Yes it was a rational, 'calculated act' when she wanted to shoot first when she took command of the Shenzhou. It was an 'accident' when she killed the torchbearer. It was 'emotional payback' for T'Kuvma when Burnham had her phaser set to kill and killed him. Michael had no intent of taking L'Rell as a prisoner so that was not her clever motivation. L'Rell latched herself onto Tyler during transport. Michael certainly did not secure L'Rell as a prisoner to either transport or to protect an Admiral who could not walk or Tyler who was clearly suffering by just the mere sight of L'Rell. I actually don't think Michael should have killed L'Rell but she was a danger. Two of her past victims were in the room with her, lol.
I believe your understanding may benefit from watching again, on
all counts. Burnham's encounter with the Torch-bearer triggered a flashback (which came in the form of a dream, and nested inside another flashback) to the Klingon terror raid of her early childhood, a very serious trauma from which she had never truly recovered. From that moment, she was
not thinking clearly, despite believing herself to be. Sarek and Georgiou both tried to reason with her and make her see the logical and ethical flaws in her behavior and suggestions, but she could not be dissuaded, because she was in fact acting impulsively and irrationally out of deep-seated emotional trauma and prejudice, despite in her own mind having an ostensibly logical justification for what she did. That's called rationalization. It's much like Kirk telling Spock they should just let the Klingons die in TUC. On the one hand it might seem superficially reasonable to refuse aid to those who have desired and pursued your destruction in the past. But that's not
really what it was about, underneath it all. It was about the fact that Klingons killed his son, and he hated them for it.
L'Rell was very obviously
unarmed and
injured. She did absolutely
nothing aggressive in that scene. Watch it again. Please.
She didn't know that L'Rell was a prisoner. For all she knew, L'Rell was a guard or something. She should have been perceived as a threat. And you neutralize a threat - not leave them stunned so they can wake up and raise the alarm.
They're at war with the Klingons, not playing pattycake.
They found her in the same position as Cornwell, by all appearances. She was not acting as a combatant, and gave no indication of such intent. She didn't attempt to raise any alarm. She attempted to talk to them. She was
wounded and
unarmed. Stunned
is neutralized, in this context. To have
killed her would have been gratuitous and unnecessary. And murder. Not lawful warfare. Following rules of engagement is
not "playing pattycake"!
Stamets has candy floss for brains now. He was in no condition to be making any decisions.
Exactly! And does this, to you, mean
he gets the blame instead of Lorca? Not to me.
I'm going by the actual dialogue between Lorca and Stamets. There was nothing on screen that would indicate that Lorca was psychologically manipulating Stamets. I'll leave guessing what was in the characters' minds to others.
This is the dialogue:
LORCA: They wanted to give me a medal for leading the mission, saving Pahvo, if you can believe the irony. I told them to give it to you.
STAMETS: That's, um, not necessary, Sir.
LORCA: You made the jumps. You risked everything. None of it would have been possible without you. You did so well the Klingons are on their way, hellbent on revenge. I wish we could stay and fight, but Starfleet wants us back at Starbase 46.
STAMETS: Do you need me to jump?
LORCA: I would never ask that of you. You've done enough. We'll warp to Starbase 46. We'll be fine.
STAMETS: But the Klingons! I'll do one more jump, to get the crew back to safety. They've risked enough already.
LORCA: If you're sure...
STAMETS: [nods]
LORCA: Thank you. We're going to win this war on account of you Mister Stamets. After this, it's a whole new chapter for Discovery
. You've opened a door to a whole new era of exploration. The data provided by the micro-jumps will push us closer than we've ever been before to understanding the mysteries of the universe...
STAMETS: No, Captain, I mean only one more jump. After we get back, I'm done. Traveling the mycelial network is like co-mingling with the most abstruse blips of our celestial existence. I've seen these stars through a lens no one else has access to, and that has to be enough for me, because I need Starfleet's best doctors to examine my condition, and figure out what's been happening to me.
LORCA: [nods]
One last jump, then. You've served the Federation honorably, Lieutenant.
STAMETS: Well, I'll always have you to thank for the view.
LORCA: Mmm. You ready?
It's a textbook case of passive-aggressive manipulation. Getting someone to do what
you want them to, which you
know is against their best interests, by letting them
think it's their
own idea.
Lorca is the captain, is well aware of the grave risks Stamets has already taken, the ill effects he's already suffering, the
additional risks posed to him by doing another jump, and his
desire to stop. And he knows that regular warp would get them back to the base just fine, and that there's no pressing need for Stamets to do another jump just for that. But does he
insist on this, for Stamets' own good? Does he
refuse Stamets' offer to give yet more, after giving so much already? Does he
order Stamets to go to sickbay and get some rest? No, he does not. He strokes Stamets' ego and curiosity. He emphasizes the implication of a grave threat to Stamets' loved ones and colleagues. He lets Stamets feel personally indebted to him and obligated to do something he is not. And don't forget, this is all coming on the heels of his earlier maneuverings, stringing Stamets along with the tantalizing prospect—no pun intended—of discovering how to access parallel universes and such. I'm really surprised that anyone can miss this. I hope no one ever tries it on you!
-
MMoM
