20th Century. In the 18th Century, not so much. And anyway, this isn't a question of a human of a different race where everyone is aware of their common characteristics and ability to communicate; this is a wolf that 3 or so people in the world know to be able to communicate.

It comes down to how we define living beings. In this case, the definition of wolves deserves to be expanded.

I will allow that wolves are living beings. They're even sentient, intelligent beings, in RJ's world. They're not, however, protected under the laws of Andor or England.

You think that role deserves to be expanded. At most, it's a mitigating factor in Perrin's sentencing (as Morgase allows), but it does not render his killings justified.

Or how about Ogier?
I don't know of any Andoran law that explicitly states that Ogier are to be considered the legal equivalent of humans. So obviously, killing them as "wild animals" would be all right, and any human who tried to use force to stop such killings would be in the wrong.

Again, just making shit up. It seems quite clear that Ogier have protection at law, because their sovereignty over the steddings is recognized by human states. They travel freely and are not subject to attack in any country we've seen them in. And you're comparing an Ogier that has a long-established ability to communicate and express intelligence that everyone is capable of understanding (and therefore can provide a basis for establishing legal protections of them) with a wolf that can talk to three dudes, one of whom is completely crazy, another of whom is a strange old hermit, and the last of whom has known of his ability for a few days. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the concept that the Whitecloaks should have known better than to kill Hopper when he jumped out of the night and bit one of the dude's throats out.

And, just to make this scenario even more believable: we know that lots of people failed to recognise Ogier for what they are (Loial complained about that a lot), so this is not as unlikely a scenario as it may seem.

The question isn't whether wolves are sentient; it's whether they're protected by the law.

Seth Baker
03-25-2012, 11:46 AM
Nope, wolves who spend time being socialised around humans aren't domesticated at all (http://io9.com/5896191/watch-a-tail+wagging-reunion-between-a-woman-and-her-wolf-friends?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)...

Hmm, when resolving an argument over how wolves behave in the Wheel of Time, should we trust Elyas


Elyas snorted. "Wolves don't tame, girl..."


...or an internet video on io9.com...

...hmm, tough choice, I mean, sure, one of them is a canonical statement being made by the foremost expert on wolves in the world, but the other one shows one individual wolf in OUR world wagging its tail!

...however to resolve this conflict... :rolleyes:

Zombie Sammael
03-25-2012, 11:56 AM
Hmm, when resolving an argument over how wolves behave in the Wheel of Time, should we trust Elyas



...or an internet video on io9.com...

...hmm, tough choice, I mean, sure, one of them is a canonical statement being made by the foremost expert on wolves in the world, but the other one shows one individual wolf in OUR world wagging its tail!

...however to resolve this conflict... :rolleyes:

This kind of links over with the argument I was agreeing with you over, in the other Elayne thread*. RJ was creating a realistic world. What I seek to illustrate with the video is the way wolves behave around humans they know. This is relevant to the world of WOT, because it's crazy to assume that everyday world things - such as the law of trusts, wolves, or carts - don't function in much the same way in WOT in the absence of strong contrary evidence. We don't think a cart works in a special way in Randland just because it's in Randland. Other than Wolfbrothers and TAR, there is very little else that differs between WOT-wolves and real wolves.

I think Elyas is probably right to say that wolves don't tame, and I think the nice lady in the video might well agree with them. What that is showing, however, is how wolves behave when around a human they've come to know (such as Elyas or Perrin). They demonstrably can be controlled and are not a threat, even when other humans (such as the cameraman - or whitecloaks) are present. To be clear, one aspect of my argument is that Perrin is responsible because he could be thought to be in control of the wolves, and failed to prevent them from attacking; I believe that as a person they had become socialised to, they are more likely to listen to him. However, that also puts them in the category of a kept (not necessarily domesticated or tamed) animal, and it may be the case that aggression towards such is a provocation under Andoran law - knocking the crime down to manslaughter.

*Two Elayne threads and no-one posting about Egwene? VICTORY IS MINE!!! Err, ours.

Seth Baker
03-25-2012, 11:59 AM
I guess I should point out that it isn't really important to my argument whether Hopper was tame, it's just something that the other guy offered and I wanted to point out is explicitly rejected within the first page or two of meeting Elyas and the wolves.

Zombie Sammael
03-25-2012, 12:07 PM
I guess I should point out that it isn't really important to my argument whether Hopper was tame, it's just something that the other guy offered and I wanted to point out is explicitly rejected within the first page or two of meeting Elyas and the wolves.

Not suggesting he's tame. Suggesting he falls into the category of a kept animal. A prize bull isn't tame. Neither is an untrained dog.

Seth Baker
03-25-2012, 12:17 PM
Not suggesting he's tame. Suggesting he falls into the category of a kept animal.

I tend to disagree. The wolves come and go as they please, and generally associate with Elyas (at least when he's in that part of the world), but he doesn't seem to keep them (and Perrin certainly doesn't).

GonzoTheGreat
03-25-2012, 12:22 PM
How about Padan Fain and his pet Trollocs (assuming he hasn't eaten the lot, yet, of course)?

If Whitecloaks started killing some of those Trollocs, would Fain then be justified in using violence to try to put a stop to it?

Seth Baker
03-25-2012, 12:36 PM
How about Padan Fain and his pet Trollocs (assuming he hasn't eaten the lot, yet, of course)?

If Whitecloaks started killing some of those Trollocs, would Fain then be justified in using violence to try to put a stop to it?

I have a hard time believing that any lands in Randland grant legal personhood or protection to Trollocs.

GonzoTheGreat
03-25-2012, 12:51 PM
I have a hard time believing that any lands in Randland grant legal personhood or protection to Trollocs.
It is also likely no one ever thought of doing that with the Nym.

But on the other hand, I strongly suspect most rulers would say that in hindsight, killing the Green Man had been a crime.

So the question is not, in my view, "do those beings fall under the official definition of personhood which grants them human rights". After all, going by that definition, Morgase herself does not actually deserve such rights, as, what with her being marath'damane, she is legally not a human. According to the Seanchan, at least.

In this, I am less concerned with what the law actually says, and more with what it should say. In some cases that may be unrealistic, but here, where Morgase was making it up as she went along anyway, I think that it is a reasonable approach.

Seth Baker
03-25-2012, 12:53 PM
Well, fine. Debate what Andor's law should be all you want. We're talking about what it's law IS.

Enigma
03-25-2012, 03:37 PM
One thing that people need to realise is that what is legal and what is fair are not always the same thing. One of the very first things I was taught in law school was that law and justice are two different things and should not be confused.

I can't comment on the law of self defence in other jurisdictions but where I'm from it goes something like this. (By the way this is from what I remember and I have not activly had to brush up on the topic since I did my last criminal law exam which was more than a decade ago so appologies if my memory is incorrect)

Question 1 Did you act to defend yourself, or someone else from what you believed to be a threat? Its not were you right and was there a threat its a subjective test, 'did you think you were under threat?

Perrin clearly thought he was so he has gotten over the first hurdle.

Question 2 Did you act in proportion to the threat? Put another way did you over react? A classic example of this would be two people of equal size, strenght ability etc and one of them starts throwing punches and the other pulls out a gun and shoots the other. Thats excesive. Its different if the attacher is a lot younger stronger bigger fitter etc and the other party has to produce a weapon to balance the odds. That is okey.

Perrin attacked the Whitecloaks because they attacked Hopper. Self defence does not allow one to attack to defend one's animals and perhaps the law in Andor should recognise that wolves are a lot smarter that dumb animals etc but it doesn't. This is where the law and what is just differ. It may not be fair but its legal, deal with it or contact your local queen (elected official/dictator) and petition her to change the law.

So you might say that Perrin could have been justified in attacking the Whitecloaks because he really thought he was in danger but given that he had the possiblity of trying to escape or talk to them but he went to killing straight away I think that a prosecuter could convince most juries that he acted excessivly. We know that the Whitecloaks are ass holes but at that point Perrin had no real knowledge about them and the test on whether he acted excessivly is an objective one i.e. what would a reasonable man think.

Now in Ireland if you kill someone in self defence but your actions are found to be excessive your defence is weakened and while you may not be convicted of murder you are guilty of manslaughter. The main differnec is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence where as with manslaughter the Judge has a discretion. He/she can give you anything from a suspended sentence i.e. don't do it again till life imprisonment.

That's pretty much what Morgase seems to have done here.

Zombie Sammael
03-25-2012, 05:10 PM
One thing that people need to realise is that what is legal and what is fair are not always the same thing. One of the very first things I was taught in law school was that law and justice are two different things and should not be confused.

I can't comment on the law of self defence in other jurisdictions but where I'm from it goes something like this. (By the way this is from what I remember and I have not activly had to brush up on the topic since I did my last criminal law exam which was more than a decade ago so appologies if my memory is incorrect)

Question 1 Did you act to defend yourself, or someone else from what you believed to be a threat? Its not were you right and was there a threat its a subjective test, 'did you think you were under threat?

Perrin clearly thought he was so he has gotten over the first hurdle.

Question 2 Did you act in proportion to the threat? Put another way did you over react? A classic example of this would be two people of equal size, strenght ability etc and one of them starts throwing punches and the other pulls out a gun and shoots the other. Thats excesive. Its different if the attacher is a lot younger stronger bigger fitter etc and the other party has to produce a weapon to balance the odds. That is okey.

Perrin attacked the Whitecloaks because they attacked Hopper. Self defence does not allow one to attack to defend one's animals and perhaps the law in Andor should recognise that wolves are a lot smarter that dumb animals etc but it doesn't. This is where the law and what is just differ. It may not be fair but its legal, deal with it or contact your local queen (elected official/dictator) and petition her to change the law.

So you might say that Perrin could have been justified in attacking the Whitecloaks because he really thought he was in danger but given that he had the possiblity of trying to escape or talk to them but he went to killing straight away I think that a prosecuter could convince most juries that he acted excessivly. We know that the Whitecloaks are ass holes but at that point Perrin had no real knowledge about them and the test on whether he acted excessivly is an objective one i.e. what would a reasonable man think.

Now in Ireland if you kill someone in self defence but your actions are found to be excessive your defence is weakened and while you may not be convicted of murder you are guilty of manslaughter. The main differnec is that murder carries a mandatory life sentence where as with manslaughter the Judge has a discretion. He/she can give you anything from a suspended sentence i.e. don't do it again till life imprisonment.

That's pretty much what Morgase seems to have done here.

I seem to remember that English law - which I don't imagine is overly different from Irish Law - allows one to act in defence of oneself and one's property. The point I've somehow been circling until now is that if the wolves are kept animals they could be regarded as his property. I think Perrin is guilty of manslaughter.

Cortar
03-25-2012, 05:22 PM
Btw, what is so wrong with Morgase's decision that there is a 4 page argument about what Perrin was guilty of when the decision is IN canon?

Zombie Sammael
03-25-2012, 05:26 PM
Btw, what is so wrong with Morgase's decision that there is a 4 page argument about what Perrin was guilty of when the decision is IN canon?

It's fine from a story POV, but it's not particularly satisfying to anyone with a background in actual law. The whole trial seems sloppy, although it might be accurate for the time period, but this effect is enhanced when you have such an elegant and legally sound solution as the trust Elayne settles later on.

Seth Baker
03-25-2012, 07:26 PM
Another great response from Enigma, but you missed a few points - the fear is both subjective and objective - was he in apprehension of imminent serious personal injury or death? And would a reasonable person in his shoes have shared that apprehension?

It's a little questionable. As I've been dancing around, I don't think that the Whitecloaks' actions gave rise to that kind of immediate fear that allows one to use deadly force in self defense.

I seem to remember that English law - which I don't imagine is overly different from Irish Law - allows one to act in defence of oneself and one's property. The point I've somehow been circling until now is that if the wolves are kept animals they could be regarded as his property. I think Perrin is guilty of manslaughter.

I don't claim to have every era of English law memorized, and it's been a couple of years since my most thorough Criminal Law course, but the present law is that you can use reasonably necessary force to protect yourself and your own property, as well as your immediate family.

However, there are caveats. Under modern law, and in all eras of English law of which I am aware, lethal force can NEVER be justified to defend property. Moreover, you can't use force to defend the property of others (even in No Retreat states like Texas and Florida).

Hopper wasn't a kept animal. But even if he was, he was kept by Elyas, and it was Elyas that had the right to protect him, not Perrin. And even if Elyas had that right, that right did not extend to killing. And even if it did extend to killing, that right can only be exercised to protect the property, not to avenge its destruction.

As you can see, there are about 45 different reasons why Perrin can't use Hopper as his legal excuse here.

If this is a real case, Perrin pleads guilty to involuntary manslaughter and serves a year or two in prison. You're right there, no question about it. However, that's not because his actions were involuntary, but because district attorneys usually have a fairly lenient sense of justice when dealing with people who reacted in an understandable, yet still illegal way.

Understandable, yet still illegal describes Perrin's actions here to a T.

Btw, what is so wrong with Morgase's decision that there is a 4 page argument about what Perrin was guilty of when the decision is IN canon?

Perrin fanboys. :rolleyes:

It's fine from a story POV, but it's not particularly satisfying to anyone with a background in actual law. The whole trial seems sloppy, although it might be accurate for the time period, but this effect is enhanced when you have such an elegant and legally sound solution as the trust Elayne settles later on.

Of course the trial was sloppy. It was a political trial meant to keep the Whitecloaks from going to war, and Morgase held perfectly.

I'm not dissatisfied by the verdict, however, because she is also legally correct. So far as I can tell, Enigma (Irish J.D. or equivalent degree) and I (American J.D. expected in 5 weeks) are the ones here with a background in actual law, and both of us seem okay with the outcome of the trial.

Zombie Sammael
03-26-2012, 05:19 AM
Another great response from Enigma, but you missed a few points - the fear is both subjective and objective - was he in apprehension of imminent serious personal injury or death? And would a reasonable person in his shoes have shared that apprehension?

It's a little questionable. As I've been dancing around, I don't think that the Whitecloaks' actions gave rise to that kind of immediate fear that allows one to use deadly force in self defense.



I don't claim to have every era of English law memorized, and it's been a couple of years since my most thorough Criminal Law course, but the present law is that you can use reasonably necessary force to protect yourself and your own property, as well as your immediate family.

However, there are caveats. Under modern law, and in all eras of English law of which I am aware, lethal force can NEVER be justified to defend property. Moreover, you can't use force to defend the property of others (even in No Retreat states like Texas and Florida).

Hopper wasn't a kept animal. But even if he was, he was kept by Elyas, and it was Elyas that had the right to protect him, not Perrin. And even if Elyas had that right, that right did not extend to killing. And even if it did extend to killing, that right can only be exercised to protect the property, not to avenge its destruction.

As you can see, there are about 45 different reasons why Perrin can't use Hopper as his legal excuse here.

If this is a real case, Perrin pleads guilty to involuntary manslaughter and serves a year or two in prison. You're right there, no question about it. However, that's not because his actions were involuntary, but because district attorneys usually have a fairly lenient sense of justice when dealing with people who reacted in an understandable, yet still illegal way.

Understandable, yet still illegal describes Perrin's actions here to a T.



Perrin fanboys. :rolleyes:



Of course the trial was sloppy. It was a political trial meant to keep the Whitecloaks from going to war, and Morgase held perfectly.

I'm not dissatisfied by the verdict, however, because she is also legally correct. So far as I can tell, Enigma (Irish J.D. or equivalent degree) and I (American J.D. expected in 5 weeks) are the ones here with a background in actual law, and both of us seem okay with the outcome of the trial.

English GDL/CPE passed a few years back, so I do know what I'm talking about (not that I think you were trying to imply I don't, just putting that on the record).

GonzoTheGreat
03-26-2012, 05:25 AM
A point which seems to be overlooked (and was also overlooked or ignored by Perrin in the trial) is that it was not only Perrin and the wolves who were in danger. Egwene was there too.
What would Whitecloaks have done if they'd found out that they had caught one of the witches?

Egwene knew she had already started learning to channel, and she fully intended to go to the White Tower to learn more. The official Whitecloak reaction to people like that is to have a trial and then execute them, or, if that's not practical, to first kill them and then have the trial.

So, was Perrin justified in trying to defend Egwene's life, or not?
I have to admit that I'm prejudiced, here. It is very tempting to answer "no".

final death
03-26-2012, 12:46 PM
Since this has gone so far off topic I'd like to ask if there it would be legal for a law enforcement paladin to cast a detect evil or detect alignment spell without a warrent.

Enigma
03-26-2012, 04:33 PM
A point which seems to be overlooked (and was also overlooked or ignored by Perrin in the trial) is that it was not only Perrin and the wolves who were in danger. Egwene was there too.
What would Whitecloaks have done if they'd found out that they had caught one of the witches?

Egwene knew she had already started learning to channel, and she fully intended to go to the White Tower to learn more. The official Whitecloak reaction to people like that is to have a trial and then execute them, or, if that's not practical, to first kill them and then have the trial.

So, was Perrin justified in trying to defend Egwene's life, or not?
I have to admit that I'm prejudiced, here. It is very tempting to answer "no".

From a legal point of view in Ireland you can use self defence to defend yourself or someone else. you can also use it to defend your property at Seth Baker pointed out earlier but you can't use lethal force to defend property.

So if Perrin did not feal that he was in danger the fact that Egwene might be in danger of execution or torture would enable him to try to use the arguement of self defence. In this case it does not really make that much of a difference as Perrin also felt in danger himself. He was also defending his friend Hopper but while it might be unfair the law would look at that as defending property.

The main problem Perrin's defence team would have is that there is an arguement that he acted excessivly. No one has tried to kill or seriously wound him or Egwene and he came out swinging with deadly force. If you had an anit whitecloak faction on your jury you could make the arguement that if Perrin let the Whitecloaks attack him first with their military training and superiour numbers he would have little chance of defending himself so he got his retlaiation in first.

If you have a neutral jury though? I would be a bit worried about the verdict.

There is also the defence of necessity that no one has raised. This is most commonly used in situations where you break the speed limit to get someone in critical condition to hospital or you rob your own back if some gunmen have your family and threaten to kill them. The only trouble with that is that there is case law in UK and Irish jurisprudence that says you can't use the defence to justify killing someone. From memory it was argued where people were forced to drive explosive filled vehicles to army posts in Northern Ireland with the promise that their family would be killed if they didn't. The defence was overturned there.

I don't know of any cases where someoen said that he/she was vital to the continued existance of the universe and the survival of the human race and they had to kill people in order to preserve themselves for the greater good. Perrin in typical modest fashion never actually raised that point that of all the people in the room that his death or captivity would benefit the Dark One the most.

GonzoTheGreat
03-27-2012, 04:57 AM
There is also the defence of necessity that no one has raised. This is most commonly used in situations where you break the speed limit to get someone in critical condition to hospital or you rob your own back if some gunmen have your family and threaten to kill them. The only trouble with that is that there is case law in UK and Irish jurisprudence that says you can't use the defence to justify killing someone. From memory it was argued where people were forced to drive explosive filled vehicles to army posts in Northern Ireland with the promise that their family would be killed if they didn't. The defence was overturned there.
But that's not quite the problem here.

A better analogy would be:
Someone in Northern Ireland gets on a "kill list" from one of those armed groups. Then, while out in the wild (not sure there is any there, all we ever see in the news are city streets), he runs into a bunch of armed fighters of that group. He tries to avoid them, to get away, but they corner him.
Would he then still not have a valid self defense case until after he has let them strike the first blow?
They could change their ways and stop intending to kill him; the only alternative he has is death. They could stop trying to hunt him down and allow him to leave the area; his only alternative is death.

Perrin had tried to avoid a confrontation, but the Whitecloaks refused that option. They wanted to question him, and if he had given them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they would have executed him. That much, I hope, is not in contention.

Seth Baker
03-28-2012, 07:08 PM
Why are you assuming that Perrin's on a kill list? How about we import this analogy to the U.S. and say that you are in South Central LA and hide in an alley. Some Bloods approach the mouth of the alley and say, "Hey, come out. If you ain't a Crip, we'll let you go."

Are you justified to come out shooting? No. Even if they're dangerous, even if they're a violent group, even if they're acting illegally, you're not justified in using deadly force until you're directly threatened with deadly force.

You remain unjustified if a super-smart coyote that only you can talk to attacks them.

Though if a super-smart coyote is talking to you, you should probably lay off the peyote.

GonzoTheGreat
03-29-2012, 05:06 AM
Why are you assuming that Perrin's on a kill list?
Well, there is the Trolloc attack on the Two Rivers. Then there's the chase across country, until Moiraine managed to lose them at the river crossing. Then there's the Whitecloaks in Baerlon who Then there's the Fade who visits them in Baerlon in the inn. Followed by the Whitecloaks who try to prevent them from leaving Baerlon, where they would be easily found by the Shadow. Then there's the Trollocs who drive them into Shadar Logoth.
To top it all off, Ba'alzamon himself often appears in Perrin's dreams.

What exactly gives you the impression that Perrin should assume that he isn't on a kill list?

How about we import this analogy to the U.S. and say that you are in South Central LA and hide in an alley. Some Bloods approach the mouth of the alley and say, "Hey, come out. If you ain't a Crip, we'll let you go."

Are you justified to come out shooting? No. Even if they're dangerous, even if they're a violent group, even if they're acting illegally, you're not justified in using deadly force until you're directly threatened with deadly force.
All right, then please tell me: how would I prove to their satisfaction that I'm not a Crip?

Please note that I do not know what precise things would or wouldn't be evidence, so you can not use any actual facts here. I wouldn't know them, so I could not trust that I would use them properly. And when it comes to saving my life, gambling isn't something I like to leave to others.

What Perrin was faced with can be summarised as "prove a negative or die". Put like that, was fighting really a less rational choice than depending on an ability to do something that is logically impossible?

Seth Baker
03-29-2012, 10:22 AM
Well, there is the Trolloc attack on the Two Rivers. Then there's the chase across country, until Moiraine managed to lose them at the river crossing. Then there's the Whitecloaks in Baerlon who Then there's the Fade who visits them in Baerlon in the inn. Followed by the Whitecloaks who try to prevent them from leaving Baerlon, where they would be easily found by the Shadow. Then there's the Trollocs who drive them into Shadar Logoth.
To top it all off, Ba'alzamon himself often appears in Perrin's dreams.

What exactly gives you the impression that Perrin should assume that he isn't on a kill list?

All right. I'm convinced. Perrin should just kill ANYONE who approaches him at this point, because he has been on the receiving end of aggression.

/sarcasm

Every single one of those things is beyond irrelevant with the exception of the Whitecloaks in Baerlon. And they only acted the way they did because (A) Rand and Mat caused trouble; and (B) they were with an Aes Sedai. A handful of men acting like dicks does not give rise to the necessary fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death necessary to justify this killing.

All right, then please tell me: how would I prove to their satisfaction that I'm not a Crip?

Please note that I do not know what precise things would or wouldn't be evidence, so you can not use any actual facts here. I wouldn't know them, so I could not trust that I would use them properly. And when it comes to saving my life, gambling isn't something I like to leave to others.

What Perrin was faced with can be summarised as "prove a negative or die". Put like that, was fighting really a less rational choice than depending on an ability to do something that is logically impossible?

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. That's not what they said. They said:


...come down and surrender. You'll not be harmed if you walk in the Light. If you don't surrender, you will all be killed.


Perrin was never asked to prove a negative. He was told that if they didn't surrender, they would be killed. He was not told, "We're going to assume you're Darkfriends, and if you can't prove otherwise, we'll kill you."

That might have been what the Whitecloaks would have demanded, once he was captured. But Perrin had no way of knowing that.

What you're missing is that there are very important structural reasons for constrictive legal policies around justified killings. Here in the United States, we're seeing the reason for that in the Treyvon Martin case - where a black kid was shot by a white neighborhood watch officer who had been following him, George Zimmerman. They haven't charged the officer because he claims he was acting in self-defense, and Florida does not impose a duty to flee where possible.

When making legal policy, governments, whether the Florida legislature or Queen Morgase, have to understand that the further you broaden justification doctrines, more people will be killed by people who claim they were justified. Some of them will be justified under the new rules. Others will not. Others will be mistaken, or act impetuously, like George Zimmerman or Perrin Aybara.

Accordingly, in most modern legal systems (including what we know of Andor's, based on Morgase's judgment against Perrin), justification defenses are very tightly constrained, because we don't want to give people the impression that they can just run around killing people, then claiming self-defense by saying, "But I was scared!" or "But he verbally threatened me!"

Perrin was outside the bounds there. They said they'd kill him if he didn't surrender. But unless he had good reason to believe that he'd be killed or seriously harmed if he surrendered (and he didn't, as a matter of law), he has to take what steps he can to avoid using deadly force.

GonzoTheGreat
03-29-2012, 11:28 AM
All right. I'm convinced. Perrin should just kill ANYONE who approaches him at this point, because he has been on the receiving end of aggression.
Well, he would be justified in killing anyone who approached him aggressively. You do know that he is one of the two main targets in a world wide conspiracy, I hope. The "wanted, dead" posters have been mentioned a couple of times in the series, and those definitely were not the start of it.

What you're missing is that there are very important structural reasons for constrictive legal policies around justified killings. Here in the United States, we're seeing the reason for that in the Treyvon Martin case - where a black kid was shot by a white neighborhood watch officer who had been following him, George Zimmerman. They haven't charged the officer because he claims he was acting in self-defense, and Florida does not impose a duty to flee where possible.
Precisely. If Martin had proven that he walked in the Light (was innocent) to that neighbourhood watch captain on the spot, then he would not have been shot dead. Because he refused to prove his innocence things got out of hand, he ended up dead, and Zimmerman (the Whitecloak) is blameless.

Just as Martin had done, Perrin initially ran away and hid. In neither case was that sufficient to avoid a confrontation.

If Martin had killed Zimmerman, then I would say that a self-defense plea would have seemed a lot more reasonable than it is now.

Seth Baker
03-29-2012, 02:20 PM
Well, he would be justified in killing anyone who approached him aggressively. You do know that he is one of the two main targets in a world wide conspiracy, I hope. The "wanted, dead" posters have been mentioned a couple of times in the series, and those definitely were not the start of it.

You keep on bringing stuff up from Books 4-10 to justify something that was done partway through Book 1. Irrelevant. Stop it.


Precisely. If Martin had proven that he walked in the Light (was innocent) to that neighbourhood watch captain on the spot, then he would not have been shot dead. Because he refused to prove his innocence things got out of hand, he ended up dead, and Zimmerman (the Whitecloak) is blameless.

Just as Martin had done, Perrin initially ran away and hid. In neither case was that sufficient to avoid a confrontation.

If Martin had killed Zimmerman, then I would say that a self-defense plea would have seemed a lot more reasonable than it is now.

Sorry, but Martin is the Whitecloak in this analogy. Zimmerman/Perrin saw what he irrationally perceived as a threat, and acted with disproportionate force, resulting in the death of Martin/2 Whitecloaks.

I am absolutely convinced that you're incapable of divorcing your analysis of the facts from your emotional perception of Perrin as a "good guy," and are accordingly not holding his actions up to rigorous scrutiny.

fionwe1987
03-29-2012, 04:43 PM
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. That's not what they said. They said:

Perrin was never asked to prove a negative. He was told that if they didn't surrender, they would be killed. He was not told, "We're going to assume you're Darkfriends, and if you can't prove otherwise, we'll kill you."

That might have been what the Whitecloaks would have demanded, once he was captured. But Perrin had no way of knowing that.

Perrin was outside the bounds there. They said they'd kill him if he didn't surrender. But unless he had good reason to believe that he'd be killed or seriously harmed if he surrendered (and he didn't, as a matter of law), he has to take what steps he can to avoid using deadly force.
I'm entering this debate late, and haven't done through all the arguments, so I might be repeating what was already said, but:

How is "surrender or die" not a threat in this situation? Perrin is a citizen of Andor, the Whitecloaks are a foreign military organization with no legal standing in Andor. They have absolutely no right to demand surrender, especially from someone who apparently hid away from them when they approached.

To make an analogy: Assume members of Al'Qaida march into a camping spot I'm in. I immediately hide away, hoping they'll move soon and I can be about my business. They notice me, however, and demand that I come out with my hands up and surrender, or I will be killed. I happen to have a gun, so I come out shooting, and kill a few of them.

Are you telling me a self-defense claim doesn't hold here?

Which is why I found Morghase's ruling to be absurd, here. She demoted one of her own citizens to "non-aligned mercenary". Whereas the fact is that Perrin has every right to wander Andor as he will and doesn't have to surrender to an illegal foreign militia. The Whitecloaks, have no right to demand his surrender, and Morghase's judgment should have reflected that. What's worse is that she had no issues later supporting her daughter's claim that Perrin and the Two Rivers were a part of Andor!

GonzoTheGreat
03-30-2012, 05:07 AM
You keep on bringing stuff up from Books 4-10 to justify something that was done partway through Book 1. Irrelevant. Stop it.
I am willing to stop it. All you need do is do what the Whitecloaks asked Perrin to do: prove that the Whitecloaks walked in the Light.

Prove that what they did in those later books was an anomaly, totally out of character with the things they and their fellow Children had been doing for decades or centuries already.
You pretend that Perrin had no reason at all to think that Whitecloaks might be dangerous. My argument is based on the assumption that the Questioners and their practices were already well known all across Randland, and that therefor it did not make sense to assume that a bunch of Children of the Light were as safe and trusting as, say, a merchant caravan.

Sorry, but Martin is the Whitecloak in this analogy. Zimmerman/Perrin saw what he irrationally perceived as a threat, and acted with disproportionate force, resulting in the death of Martin/2 Whitecloaks.
Fine. Prove that if Perrin had surrendered, then he could have proven that he walked in the Light.
Give the argument that you think Perrin could have used, and I'll play Child Byar and try to shoot holes in it.

I am absolutely convinced that you're incapable of divorcing your analysis of the facts from your emotional perception of Perrin as a "good guy," and are accordingly not holding his actions up to rigorous scrutiny.
It is not the view of Perrin as "good guy" but the view of the CotL as "bad guys" which brings me to my stance.

They are a bunch of overzealous vigilantes. Everyone in Randland know that they are a bunch of overzealous vigilantes. Yet you ask me to assume that they could be trusted to afford the benefit of the doubt to someone whom they already considered suspicious in a situation where they would not face any repercussions at all if they treated that person harshly.

fionwe1987's "meeting Al'Qaeda" example is quite apt. How would you prove to such a bunch that you're a faithful follower of Allah? Remember: if you fail, you die. They promised that, and they are trustworthy when it comes to promises of that kind.

Seth Baker
03-30-2012, 03:46 PM
And under Anglo-Saxon, and, by extension, Andoran law, acts unrelated to the events in controversy are irrelevant and may not be considered. You can only use outside evidence to prove dishonesty for the purpose of calling testimony into question.

So, what I'm saying, is that the things you're using to justify Perrin's actions, in addition to not being known to him at the time (and thus not weighing on his decision to use violence), are not related to the events in controversy here, and therefore may not be considered.

fionwe1987
03-30-2012, 05:48 PM
And under Anglo-Saxon, and, by extension, Andoran law, acts unrelated to the events in controversy are irrelevant and may not be considered. You can only use outside evidence to prove dishonesty for the purpose of calling testimony into question.

So, what I'm saying, is that the things you're using to justify Perrin's actions, in addition to not being known to him at the time (and thus not weighing on his decision to use violence), are not related to the events in controversy here, and therefore may not be considered.
That is false. Perrin knew about the Whitecloaks and their reputation from Baerlon.

GonzoTheGreat
03-31-2012, 04:27 AM
And under Anglo-Saxon, and, by extension, Andoran law, acts unrelated to the events in controversy are irrelevant and may not be considered. You can only use outside evidence to prove dishonesty for the purpose of calling testimony into question.

So, what I'm saying, is that the things you're using to justify Perrin's actions, in addition to not being known to him at the time (and thus not weighing on his decision to use violence), are not related to the events in controversy here, and therefore may not be considered.
Does that mean that under Anglo-Saxon law the killing of Bin Laden would be totally and utterly unjustified, as there the American forces simply gunned down a man in his own home?
That would be the conclusion if you have to leave out all considerations of what Al-Qaeda is, stands for, and has done.

As far as I know, none of the members of that special forces unit had personally witnessed the plotting that lead to 9/11, so not a single one of them had any actual justification for starting to use violence.

Unless, of course, things which had been learned by others and then spread all across the world, could also be taken into consideration. In which case fionwe's remark is pertinent, plus the whole rest of what was known in Randland about the CotL. Plus what Perrin also learned; that they seemed like rabid dogs to those who had the senses to detect that kind of thing.

Using your reasoning, Rand was actually committing treason when he started fighting against king Rahvin. Should he be hanged for that, and if not, why not?

Seth Baker
03-31-2012, 11:30 AM
Does that mean that under Anglo-Saxon law the killing of Bin Laden would be totally and utterly unjustified, as there the American forces simply gunned down a man in his own home?
That would be the conclusion if you have to leave out all considerations of what Al-Qaeda is, stands for, and has done.

As far as I know, none of the members of that special forces unit had personally witnessed the plotting that lead to 9/11, so not a single one of them had any actual justification for starting to use violence.

Unless, of course, things which had been learned by others and then spread all across the world, could also be taken into consideration. In which case fionwe's remark is pertinent, plus the whole rest of what was known in Randland about the CotL. Plus what Perrin also learned; that they seemed like rabid dogs to those who had the senses to detect that kind of thing.

Using your reasoning, Rand was actually committing treason when he started fighting against king Rahvin. Should he be hanged for that, and if not, why not?

God damn you're awful at this. Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant. He was condemned to die based upon particular events. The SEAL Team was acting as a military unit with the blessing of the government after significant fact finding that justified that finding.

You're trying to say that Perrin's murder of 2 Whitecloaks was justified because later in the series different Whitecloaks did bad things. Comparing the Whitecloaks with Al Qaeda is not only absurd, it's frankly offensive.

Also, you're mixing and matching military action with legal procedure. Just like every other point that you have brought up to try to refute me, it's a completely different issue. You really make some awful analogies.

The Rand v. Rahvin thing was a different issue. However, given that Rahvin was not the legal ruler of Andor, Rand's action in unseating him to return the throne to Elayne, who he believed to be the rightful ruler, was not treasonous.

GonzoTheGreat
03-31-2012, 11:49 AM
You're trying to say that Perrin's murder of 2 Whitecloaks was justified because later in the series different Whitecloaks did bad things.
No. I am trying to say that the bad things which the Whitecloaks did later in the series were not at all out of character for them. Both those same Whitecloaks and other Whitecloaks had been doing that kind of thing for centuries already. That is why that kind of thing actually could and should be considered as evidence in evaluating the reaction of people upon meeting Whitecloaks in a situation without any other witnesses.

It was entirely reasonable for Perrin and Egwene to expect Whitecloaks to do the kind of thing which Whitecloaks did later in the series, since there was a very long established pattern of such behavior already. And that is why they were justified in considering those Whitecloaks to be a threat, a clear and present danger.

Now, can you provide evidence to show that I am wrong in this assessment of Whitecloak behavior?
If so, that would definitely undermine my stance here. I might even come around and say that Perrin should have surrendered and then told them openly that the Dark One was trying to recruit him, while Egwene was a female channeler on her way to Tar Valon to become an Aes Sedai.

fionwe1987
03-31-2012, 12:08 PM
God damn you're awful at this. Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant. He was condemned to die based upon particular events. The SEAL Team was acting as a military unit with the blessing of the government after significant fact finding that justified that finding.

You're trying to say that Perrin's murder of 2 Whitecloaks was justified because later in the series different Whitecloaks did bad things. Comparing the Whitecloaks with Al Qaeda is not only absurd, it's frankly offensive.

Also, you're mixing and matching military action with legal procedure. Just like every other point that you have brought up to try to refute me, it's a completely different issue. You really make some awful analogies.
Fair enough. But what if I was on a trip to Abbotabad and saw Osama bin Laden and shot him?

Whatever you might want to say about Gonzo's analogies, the fact remains that you're yet to explain where a foreign military, illegally present in Andor, get the right to order Perrin to surrender at the pain of death. And you've refused to acknowledge that Perrin did know the Whitecloaks reputation. He had every reason to be afraid for himself, and particularly for Egwene.

Seth Baker
03-31-2012, 12:30 PM
No. I am trying to say that the bad things which the Whitecloaks did later in the series were not at all out of character for them. Both those same Whitecloaks and other Whitecloaks had been doing that kind of thing for centuries already. That is why that kind of thing actually could and should be considered as evidence in evaluating the reaction of people upon meeting Whitecloaks in a situation without any other witnesses.

It was entirely reasonable for Perrin and Egwene to expect Whitecloaks to do the kind of thing which Whitecloaks did later in the series, since there was a very long established pattern of such behavior already. And that is why they were justified in considering those Whitecloaks to be a threat, a clear and present danger.

Now, can you provide evidence to show that I am wrong in this assessment of Whitecloak behavior?
If so, that would definitely undermine my stance here. I might even come around and say that Perrin should have surrendered and then told them openly that the Dark One was trying to recruit him, while Egwene was a female channeler on her way to Tar Valon to become an Aes Sedai.

Go to court sometime. See how often you see a criminal defendant (or victim) being confronted with evidence of other bad acts they've committed.

The U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence are directly based upon common law English evidentiary rules.

Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

This is the most pertinent law of evidence, and one of the most fundamental concepts of evidentiary propriety in the Anglo-Saxon, and by extension, Andoran, system. Morgase's decision is implicitly based upon this idea.

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

At common law, the probative value of extrinsic evidence of other bad acts is practically nothing. Meanwhile, the the potential for prejudice based upon the perception that the person is a "bad person" rather than that they committed the act in question is extremely high.

If we're going to use Osama bin Laden on this, a better example would be trying him for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Sure, he didn't actually do it, but if you present all of the evidence of his bad acts in other situations, he sure LOOKS like a bad guy, so we should convict him!

And that's not how law works.

Fair enough. But what if I was on a trip to Abbotabad and saw Osama bin Laden and shot him?

Whatever you might want to say about Gonzo's analogies, the fact remains that you're yet to explain where a foreign military, illegally present in Andor, get the right to order Perrin to surrender at the pain of death. And you've refused to acknowledge that Perrin did know the Whitecloaks reputation. He had every reason to be afraid for himself, and particularly for Egwene.

Well, you might be able to get away with it under U.S. law, but the Pakistanis might decide to charge you.

They're not a foreign military. They're a non-state entity. Their legal status in Andor is a gray area. As is their ability to demand the surrender of unknown individuals when they are under attack in the wilderness.

I've refused to acknowledge that Perrin knew their reputation, because he didn't. He'd encountered them for all of a minute or two, in Baerlon. They were proud and vainglorious, and hated Aes Sedai. He knew that the wolves said they smelled wrong.

None of those things are pertinent. You're not allowed to kill people unless:

(1) You're in immediate danger of suffering death or serious bodily injury. This is not met by a demand to surrender under pain of death. The strongest argument to support your (legally incorrect) argument is that he was in such fear when the Whitecloak pointed a lance at him. That's the only thing that makes this a close case at all. And yet it's the thing that you and Gonzo are focusing on least. Egwene is irrelevant. Hopper is irrelevant. The other bad acts of the Whitecloaks are irrelevant. The legality of their presence in Andor is only relevant if they were affirmatively banned from its borders by Morgase prior to these events. They were not, and so it is not relevant.

(2) You've taken every possible opportunity to withdraw from the conflict. Perrin did that.

(3) You did not initiate the use of deadly force. Again, the strongest argument is the lance being leveled at him.

If this discussion had progressed differently, I might even be on the other side. I'm just honestly aghast at how confidently you're both spouting your legally preposterous theories about defending a kept animal, and use of extrinsic evidence of bad acts.

GonzoTheGreat
03-31-2012, 01:29 PM
As to that "kept animal" stuff: that's nonsense.
As far as I know, neither party denies that wolves can communicate with (other) intelligent beings. The only difference is that Perrin claims they are on the side of the Light, while the Whitecloaks believe that wolves are on the side of the Shadow. Both parties acknowledge that the wolves were indeed speaking with Perrin.

And if Morgase starts denying that intelligent beings automatically deserve the rights and legal protection which are awarded to humans, then her marath'damane daughter might get into legal trouble as a result of that precedent.

suttree
03-31-2012, 02:13 PM
As to that "kept animal" stuff: that's nonsense.
As far as I know, neither party denies that wolves can communicate with (other) intelligent beings. The only difference is that Perrin claims they are on the side of the Light, while the Whitecloaks believe that wolves are on the side of the Shadow. Both parties acknowledge that the wolves were indeed speaking with Perrin.

And if Morgase starts denying that intelligent beings automatically deserve the rights and legal protection which are awarded to humans, then her marath'damane daughter might get into legal trouble as a result of that precedent.

Stop being absurd Gonz...

As an aside I don't recall the Whitecloaks thinking he really was speaking with them. Not disputing but could you provide a source? All I remember them saying was that he condemns himself as a DF by claiming that.

GonzoTheGreat
04-01-2012, 05:09 AM
The CotL, just as a lot of other Randlanders, believe that rats, ravens and the like report to the DO. So the idea that animals can act as dependable scouts is definitely not outlandish at all. The reason why they assumed that Perrin's claim of speaking to wolves was proof of Shadow connections is precisely this knowledge. So I do not see why you would bother denying that they would believe it.

Stop being absurd Gonz...
How is it absurd?
The whole point of this part of the issue is "what kind of creatures are to be considered sufficiently comparable to humans to desrve being treated as such?"

According to Perrin, the Whitecloaks and the Seanchan, Ogier qualify.
According to Perrin, wolves qualify.
According to Perrin and the Whitecloaks, but not the Seanchan, channelers qualify.

When Rand returned to Falme in order to save Egwene, was he wrong?
Just as Perrin did, he was going to kill humans (Seanchans, in his case) in order to save an animal (according to the Seanchan). So legally, the case is indeed precisely the same as the "Perrin tries to save wolves" case.

You can deny it, based on an assumption that you're not willing to accept the legitimacy of the Seanchan approach. But if you take that tack, then on what grounds can you demand that I should accep the legitimacy of the Andoran legal assumptions, when you and I both know that those are wrong in this case?

Enigma
04-01-2012, 10:25 AM
You can deny it, based on an assumption that you're not willing to accept the legitimacy of the Seanchan approach. But if you take that tack, then on what grounds can you demand that I should accep the legitimacy of the Andoran legal assumptions, when you and I both know that those are wrong in this case?

Thats the whole thing about law, it does not care if you agree with it or even if its right, just that it is obeyed and normally its backed up by someone carrying the biggest stick in the room. Law is mostly about imposing order not justice.

Should the wolves be given legal protection as thinking creatures that are intelligent? Probably yes. Do they currently have that protection? No. They are viewed as dangerous wild beasts at worse and at best as domenticated pets. They don't have the same legal protections that an human has.

Seth Baker
04-01-2012, 11:17 AM
Thats the whole thing about law, it does not care if you agree with it or even if its right, just that it is obeyed and normally its backed up by someone carrying the biggest stick in the room. Law is mostly about imposing order not justice.

Should the wolves be given legal protection as thinking creatures that are intelligent? Probably yes. Do they currently have that protection? No. They are viewed as dangerous wild beasts at worse and at best as domenticated pets. They don't have the same legal protections that an human has.

Bingo. You can't make a policy argument here, Gonzo. Sure, maybe Morgase should amend the law to recognize wolves as "creatures of near-human intelligence" or some such, but she hasn't.

Not only is a defense of Hopper not permissible because Hopper's not legally recognized as something that can be defended by deadly force...

But Perrin was not acting to defend Hopper. He was acting to avenge him. Perrin went into Hulk mode AFTER the Children killed Hopper.

On this wolves point, using Gonzo's desire to change the law ex post facto, should Perrin not go into the Two Rivers and charge all of his subjects with murder if they were involved with killing wolves during the particularly hard winter that preceded The Eye of the World?

Nope. You almost universally apply legal principles when they are adopted, and to nothing before.

GonzoTheGreat
04-01-2012, 12:01 PM
Once again: is there any evidence which shows that surrendering had been a safe option for Perrin and Egwene?

For those who say that Perrin acted against what the law allows, and that is true according to current law as well, please tell me this:
Suppose that a bunch of Hells Angels comes across a few people out in the wild, those people hide, they corner them, give them the option "come out or die", they come out swinging and the Hells Angels kill them. Could the bikers then claim they acted in self defense, or would that plea be annulled by their very believable threat of deadly violence?

I still think that it was the Whitecloaks who started the fight, even if you entirely leave out the wolves.

Added to that is the fact that while Perrin was going about his lawful business, the Whitecloaks were planning to kill or capture the Daughter-Heir when Elayne went to Tar Valon for training. But that shouldn't have bothered Morgase, so they did not mention it.

Seth Baker
04-01-2012, 12:15 PM
Once again: is there any evidence which shows that surrendering had been a safe option for Perrin and Egwene?

That's not how this works. You don't consider what alternative paths they could have taken, for better or for worse. The point of the law is to prevent people from deciding they're going to kill someone except under the direst of circumstances. Here, there is absolutely no way that that was met, except POSSIBLY when the lance was actually leveled at Perrin's chest.

For those who say that Perrin acted against what the law allows, and that is true according to current law as well, please tell me this:
Suppose that a bunch of Hells Angels comes across a few people out in the wild, those people hide, they corner them, give them the option "come out or die", they come out swinging and the Hells Angels kill them. Could the bikers then claim they acted in self defense, or would that plea be annulled by their very believable threat of deadly violence?

I disagree with your decision to equate a paramilitary organization with some bad elements with a vicious outlaw biker gang.

Since you've continually tried to implicitly support your position by cherrypicking your analogies, I'm going to start doing the same.

Instead of the Hell's Angels, it's the Boy Scouts of America. They went out into Yellowstone for a camping trip (unfortunately they never got a camping permit and the park is closed, so they're there illegally), and started getting attacked by a crazy old man that's running with vicious wolves. They make camp for the night and try to secure the area around it to protect themselves. In so doing, they notice an armed man crouched in a cave nearby, and the scout leader, who brought a pistol, demands, "Come out with your hands up! If you mean no harm, we won't hurt you. If you don't come out, I'll shoot."

Sure, you can characterize that as an attack. If you ignore the context that they're trying to secure a camp while under attack.

Added to that is the fact that while Perrin was going about his lawful business, the Whitecloaks were planning to kill or capture the Daughter-Heir when Elayne went to Tar Valon for training. But that shouldn't have bothered Morgase, so they did not mention it.

Bzzzzzzt. Impermissible evidence. Motion to strike.

Enigma
04-01-2012, 03:19 PM
Added to that is the fact that while Perrin was going about his lawful business, the Whitecloaks were planning to kill or capture the Daughter-Heir when Elayne went to Tar Valon for training. But that shouldn't have bothered Morgase, so they did not mention it.

That is not justification to kill them. Put it another way. Suppose I decide to go and rob a bank and you find out about it. You can report me to the cops but unless you are working as a guard in the bank or at the very least have some official connection to the bank you can't hunt me down and kill me. That is not self defence.

You also run into the problem of acting on what someone might do. The law does make some provision for this. If I and some of the the posters here sit down and plan on how to rob the bank the law can charge us with conspiracy but I can't be actually charged with robery until I carry out the theft.

So to sum up if Perrin was a sworn guardsman in the service of the crown he might have approached the Whitecloaks about their intentions and perhaps even held them for questioning. If they resisted then as long as Perrin is acting within his authority the law will protect him if he acted reasonably and violence ensued.

Unfortunatly Perrin was not acting as a servant of the crown. He overacted hence in the real world a verdict of manslaughter would apply and if the Judge felt there were mitigating circumstances he might get a suspended sentence quite a lot like what Morgase did. In effect she came up with a decision that was legally correct, politically convenient and practical given that Perrin is needed to stop the end of the world. Its a win win situation beyond the fact that a lot of poeple, myself included don't care for the Whitecloaks and dont like to see our hero have to submit to their or Mortase's authority.

fionwe1987
04-02-2012, 12:43 AM
That is not justification to kill them. Put it another way. Suppose I decide to go and rob a bank and you find out about it. You can report me to the cops but unless you are working as a guard in the bank or at the very least have some official connection to the bank you can't hunt me down and kill me. That is not self defence.

That's not correct. Say Perrin was in the bank on some business. He hid beneath a desk when the robbers came in. The robbers, afraid there might be cops around, ask him to come out and surrender, or else be killed. Perrin, afraid he'll be killed, steps out and shoots...

GonzoTheGreat
04-02-2012, 05:13 AM
That's not how this works. You don't consider what alternative paths they could have taken, for better or for worse. The point of the law is to prevent people from deciding they're going to kill someone except under the direst of circumstances. Here, there is absolutely no way that that was met, except POSSIBLY when the lance was actually leveled at Perrin's chest.
Which, now that I've reread the relevant part, was actually the case when Perrin attacked.
Just before that, Perrin had been holding his ax in his hands, and the Whitecloaks had their lances aimed square at his chest. They had aimed their lances at him when they gave their ultimatum.

I disagree with your decision to equate a paramilitary organization with some bad elements with a vicious outlaw biker gang.
You may disagree with it, but that doesn't make you right. Of course, I do admit that my comparison is not all that accurate either. Bikers generally do not engage in organised vigilantism in the way that the Children do.

Since you've continually tried to implicitly support your position by cherrypicking your analogies, I'm going to start doing the same.
Good idea.

Instead of the Hell's Angels, it's the Boy Scouts of America.
Do they too have actual torture rooms inside their fortress?
Do they have a country where they are above the law, where it is they rather than the official authorities who are the final arbiters of who lives and who dies?
Do the boy scouts have thousands of torturers in their employ, who habitually torture prisoners into signing confessions on the basis of which those prisoners are then put to death?

I must say that being a boy scout seems more exciting than I'd thought, now that I learn more about it.

Or maybe a better comparison would be the Spanish Inquisition backed up by the Spanish conquistadors, moving through the New World in order to "bring order to it".

They went out into Yellowstone for a camping trip (unfortunately they never got a camping permit and the park is closed, so they're there illegally), and started getting attacked by a crazy old man that's running with vicious wolves.
Can you back up this part of your analogy?
From what I remember of the scene, it was the Whitecloaks, not Elias and the wolves, who started the fight.
And I would expect American boy scouts camping in Yellowstone to have the sense not to go hunting wolves in the night time without firearms (or at all, for that matter). Instead, they would make one or more fires, keep those going throughout the night, and know that they were safe that way.

They make camp for the night and try to secure the area around it to protect themselves.
Stupid. If they stumble across a grizzly, they would be in fairly big trouble. If they disturb a bunch of bison and those stampede across their friends, that too would be messy.
Once again, far better to make a camp, make a fire, and be safe.

Why start aggressively attacking everyone and everything around you when that merely makes you less secure?

In so doing, they notice an armed man crouched in a cave nearby, and the scout leader, who brought a pistol, demands, "Come out with your hands up! If you mean no harm, we won't hurt you. If you don't come out, I'll shoot."
So the scout leader would now be willing to murder a park ranger (which might be such an unknown armed man in a place where the scouts do not have any legally good reason to be). How's that an endorsement for his morals, or for the sense in trusting to his reasonableness upon surrendering?

Sure, you can characterize that as an attack. If you ignore the context that they're trying to secure a camp while under attack.
But they are not under attack. They are attacking themselves, and their victims are defending themselves. If they had made camp properly and as their handbooks say they should have, then there would not have been any fight at all.
All the killing is a direct result of their decision to go out wolf hunting in the dark.



Bzzzzzzt. Impermissible evidence. Motion to strike.
Why is the fact that the Whitecloaks did not have a valid reason for being there impermissible?
See below, where I'll try to answer this in more detail.

That is not justification to kill them. Put it another way. Suppose I decide to go and rob a bank and you find out about it. You can report me to the cops but unless you are working as a guard in the bank or at the very least have some official connection to the bank you can't hunt me down and kill me. That is not self defence.
True, as far as your description goes. But that's not quite the situation Perrin was in. So, I'll slightly modify it:

You decide to go and rob a bank with a bunch of friends. I happen to overhear you. You discover that. You search me out. I try to hide. You hunt me down. Then you say "if you can prove you'll tell no one about this, you will live, otherwise we'll kill you".
Now, in that scenario, does the law really require that I trust my life to your assurances, or would it allow me to consider myself in danger from your gang?

In Perrin's case: what reason did Perrin have for expecting he would be released again if he surrendered? What reason could he have?
Remember that if the Crown of Andor found out about those Whitecloaks too soon, then their mission would be endangered or even thwarted. So they had a good (from their point of view) reason to silence potential witnesses.

Unfortunatly Perrin was not acting as a servant of the crown. He overacted hence in the real world a verdict of manslaughter would apply and if the Judge felt there were mitigating circumstances he might get a suspended sentence quite a lot like what Morgase did.
Perrin was acting as just an ordinary bloke. He was cornered by an armed gang that had reason not to let him get away, and explicitly threatened him with death. In such circumstances, saying that he had no reason at all to think they might possibly be hostile seems disingenuous.

In effect she came up with a decision that was legally correct, politically convenient and practical given that Perrin is needed to stop the end of the world. Its a win win situation beyond the fact that a lot of poeple, myself included don't care for the Whitecloaks and dont like to see our hero have to submit to their or Mortase's authority.
It also means that from now on, the Whitecloaks can legally say to anyone in Andor "submit to our Questioning or die". Morgase did not limit this only to commoners, either.

Maybe the precedent set by this ruling could be a bit farther reaching than she'd intended.

suttree
04-02-2012, 12:03 PM
...

Edit: Removed because I don't want to get sucked into this debate. I will say I am shocked by some people's(*cough* Gonz) concept of how law works.

GonzoTheGreat
04-02-2012, 12:21 PM
It would have been a very different situation if Perrin had had the option of calling for the watch/police/guards/Andoran army. But he did not have that option.
He either managed to make those Whitecloaks leave him (and Egwene) alone, or they would be subjected to the full force of Whitecloak 'justice'.

I still wonder how precisely Perrin could have explained his relationship with the wolves, with Moiraine Aes Sedai and with Ba'alzamon to those Whitecloaks without arousing any suspicion. I also wonder how Egwene could've explained her intention and ability "I can channel, but I'm not an Aes Sedai yet, though I hope to learn" to them.
Yet, he had been told that if he didn't provide such an accounting, then they would be killed.

What, specifically, does your law say someone should do in that precise situation?

-Talk and be killed.
-Do not talk and be killed.
-Fight and perhaps win free.

Those were the choices Perrin had. As for the choices that the CotL had:
-Make good on their promise, and kill Perrin and Egwene.
-Retreat a bit and let them go.

It was not Perrin but the Children who decided to press the confrontation.

Jasin Natael
04-10-2012, 07:43 PM
It was not Perrin but the Children who decided to press the confrontation.
04-02-2012 10:03 AM


Actually, it was Elyas and the wolves when they started killing whitecloaks.

Think about it.

Mat and the Band of the Red Hand are about to camp for the night, and they find out someone has been at the campsite recently. Mat sends out search parties to find out who those people are.

Wolves start killing his men. He knows wolves usually avoid people when they can. Something is up. He sends out more search parties.

They find an unidentified armed man hiding nearby. They tell him to put down the axe and surrender, and he won't be hurt. A soldier points a lance at the unidentified man holding a battleaxe. A wolf rips his throat out, after which the soldiers kill it, whereupon the armed man charges and kills two more soldiers before he is restrained.

The two captives go on to tell a story full of holes, (they are familiar with Trollocs, when everyone outside the borderlands believes they are myths, they know Shadar Logoth's name and still went there, etc...)

Highly suspicious. Perrin is lucky he wasn't executed immediately.

Going back to the subject of the thread, Elayne was forever dead to me at the end of the first Ebou Dar book, when she was appalled that Mat was forcing his attentions on Tylin. No man should force his attentions on a woman "especially a queen". Raping defenceless commoners is less of a crime than royalty (who have armies to defend them)

GonzoTheGreat
04-11-2012, 05:42 AM
Actually, it was Elyas and the wolves when they started killing whitecloaks.

Think about it.
All right. Elyas and the wolves withdraw from their camping site, leaving it to the large band of armed men. Those are not contend with having a place to rest, but instead set out hunting the wolves in the dark. And they continue doing so, showing no sign of stopping even when the wolves make clear they aren't willing to be helpless victims.

Why should I consider the hunter to be blameless and the prey to be the aggressor when a hunter dies?
If wolves attack a bison and the bison kills a wolf, then I would not consider that bison to be evil. Why, if men attack wolves, should I consider the wolves to be at fault if they defend themselves?

Remember: the wolves were in the wild, which is their natural habitat, while the Whitecloaks were deliberately avoiding the roads and towns of humans, because they did not want the actual authorities to find out what they were doing. Under such circumstances, why should the Whitecloaks have the moral* right to kill wolves?

* This was not about legality. If that had been their goal, then the Children would have been planning to hand over Perrin to the Queen's justice right from the start, and there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that they ever contemplated doing that.

suttree
04-11-2012, 12:30 PM
Remember: the wolves were in the wild, which is their natural habitat, while the Whitecloaks were deliberately avoiding the roads and towns of humans, because they did not want the actual authorities to find out what they were doing. Under such circumstances, why should the Whitecloaks have the moral* right to kill wolves?

* This was not about legality. If that had been their goal, then the Children would have been planning to hand over Perrin to the Queen's justice right from the start, and there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that they ever contemplated doing that.

How is this possibly still being discussed? Join PETA and be done with it mate.