Mutiny Impossible!

[Bubbles McGee]

Something about Turnabout Intruder that always bothered me was Scotty's plan to mutiny against Kirk. You remember, he discusses this with McCoy while they are outside of the hearing room during Spock's court martial.

Scotty seems to think that they have a shot of taking over the ship from McCoy, but I think something was overlooked....Security!

The redshirts who make up the Security department are pretty damn loyal to the captain and do not strike me as being very easily swayed. For example, they are reluctant to let Spock speak to Dr. Lester and concede only on the condition that a guard remain present. Now this is before Spock has done anything suspicious and he is the second in command super-intelligent Vulcan! Further, we have to remember that the people who make up the Security department are probably not Academy graduates, but enlisted crewmen who received some sort of boot camp training. In other words, they can all kick ass when necessary but are probably not going to discover any new lifeforms intentionally or devise some cool new way to run the ship. They are, in effect, foot soldiers. They are also very important because they are the muscle of the ship and as long as Kirk has them on his side (which he seems to throughout the ep), I don't think anyone has a chance of staging a successful mutiny.

They seem answerable only to whomever is acting as the Captain (see my reference to the Spock incident above) and no other senior officer has any jurisdiction over them. Scotty runs the engineers and technicians, McCoy has a team of doctors, nurses, lab techs, and other medical workers under his command, Spock runs the scientists, and Uhura, Chekov and Sulu have squat (although they can probably push the janitors and secretarial staff around). So how could Scotty have thought he had a chance of taking over the ship?

 

[Timo]

Further, we have to remember that the people who make up the Security department are probably not Academy graduates, but enlisted crewmen who received some sort of boot camp training.

Let's not forget, though, that Kirk did have high-ranking officers in his security force, including Giotto from "Devil in the Dark". These would presumably be academically trained men and women capable of abstract thought and of keeping their troops from being mere knuckle-dragging brutes.

Now, admittedly Kirk in said episode doesn't seem to be in particularly close terms with his Security Chief - he even misremembers his rank, indicated by braid to be full Commander just as Spock's, but twice claimed by Kirk to be Lieutenant Commander. But the middleman does exist (several other high-ranking officers in red shirt are seen on the background in other episodes), and his or her loyalty to the CO might be swayed by intelligent argument.

So where was Giotto during "Turnabout Intruder"? Or is the question misguided? Perhaps Scotty and McCoy would have approached the Chief of Security first when proceeding with their mutiny, but were prevented from doing so by the timely interception by Lester. The Chief need not have been involved, as Lester could command the nearest grunts to do her dirty work easily enough.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[R. Star]

The redshirts are loyal? I'd think given their death ratio, they'd be the first ones to throw in with a mutiny.

 

[Bubbles McGee]

The redshirts are loyal? I'd think given their death ratio, they'd be the first ones to throw in with a mutiny.

That's precisely the point! DESPITE the fact that they are constantly getting their asses kicked, they continue to jump in with both feet into the most dangerous of situations!

 

[Bubbles McGee]

Further, we have to remember that the people who make up the Security department are probably not Academy graduates, but enlisted crewmen who received some sort of boot camp training.

Let's not forget, though, that Kirk did have high-ranking officers in his security force, including Giotto from "Devil in the Dark". These would presumably be academically trained men and women capable of abstract thought and of keeping their troops from being mere knuckle-dragging brutes.

I think you are giving Giotto more credit than he deserves. In Devil in the Dark, he gives the impression of being on a hunting expedition. He really wants to get his gun off which is precisely why Kirk had him brought down as Kirk's primary objective at the beginning of the episode is to get the "monster" dead so that pergeium production can be re-established.

Despite Giotto's rank (referred to either in the dialogue or by his braid), I tend to think of him more as a field soldier who managed to stay alive long enough to get promoted. I do not think he has the same relationship to the security department as Scotty, Spock, and McCoy have to their relative departments in the sense that I do not believe that Giotto would ever present a dissenting opinion to the Captain's the way the other three often had. If the security department is a group of muscle-bound goons, Giotto is at best the top goon.

 

[Timo]

When even the lowly Ensign Garrovick can challenge Kirk, up to and including punching him in the face, I really doubt Giotto would place loyalty above reason, or ignore regulations and laws if his CO's direct orders appear in conflict with those.

FWIW, the officer put in charge of keeping Kirk-in-Lester imprisoned and incommunicado is a Lieutenant, and this guy certainly engages in rational discourse. The rest of the people holding our heroes at gunpoint are brain.. uh, braidless, no doubt by Lester-in-Kirk's design.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kinggodzillak]

I would have thought Galloway's only true loyalty during Turnabout Intruder would be to whatever unexplained force managed to bring him back into existence after he was vaporised during The Omega Glory...

 

[MacLeod]

If it were Spock and Scotty leading the mutiny, I'm not sure security would be much good. I would think that those two officers might be able to put in place measures to lock Kirk out the ships controls. Sure Kirk might have the men, but Spock/Scotty would control the ship.

What's Kirk going to do when Spock or Scotty refuses to release those controls. Shoot them?

 

[Zaku]

What's Kirk going to do when Spock or Scotty refuses to release those controls. Shoot them?

Yes..?

 

[Timo]

I would have thought Galloway's only true loyalty during Turnabout Intruder would be to whatever unexplained force managed to bring him back into existence after he was vaporised during The Omega Glory...

To be fair, "Omega Glory" is a stardate-free episode (it was essentially written before stardates were invented), so Galloway's demise might still be in the future when he confronts Spock at Kirk-in-Lester's cabin.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ssosmcin]

What bugged me about the mutiny discussion bit is that at no point did McCoy say anything like "ummmm, all I did was listen to Scotty talk about it. Not once did I say I was going along with it. In fact, all I did was tell him he was talking about mutiny. You didn't even give me a chance to tell you about it, which clears me of failing to inform my superior officer. So really, I'm innocent."

Even if Janice/Kirk was too looney tunes to make the distinction, McCoy - hell, Spock and Scotty too - should have said something. Bad. Writing. Galore.

To be fair, "Omega Glory" is a stardate-free episode (it was essentially written before stardates were invented), so Galloway's demise might still be in the future when he confronts Spock at Kirk-in-Lester's cabin.

Timo Saloniemi

Nooooo. There's no question Omega Glory happens well before Turnabout Intruder. The background guys played a variety of characters. At no point did anyone address the guard as Galloway in Turnabout Intruder. He could have been a totally different guy. It's more rational to assume David Ross was playing Lt. Johnson, as he did in Day of the Dove.

Of course, his episode credit at the end probably says "Galloway" (I don't have access to it here) and I'd still rather chalk it up to an oops in the credits than move an episode into the future. After all, names are often misspelled on credits. "Uhuru" in Star Trek 6, Rayna/Reyna in Requiem for Methuselah (depending on the print).

 

[Garrovick]

When even the lowly Ensign Garrovick can challenge Kirk, up to and including punching him in the face....

Hey, he DID put me on report, after all

Given that Scotty only was talking about a mutiny after Spock was set free, then Spock, Scotty, and McCoy would have been free to come up with something in private. (The corridor right outside the briefing room wasn't probably the best place to have that discussion.) I wouldn't put much past the Scotty/Spock team when it comes to planning a hypothetical mutiny - especially since Lester wouldn't have the knowledge to catch them at it that Kirk might have. I imagine they could find a way to incapacitate Security and take over the ship short of a full-on fight.

 

[MacLeod]

What's Kirk going to do when Spock or Scotty refuses to release those controls. Shoot them?

Yes..?

Which would know doubt be classed as being out of character, potentailly leading to the majority of the crew siding with Spock and Scotty.

 

[Timo]

McCoy should have said something.

Not bloody likely. What, do you really expect him to go "Uh, yes, please execute Scotty here, but spare me, your honor, and your honor please remember I always have a bottle of medicinal brandy warm for her, uh, him!"...?

Which would know doubt be classed as being out of character, potentailly leading to the majority of the crew siding with Spock and Scotty.

Well, Sulu and Chekov immediately sided with them when "Kirk" gave "executive orders". And while Mr Lemli appeared to agree to escort the mutineers to their death, all he really did was walk them out of the door. Not necessarily a full embracing of the CO's newly found streak of bloodlust...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ssosmcin]

McCoy should have said something.

Not bloody likely. What, do you really expect him to go "Uh, yes, please execute Scotty here, but spare me, your honor, and your honor please remember I always have a bottle of medicinal brandy warm for her, uh, him!"...?

So then McCoy should just stand around and do nothing, letting himself be executed for no reason? At least arguing himself free could give him a chance to plan some way to stop the execution.

Fine, I see your point, but SOMEONE (like Spock or Scotty or Sulu) should have pointed it out, even if it required Bones to chime in with the intention of grabbing a hypo, some orderlies, Sulu and Chekov, and putting an end to the farce. Whatever the response could or should be, the simple fact is McCoy is only guilty of listening to Scotty rant and plan, not for any involvement in the plot, real or implied.

It might have helped create a more exciting climax than the transference simply weakening and then dissolving.

 

[Timo]

Guilt would be largely irrelevant at that point already, as all present were witness to "Kirk" forgoing procedure and giving illegal orders. What would have made better sense there would have been a minor directional conceit of having Mr Lemli wink his eye to the two he was taking to be "executed"... Because that's what must have been going on at that point anyway, a silent wait-and-see mutiny at all levels. Whether "Kirk" faded out to Lester or not at that time would have made little difference to Chekov and Sulu's little strike, as "his" orders would have fallen on deaf ears anyway.

It's not as if the episode rises towards a dramatic climax there, or needs to. Rather, the pathetic story of Janice Lester winds down to its expected anticlimax, which is tragic and poignant and a lot more effective than a piece of courtroom drama or a fight scene, even if the latter two could also well have concluded the story...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bubbles McGee]

When even the lowly Ensign Garrovick can challenge Kirk, up to and including punching him in the face,

That was Garrovick trying to scrifice himself to save the Captain. Presumably, he would have had Kirk beamed up while still unconscious while he stayed to kill the cloud monster that smelled like good pot. An act fuelled by pure, mindless, un-thought-out loyalty.

I really doubt Giotto would place loyalty above reason, or ignore regulations and laws if his CO's direct orders appear in conflict with those.

He and the rest of security stood by while Decker took command of the ship despite Spock quite logically pointing out that Decker's every move was really stupid. It is only when they hear Kirk order Spock to take command back from Decker that they snap to when Spock needs them to escort Decker from the bridge. Security is loyal to whomever is deemed lawfully in command of the Enterprise. It can be Kirk, Spock, Scotty, or even a whacked-out Commodore who just lost his ship and crew. They do not interpret who is lawfully in command, they just back up whoever is determined by regulations to be in command whenever those regulations are invoked by someone with a higher pay-grade and/or academy training.

FWIW, the officer put in charge of keeping Kirk-in-Lester imprisoned and incommunicado is a Lieutenant, and this guy certainly engages in rational discourse. The rest of the people holding our heroes at gunpoint are brain.. uh, braidless, no doubt by Lester-in-Kirk's design.

Rational discourse? Well, they are not trained monkeys but all he does is hedge his bets by telling Spock that he may question Lester so long as he is present. He is probably thinking, "Gee the Captain said NO ONE can come in, but Spock is the second in command. I'll probably get into less trouble by letting Spock in while I guard them than if I flat out tell the Boss's right hand man to take a walk a second time."

 

[Timo]

He and the rest of security stood by while Decker took command of the ship despite Spock quite logically pointing out that Decker's every move was really stupid. It is only when they hear Kirk order Spock to take command back from Decker that they snap to when Spock needs them to escort Decker from the bridge. Security is loyal to whomever is deemed lawfully in command of the Enterprise.

Yet in that very exchange, Kirk acknowledges that he is acting illegally and Decker, the man in command by the book, can sue him later.

Security isn't quick to change sides. But as demonstrated here, they will side with the winner - and a ranting and raving "Kirk" in "Turnabout Intruder" is likely to lose that status soon enough.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bubbles McGee]

He and the rest of security stood by while Decker took command of the ship despite Spock quite logically pointing out that Decker's every move was really stupid. It is only when they hear Kirk order Spock to take command back from Decker that they snap to when Spock needs them to escort Decker from the bridge. Security is loyal to whomever is deemed lawfully in command of the Enterprise.

Yet in that very exchange, Kirk acknowledges that he is acting illegally and Decker, the man in command by the book, can sue him later.

Security isn't quick to change sides. But as demonstrated here, they will side with the winner - and a ranting and raving "Kirk" in "Turnabout Intruder" is likely to lose that status soon enough.

Timo Saloniemi

Your reponse here seems contradictory. So, Security backs up the Captain when he blatanly breaks regulations while in an agitated state to get Decker out of the chair (they advance to support Spock when Spock threatens to arrest Decker illegally) but they wouldn't back the Captain when he is in an agitated state in TI?

 

[Timo]

I don't see the contradiction. Security bets on the winner. Captain Illegal will save the ship from lunacy in "Doomsday Machine", Captain Legal will bring about their ruination in "Turnabout Intruder", so they support the first one but not the second.

Clearly, Security isn't just the personal palace guard of the CO, as per these two examples. Rather sensibly, the force is dedicated to ensuring the smooth continuation of the mission, and may even be tasked with contradicting the CO (or other officers of note) if it becomes obvious that their choices go contrary to the interests of the overall employer. But the judgements are difficult to make, and in all the instances shown, Security takes a minimalist approach.

McCoy's folks supposedly believe in "first, do no harm" even though one could describe them as scalpel-happy knuckle-draggers and deride their lack of initiative and whatnot. Giotto's goons can similarly create minimal ripples despite following and enforcing a principle higher than mere personality cult.

Timo Saloniemi