Starfleet Harshness

[The Wormhole]

You aren't wrong but she killed him out of rage, not self defense. I mean had she done it in self defense I'd get it but she didn't.

Regardless of what she was actually feeling when she committed the act, someone shoving a huge fucking sword through her teammate's (and in this case, her captain) chest, resulting in the death of said teammate/captain is proof that the enemy combatant is a clear and present threat, and killing the enemy combatant is an acceptable, and proportionate response. Or are we now going to argue the crazed Klingon religious zealot who just declared war on the Federation and murdered the crew of an Admiral's flagship just after he agreed to begin peace talks has a right to murder Starfleet officers who find themselves on his ship, and those officers are expected and required to roll over and accept that?

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Regardless of what she was actually feeling when she committed the act, someone shoving a huge fucking sword through her teammate's (and in this case, her captain) chest, resulting in the death of said teammate/captain is proof that the enemy combatant is a clear and present threat, and killing the enemy combatant is an acceptable, and proportionate response. Or are we now going to argue the crazed Klingon religious zealot who just declared war on the Federation and murdered the crew of an Admiral's flagship just after he agreed to begin peace talks has a right to murder Starfleet officers who find themselves on his ship, and those officers are expected and required to roll over and accept that?

You aren't wrong, BUT we know more of the circumstances about this particular incident.

She acted out of pure anger when the mission was to take him alive, and she was more seemingly able to do so than executed. Essentially she let her captain die in vain for her own revenge.

Not saying i hold it against her, BUT those were the circumstances.

 

[The Wormhole]

Michael didn't want to kill Tacoma, she even points out that his death would only make him a martyr and they didn't want that to happen. She does so because there are no options. Sure, she's angry and sad about Georgiou's death, but there was logic to her decision even if it was fueled by emotion.

 

[the Sisko]

I'm in agreement on the harshness and that it will be reversed.

Consider the case of ST3-ST4:
Kirk commits conspiracy to steal an armed federation starship, with actions including assault, illegal detention, and disabling a starship. He gives a Klingon ship a "Vulcan Hello" in the midst of the Genesis (genocide weapon) crisis. Those actions lead to an escalation of the crisis, with him, without orders, killing a Klingon captain and most of his crew, escalating the Federation to the brink of war.

Not only does the Federation NOT jail Kirk upon his return, they put him back in command of a starship, put his mutinous command crew back in active field duty, AND first send him to the Klingon border before years later sending him as the peace envoy. Sulu even gets command of the (high-end) ship disabled within 10 years.

Starfleet learns sometime between A Vulcan Hello and ST4 that, if not a Vulcan hello, maybe standing behind their "warriors" is a more acceptable diplomatic strategy when dealing with Klingons. 100 Years later, Sisko helps Worf against Klingon accusation in front of the KDF accuser before tearing him apart in private.

Next Consider the politics:
Burnham is the daughter of the Vulcan Ambassador (who would serve and have the President's ear decades later if not now). The fact that she is jailed so harshly and scapegoated fleetwide has the makings of politics. The fact that she was following direction from an ambassador was also important. Embarrass the multi-cultural embracing Vulcan ambassador (maybe kill him soon afterwards) to get him to resign in disgrace and with his removal, have Vulcan not fully commit to the Federation experiment. Or have his role hidden where he's forced to sell her out again. It wouldn't take much to have her recommissioned for the sakes of the union.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Michael didn't want to kill Tacoma, she even points out that his death would only make him a martyr and they didn't want that to happen. She does so because there are no options. Sure, she's angry and sad about Georgiou's death, but there was logic to her decision even if it was fueled by emotion.

I'm all for Tacoma being killed, I only wish she did Powder too,

I mean i'm "with you" on it but I can see why Starfleet took it the way they did.

The same day she pulls a mutiny her and her captain hatch a plan to catch a HVT and she kills the HVT.

 

[Rich]

I always thought going there being a cause for execution was terrible writing. The Federation does not execute prisoners or criminals. But visitors to a planet, nah mate blast em. Just never made sense. Awful writing.

Jurisprudence 90 years after DIsco might be different, but mutiny is a very dangerous crime. She assaulted her commander, and nearly took over a ship with the power to destroy entire world populations. The penalties for that would always have to be harsh. This is the same period where just visiting Talos IV will get you executed.

 

[Refuge]

I don't think the Federation have been harsh enough. Michael is sitting pretty. Lorca is rewarded for his misdeeds. The worse you are the better.

 

[The Wormhole]

A thought that occurred to me, we know Picard ended up court-martialed over losing the Stargazer despite the fact that most of the crew survived. And, according to the novels, even though he was found not-guilty, he still had to spend a decade assigned to administrative duties before Starfleet trusted him with another command. Yet Lorca, who actually has admitted to murdering his own crew was apparently not court martialed and was almost immediately given another command, the one which apparently is the most crucial to Starfleet's war effort.

A bit disproportionate here, I think. Or are we supposed to infer that it's because of these events that Starfleet of the 24th century is so harsh towards captains who lose their ships, they're trying to avoid creating another Lorca?

 

[Eric Cheung]

I thought a court martial was standard operating procedure after the destruction of a starship, regardless of the suspicion of culpability. That was actually one of my problems with Beyond, was that the reassignment to another ship, and the then unprecedented renaming of a ship the 1701-A, all without a court martial, or even investigation or hearing, seemed a little too neat, clean, and unearned.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

A thought that occurred to me, we know Picard ended up court-martialed over losing the Stargazer despite the fact that most of the crew survived. And, according to the novels, even though he was found not-guilty, he still had to spend a decade assigned to administrative duties before Starfleet trusted him with another command. Yet Lorca, who actually has admitted to murdering his own crew was apparently not court martialed and was almost immediately given another command, the one which apparently is the most crucial to Starfleet's war effort.

A bit disproportionate here, I think. Or are we supposed to infer that it's because of these events that Starfleet of the 24th century is so harsh towards captains who lose their ships, they're trying to avoid creating another Lorca?

Different century, But, I wouldn't call it disproportionate.

Picard didn't lose the stargazer by committing mutiny, nor was his losing the Stargazer perceived as essential to starting a war effort, however erroneous, nor did Picard botch a plan to capture a HVT that day.

 

[XCV330]

I thought a court martial was standard operating procedure after the destruction of a starship, regardless of the suspicion of culpability. That was actually one of my problems with Beyond, was that the reassignment to another ship, and the then unprecedented renaming of a ship the 1701-A, all without a court martial, or even investigation or hearing, seemed a little too neat, clean, and unearned.

A court martial for losing a ship in time of war is actually not a common occurrence in the US Navy and hasn't been for a couple of hundred years, nor in the USCG. It may be different, elsewhere, and certainly was in the past. Typically there must be some suspicion of negligence or other reason from a court of inquiry. Otherwise imagine how busy JAG would have been after Pearl Harbor? That is not to say it doesn't happen, but it is rare.

 

[The Wormhole]

Different century, But, I wouldn't call it disproportionate.

Picard didn't lose the stargazer by committing mutiny, nor was his losing the Stargazer perceived as essential to starting a war effort, however erroneous, nor did Picard botch a plan to capture a HVT that day.

Read the post again. I wasn't comparing Picard's actions to Michael's, but rather Picard's to Lorca's. Picard lost his ship but most of his crew survived, yet he was court-martialed and restricted to administrative duties for a decade before being given another command. Lorca, lost his ship and murdered his own crew and rather than getting court-martialed was immediately given not just another command, but command of Starfleet's most important asset. How is that not disproportionate?

I thought a court martial was standard operating procedure after the destruction of a starship, regardless of the suspicion of culpability. That was actually one of my problems with Beyond, was that the reassignment to another ship, and the then unprecedented renaming of a ship the 1701-A, all without a court martial, or even investigation or hearing, seemed a little too neat, clean, and unearned.

To be an honest, an actual court-martial just for losing a ship seemed a bit harsh to begin with. An inquiry should be sufficient enough to determine if the CO was criminally negligent or not. Unless, like I suggested earlier Starfleet of the future does become extra harsh on Captains when they lose their ships specifically so they can prevent another Lorca from happening.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Read the post again. I wasn't comparing Picard's actions to Michael's, but rather Picard's to Lorca's. Picard lost his ship but most of his crew survived, yet he was court-martialed and restricted to administrative duties for a decade before being given another command. Lorca, lost his ship and murdered his own crew and rather than getting court-martialed was immediately given not just another command, but command of Starfleet's most important asset. How is that not disproportionate?

To be an honest, an actual court-martial just for losing a ship seemed a bit harsh to begin with. An inquiry should be sufficient enough to determine if the CO was criminally negligent or not. Unless, like I suggested earlier Starfleet of the future does become extra harsh on Captains when they lose their ships specifically so they can prevent another Lorca from happening.

Oh well in that case,

Picard just didn't sleep with the right admirals

 

[Eric Cheung]

A court martial for losing a ship in time of war is actually not a common occurrence in the US Navy and hasn't been for a couple of hundred years, nor in the USCG. It may be different, elsewhere, and certainly was in the past. Typically there must be some suspicion of negligence or other reason from a court of inquiry. Otherwise imagine how busy JAG would have been after Pearl Harbor? That is not to say it doesn't happen, but it is rare.

I was referring specifically to Starfleet's rules and regulations, though I was thinking about real-world precedent. I imagined Starfleet enjoys a post-scarcity of available labor, given the probable population explosion from colonizing and assimilating countless worlds. As Mudd said, "there are a lot more of us down there then there are of you up here." He might as well have been referring to the bureaucratic mentality...a constant in the universe.

 

[The Wormhole]

Oh well in that case,

Picard just didn't sleep with the right admirals

But he was sleeping with the prosecutor of the Stargazer court-martial.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

But he was sleeping with the prosecutor of the Stargazer court-martial.

Sleeping with a lying lawyer will get you nowhere.

Have to sleep with the politicians to get somewhere

 

[Awesome Possum]

My issue with Starfleet is primarily choosing to blame the character for the war and being upset when Lorca commutes her sentence for vital service during wartime.

Yes, I think the sentence was overly harsh but I'm not arguing she has any business in command as clearly she does not (but probably will end up with it anyway). My issue is that Starfleet clearly seems more interested in the publicity around events than the actual events themselves.

Does Starfleet know the Klingons were wanting to start the war? We know because the show took the time to set it up in the Klingon scenes. You’re judging them based on knowledge that only we the audience know. From what they can tell a Klingon ship was encountered, a XO with prior trauma associated with Klingons took it up

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Does Starfleet know the Klingons were wanting to start the war? We know because the show took the time to set it up in the Klingon scenes. You’re judging them based on knowledge that only we the audience know. From what they can tell a Klingon ship was encountered, a XO with prior trauma associated with Klingons took it up

Aint called a scapegoat for nothing.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Aint called a scapegoat for nothing.

She is in our eyes. As far as Starfleet is concerned she’s in the wrong.

 

[Charles Phipps]

She is in our eyes. As far as Starfleet is concerned she’s in the wrong.

Except, of course, the Klingons DID fire first.