SandySandfort on May 19, 2009, 01:51:55 pm
See "Name" at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_ceres

Thank you Sov. Sandfort.  Lays it right out, much appreciated.

You are more than welcome.

Permit me to tweak this "sov" thing a bit. Where you would write, "Mr. Jones is a plumber," I see Belters writing "Sv Jones is a plumber." Where there is dialog, such as, "Hey mister, you forgot your change," Belters would write, "Hey sov, you forgot your change." (But I'm happy to be called either.) I haven't decided yet whether it is "Sv." or just "Sv" (without the period). I sort of lean toward "Sv" like the neologism, "Ms" which the 2nd Wave feminist think they invented (they didn't). What do you readers think?


corwinargentus on May 19, 2009, 03:49:56 pm
I don't really have a preference anymore.  It was edumacated out of me (okay, I allowed it to be). 

I used to be a bit old fashioned when it came to abbreviations.  For example, I liked to put a period after them, and with noted exceptions where capitalization is NOT accepted as correct (lb.) I STILL like to capitalize.

I had to adjust when the post office decided it was best to leave the periods off abbreviations in addresses so as to avoid confusing the machines.  I now can finally write

"1526 4th St N" without cringing or crying out audibly.

So I really don't care.

CorwinArgentus
Goodbye, and Hello as always

cyberbard on May 20, 2009, 07:52:12 am
Yeoman Young took a slug in the forehead.  I called it.  :)

The poor, pathetic fool...

SandySandfort on May 20, 2009, 08:45:05 am
Yeoman Young took a slug in the forehead.  I called it.  :)

The poor, pathetic fool...

Just between you, me and the lamp post, the reason he got a head shot was just to end him without undo suffering. On the other hand, Emily wanted Harris to suffer for his hubris as well as his acts of wanton murder. She did not take the moral high ground in doing this, but it was understandable and excusable under the extremity of the circumstances.

P.S. A trained and motivated person, pumped up on adrenalin,  can continue to function for some time after receiving a fatal gunshot to the heart. In the legendary FBI Miami shoot out, one of the perps returned fire for a minute or so after being shot directly in the heart. I suspect Harris would lose consciousness in a few seconds, but still long enough to contemplate it.

Antistrange on May 20, 2009, 11:50:49 pm
Hi, new guy.

Have a problem with this strip, actually. The "I was following orders" line is a weak one, admittedly. Not that I think I could come up with a better defense, given the circumstances. However, it occurs to me that Ceres just let some large portion of the very same crew who had equal culpability in the murder integrate in the colony. If Yeoung is guilty of murder, then each of those crew men needed to take a shot as well. The Engineers could have sabotaged the weapons array, the navigator could have drifted starboard, even the cook could have poisoned Harris or something. Heck, Kruger should have led a mutiny the second Harris tossed a weak-cheese 'Shock and  Awe' attack on Emily's family in the first place.

What the weapons officer got was a lose lose situation. He woke up that morning and was given a war time order. He could have refused the order, of course, but given the nature of Harris would probably have expected to take a bullet then and there. Or at least a nice vacation to the brig until they got back into port, then transfer to some pleasant UW prison cell or whatever they have then. If he is held equally accountable for the act against Emily as Harris, then the rest of the crew still on Ceres must be judged as well. It's not like they left UW for some sort of principle; they were looking down the barrel of a gun. It's sort of like getting to pull the trigger on Osama bin Laden and his driver, but deciding to let bygones be bygones with the rest of Al Queda.

corwinargentus on May 21, 2009, 09:03:22 am
Welcome Antistrange -

Interesting points.  Yes, there is definitely a generous helping of "Young was in the wrong place at the wrong time" on our plates.  It could have been anybody who was given that order, and you are right, the beam that fried the Roses would not have been working had any of the support services taken action.  I think the crux of the argument will come down to the act that Young did take, which was to push the button.  A gun just sits on the table until someone picks it up, points it at something (or someone) and pulls the trigger.  Young targeted the weapon and pulled the trigger.

That does not mean I am in agreement with what happened to Young. 
CorwinArgentus
Goodbye, and Hello as always

Rocketman on May 21, 2009, 09:16:51 am
Maybe not.  But seeing it on the video you have to admit that it makes a damn effective deterrent to anyone else that is given an illegal order.

I also noted that Harris appearently forgot (or was never told) when he said "unloaded gun" was Jeff Cooper's (RIP Jeff) Rule number one for safe gun handling "All guns are always loaded at all times (unless you have personally inspected them and found them not to be)  Harris was an idiot right up to the end.  ;D
« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 09:18:46 am by Rocketman »

corwinargentus on May 21, 2009, 11:03:37 am
Harris was an idiot right up to the end.  ;D

And an obstinate butcher and killer of innocent people.  Harris got exactly what he deserved.  Young, not so much (at least not without a little further qualification and examination).
CorwinArgentus
Goodbye, and Hello as always

SandySandfort on May 21, 2009, 01:00:44 pm
Have a problem with this strip, actually. The "I was following orders" line is a weak one, admittedly. Not that I think I could come up with a better defense, given the circumstances. However, it occurs to me that Ceres just let some large portion of the very same crew who had equal culpability in the murder integrate in the colony. If Yeoung is guilty of murder, then each of those crew men needed to take a shot as well. The Engineers could have sabotaged the weapons array, the navigator could have drifted starboard, even the cook could have poisoned Harris or something. Heck, Kruger should have led a mutiny the second Harris tossed a weak-cheese 'Shock and  Awe' attack on Emily's family in the first place.

Good point, but this comes up pretty often in law. The principle is called, "proximate cause." The quick and dirty explanation is that everyone recognizes to some extent, that guilt attenuates the further it gets from the actual crime. By your logic, every UW taxpayer on Terra deserves a noodle (shot to the head). The more realistic view is that Harris and Young were the proximate cause (most direct) of all the deaths. The extent to which the cook "enabled" those murders by serving Harris and Young hot oatmeal in the morning was de minimus (inconsequential).

SandySandfort on May 21, 2009, 01:19:14 pm
Harris got exactly what he deserved.  Young, not so much (at least not without a little further qualification and examination).

To tell the truth, I felt bad about killing Young. I think it needed to be done, but it was a lot closer call than was the case with Harris.

corwinargentus on May 21, 2009, 02:13:20 pm
To tell the truth, I felt bad about killing Young.


I am the first to agree with the man who says it is bad to base decisions solely on feelings.  However, feelings generally happen for a reason.  I trust my wife's gut feelings about just about anything.  I give them weight in making decisions because her gut has proven over a very long period of time to be VERY accurate.  I always augment with good, solid evidence and reasoning, but when she has a feeling about someone or something, I listen.  If there is no time, I make rapid decisions on the best evidence, experience, and principles I can draw on.  The gut comes last, but when there is time, I do give it careful consideration.

Examine your feeling bad about killing Young.  Why do you think that is?  Give it a good going over in your mind and heart and do the best job you can to figure out where those feelings really came from.  It could be you will be surprised. 

You strike me as a person who has thought out his position and principles carefully over a good period of time.  You also seem like a person who is open to re-examining those principles - a "gut check" if you will.  That way you don't base your life on, "that's the way I've always done it."

I think it needed to be done, but it was a lot closer call than was the case with Harris.


This will help me: explain your views on why "it was a lot closer."  In your words, what is the difference between the cases of Harris and Young?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 02:27:41 pm by corwinargentus »
CorwinArgentus
Goodbye, and Hello as always

SandySandfort on May 21, 2009, 04:25:52 pm
To tell the truth, I felt bad about killing Young.


Examine your feeling bad about killing Young.  Why do you think that is?  Give it a good going over in your mind and heart and do the best job you can to figure out where those feelings really came from.  It could be you will be surprised. 


No surprise. I am a big helper-bee and an easy touch. It is more in my nature to forgive and forget (and it is easier). The older I get, the more I realize that insulating people from experiencing the consequences of their actions is not good for them nor for me. Why that is, I do not know. (Maybe my mother should have breast fed me longer.)

This will help me: explain your views on why "it was a lot closer."  In your words, what is the difference between the cases of Harris and Young?

Harris was an evil sociopath. Young was not inherently evil, simply lazy. He took the line of least resistance rather than follow a moral compass. Killing de Leon and the Roses was simply easier that refusing to do what he knew was wrong.

You know almost every child molester was molested as a child. However, only a small fraction of people who were molested as children become molesters. No everyone who is given an illegal order follows it. Everyone always has a choice. Some take the "easy" way out, then find themselves tied to a chair and shot in the head. Others just say "no." Had Young said no, he might have been shot and he almost certainly would have ended up in the brig, but he would not have been a murder. Read how a man with courage and principles stopped the My Lai massacre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

We have a choice and we can expect to be judged by the choices we make.

quadibloc on May 21, 2009, 07:42:14 pm
The quick and dirty explanation is that everyone recognizes to some extent, that guilt attenuates the further it gets from the actual crime. By your logic, every UW taxpayer on Terra deserves a noodle (shot to the head). The more realistic view is that Harris and Young were the proximate cause (most direct) of all the deaths.

Young could have refused to get his hands dirty, but he and every other member of the bridge crew had about an equal opportunity to take the actions that would have been required to actually prevent the Rose family from being killed; at least, that's the way it seems to me. This is the part of the question I am focused on; he is responsible for his actions, but what were those actions, and of what was he guilty? Yes, he lacked contrition, but that affects the question of mercy, not justice.

However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and ignorance of right and wrong isn't one either. Because Ceres is a frontier society without a government, it is operating on a different theory of crime and punishment than that with which I am familiar, the one that exists in the state societies we are all immersed in. Thus, any critique I might make might be off-base for that reason.

He was granted a quicker death than Harris', of course.

Antistrange on May 21, 2009, 08:32:03 pm
Quote
Good point, but this comes up pretty often in law. The principle is called, "proximate cause." The quick and dirty explanation is that everyone recognizes to some extent, that guilt attenuates the further it gets from the actual crime. By your logic, every UW taxpayer on Terra deserves a noodle (shot to the head). The more realistic view is that Harris and Young were the proximate cause (most direct) of all the deaths. The extent to which the cook "enabled" those murders by serving Harris and Young hot oatmeal in the morning was de minimus (inconsequential).

Still doesn't explain why the defecting crew is being given big sloppy kisses on the promenade. Even if they aren't said to be 'as guilty', (and the rest of the command staff had to have known what was coming. Bet it was logged and everything. THERE'S a trial, right there - "What did you know, and when did you know it?") they still share some blame. Even if Emily were to decide that they weren't directly at fault, I doubt she'll be hanging around the station anytime soon.

Antistrange on May 21, 2009, 08:39:34 pm
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I'm somewhat unsatisfied with that particular aspect of the strip. Emily got to choose, and Ceres 'law' sorta kinda lets her make the call. Two guys are brought to her and told they fried her family. She's handed a gun. I shouldn't have been surprised. But, If they accept the rest of the crew, I'd want someone to watch her to make sure she isn't about to 'take the initiative', as it were.

It's a webcomic - I should really get over it already.  :'(

 

anything