Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoiler)

[Mr. Crane]

In the scenes on the Narada, Kirk and Spock shoot to kill on most of the Romulan guards, only stunning one of the guards so that Spock can mindmeld with him to locate the Red Matter/Pike.

Based on every other Trek series we've seen, isn't the usual policy "shoot to stun"? That was what I always liked about Trek - they tried not to kill unless absolutely necessary...

...the one exception I can think of was in DS9, where they would shoot to kill Jem'Hadar...however, I always assumed that was because these genetically-engineered soldiers had been designed to resist stun-settings...

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Those Romulans killed billions and wanted to kill billions more... I'd set phasers to kill too.
If nothing else, just in case they wake up while I'm still trying to destroy the drill and have to fight them all over again or they somehow manage to screw my plans.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

When you kill Romulans, they stay down.

 

[msbae]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Genocidal Romulans do not deserve the stun setting, mister.

 

[Mr. Crane]

Those Romulans killed billions and wanted to kill billions more... I'd set phasers to kill too.
If nothing else, just in case they wake up while I'm still trying to destroy the drill and have to fight them all over again or they somehow manage to screw my plans.

I thought the stun setting was able to put Romulans out for a long time, based on evidence we saw of the stun's effects on Vulcans and Romulans in the other series...

Star Trek has always promoted stun first. Even when Kirk and Spock made their assault on Kor's compound on Organia in TOS, they shot the guards on stun. Kirk said they would kill "if necessary", and there, they were hopelessly outnumbered, yet still shot to stun.

I admired Star Trek's reluctance for killing - that's why I watched it as a child. It was one of the only shows where the heroes showed as much mercy as they could even to their enemies.

Genocidal Romulans do not deserve the stun setting, mister.

Don't call me "Mister", please, cause you ain't my captain.

 

[pookha]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

I thought the stun setting was able to put Romulans out for a long time, based on evidence we saw of the stun's effects on Vulcans and Romulans in the other series...

the number of series are far more advanced as far as technology goes then in terms of the tos period.
and maybe i am forgetting but i cant remember seeing a vulcan or romulan hit with the stun setting during tos itself.

and this wasnt just some quick in and out thing like with the attack on the klingon position in errand of mercy.
they knew it might take awhile to find red matter and disable it plus find pike.

add in there are some physiological differences between vulcans and romulans which ment they might have been uncertain how long stun would last i could see why they did what they did.
and as noted kirk several times in tos warned spock they might have to kill.
in this situation it may have been needed.

 

[Tuvok]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Because it is an all or nothing gambit.

Because when beaming over to a Planetkiller filled with homocidal Romulans you shoot to kill. And maybe in this version of the Federation they take the more militant approach better dead then stunned.

As in better safe then sorry.

Shrug.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Wasn't the plan to destroy the Narada anyway? A Romulan stunned on the floor is going to die when that happens.

 

[Green Shirt]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Based on every other Trek series we've seen, isn't the usual policy "shoot to stun"? That was what I always liked about Trek - they tried not to kill unless absolutely necessary...

Except for the time Riker vaporized the chick he just finished banging for no good reason other than to save some slob.

 

[LeadHead]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Two against who knows how many Romulans? Set to kill. Make sure they don't get up in twenty minutes and kill you. Also there was no instruction from Kirk, so they likely deteined the settings on their own. Kirk set to kill because they killed his father, Spock set to kill because they killed his mother and destroyed his homeworld.

 

[shapeshifter]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Nero had declared war, end of subject.

 

[EnsignRicky]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Well, when facing an opponent that has killed one's father and one's mother, one tends to forget such protocols.

 

[gimpy117]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

they got sucked into a black hole too...it's not like it made much of a difference

 

[Sci]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

In the scenes on the Narada, Kirk and Spock shoot to kill on most of the Romulan guards, only stunning one of the guards so that Spock can mindmeld with him to locate the Red Matter/Pike.

Based on every other Trek series we've seen, isn't the usual policy "shoot to stun"? That was what I always liked about Trek - they tried not to kill unless absolutely necessary...

They're two Starfleet officers on a ship filled with hundreds of hostile Romulans who have already tried to exterminate the Vulcan people and who are trying to commit multiple acts of genocide with incredibly advanced technology. If any of those Romulans wakes up from being stunned, that's one more Romulan out to kill them.

How, exactly, is that not a situation where it is absolutely necessary to kill the enemy agents Kirk and Spock are coming across?

 

[L1A1 Rocker]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

In the scenes on the Narada, Kirk and Spock shoot to kill on most of the Romulan guards, only stunning one of the guards so that Spock can mindmeld with him to locate the Red Matter/Pike.

Based on every other Trek series we've seen, isn't the usual policy "shoot to stun"? That was what I always liked about Trek - they tried not to kill unless absolutely necessary...

...the one exception I can think of was in DS9, where they would shoot to kill Jem'Hadar...however, I always assumed that was because these genetically-engineered soldiers had been designed to resist stun-settings...

They probably didn't want the them getting back up after the stun wore off and have to stun them again. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[L1A1 Rocker]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Based on every other Trek series we've seen, isn't the usual policy "shoot to stun"? That was what I always liked about Trek - they tried not to kill unless absolutely necessary...

Except for the time Riker vaporized the chick he just finished banging for no good reason other than to save some slob.

What episode was that? I don't remember it.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Based on every other Trek series we've seen, isn't the usual policy "shoot to stun"? That was what I always liked about Trek - they tried not to kill unless absolutely necessary...

Except for the time Riker vaporized the chick he just finished banging for no good reason other than to save some slob.

What episode was that? I don't remember it.

I think "the Vengeance Factor" is the episode in question.

 

[Geckothan]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Because stunning people isn't "badass" enough for generic popcorn summer movies. Everything has to be "kill kill kill" with one liners for every kill.

"I've got your gun"

 

[diftorhehsmusma]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

Because stunning people isn't "badass" enough for generic popcorn summer movies. Everything has to be "kill kill kill" with one liners for every kill.

"I've got your gun"

such cynicism! there were several whom they gunned down without so much as a second glance, let alone a tag line.

i hadn't even thought about this, altho' the OP is right, it does seem kinda out of character for Starfleet. altho' i always kinda thought that was unrealistic in TOS where they would stun people just long enough to get done what they needed and run off. talk about coincidences!
with the way that the animosity was ratcheted up in the rest of the film leading up to this part, i just figured it was an us-or-them situation. like someone said, they were at war. personally i am largely a pacifist, and of course don't approve of killing. but the one time it is an option is if you are backed into a corner, as self-defense.
that's what i feel this was. not to mention the defense of several planets.

 

[Saul]

Re: Why did Kirk/Spock have phaserssetto "kill" instead of"stun" (spoi

In the scenes on the Narada, Kirk and Spock shoot to kill on most of the Romulan guards, only stunning one of the guards so that Spock can mindmeld with him to locate the Red Matter/Pike.

Based on every other Trek series we've seen, isn't the usual policy "shoot to stun"? That was what I always liked about Trek - they tried not to kill unless absolutely necessary...

...the one exception I can think of was in DS9, where they would shoot to kill Jem'Hadar...however, I always assumed that was because these genetically-engineered soldiers had been designed to resist stun-settings...

They probably didn't want the them getting back up after the stun wore off and have to stun them again. Makes perfect sense to me.

Yeah cos stun doesn't seem to be worth shit in this movie so lets just kill them instead because they declared war. The Borg got more mercy than that.