It's an action movie. It's a Star Trek production. Since when is safety a factor? "Risk is our business"- James T. Kirk.
Question, is Scotty a murderer?
- Thread starter Exigeous
- Start date
I admit, I don't know if S31 is a criminal organisation itself or if they are a legitimate Starfleet department (on the books for a legitimate reason i.e. espionage) that Marcus re-purposed for criminal intent. I don't know if that security guard believed that he was acting for a Starfleet admiral with a legitimate Starfleet mandate or if he knew precisely what Marcus was planning. I think it's likely that he was on board with Marcus' agenda but then Khan wasn't exactly of like mind, was he?
However, every member of that crew was innocent until proven guilty so going around killing them willy nilly should probably be frowned upon. I certainly still consider Scotty's actions to be negligent homicide. Nobody thinks of the evil henchmen's families...
Risk is merely an assessment of acceptable safety limits. Beyond that is recklessness.
Still, Star Trek characters are routinely reckless. They take chances that are far beyond acceptable limits of safety. Its part of the drama.
I would challenge an assertion that they are 'routinely' reckless, although it may be that we define the term differently. Some might define Spock's decision in the Galileo 7 as seemingly reckless but it was calculated after other options had failed. Reckless to me is Olsen's decision not to open his chute until the very last minute because he was enjoying the speed.
Spock was being reckless by taking a chance. But payed off. It's pretty much the point of the episode.
Olsen just had bad timing. He was too gung ho though.
McCoy liked to think he was being reckless but far from it. It was more that he made a snap decision based on emotion. He only really had two choices to make at that point.
Olsen certainly had bad timing but one might argue that it was reckless not giving each crewman explosives, just in case...
A snap decision based on emotion is a text book example of reckless.
So, now its not Olsen who was reckless but the mission planner? Come on, "losing the one guy with explosives "(or any character with a key piece of equipment) is a common trope. It creates drama. Your idea of Star Trek oer any story must be pretty boring. Everyone makes the right call at the right time and have everything they need.
Lol. A snap decision does not have to be reckless. Spock only has two choices, live a bit longer with a very low chance of rescue or gamble on a much shorter existence with a very ow chance of rescue. The odds were pretty slim either way. I consider his gamble to be far less reckless than Troi's in 'Disaster'.A snap decision based on emotion is a text book example of reckless.
So, now its not Olsen who was reckless but the mission planner? Come on, "losing the one guy with explosives "(or any character with a key piece of equipment) is a common trope. It creates drama. Your idea of Star Trek oer any story must be pretty boring. Everyone makes the right call at the right time and have everything they need.
With Olsen, I was being facetious but no, I don't consider only giving the explosives to one crewman on a nutty, dangerous stunt like that as logical, sensible, or good writing. Good drama should not depend on bad writing.
Section 31 is a criminal organization, Starfleet conducts its official espionage through Starfleet Intelligence.
Everyone on Vengeance, including the guard were wearing Section 31 uniforms. How the hell can Scotty killing the guard be considered "homicide"? The guard was a terrorist holding a gun on a serviceman of a legitimate government service with intent to kill. That is the very definition of "enemy combatant." Scotty killing him is self defense. If an ISIS fighter has a gun pointed at a soldier while in an ISIS cave, and the soldier kills him, as that murder? If a gang member inside his own meth lab has a gone pointed at a cop and the cop kills him is that murder?
I think Section 31 is a rogue Earth intelligence organization. ( at least based on Enterprise). I think it works for Earth's interests and Federations when they coincide with Earth's.
Well, wearing a uniform is not evidence of guilt; a soldier is told what uniform to wear. I admit, I've only watched the movie once and I don't recall what information Scotty had at the time. If S31 was not even part of Starfleet then that makes the existence of the secret base in the solar system even dumber. Scotty's actions could indeed be deemed reasonable in order to prevent the commission of a serious crime.
Law enforcement officers still have to use reasonable force but the issue is that the writers chose to kill the guard and chose to let Vengeance crash into the city for dramatic effect. The irony of Team America springs to mind. :-P
Hollywood has churned out numerous movies where heroes massacre guards just doing their jobs when their commander is the only real villain. It is a well established, albeit irritating trope that probably taps into the Gun owner's psyche, which is possibly why it niggles an Englishman more.
You're really trying way to hard here. It's bordering on parody.
You do realize that Section 31 is from DS9 right?
Why is a secret base in the Sol System dumb? You've never heard of a Black Site?
Yes. You have to be going for parody.
They're usually armed, dangerous and out to kill the hero. As your countryman, James Bond can attest. These aren't nine to five working stiffs after a paycheck. They're mercenaries, hired killers and thugs.
Starfleet in the JJverse deserve to be assimilated by the Borg, they are so pathetic they might accidentally destroy the Queen and her drones with their incompetency genes.
Star Trek thrives on Starfleet incompetence.
Have you read the Vanguard series? Starfleet FUBAR
The first several books, yes. Been a while since I picked up a Trek novel.
And when soldiers encounter soldiers from the opposing side in combat, killing them is not the same as murder.
When a criminal is pointing a gun at a cop, the cop is authorized to shoot and kill the criminal. That is reasonable force.
Well, yes and no. There are rules of engagement in both policing and warzones that cops and soldiers are expected to follow. And breaking those rules of engagement is grounds for prosecution. But yes, all things being equal, I agree with your assessment.
Similar threads
