art by =saintchase

Theoryland Resources

WoT Interview Search

Search the most comprehensive database of interviews and book signings from Robert Jordan, Brandon Sanderson and the rest of Team Jordan.

Wheel of Time News

An Hour With Harriet

2012-04-30: I had the great pleasure of speaking with Harriet McDougal Rigney about her life. She's an amazing talent and person and it will take you less than an hour to agree.

The Bell Tolls

2012-04-24: Some thoughts I had during JordanCon4 and the upcoming conclusion of "The Wheel of Time."

Theoryland Community

Members: 7653

Logged In (0):

Newest Members:johnroserking, petermorris, johnadanbvv, AndrewHB, jofwu, Salemcat1, Dhakatimesnews, amazingz, Sasooner, Hasib123,

Theoryland Tweets

Forums

Home | Chat | Old Forums(Yuku)


Go Back   Theoryland of the Wheel of Time Forums > WHEEL OF TIME FORUMS > General Wheel of Time Discussion
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 04-01-2012, 12:01 PM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,860
GonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 04-01-2012, 12:15 PM
Seth Baker Seth Baker is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 261
Seth Baker is a glorious beacon of lightSeth Baker is a glorious beacon of lightSeth Baker is a glorious beacon of lightSeth Baker is a glorious beacon of lightSeth Baker is a glorious beacon of lightSeth Baker is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 04-01-2012, 03:19 PM
Enigma Enigma is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,064
Enigma will become famous soon enoughEnigma will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
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.
__________________
Everyone has a right to my opinion

Last edited by Enigma; 04-01-2012 at 07:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:43 AM
fionwe1987 fionwe1987 is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,682
fionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant futurefionwe1987 has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 04-02-2012, 05:13 AM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,860
GonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Baker View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by GonzoTheGreat; 04-02-2012 at 05:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:03 PM
suttree's Avatar
suttree suttree is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 544
suttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant future
Default

...

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.
__________________
"Waves are the ultimate illusion. They come out of nowhere, instantaneously materialize, and just as quickly they break and vanish. Chasing after such fleeting mirages is a complete wast of time. That is what I choose to do with my life." - Miki Dora

Last edited by suttree; 04-02-2012 at 12:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:21 PM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,860
GonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 04-10-2012, 07:43 PM
Jasin Natael Jasin Natael is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 58
Jasin Natael is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
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)
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 04-11-2012, 05:42 AM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,860
GonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond reputeGonzoTheGreat has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasin Natael View Post
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.

Last edited by GonzoTheGreat; 04-11-2012 at 05:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 04-11-2012, 12:30 PM
suttree's Avatar
suttree suttree is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 544
suttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant futuresuttree has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
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.
__________________
"Waves are the ultimate illusion. They come out of nowhere, instantaneously materialize, and just as quickly they break and vanish. Chasing after such fleeting mirages is a complete wast of time. That is what I choose to do with my life." - Miki Dora
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
elayne, rant


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.