Kirk is not a cop. It was a military decision in a military situation.
A distinction people keep forgetting when dealing with an outright battlefield, I think. It's akin to Saddam Hussein -- he refused to plead guilty or help, was executed for crimes against humanity, and this was all handled by US and allied military direction to the end. Also, Nero's a frikkin' war criminal himself.
Oh lol. So it's Saddam Hussein* drowning, a soldier wants to give him a hand. Saddam says: "No, fuck you, I chose to drown instead.", and so the soldier unloads his machine gun into him.
Refusal to confess/admit guilt was tantamount to denial of help and leniency, something that Kirk offered. In both cases, execution was the consequence. And you either keep forgetting or neglect to remember that there was the possibility that the Narada would survive the black hole had it been left alone (again, the far weaker Jellyfish did it. The writers point this out. Did you need the Narada to actually survive to admit that?)
Also, for something ridiculous occuring to war criminals, this sort of thing was pret-ty rampant in World War II, for both the Allies and the Axis troops that were isolated from higher command. Find an enemy after major fighting, execute on the spot. You may not agree with that practice, but that is indeed what happened.
* and what kind of counter argument is that supposed to be? Saddam Hussein was captured by US soldiers (who did not shoot him once they found him in that hole) and had a trial according to Iraq national law. How is that situation similar to what happened in this movie? And then again, there was a lot of criticism against that particular trial. He should have gotten a fair UN trial, and as far as I know, people don't get executed there.
Because according to Iraqi national law, the operation was overseen by their own military, something that was a result of US military action. Even the Tribunal was created in large part due to foundational and operational support of the US Military (one of the reasons why there were critics demanding a UN court rather than an Iraqi court, by the way). Denial of crime and help lead to swift execution under Tribunal terms.
The MAJOR point being that a military operation/decision is often very different than a civilian operation, and even their courts had a distinct military influence there. In both cases, military action lead to extreme but still similar ends. Just as how Hussein refused to admit guilt or to accept a helping hand, so to did Nero. And when they did that, the military power in advantage (Tribunal/Kirk) did what they deemed fit.
If Hussein was tried by a purely civilian court, then yes, we'd most likely get a different outcome. Similiarly, had Kirk not gone to an actual military academy, things might have progressed differently with Nero. However, in both realities, the military was heavily involved in extraordinary situations, and they both had extraordinary battlefield powers to enforce their decisions. Hence Nerys Myk's statement of military decisions in the face of military situations and ultimately why the cop/drowning murderer analogy fails. And I say this as someone who oppose capital punishment in our civilian courts, too.
War criminal or not, do you really not see how ridiculous this is?
You may not agree with the philosophy, but not only is there precedent, there's an example. What you deem to be ridiculous happened just a few years ago. And if it happened, then it can't be that ridiculous then, can it?
Frankly, what I find more ridiculous is how a warbent Nero, a genocidal maniac, is equated to a murderer at the mercy of a beat cop. Scale makes a whole
world of difference here. Make the punishment fit the crime, not the crime fit the punishment. There's a disconnect/lack of concern once someone kills more than a certain number of people because there's an inability to grasp the scale. I'd be horrified if someone equated a rapist to a mere shoplifter in order to prove moral and intellectual superiority. That's moving the goal posts.
Why are we all so forgiving of Kirk and Sulu in TUC for blowing up Chang, despite the BoP being exposed/handicapped with only one torpedo blast? Were all those deaths necessary? I don't know about that, but clearly Kirk and Sulu were under their military rights to destroy them. One blast was enough to expose the plot. One blast was enough to disable them (probably). One blast was enough to start beaming Chang's crew into the brig. One blast was enough to send them running away if they had that capability. But no, Kirk and Sulu fired torpedo after torpedo until she went boom. Where was the uproar then? It seems so inconsistent.
Also, was this necessary?
