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: 7652

Logged In (1): pntropwmri,

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
  #81  
Old 03-20-2012, 12:31 PM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,843
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
The Stedding was abandoned and Andor had adversely possessed it.
Did any Andoran official know that the Stedding had been abandoned?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-20-2012, 01:07 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
Did any Andoran official know that the Stedding had been abandoned?
As far as I know, the Stedding was never occupied after the Breaking.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-22-2012, 03:43 PM
Toss the dice Toss the dice is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 609
Toss the dice is a glorious beacon of lightToss the dice is a glorious beacon of lightToss the dice is a glorious beacon of lightToss the dice is a glorious beacon of lightToss the dice is a glorious beacon of lightToss the dice is a glorious beacon of lightToss the dice is a glorious beacon of light
Default

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.
__________________
"You see, it doesn't work on me. Now you bloody well release the shields, or I'll bloody well haul you out of the saddle and paddle your bottoms."
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 03-24-2012, 05:42 AM
finn finn is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 111
finn will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonzoTheGreat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 03-24-2012, 12:43 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

This is all extrinsic, irrelevant evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 03-24-2012, 01:16 PM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,843
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
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.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 03-24-2012, 01:41 PM
Zombie Sammael's Avatar
Zombie Sammael Zombie Sammael is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Too close to New South Wales
Posts: 3,225
Zombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Skype™ to Zombie Sammael
Default

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.
__________________
Sa souvraya niende misain ye

Master of the lightnings, rider on the storm,
wearer of a crown of swords, spinner out of fate.
Who thinks he turns the Wheel of Time,
may learn the truth too late.

Light is held before the maw of the infinite void, and all that he is can be seized.

The one who Death has known
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 03-24-2012, 02:03 PM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,843
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

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.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 03-24-2012, 02:38 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

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.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 03-24-2012, 02:48 PM
Zombie Sammael's Avatar
Zombie Sammael Zombie Sammael is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Too close to New South Wales
Posts: 3,225
Zombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Skype™ to Zombie Sammael
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Baker View Post
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.
__________________
Sa souvraya niende misain ye

Master of the lightnings, rider on the storm,
wearer of a crown of swords, spinner out of fate.
Who thinks he turns the Wheel of Time,
may learn the truth too late.

Light is held before the maw of the infinite void, and all that he is can be seized.

The one who Death has known
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 03-24-2012, 04:17 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 Zombie Sammael View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 03-24-2012, 04:18 PM
Zombie Sammael's Avatar
Zombie Sammael Zombie Sammael is offline
Elder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Too close to New South Wales
Posts: 3,225
Zombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond reputeZombie Sammael has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Skype™ to Zombie Sammael
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Baker View Post
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.
__________________
Sa souvraya niende misain ye

Master of the lightnings, rider on the storm,
wearer of a crown of swords, spinner out of fate.
Who thinks he turns the Wheel of Time,
may learn the truth too late.

Light is held before the maw of the infinite void, and all that he is can be seized.

The one who Death has known
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 03-24-2012, 08:07 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 Zombie Sammael View Post
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.

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

Elyas snorted.
Because that's a stupid question.

Quote:
Elyas snorted. "Wolves don't tame, girl, not even as well as men. They're my friends..."
Quote:
Elyas snorted. "Wolves don't tame..."
E: Courtesy of Terez:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
“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.

Last edited by Seth Baker; 03-24-2012 at 08:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 03-24-2012, 09:11 PM
Cortar Cortar is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 488
Cortar is a glorious beacon of lightCortar is a glorious beacon of lightCortar is a glorious beacon of lightCortar is a glorious beacon of lightCortar is a glorious beacon of lightCortar is a glorious beacon of lightCortar is a glorious beacon of light
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 03-24-2012, 09:17 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 Cortar View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 03-25-2012, 01:25 AM
finn finn is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 111
finn will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Baker View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 03-25-2012, 02:21 AM
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 finn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 03-25-2012, 05:12 AM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,843
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
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEOTW, Chapter 30, Children of Shadow
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 03-25-2012, 06:07 AM
finn finn is offline
Youngling
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 111
finn will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Baker View Post
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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? Is it ok to kill them, even if they're only trying to defend themselves or those they care about?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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 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.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 03-25-2012, 07:15 AM
GonzoTheGreat GonzoTheGreat is offline
Hero of the Horn
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,843
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 finn View Post
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? 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.
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 02:37 PM.


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