Michael Burnham, Mutiny, and TOS

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Charles Phipps, Oct 15, 2019.

  1. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Michael Burnham is the first Federation officer to ever commit mutiny but it's notably something that didn't involve any other crew members, so I'm not sure mutiny was the right charge.

    And is Ben Finney the SECOND officer to commit mutiny? Gary Mitchell? I mean, in Mitchell's case he was driven insane beforehand.

    Because Captain Kirk has to deal with a bunch of attempts to kill him and take over his ship. It seems like Michael's actions won't be so damning in a few years.
     
  2. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    The "mutiny" was never the problem for me, it was just done in such a lackluster fashion that I didn't care. There was no build up to it, they just rushed the entire story for no real reason.
     
    Beckerjr, Nenya, Jadeb and 1 other person like this.
  3. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Spock also committed mutiny once.

    Garth of Izar's crew technically committed (justified) mutiny against him.
     
    Charles Phipps likes this.
  4. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    For Captain Pike no less.

    I think that falls under relieving a person of their command but I wonder if the medical doctor would need to do that. General Order 24 exists so I'm not sure that Garth of Izar ordering the genocide of a race counts as an illegal order.
     
    Tuskin38 likes this.
  5. Lord Garth

    Lord Garth Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Aug 10, 1999
    I think "mutiny" is a strong term. Gary Mitchell became something else and wasn't in his "right" mind. Finney was just someone who tried to commit perjury and frame the Captain. If used too loosely, being insubordinate could mean "treason".

    "Treason" should be something like Ben Finney betrayed the United Federation of Planets, not that he simply betrayed Kirk. Words that should have weight need to have weight or they lose the value of their true meaning.
     
    Jadeb, BillJ, Tuskin38 and 1 other person like this.
  6. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    I suppose it depends on whether you're attempting to seize control over the starship you're serving on.

    So Ben wouldn't count while Gary and Spock would.

    Treason wouldn't count with Ben as we define it as working against your nation with a foreign power in a time of war for the United States. You'd have to be helping the Klingons during the brief window of Errand of Mercy for it to count.
     
  7. Lord Garth

    Lord Garth Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Location:
    Aug 10, 1999
    I don't know how I shifted from "mutiny" to "treason" mid-post. My mind wondered somewhere else.
     
    Charles Phipps likes this.
  8. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    It's actually still on topic because there's a variety of charges you can throw at the disobedient officers of the Federation.
     
    Lord Garth likes this.
  9. DaveyNY

    DaveyNY Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Location:
    Schenectady
    Technically, Michael might be the second that we know of.

    Thanks to "The Trouble with Edward" Lt. Edward Larkin essentially carried out a one man mutiny with the help of his "enhanced" Tribbles and it could have been a few years before Michael did hers.
    ;)
     
    Charles Phipps likes this.
  10. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Only if we discover the ship is psychically controlled by Tribbles and tooling around the galaxy with their well-cuddled master controlling them.
     
    KennyB likes this.
  11. DaveyNY

    DaveyNY Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Location:
    Schenectady
    He disobeyed a direct order from his Commander and also committed sedition by trying to get other members of the crew involved in at least two instances.
    As well as disrupting the functioning of a Star Fleet vessel to a point which apparently led to it's destruction.

    There's no "only" about it.
    :techman:
     
  12. KennyB

    KennyB Rear Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2001
    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany USAG
    I must have missed those parts..........
     
    Charles Phipps likes this.
  13. DaveyNY

    DaveyNY Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Location:
    Schenectady
    1) Possibly lying about a fellow crew member eating a Tribble.
    2) The conversation in the mess hall by the food dispenser badmouthing the Captain.
    (something I'm pretty sure he was doing at every opportunity)
    :)
     
  14. ToyBoxComix

    ToyBoxComix Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2019
    Larkin is guilty of insubordination, not mutiny. He disobeyed orders and tried to undermine the captain to a degree (which nobody took seriously), but he didn't try to take over the ship.

    In The Tholian Web, Spock says that there has never been a mutiny on a Starfleet ship. He says it rather emphatically, which seems kind of funny now. It's like he's defending his foster sister's honor without actually acknowledging her existence.
     
    antinoos and Charles Phipps like this.
  15. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    Toss on destruction of Federation property, assault for whatever injuries his experiment caused, and probably a whole slew of charges relating to an entire civilization having to move.

    Spock committed mutiny in "The Menagerie", and there was no Michael Burnham in 1969.
     
    Charles Phipps likes this.
  16. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    All discontinuity is the result of the Temporal Cold War. I'm really surprised no one ever used this like the Crisis on Infinite Earths.
     
    King Daniel Beyond likes this.
  17. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    I wouldn't be surprised if it is used at some point to completely wipe away TOS.
     
  18. Noname Given

    Noname Given Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    None Given
    ^^^
    And allso interstuing since - two years earlier (See TOS S1 - "The Menagerie I & II") - he successfully carried out a mutiny of the 1701. Now they may have not pressed charges, but it was STILL a mutiny. ;)
     
  19. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    There's more TOS references now than there ever were before.
     
  20. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    King Daniel Beyond
    The temporal cold war, featuring incompetent time cops who accidently erase their own timelines.

    The temporal hot war which ended in an explicit reset of the timeline.

    Annorax's enormous delete ray in the delta quadrant sending out temporal shockwaves rewriting galactic history for 300 years

    That Worf episode tying 250,000 timelines into a knot.

    Borg trying to prevent First Contact and leaving drones and tech in Antarctica.

    Ripples across the multiverse from Angry Future Romulans.

    A planet full of time-manipulating Klingon monks.

    A couple of Red Angels flying about interfering in things and leaving red dots across the galaxy.


    If someone wants to say it's time travel, there's definitely evidence for it.