PDA

View Full Version : How far is too far? Sheppard's Actions in MC.



Pages : [1] 2

blue-skyz
December 1st, 2007, 05:49 AM
How far is too far?

Morality is not an absolute; it is fluid; it is defined by the situation. A simple example: killing someone is not murder if they are trying to kill you. Morality can be very complex. Acting morally may be choosing the lesser of two evils or the logically best course of action for the most people. It is doing what produces the maximum benefit, irrespective of the outcome to the individual making the choice.

Is it doing what produces the maximum benefit, irrespective of the outcome to any one individual?

Can Sheppard’s actions in Miller’s Crossing be justified?

rarocks24
December 1st, 2007, 05:53 AM
Was what Sheppard did ethical or moral? That is debatable.

History is filled with events in which doing the immoral was the best course of action. Was it a personal highlight of his? Probably not. But in the end, it was his life or billions of others and the best hope of survival for two species.

doylefan22
December 1st, 2007, 06:06 AM
Sheppard gave the man a choice - the way people are writing are as if he pushed Wallace in there with the Wraith which is an (imo) incorrectly simplistic interpretation.

Sheppard is clearly uncomfortable with it as shown in the conversation at the end. When Rodney assumes he must have talked the guy into feeding himself to the Wraith, Sheppard specifically says that he didn't but that he told Wallace the score and the guy volunteered.

The man's daughter was dead, he had been arrested and was going to prison for an extremely long time (especially considering he is a vast security risk). Not only that but his actions were going to lead to Jeannie's death. I can understand that given the option to help save her he would take it rather than letting her die and spending the rest of his days alone locked away somewhere.

I think Sheppard doesn't like himself much at the end because he suggested it to Wallace not because he made the guy do it or forced a decision on him.

One of things I've always liked about Atlantis is that it is less black and white than some shows and I think this was a perfect demonstration that went just far enough to be interesting without making you dislike the character.

The_Carpenter
December 1st, 2007, 06:37 AM
To be fair we didn't see either way if Wallace agreed or not. John says he did but he could be trying to convince himself of that. Either way it was the right call not a pleasant one but with the state of affairs in Pegasus Mckay is invaluable at the moment.

Jackie
December 1st, 2007, 07:00 AM
Wallace may of been guilty of a lot of things...but Wallace also wasn't in the right frame of mind. He obviously wasn't thinking like a normal human being. He just lost his wife and now his only child was dying.

Yes, the man made major mistakes and made major screw ups that endangered Jenny but what was wallace frame of mind when sheppard "presented the situation" to him?

No one in any of their post have brought up Wallace mental state. He obviously wasn't criminally insane under US law becuase he knew what he was doing was wrong however he was desperate and depressed.

If you have someone suffering from depression you don't place a loaded gun in front of them.

Sheppard essentially did just that. I mean heck, shep put the gun in the man's hand and helped him him at his at his own head...being metaphoric here.

You have a man who just lost everything--he took a huge gamble becuase he wasn't in his frame of mind to begin with. You tell them that if he "volunteers" to die that everything can be made right. What depressed person with nothing to gain would turn that down. That's a no brainer.

Wallace was legally responsible for his actions but his mental state would play a role in his trial.

Then to top that all off:

McKay reports that in the end he bought his sister a new car after he got her in trouble. How lame?

So Wallace's life was worth a Prism to Mrs. Miller.

IMO TPTB did cross that moral line in this ep and never even brought up the victem's mental state. Just that he had nothing to live for and he could fix everything by dying.

The ep would have been more realistic of Jenny did die in the end and Wallace went to a mental facility.

jelgate
December 1st, 2007, 07:05 AM
Was it moral ant ethical to let Wallace be feed on by a Wraith? Absolutely not. That being said history shows that something we have to sacrfice morals to do what is right. The fact that Sheppard showed remorse for actions speaks highly of his character.

ToasterOnFire
December 1st, 2007, 07:06 AM
Oh, I didn't even consider that Wallace didn't volunteer and Shep forced him to do it anyway. Certainly a possibility since we never saw Wallace make his decision. Creepy.

Shan Bruce Lee
December 1st, 2007, 07:06 AM
I liked what Sheppard did. Weather Wallace was in the right state of mind or not doesn't matter. He wasn't so crazy that he cuoldn't control his actions. He even said that when he said he knew he was gonna go to jail for kidnapping and he intentionally put McKay's sister's life in danger. All Sheppard did was said there's a way for you to accept your punishment and make things right at the same time.

Shan Bruce Lee
December 1st, 2007, 07:08 AM
Oh, I didn't even consider that Wallace didn't volunteer and Shep forced him to do it anyway. Certainly a possibility since we never saw Wallace make his decision. Creepy.

That's a stretch. There's nothing to support that Wallace was forced to do anything he didn't want to do. I mean if Shep was just gonna force him then why bother showing him the pictures and everything.

Jackie
December 1st, 2007, 07:12 AM
Was it moral ant ethical to let Wallace be feed on by a Wraith? Absolutely not. That being said history shows that something we have to sacrfice morals to do what is right. The fact that Sheppard showed remorse for actions speaks highly of his character.


But was Wallace in the right frame of mind to make that decision? Was Wallace dying himself? Was Wallace not affected by any trauma? Was Wallace able to get council and have access to representation? Did Wallace understand the fact that his death would be cruel and painful? Not like he was just put sleep their?

Did Wallace's punishment fit his crime--since Jenny does live?

How can you say that history shows examples of sacrifice morals to do what's right? Give me an example of that statement becuase morals and "right" are the same thing in most cases.

doylefan22
December 1st, 2007, 07:32 AM
Wallace may of been guilty of a lot of things...but Wallace also wasn't in the right frame of mind. He obviously wasn't thinking like a normal human being. He just lost his wife and now his only child was dying.

No, by that point she was dead and he was facing what would possibly be the rest of his life in a top security prison, likely isolated for the security risk he posed not mention he'd basically put a death sentence on an innocent woman. I'd say in the end he made the noble choice when he considered what he actually had to live for...

Jumper_One
December 1st, 2007, 07:32 AM
That's a stretch. There's nothing to support that Wallace was forced to do anything he didn't want to do. I mean if Shep was just gonna force him then why bother showing him the pictures and everything.

I agree, we have no proof Wallace was forced to let Todd feed on him. overall it's debatable of course but since we don't know what really happened in that room...

technoextreme
December 1st, 2007, 07:46 AM
Did Wallace's punishment fit his crime--since Jenny does live?

Jenny died.

Yes, the man made major mistakes and made major screw ups that endangered Jenny but what was wallace frame of mind when sheppard "presented the situation" to him?
Actually, if we were to take the law to the logical conclusion he murdered his daughter.

Dark Soul
December 1st, 2007, 07:48 AM
That's a stretch. There's nothing to support that Wallace was forced to do anything he didn't want to do. I mean if Shep was just gonna force him then why bother showing him the pictures and everything.
At first I didn't realize what they were doing. Then I saw the pictures and realized he was trying to make Wallace feel guilty for what he had done.
Wallace had nothing to live for. So he sacraficed his life for a good cause. And I would rather have him die than have McKay die.

P2J
December 1st, 2007, 07:49 AM
Oh, I didn't even consider that Wallace didn't volunteer and Shep forced him to do it anyway. Certainly a possibility since we never saw Wallace make his decision. Creepy.

might play later in the season or next year. ( the fallout)

bluealien
December 1st, 2007, 07:51 AM
Wallace may of been guilty of a lot of things...but Wallace also wasn't in the right frame of mind. He obviously wasn't thinking like a normal human being. He just lost his wife and now his only child was dying.

Yes, the man made major mistakes and made major screw ups that endangered Jenny but what was wallace frame of mind when sheppard "presented the situation" to him?

No one in any of their post have brought up Wallace mental state. He obviously wasn't criminally insane under US law becuase he knew what he was doing was wrong however he was desperate and depressed.

If you have someone suffering from depression you don't place a loaded gun in front of them.

Sheppard essentially did just that. I mean heck, shep put the gun in the man's hand and helped him him at his at his own head...being metaphoric here.

You have a man who just lost everything--he took a huge gamble becuase he wasn't in his frame of mind to begin with. You tell them that if he "volunteers" to die that everything can be made right. What depressed person with nothing to gain would turn that down. That's a no brainer.

Wallace was legally responsible for his actions but his mental state would play a role in his trial.

Then to top that all off:

McKay reports that in the end he bought his sister a new car after he got her in trouble. How lame?

So Wallace's life was worth a Prism to Mrs. Miller.

IMO TPTB did cross that moral line in this ep and never even brought up the victem's mental state. Just that he had nothing to live for and he could fix everything by dying.

The ep would have been more realistic of Jenny did die in the end and Wallace went to a mental facility.

I agree with everything you said. Shep passed a moral line here and as usual we can wrap it up in cotten wool and give all the reasons why he did it. But at the end of the day he went into that room with the intention of talking Wallace into killing himself. Its irrelevant that Wallace was going to spend the rest of his life in prison or whatever punishment he was going to get... Sheppard wanted him dead so that he could feed him to the Wraith... to solve his problem ie Rodney sacrificing himself. There was no threat to the Pegasus Galaxy here or to Earth.. this was about John wanting to save Rodney's life and crossing the line to do so. What made him any different to Wallace. Wallace did what he did to save his daughter. He would also go to any lenghts to save his family.. but Rodney refused to try and help her and tries to escape and therefore forces his hand. Wallace was deparate and yes he crossed a moral line as well when he injected Jeannie... but in the end he paid the ultimate price.. But Sheppard never gets to pay for his actions... he coherced someone into killing themselves and very conveniently Wallace obliged.. or as I said in the ep thread.. did he.. why is it so difficult to believe that Sheppard didnt feed him to the Wraith anyway.. after watching tonights ep I'm not so sure he wouldn't be capable of doing this.

So the moral of the story was, if someone else besides John or the team take drastic measures to save a loved one..then they are the bad guys and deserve to be fed to the Wraith or some equablyl terrible punishment.. but if you are John Sheppard then you can stoop to any level you like once it's in the name of trying to save a friend.

So this is an ep I will never watch again and it has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I think what may have salvaged it a little for me if John had of admitted in his quarters that what he did was wrong, but that he did it for Rodney and would have to live with it. At least Wallace admitted that what he did was wrong and was willing to take responsibitly for his actions.. but John shirked all responsibility.

kymeric
December 1st, 2007, 07:55 AM
Heh, that was a pretty dark ending. I would have fed the guy to the wraith, maybe even some prisoners, but im a really #$%^ed up dood. I like that its ambigious if it was forced or not, either way the guys dead because of sheppard. Remember in Siege pt1 when he gunned down an unarmed prisoner? Same thing, u dont want pussies in the military, remember everyone one of them is a trained killer by profession. They SHOULD do things like this and leave it to the civs and the scientists to HUG a problem to death.

doylefan22
December 1st, 2007, 08:05 AM
Its irrelevant that Wallace was going to spend the rest of his life in prison or whatever punishment he was going to get...

I wouldn't say it is irrelevant at all...


Sheppard wanted him dead so that he could feed him to the Wraith... to solve his problem ie Rodney sacrificing himself. There was no threat to the Pegasus Galaxy here or to Earth.. this was about John wanting to save Rodney's life and crossing the line to do so.

Actually I see it as John doing exactly what he's paid and trained to do - making tough choices for the best of others. It is in no one's interests to lose Rodney and/or Jeannie. Wallace on the other hand is now useless (harsh but true). As a military man John is used to weighing up the value of lives and he made the decision that with Wallace's circumstances it was worth suggesting the action to save the lives of those infinitely more valuable. Not nice but that's life, that's the military and that's the price of command.


So the moral of the story was, if someone else besides John or the team take drastic measures to save a loved one..then they are the bad guys and deserve to be fed to the Wraith or some equablyl terrible punishment...

No. If there was a moral of the story (and why should there be to be honest) it would be to realise that not everything is so black and white as to be labelled in 'right' or 'wrong'. On the face of it Wallace's actions seemed wrong but then when you discovered his reasoning you can question how wrong they really are. In the end I see his sacrificing himself as part redemption part suicide to be honest but from what we know that was his choice.

rarocks24
December 1st, 2007, 08:36 AM
But was Wallace in the right frame of mind to make that decision? Was Wallace dying himself? Was Wallace not affected by any trauma? Was Wallace able to get council and have access to representation? Did Wallace understand the fact that his death would be cruel and painful? Not like he was just put sleep their?

Did Wallace's punishment fit his crime--since Jenny does live?

How can you say that history shows examples of sacrifice morals to do what's right? Give me an example of that statement becuase morals and "right" are the same thing in most cases.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Copernicus
December 1st, 2007, 08:45 AM
I haven't seen the episode yet, as it airs on Mondays in Canada, but I do have a general comment about this.

Isn't moral ambiguity more realistic than clear cut answers? That is to say, is it really realistic that all of the characters in any given TV show, even a typically feel-good one like Atlantis, will have a flawless moral compass that they will always heed?

I've always preferred shades of grey.

bluealien
December 1st, 2007, 09:53 AM
I wouldn't say it is irrelevant at all...
Why would it be relevant. Who gives Sheppard the right to chose what punishment Wallace should have. Wallace had killed no one when Sheppard decided to talk him into killing himself. Sheppard really didnt care less about Wallace or what his reasons were for doing what he did. He didnt care that Wallace was only trying to save his daughter. All he was focused on was getting him to sacrifice himself so it would solve his problem.. saving someone whom he cared about.




Actually I see it as John doing exactly what he's paid and trained to do - making tough choices for the best of others. It is in no one's interests to lose Rodney and/or Jeannie. Wallace on the other hand is now useless (harsh but true). As a military man John is used to weighing up the value of lives and he made the decision that with Wallace's circumstances it was worth suggesting the action to save the lives of those infinitely more valuable. Not nice but that's life, that's the military and that's the price of command.

No ones life is useless. So John is now Judge and jury and should make decisons on who lives and who dies. John is a soldier and that means defending his team and his country.. not murdering people or cohersing anyone into killing themself. What John did had nothing to do with honour or defending his team. It was a personal decision to save a friend. So why is Johns decision to coherce someone into killing himself acceptable and yet Wallace's decision to kidnap Rodney and Jeannie in order to save his daughter unacceptable. Rodneys life is only important to Sheppard. In the scheme of things Rodney can easily be replaced by another scientist.. even his sister was more intelligent than him.. so I'm sure there are loads of other scientists out there who could do what Rodney does. So John wasn't doing anything that was going to make a huge impact on anything, he was trying to save his friend, the same way Wallace was trying to save his daughter. But Sheppard treated Wallace with contempt and coldness, and his only aim was to get him to sacrifice himself so Rodney could be saved. Not a very heroic action by Sheppard at all.




No. If there was a moral of the story (and why should there be to be honest) it would be to realise that not everything is so black and white as to be labelled in 'right' or 'wrong'.

Both men were wrong but yet one was treated with contempt and like he deserved what happened to him while the other walks away unaccountable for his actions.


On the face of it Wallace's actions seemed wrong but then when you discovered his reasoning you can question how wrong they really are.

Not sure what you are saying here... no one is disputing that what Wallace did was wrong..




so sacrificing himself as part redemption part suicide to be honest but from what we know that was his choice.
Shep was just as much part of that "choice" as Wallace, and to me that means he is just as responsible.



This is not about right or wrong, because both Wallace and Sheppard were both right and wrong in a way. Its about accepting one persons actions as doing the right thing.. having no choice or whatever way you want to put it ..


I've already agreed with you that they were both wrong but I'm not sure if I would agree that they were both right as well. I agree it is about accepting one actions and Wallace did.. he took responsibility for his actions and was willing to accept the consequences.. but Sheppard was not because he did not accept any responsibility. He took the easy option of saying that it was Wallace's choice .. like hell it was.. if you put a loaded gun in front of an emotionally unstable person and coax them to use it .. does that absolve you of all responsibility if they actually go ahead and follow your suggestion.

kymeric
December 1st, 2007, 10:21 AM
I think that everyone who disagrees with his action is kinda a wuss, and i wouldnt want anyone that soft in my goverment or military because it would get us all killed or worse because they couldnt make the hard decisions. Sometimes you have to give up your soul to do whats needed. It takes a real man to make the hard choice while sissies sit back behind their laws and morals hoping someone else will make the decision for them.

Shiro
December 1st, 2007, 10:26 AM
I think that everyone who disagrees with his action is kinda a wuss, and i wouldnt want anyone that soft in my goverment or military because it would get us all killed or worse because they couldnt make the hard decisions. Sometimes you have to give up your soul to do whats needed. It takes a real man to make the hard choice while sissies sit back behind their laws and morals hoping someone else will make the decision for them.
I thought it was pretty dark too.

I'm actually finding it interesting how TV has shifted slightly in the past couple of years to include darker moments like this. There were a couple of examples of House doing some morally questionable things in season 3 of House to get the result he wants.

It's a daring bit of writing to pull it off properly. I think they just need to be a bit more careful that it doesn't backfire. Higher profile shows may illicit unwantes reactions from this kind of immoral action.

I think it probably was a wrong thing to do, but then he didn't have much choice. Sheppard, as a character, has had to deal with that kind of dreadful call in the past and it's what has helped to define him up to this point.

Devine27
December 1st, 2007, 10:29 AM
Partial post from other thread.......

I found Wallace to be a very selfish and insensitive man. Because of his ignorance, he stole what precious little time his daughter had left. He assumed that he could find the answer and was very wrong and then compounded his wrongful actions by adding kidnapping and attempted murder to his list of deeds. Sure his daughter was dying and he wanted to do everything within his power to save her (for that, he had my sympathy), but when he began to put others lives in danger with the HOPE that they might save hers is when he drew the line. Wallace injecting Jeannie with Nanites is like me shooting someone in the head and saying that a doctor, given enough time and new technology, could save that person if they tried hard enough. Is it possible?? Sure. But is it likely? Well, that can depend on a thousand things and all it takes is for one wrong turn for things to go horribly wrong, which is exactly what happened to his daughter.

I’ve known people who have died from different forms of cancer, some general acquaintances, some very close and personal loved ones, and though it hurt and still hurts to have lost them I would never have put someone else’s life at risk to save theirs.

Wallace was personally responsible for Jeannie’s life. He kidnapped her, he injected her with Nanites and if it required his life to save hers AND he was willing to give his life, then so be it.

As for John, his actions did push a limit, but only because he helped a man in a low emotional mind set commit suicide. When you use those terms, his actions do seem shocking, but when you consider that the person involved created the situation, it gives you pause. If you think back to my analogy above, if I shot someone to save another, but it didn’t work and I later found out that I could save the person that I had harmed by sacrificing myself….. Well, that’s a very slippery slope. I’m not saying his actions were completely right, nor am I saying they were completely wrong. You could see in John’s face that he was also in internal conflict from his actions. He, himself, didn’t kill Wallace, but he didn’t do anything to prevent it. Nor did he tell Wallace to kill himself, but he did provide him with all of the facts. I guess John says it best when he mentions that he merely presented a situation or opportunity.

Kamin
December 1st, 2007, 10:37 AM
To quote an old saying ala Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"

McKay pretty much did it when he talked the wraith into helping him finish the code by telling him it could potentially be a stepping stone to finishing the code to shut down the rest of the replicators. Hence finishing the code to save Jenie could lead to the complete shutdown of all the replicators at the price of the wraith's pride and hatred of being held captive.

Sheppard did abuse and manipulate wallace into sacraficing his own life while he was still very grief stricken. But he didn't force him to do it. It was still wallace's choice. To me that is crossing a huge moral line, BUT he did it to save Jenie AND the lives of the human's in the pegasus gallaxy.

In the context of the situation I believe John was justified. They needed the wraith to finish the work. Everyone will have to decide for themself's.


This episode represents a huge grey area.
Was it wrong of John to do what he did? Yes.
Was it necessary so the work could be completed so that Jenie and potentially the rest of the human's could live? Yes


Kamin

TJuk
December 1st, 2007, 10:44 AM
I agree with everything you said. Shep passed a moral line here and as usual we can wrap it up in cotten wool and give all the reasons why he did it. But at the end of the day he went into that room with the intention of talking Wallace into killing himself. Its irrelevant that Wallace was going to spend the rest of his life in prison or whatever punishment he was going to get... Sheppard wanted him dead so that he could feed him to the Wraith... to solve his problem ie Rodney sacrificing himself. There was no threat to the Pegasus Galaxy here or to Earth.. this was about John wanting to save Rodney's life and crossing the line to do so. What made him any different to Wallace. Wallace did what he did to save his daughter. He would also go to any lenghts to save his family.. but Rodney refused to try and help her and tries to escape and therefore forces his hand. Wallace was deparate and yes he crossed a moral line as well when he injected Jeannie... but in the end he paid the ultimate price.. But Sheppard never gets to pay for his actions... he coherced someone into killing themselves and very conveniently Wallace obliged.. or as I said in the ep thread.. did he.. why is it so difficult to believe that Sheppard didnt feed him to the Wraith anyway.. after watching tonights ep I'm not so sure he wouldn't be capable of doing this.

So the moral of the story was, if someone else besides John or the team take drastic measures to save a loved one..then they are the bad guys and deserve to be fed to the Wraith or some equablyl terrible punishment.. but if you are John Sheppard then you can stoop to any level you like once it's in the name of trying to save a friend.

So this is an ep I will never watch again and it has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I think what may have salvaged it a little for me if John had of admitted in his quarters that what he did was wrong, but that he did it for Rodney and would have to live with it. At least Wallace admitted that what he did was wrong and was willing to take responsibitly for his actions.. but John shirked all responsibility.

I agree, two wrongs do not make a right.

Was Wallace wrong? Yes, morally and ethically. He had his motivations, we can intellectually understand them doesn't make him right, or evil for that matter.

Was Sheppard wrong? Yes, morally and ethically, again we can understand them but does that make them any less wrong? Hell freakin no.

This is the problem we had with the retro-virus, we're crossing a very fine line that is turning the people who are supposed to be the good guys into the bad. Especially when there is no consequences for their actions.

John played god, he traded one life for another based on his personal preferences. And the flippant way (written and portrayed) that he carried out this act left me cold. Who is to say Wallaces life is more valuable then Jeanie's? These morally wrong (no matter the motivation) actions makes our heroes unlikable. Sheppard is supposed to be the good guy, he's supposed to always try and be above these things. And if he does do them, then we should damn well have some serious consequences.

For starters, I cant see Landry allowing a man to essentially be murderer, so why wasn't Sheppard arrested and the Wraith killed or at least locked up? Whether Wallace went willingly or not, he would not have had the option. If he was suicidal, you wouldn't give him a gun, noose or access to a high roof. Its called assisted suicide and in the west, that usually has you on trail for murder or manslaughter. Sheppard wont go on trail or face consquences legally for what he did, thats a cover-up.

This isn't the first time Sheppard has committed murder (the slaughter of innocent Wraith in 'Misbegotten' for one), in fact he is a mass murderer regardless of whether those actions saved the lives of his friends or not.

bluealien
December 1st, 2007, 10:46 AM
To quote an old saying ala Spock "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"

McKay pretty much did it when he talked the wraith into helping him finish the code by telling him it could potentially be a stepping stone to finishing the code to shut down the rest of the replicators. Hence finishing the code to save Jenie could lead to the complete shutdown of all the replicators at the price of the wraith's pride and hatred of being held captive.

Sheppard did abuse and manipulate wallace into sacraficing his own life while he was still very grief stricken. But he didn't force him to do it. It was still wallace's choice. To me that is crossing a huge moral line, BUT he did it to save Jenie AND the lives of the human's in the pegasus gallaxy.

In the context of the situation I believe John was justified. They needed the wraith to finish the work. Everyone will have to decide for themself's.


This episode represents a huge grey area.
Was it wrong of John to do what he did? Yes.
Was it necessary so the work could be completed so that Jenie and potentially the rest of the human's could live? Yes


Kamin

The one big flaw there is that only a short time earlier Rodney refused any help at all from the Wraith.. He was willing to put the whole of mankind at risk just because he didn't want to ask him for help... Now by this stage the Wraith had almost died of starvation and no one seemed too bothered that Rodney was not trying to convince the Wraith to help.
John didnt seem to be wondering at all about how to sustain the Wraith when the whole of mankind was at risk from the Replicators... If this had been the scenario and John had tried to talk Wallace or whoever into sacrificing himself then this I could have accepted... but it was not to save the whole of mankind..... it was just to save ONE man. John didnt want Rodney to sacrifice himself so he decided to get someone else to take his place .. its as simple as that. There was no noble reason behind it .. and if Earth was at stake why is Rodney being as ass and not letting the Wraith help him. Why is John letting Todd starve to death when so much rests on his shoulders.!!

rpmguitar
December 1st, 2007, 10:51 AM
while i can understand why people are upset with shep, i'm glad he did what he did and i would have done the same thing. this was a great character moment for shep as it re-emphasizes that he will go against the grain to protect the people that are important to him (just like he supposedly broke the rules to go back for people previously).

freetoken
December 1st, 2007, 10:56 AM
Encouraging someone (Wallace) who is likely to be suicidally depressed into a situation where they can act out their regrets would be considered immoral in most societies.

Furthermore, wraith feeding is a traumatic experience, so Shep not only executed a death sentence he led the guy to be tortured.

Now, given Wallace likely would have been convicted of 2nd degree murder (if McKay's sister died) and kidnapping, in some societies he could have gotten the death penalty from a court. Nevertheless, the crimes were committed in Canada, and would not have been death-penalty worthy.

So not only did Shep encourage an immoral act and contribute to torture, he overrode the laws of a sovereign nation.

Overall what a terrible thing for the TPTB to do with their lead character.

elbo
December 1st, 2007, 10:58 AM
It is very interesting what Sheppard did at the end, comming from his character. I would expected like some IOA/NID suit to come with something like this, not just for saving Jeannie but the Wraith who is apparently a valuable asset giving his programming knowledge and the replicator threat.

But don't feel too surprised to see (we didn't saw actualy, TPTB chickens) a 'execution' in a sci-fi; you know very well that there are still countries with primitive ideologies based on basic instincts who allow death sentences, even with attendence and popcorn.

norak1
December 1st, 2007, 11:01 AM
wow its hot in here!
my grain of sand in this discussion is:
leave it to the civs and the scientists to HUG a problem to death.

You guys are like the IOA!!This is scifi children!
Sheppard is a warrior! like Ronon or Teyla or any SGC soldier he has only the good of his people first and foremost to consider.

Some dude goes nuts and start messing around with nanites and effectively threatens to significantly cripple the Atlantis expedition, by killing McKay and his equally bigbrained sister.
Sheppard eliminated him, just as any soldier would... BUT with an added bonus: He gave him a choice. (also.... if it doesn't say on the script: Sheppard forced crazy killer to be fed on wraith, it didn't happen). Don't mix things up so much that you can't tell what happen even in fiction LOL!!

the SGC have Military protection for their scientists.
NOT POLICE FORCE, MILITARY FORCE!!:S

If the SGC had to consider the feelings and circumstances of every traitor, evil warlord, possessed poor dawg, alien, transplanted human or humanoid, that tries to destroy earth or atlantis... the series would never made it to pilot ...a decade ago. By the way... how come Nobody says mip when it's and anonymous alien firing from the bushes that gets wasted!!!:cool: :jack_new_anime25:

Saying he shouldn't have talk Wallace into sacrificing himself to the wraith because of morality of all things... the poor man was emotional imbalance caused by his personal tragedy or thyroid glands problem or a bloody brain tumor blah blah blah ... common!!


Actually I see it as John doing exactly what he's paid and trained to do - making tough choices for the best of others. It is in no one's interests to lose Rodney and/or Jeannie. Wallace on the other hand is now useless (harsh but true). As a military man John is used to weighing up the value of lives and he made the decision that with Wallace's circumstances it was worth suggesting the action to save the lives of those infinitely more valuable. Not nice but that's life, that's the military and that's the price of command.

:jack_new15:
So if you want black and white here
WALLACE made a BIG mistake and kept on making them = badguy
SHEPPARD stopped bad guy, even making the sap kidnaper/killer look like a hero = goodguy

freetoken
December 1st, 2007, 11:01 AM
This isn't the first time Sheppard has committed murder (the slaughter of innocent Wraith in 'Misbegotten' for one), in fact he is a mass murderer regardless of whether those actions saved the lives of his friends or not.

TPTB appear to be conflicted on wanting to make Sheppard into a darker character. They offer up episodes like this one but don't follow through (in making Sheppard reliably ruthless.)

I think TPTB should go the whole way and turn the character into a darker figure. It would make for more interesting stories, but it may be something a large chunk of the fandom could not handle.

Kamin
December 1st, 2007, 11:08 AM
The one big flaw there is that only a short time earlier Rodney refused any help at all from the Wraith.. He was willing to put the whole of mankind at risk just because he didn't want to ask him for help... Now by this stage the Wraith had almost died of starvation and no one seemed too bothered that Rodney was not trying to convince the Wraith to help.

At the beginning of the ep Rodney said the wraith wouldn't help so he was trying to do it himself. And it wasn't the whole of mankind. It was the Human's in pegasus. The replicator's wern't a threat to the Milkyway just yet.



John didnt seem to be wondering at all about how to sustain the Wraith when the whole of mankind was at risk from the Replicators... If this had been the scenario and John had tried to talk Wallace or whoever into sacrificing himself then this I could have accepted... but it was not to save the whole of mankind..... it was just to save ONE man. John didnt want Rodney to sacrifice himself so he decided to get someone else to take his place .. its as simple as that. There was no noble reason behind it .. and if Earth was at stake why is Rodney being as ass and not letting the Wraith help him. Why is John letting Todd starve to death when so much rests on his shoulders.!!

It wasn't just to keep Rodney from sacraficing himself. It was to save Jeanie, Rodney, and potentially all the human's in Pegasus. As of yet the Milkyway isn't a target by the replicators. They are to busy wiping out the Human's and the Wraith in Pegasus. Rodney never refused the help of the wraith. The wraith refused to help Rodney.

Kamin

Myn McGeek, Third Sentinel
December 1st, 2007, 11:11 AM
The one big flaw there is that only a short time earlier Rodney refused any help at all from the Wraith.. He was willing to put the whole of mankind at risk just because he didn't want to ask him for help... Now by this stage the Wraith had almost died of starvation and no one seemed too bothered that Rodney was not trying to convince the Wraith to help.
John didnt seem to be wondering at all about how to sustain the Wraith when the whole of mankind was at risk from the Replicators... If this had been the scenario and John had tried to talk Wallace or whoever into sacrificing himself then this I could have accepted... but it was not to save the whole of mankind..... it was just to save ONE man. John didnt want Rodney to sacrifice himself so he decided to get someone else to take his place .. its as simple as that. There was no noble reason behind it .. and if Earth was at stake why is Rodney being as ass and not letting the Wraith help him. Why is John letting Todd starve to death when so much rests on his shoulders.!!
OK, one more post before my brain explodes from too much thinking... (inside joke for those who know anything about me)

I'm not sure any of us can say what exactly Shep was thinking. Maybe he was only thinking about Rodney, maybe he was thinking about how they needed that Wraith to possibly help save all the humans in the PG and Rodney. We can't really say for sure, can we? We can only watch his actions and expressions and make guesses and conclusions for ourselves. But we can't read Shep's mind.

TJuk
December 1st, 2007, 11:11 AM
TPTB appear to be conflicted on wanting to make Sheppard into a darker character. They offer up episodes like this one but don't follow through (in making Sheppard reliably ruthless.)

I think TPTB should go the whole way and turn the character into a darker figure. It would make for more interesting stories, but it may be something a large chunk of the fandom could not handle.

Not to mention repeated actions like this are liable to make any sane caring person mentally unhinged and potentially dangerous all round. But then you change your lead/hero into the bad guy. To me he is the bad guy. Rodney at least commits terrible acts because he's blinded by ego and arrogance (blowing up half a solar systems). Sheppard commits acts of mass murderer knowingly and 'pre-meditated' (he had the bomb on the planet in 'Misbegotten' just incase...and was willing to use it even against innocent humans).

If John's a good guy, he has the deaths of hundreds of innocent lives on his conscience, thats a lot of blood on his hands. Think of the nazi's, many of the ones who committed the worst attrocities were loving family men who believed they were doing the best for their friends and family. Didn't make them any less evil and twisted, and John's want to save Rodney or Jeanies life was nothing different to this. It solely depends on what side of the fence you are on.

Any normal person of conscience would be suffering terrible conseqeneces mentally at least. So he would be heading for a nervous breakdown, or he would be becoming cold and ruthless to the point of crossing the line from good guy, to very bad.

Of course I dont see them having the guts to do either of those things. Its fluffy, brainless scifi where morals are ignored if its the easiest way to tie up the plot, rapists are funny and if your not one of the 'team' then who gives a crap if you die in various horrible ways?

At the end of the day, it makes it very hard to 'care' about a character.

Detox
December 1st, 2007, 11:13 AM
That's a stretch. There's nothing to support that Wallace was forced to do anything he didn't want to do. I mean if Shep was just gonna force him then why bother showing him the pictures and everything.

It's not a stretch at all. I think the writers made it so that it's unclear how Wallace ultimately got fed on. The way Sheppard said he presented the situation to Wallace, made it seem like there's a deeper and darker side to it. The writers did say that there would be a dark moral twist in this episode, and I think that's it.

Wallace could've seen the picture, and still decide not to sacrifice himself, and so Sheppard had to "present" me with the full situation.

bound
December 1st, 2007, 11:14 AM
It wasn't just to keep Rodney from sacraficing himself. It was to save Jeanie, Rodney, and potentially all the human's in Pegasus. As of yet the Milkyway isn't a target by the replicators. They are to busy wiping out the Human's and the Wraith in Pegasus. Rodney never refused the help of the wraith. The wraith refused to help Rodney.

Kamin

If Rodney had done it the same amount of people would have been saved...

s09119
December 1st, 2007, 11:16 AM
I agree, two wrongs do not make a right.

Was Wallace wrong? Yes, morally and ethically. He had his motivations, we can intellectually understand them doesn't make him right, or evil for that matter.

Was Sheppard wrong? Yes, morally and ethically, again we can understand them but does that make them any less wrong? Hell freakin no.

This is the problem we had with the retro-virus, we're crossing a very fine line that is turning the people who are supposed to be the good guys into the bad. Especially when there is no consequences for their actions.

John played god, he traded one life for another based on his personal preferences. And the flippant way (written and portrayed) that he carried out this act left me cold. Who is to say Wallaces life is more valuable then Jeanie's? These morally wrong (no matter the motivation) actions makes our heroes unlikable. Sheppard is supposed to be the good guy, he's supposed to always try and be above these things. And if he does do them, then we should damn well have some serious consequences.

For starters, I cant see Landry allowing a man to essentially be murderer, so why wasn't Sheppard arrested and the Wraith killed or at least locked up? Whether Wallace went willingly or not, he would not have had the option. If he was suicidal, you wouldn't give him a gun, noose or access to a high roof. Its called assisted suicide and in the west, that usually has you on trail for murder or manslaughter. Sheppard wont go on trail or face consquences legally for what he did, thats a cover-up.

This isn't the first time Sheppard has committed murder (the slaughter of innocent Wraith in 'Misbegotten' for one), in fact he is a mass murderer regardless of whether those actions saved the lives of his friends or not.

So many great generals are also mass murderers then, because they prioritized military needs over civilian casualties? What about those that authorized the bombings of Nazi Germany in WWII, they killed thousands of civilians in order to save the world from Axis tyranny.

Kamin
December 1st, 2007, 11:17 AM
If Rodney had done it the same amount of people would have been saved...

True, but then the ratings for the show would drop if Rodney was gone :)


And hypothetically, with Rodney gone from Atlantis, I think more people would die since his genious has save a lot of live's and potentially even more in the future if he remain's alive.

ToasterOnFire
December 1st, 2007, 11:17 AM
I think TPTB should go the whole way and turn the character into a darker figure. It would make for more interesting stories, but it may be something a large chunk of the fandom could not handle.
It's a fine line indeed. Too dark and/or ruthless and the audience stops caring about the character (like TJuk stated) or even starts actively rooting for their demotion/removal/death. I know I felt that way with Starbuck after her recent extremely selfish and bratty behavior. Used to love her, couldn't stand her in s3.5.

norak1
December 1st, 2007, 11:18 AM
It is very interesting what Sheppard did at the end, coming from his character. I would expected like some IOA/NID suit to come with something like this..
:sheppard:
Yeah, it's cool that they make him dark sometimes, you can't be thinking cutecottoncandyboytoy = commander of the most dangerous outpost in the history of earth.

It would Kill his hotness too.:vala:

TJuk
December 1st, 2007, 11:23 AM
So many great generals are also mass murderers then, because they prioritized military needs over civilian casualties? What about those that authorized the bombings of Nazi Germany in WWII, they killed thousands of civilians in order to save the world from Axis tyranny.

Yep, technically from a moral stand point those generals are indeed responsible for the death of the civilians. But what sets them apart is the fact the civilians were not the targets, they were the terrible cost of war and collateral damage. You could argue by your point then, thats Sheppard is responsible for every death to the wraith that were woken up by his actions in 'Rising'.

Those 'generals' also didn't personally know the people they were killing and didn't encourage suicide in a manner that would also mean torture. Not to mention the world was at war and it was kill or be killed. Sheppard's life was not on the line, Jeanies was. It wasn't 'self defence' in any fashion. If Jeanie had done it, that could have been considered self defence. She would also be considered to be selfish and morally wrong not because it was trading a life for a life, but because she would be murdering someone to save her own.

Sheppard not only knew the person he was going to kill, but he calculated what and how he was going to 'help' the man kill himself and also knew the manner in which he would die. Did Wallace know the horrible death he was going to? I think not.

Shan Bruce Lee
December 1st, 2007, 11:27 AM
Sheppard not only knew the person he was going to kill, but he calculated what and how he was going to 'help' the man kill himself and also knew the manner in which he would die. Did Wallace know the horrible death he was going to? I think not.

So you're saying that Jeanie is the one who deserved to die? There's no other option here. Either Wallace or Jeanie was going to die and there was no way around that. All Shep did was nudge Wallace in the direction of doing the right thing.

Avenger
December 1st, 2007, 11:32 AM
It falls into a gray area, and it will always be a gray area. Everyone will look at the situation and make up their mind on whether what Sheppard did was right or wrong because the line that separates right and wrong varies from individual to individual and from situation to situation.

TJuk
December 1st, 2007, 11:38 AM
So you're saying that Jeanie is the one who deserved to die? There's no other option here. Either Wallace or Jeanie was going to die and there was no way around that. All Shep did was nudge Wallace in the direction of doing the right thing.

Jeanie didn't deserve to die, no but thats irrelavant. Wallace wasn't going to die, he was going to prison. As pointed out the act was commited in Canada and they dont have the death penalty. Not to mention there were other ways to 'save' jeanie however remote. And as seen previously, 'Todd' didn't have to kill Wallace, just drain him enough to regain his strength. And Sheppard CHOSE Wallace as the victim to feed to the Wraith.

But thats a completely seperate issue. The issue is Sheppard murdering someone, without consquence, regardless of the 'motivation' or whose life was saved. In the real world, he would be court martialed for murder because he knowingly took Wallace into the lab to be fed upon by the Wraith, there was no other reason for Wallace to be in there and out of his cell.

andromeda_dan
December 1st, 2007, 11:38 AM
This Sheppard-Wallace scene maybe truly the darkest scenes in the SG franchise. The question that needs to be ask in this scene is, does the means justified the end?

Shan Bruce Lee
December 1st, 2007, 11:42 AM
This Sheppard-Wallace scene maybe truly the darkest scenes in the SG franchise. The question that needs to be ask in this scene is, does the means justified the end?

Yes.

TJuk
December 1st, 2007, 11:43 AM
This Sheppard-Wallace scene maybe truly the darkest scenes in the SG franchise. The question that needs to be ask in this scene is, does the means justified the end?

Nope.

s09119
December 1st, 2007, 11:45 AM
This Sheppard-Wallace scene maybe truly the darkest scenes in the SG franchise. The question that needs to be ask in this scene is, does the means justified the end?

Don't you mean "does the end justify the means"?

And yes, ti most certainly did. Jeanie was needed to help reprogram the Replicators, which would save millions, if not billions, of innocent human lives. Sacrificing someone who was going to rot in jail anyway, and was responsible for the whole mess to begin with, was an acceptable loss here.

Normally I'd be opposed to killing a person just because, but here someone needed to die in order to save Jeanie, and Rodney was just too smart and important to do it.

Shan Bruce Lee
December 1st, 2007, 11:45 AM
But thats a completely seperate issue. The issue is Sheppard murdering someone, without consquence, regardless of the 'motivation' or whose life was saved. In the real world, he would be court martialed for murder because he knowingly took Wallace into the lab to be fed upon by the Wraith, there was no other reason for Wallace to be in there and our of his cell.

Shep didn't murder him. He might have shown a darker side of himself in suggesting it (but even that is questionable.) At the end of the day it was Wallace who made the decision.

TJuk
December 1st, 2007, 11:56 AM
Shep didn't murder him. He might have shown a darker side of himself in suggesting it (but even that is questionable.) At the end of the day it was Wallace who made the decision.

Sheppard facilited his suicide, thats called assisted suicide and is not only morally wrong, but considered murder under LAW. And Sheppard told Wallace his daughter was dead, then despite the grief and shock he would no doubt be suffering then offered him a choice....death (or suicide disguised as self-sacrifice) or life in prison. Not much of a choice is it?

The question also remains. Did Wallace agree? We dont know that as it wasn't shown. I wont assume it either because the mere fact Sheppard facilitated it, also gives the possibility he would have forced Wallace if needs be. We also dont know if Wallace understand how he was sacrificing himself or how he was going to die. If he had known would he still have done it? Would he have made the same choice if his daughter was still alive and with the potential to see her again?

Thinking into it more makes Sheppards actions even more sinister. He told Wallace his daughter was dead, knowing the intense emotional reaction the man would have. So he INTENTIONALLY manipulated Wallace's mental state in order to coerce him into agreeing to die. Wallace was willing to throw his freedom away just to save his daughter, any intelligent person would know his reaction to her death would be equally emotional and unrational. He manipulated the man into going to his death. That makes Shepard judge, jury and executioner.

And whether you like the outcome or not, that still makes him a murderer.

bluealien
December 1st, 2007, 12:03 PM
Don't you mean "does the end justify the means"?

And yes, ti most certainly did. Jeanie was needed to help reprogram the Replicators, which would save millions, if not billions, of innocent human lives. Sacrificing someone who was going to rot in jail anyway, and was responsible for the whole mess to begin with, was an acceptable loss here.

Normally I'd be opposed to killing a person just because, but here someone needed to die in order to save Jeanie, and Rodney was just too smart and important to do it.

If Jeannie was needed so badly then why didnt Rodney contact her earlier.... why did they allow the Wraith to almost starve to death and make no attempt to get him help earlier... if the fate of the world was at stake why didnt Shep make this decision earlier to feed the Wraith.. why only now was anyone willing to do something... They sat for weeks taking absolutely no action... eventhough the fate of millions were at stake but yet are willing to ask the Wraith for help and feed him once ONE life is at stake...!!

As for Rodney being too smart and important I completey disagree. There are plenty of smart people out there.. even the Wraith was smarter than him so again why did Rodney refuse to work with him if so much was at stake.. and again why was he left to starve.

Sheppard did what he did to save a friend and there was no bigger motive there... he did the same as Wallace did to save his daughter and he crossed the line. But unlike Wallace who had to be punished because he was the bad guy in the whole scenario Sheppard's actions go unaccountable.

garhkal
December 1st, 2007, 01:56 PM
Sheppard is clearly uncomfortable with it as shown in the conversation at the end. When Rodney assumes he must have talked the guy into feeding himself to the Wraith, Sheppard specifically says that he didn't but that he told Wallace the score and the guy volunteered.

The man's daughter was dead, he had been arrested and was going to prison for an extremely long time (especially considering he is a vast security risk). Not only that but his actions were going to lead to Jeannie's death. I can understand that given the option to help save her he would take it rather than letting her die and spending the rest of his days alone locked away somewhere.

I think Sheppard doesn't like himself much at the end because he suggested it to Wallace not because he made the guy do it or forced a decision on him.

One of things I've always liked about Atlantis is that it is less black and white than some shows and I think this was a perfect demonstration that went just far enough to be interesting without making you dislike the character.

Very ture. While i do think shepard had a little too easy time of making said choice when it was going on, i do appreciate his trepidation about it later when he was talking to rodney. And sometimes when you have lost everything, doing what ever to help can be a big incentive..


McKay reports that in the end he bought his sister a new car after he got her in trouble. How lame?

I did not hear that. I know she was wanting him to get her a car, but not that he agreed to it..


Was it moral ant ethical to let Wallace be feed on by a Wraith? Absolutely not. That being said history shows that something we have to sacrfice morals to do what is right. The fact that Sheppard showed remorse for actions speaks highly of his character.

Very true. And i think shep was more willing to compromise his morals in this situation than let a good friend (mccay) do it to himself.. Hekc you could almost see the shock in his eyes when Rodney proposed he let himself be fed on..


Sheppard wanted him dead so that he could feed him to the Wraith... to solve his problem ie Rodney sacrificing himself. There was no threat to the Pegasus Galaxy here or to Earth.. this was about John wanting to save Rodney's life and crossing the line to do so. What made him any different to Wallace. Wallace did what he did to save his daughter. He would also go to any lenghts to save his family.

That is an interesting point. That shep and this guy were doing the exact same thing, but where i felt the difference was, came into it that Rod and his sis were forced into it, where as this guy was offered it..


At least Wallace admitted that what he did was wrong and was willing to take responsibitly for his actions.. but John shirked all responsibility.

That is an interesting perspective. yes Wallace was willing to accept his punishment, and in fact knew so from the get go, where as shep seemed to not show any responsibility there. It does make me wonder if this might come up later on.. Heck i would love to see landry and woosley use this against him later.


Why would it be relevant. Who gives Sheppard the right to chose what punishment Wallace should have. Wallace had killed no one when Sheppard decided to talk him into killing himself. Sheppard really didnt care less about Wallace or what his reasons were for doing what he did. He didnt care that Wallace was only trying to save his daughter. All he was focused on was getting him to sacrifice himself so it would solve his problem.. saving someone whom he cared about.


That is a very valid point. What did give shepard the right to act as judge and jury here. And while i do see the point others were making in that military are trained to see the value in others and weight that in, i see that more for Doctors than full on soldiers. Shep is not a doctor or lawyer..


For starters, I cant see Landry allowing a man to essentially be murderer, so why wasn't Sheppard arrested and the Wraith killed or at least locked up?

That is a very good question. Where was landry in all this? And why did no one else bat an eyelid at what happened.. If as what shep tried to 'lie about' that the wraith got the best of Wallace, and killed him to feed, why the hell was he still standing? Why was his hands free?


If Rodney had done it the same amount of people would have been saved...

Are we sure of that though? Rodney has done miraculus things in the pegasus galaxy. What had wallace done up to this point?

avidffan
December 1st, 2007, 02:19 PM
How can you say that history shows examples of sacrifice morals to do what's right? Give me an example of that statement becuase morals and "right" are the same thing in most cases.

During WWII the allied forces decoded the german enigma coding device and told england of an upcomming attack
england had to allow the attack with no warning as to not alert the nazis

later use of the broken code allowed for several allied victories

theres your histoy lesson

just as rodney was wrong in thinking all this was his fault and trying to die to correct his mistake
wallace was right in thinking this was all his fault and made up for his attemped muder by saving rodneys sister and maybe finding a key to stopping the replicators once and for all

TJuk
December 1st, 2007, 02:23 PM
Was it moral ant ethical to let Wallace be feed on by a Wraith? Absolutely not. That being said history shows that something we have to sacrfice morals to do what is right. The fact that Sheppard showed remorse for actions speaks highly of his character.

Very true. And i think shep was more willing to compromise his morals in this situation than let a good friend (mccay) do it to himself.. Hekc you could almost see the shock in his eyes when Rodney proposed he let himself be fed on...

The big difference here is, McKay was willing to sacrifice HIMSELF! Sheppard on the other hand, looked for an alternate victim. What would have happened if Wallace hadn't been captured? Or was dead? Who would he have chosen to die instead of Jeanie? The fact he looked for someone else's life to exchange for Jeanie's because he didn't want Rodney, HIS friend to give us his life rather then his own speaks volumes.

That tells you a lot about their personalities, ethics and morals.

The whole way that Sheppard dealt with this situation...it wasn't a last resort and nothing beyond his own personal motivations that made him do what he did. Judge, Jury, Executioner...wrong, wrong, WRONG.

jelgate
December 1st, 2007, 02:37 PM
The whole way that Sheppard dealt with this situation...it wasn't a last resort and nothing beyond his own personal motivations that made him do what he did. Judge, Jury, Executioner...wrong, wrong, WRONG.
It was a last resort. If he didn't do what he did, a person he considers family (McKay) would die. I'm sorry but if a member of family was in danger than I would do anything to save them. Besides who said that Sheppard forced Wallace to be fed by the CG Wraith. If you look carefully Wallace showed remorse for what he had done. Maybe he thought saving Jeanie was a way to make up for his misdeeds.

technoextreme
December 1st, 2007, 02:38 PM
Encouraging someone (Wallace) who is likely to be suicidally depressed into a situation where they can act out their regrets would be considered immoral in most societies.

Furthermore, wraith feeding is a traumatic experience, so Shep not only executed a death sentence he led the guy to be tortured.

Now, given Wallace likely would have been convicted of 2nd degree murder (if McKay's sister died) and kidnapping, in some societies he could have gotten the death penalty from a court. Nevertheless, the crimes were committed in Canada, and would not have been death-penalty worthy.

The guy was all ready a murderer. He murdered his daughter. I don't care about his altruistic intentions. I don't care about his emotional state. He broke god only knows how many laws that led to his daughter's death. It premeditated murder even if it was an accident.
PS: Do we even know it happened in Canada? I know the kidnappings happened in Canada but I don't remember if the show mentioned where the company was located? For all we know they could have been brought back into the United States.

freetoken
December 1st, 2007, 02:53 PM
Not to mention repeated actions like this are liable to make any sane caring person mentally unhinged and potentially dangerous all round. But then you change your lead/hero into the bad guy.

Ah, but he doesn't have to be "the" bad guy, or even a really "bad" guy, to be the rebellious dark figure.

Note that in the SG story line history of protagonists and antagonists, not all of the antagonists are truly the "bad" guys.

I'm thinking here of some of the military/NID activities that the SGC/SG-1 disapproved on legal or ethical grounds, but nevertheless were part of the larger "us". In SG stories there can be three major actors:
1) "Us", the "good" guys;
2) "Us", who believe the ends justify the means in a way that traditional western morality/legality would challenge;
3) "Them", the bad guys who are usually aliens.

Many SG stories are built around wrestling 1) and 2) in light of 3). Many of the NID stories fall into this category, as well as some of the Jack stories.

As shown in Miller's Crossing, the Sheppard character is a somewhat detached, calculating pragmatist.

I think it would make for more interesting stories if TPTB would let that side of Sheppard rule and let the character/stories run with it.

Yes, I agree that would make the Sheppard character less likable to some people, but so be it. In life not everybody is equally likable.

It would also set up tension between Carter and Sheppard that wasn't based just on rank envy. For the sake of the series I believe those two characters have to conflict somehow, and I wouldn't want it to be over something petty like Sheppard being jealous of Carter's pay, for example.

Likewise the team dynamics in SGA are now a bit boring. There really needs to be some disagreement and wrestling with characters.

fumblesmcstupid
December 1st, 2007, 03:04 PM
Let me see if I get this right!

You guys feel SORRY for a man that kidnapped Jeanie and Rodney

Taserd Rodney ( no he had someone else do it)

INJECTED Jeanie, pretty much killing her if Rodney could not make the nanite thing work

Then after his daughter *DIED* still wasn't ganna let them go???

This is a BAD MAN!! not to be pittied AT ALL!!

This episode was filled with choices!


WALLACE:

Choice:
Do I let my daughter die?
No! I will scare and kidnapp someone who MIGHT be able to help save her!

Choice:
I have this injecter filled with nanites Do I threaten McKay by injecting his sister.
Yes I inject her, putting McKay in the same place that Wallace is in.

Rodney is the only one who makes a choice that NO ONE made him make!

John has the lives of 5 people in his hands
Jeanie
caleb
Madison
Rodney and
himself!

Wallace put John in this position ALL BY HIMSELF!

Does this make John SICK
hell yes

Can he live with himself???

I think so!

TJuk
December 1st, 2007, 03:29 PM
Wallace and Sheppard did exactly the same thing, neither of them are right. The one we agree with depends on your point of view or just saying, hell Shep is the hot hero, he must be right!

THEY WERE BOTH WRONG.

Wallace actions were the acts of a desperate man, willing to sacrifice HIMSELF as well as others for the love of his child. What parent wouldn't at least do the former?

The latter... if your child/friend/sister is dying of liver failure, and you know someone who was compatible, would you go out and murder them so that the liver can be given to your child/friend/sister? Would you????? If you did, you'd be on trail for murder and face life in prison, if not the death penalty. REGARDLESS of your intentions or how much of an ******* the person might be.

No matter how much I loved someone, while I would be willing to lay down my own life to save them, I would never EVER take someone elses to do it even if they were responsible for my loved ones potential death, or survival.

Wallace was considered the 'bad guy' because he was working against our so called heroes. He made terrible choices, mistakes but its clear he never intended to kill anyone. His intention was to save his child be that right or wrong. Yes, he could have as a consequence of his actions but its not like taking a gun, aiming it at someone with the INTENTION to kill them and pulling the trigger. INTENTION is the key word.

Sheppard, was willing to sacrifice another human being (he DID NOT make the offer of his own life), to save his friend's sister. So what if Wallace was responsible for Jeanie's potential death, does that make Sheppard actions RIGHT? NO! Does it make it murder? YES! He intentionally manipulated and gave the man the means to end his own life, in order to save his friends sister.

Doesn't matter how noble his intention, he IS wrong and IS a murderer.

garhkal
December 1st, 2007, 03:39 PM
The guy was all ready a murderer. He murdered his daughter.

If i take my daughter to a holistic healer who dies as a result of their medicine, that does NOT make me a murderer. Neither was what Wallace did with his daughter.

jyh
December 1st, 2007, 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie View Post

Did Wallace's punishment fit his crime--since Jenny does live?
From Technoextreme: Jenny died.

Actually, Jenny (misspelled for Jeanie?) lived. It was SHARON who died.

As for Shepard's actions... I think it was purposely left vague as to whether he only "presented the opportunity" and Wallace took it, or Shepard "suggested" it strongly, or Shepard actually flat-out made it happen. And that's how it's supposed to be. It's a point of debate-- just like the one on this board-- as to one of those "what would you do?" situations? Personally, I think Shepard certainly acted questionably (which is one reason they had to "fudge" the official report of Wallace's death), but as has already been mentioned on this thread, questionable actions that lead to someone's death aren't necessarily immoral.

Having said that, I admit I turned a blind eye to some other minor quibbles in this episode: 1) We saw nobody in authority at the SGC (not Landry or some other placeholder general), 2) a Wraith--an enemy whose primary goal is to find earth--is brought to Earth on what looked like nothing more than ]Shepard's say-so [see item 1, above], 3) at first this ep seemed like Desperate Measures from SG-1, season 5, but proved to be different enough that it didn't bother me too much, 4) other than the first scene w/ Radek, I missed the rest of the Atlantis crew, and 5) not only wasn't Agent Barrett given enough to do, but he didn't even ask about Carter!!

By the way, I thought Ronan was rocking that dress-shirt-and-blazer look! ;)

TJuk
December 1st, 2007, 03:49 PM
If i take my daughter to a holistic healer who dies as a result of their medicine, that does NOT make me a murderer. Neither was what Wallace did with his daughter.

Good point! He didn't kill her, the cancer was and she was going to die anyway. Wallace was looking for ways to help save her with the nanites, unfortunately it had the opposite effect but that was the risk. Just like any parent who allows a doctor to use an experiemental new drug or procedure. If the child dies quicker as a result, it doesn't make the parent or the doctor responsible for their death. If they hadn't taken the chance, they would have never know if it was successful or not. It was done in HOPE of saving her life regardless of the outcome.


By the way, I thought Ronan was rocking that dress-shirt-and-blazer look! ;)

TTTOOOOTTTAALLLLYYY! He should be made to dress like that far more often!!!

jenks
December 1st, 2007, 04:10 PM
If i take my daughter to a holistic healer who dies as a result of their medicine, that does NOT make me a murderer. Neither was what Wallace did with his daughter.

He injected her with nanites. None of this would have happened if he hadn't done that.

Myn McGeek, Third Sentinel
December 1st, 2007, 04:10 PM
OK, people keep saying that Sheppard convinced Wallace to commit suicide. If I were Wallace, I would WANT a chance to redeem myself and try to fix what I messed up. Jeanie was dying because Wallace had injected her with the nanites. Is it really so hard to believe that Wallace did not let the Wraith feed on him simply because he wanted to die, but because he realized what he had done and decided to do whatever it takes to make up for it? Maybe the fact that living in his grief would have been excruciating helped his decision, but I don't believe that this was a suicide. People keep saying Sheppard "guilted" Wallace into giving his life. Well, yeah he felt guilty! And so he should have! I think if he knew there was a way to help save Jeanie, he would have volunteered, regardless of whether or not Sheppard showed him pictures of his victim's family. But, he had no idea the Wraith existed and knew nothing of what was happening beyond the fact that the nanites were going to kill Jeanie. Personally, I liked what Wallace did in the end. I believed from the start that he was doing to save Jeanie, not to commit suicide. In my eyes, he redeemed himself for what he did.

Now, I suppose all that was slightly off the subject... not really though, because whether Wallace was committing suicide or giving his life to save another does change Sheppards level of guilt, IMO. Either way, I think Sheppard went a little too far, but nothing more than what I would've done in his place. At least, the more I think about it, that's the conclusion I would have come to. The difference is that I might not have had the courage to do it. But like I keep saying, none of this excuses Sheppard of his guilt. It just brings to question how guilty and ruthless he actually was. I guess I'm also saying that would have done the wrong thing, too. I think my emotions would drive me to it, and possibly cloud my judgment of right and wrong. Although, in Sheppard's case, it was also a matter over which choice would have the best outcome. Apparently, he thought the ends justified the means. Did it? No, I don't think it did. Would I have done the same thing? I really can't say for sure, but I very well might have. Do I dislike Sheppard now? No. He's certainly not perfect, but maybe I like that...

BTW, I think it's great and shows some good writing that we're even having these discussions. Very stimulating stuff. Healthy for the mind and soul. :)

blue-skyz
December 1st, 2007, 04:29 PM
There are three relationships presented in Miller’s Crossing in which one person is willing to do morally reprehensible things to save the other.

1. Wallace wants to save his daughter. He steals the highest level government secrets, experiments with dangerous technology, tries an unfinished, experimental treatment on his daughter, kidnaps two people at gunpoint to help him and injects the dangerous treatment into one of them, in effect causing her eventual death. This all takes place over a span of time and is all premeditated. Wallace takes responsibility for his actions when he tells them that he knew he would go to prison, but that does not absolve him nor does his reason for doing it absolve him. He chose his position and was the cause of everything else that happened. He also had to have known that the secrets he knows would preclude any kind of normal trial. He does feel remorse and that is what saves his character.

2. McKay wants to save his sister. The Wraith can do it in time, but he needs to feed. McKay chooses to commit suicide by allowing the Wraith to feed on him. He asks Sheppard for permission, thus making him an accessory to his death. He has to ask him, because Sheppard has to prevent the Wraith from being killed when he starts to feed. Sheppard would have actual culpability in this scenario.

3. Sheppard wants to save McKay. He knows McKay well enough to know that telling him ‘no’ would not stop him from trying to prevent his sister’s death by committing suicide. He needs to find someone else for the Wraith to feed on. In the most egregious sense, the implication is that Sheppard asks Wallace to commit suicide to rectify the situation he created. But Sheppard’s actions are actually passive, he lays out the situation and the expected outcome, albeit, adding a big dose of deserved guilt, in hopes that Wallace has a conscience.

Sheppard did not kill Wallace; he made it possible for the man to minimize his crimes. This would not have worked if Wallace had not been an essentially good man pushed beyond his tolerance. He had committed serious crimes in the name of love. He killed his daughter (probably just manslaughter) and he would have been guilty of capital murder if Jeannie died (killed in commission of a felony). He chose to prevent her death. An argument could be made that Sheppard presented him with a desirable alternative, a way to make the rest of his life and his death atone for his sins and prevent a murder that he was still in the act of committing.

But Jeannie’s life is not the only issue here. The replicators are killing planets full of humans. The Wraith is necessary to stopping them. The Wraith’s original goal in contacting Sheppard was to stop the replicators from attacking them. As McKay told the Wraith, figuring out how to program the nanites to save Jeannie is a step toward doing that. McKay and possibly Jeannie is also vital to this effort. There is a lot more at stake here than Jeannie’s or Wallace’s life.

Sheppard needs the Wraith to help turn off the attack code to try to save the humans of the Pegasus Galaxy. Feeding the Wraith did not become an issue until the Wraith collapsed. They had no way of knowing his feeding schedule. Wallace is responsible for Jeannie’s eminent death. Time is critical. Sheppard shows the man responsible in very human terms what will be the outcome of his actions and tells him what the solution is. An act that obviously bothers Sheppard greatly.

Allowing anyone to be fed upon by a Wraith must be among the hardest things that Sheppard can imagine doing, but he makes that choice here. He chooses McKay, Jeannie, and the hope of being able to save many human lives in Pegasus over the life of a man that in his own interest put national security and other people’s lives in jeopardy. Being able to make the hard decisions, being willing to take the dark path is in Sheppard’s job description and is completely in character given his history. I prefer serious Sheppard, in command and doing what needs to be done.

I hope we do see more fallout from this, but we have already seen more than we did from The Eye. Sheppard killed 60+ Genii Soldiers and the viewer was left to imagine if he had any feelings at all about it. I hope we see more moral ambiguity. It makes the characters more interesting.

A good question to consider is:
Would you give your life to prevent a death from happening, a death that you initiated, but did not intend, given that you are already in custody and admittedly guilty?

Jackie
December 1st, 2007, 04:53 PM
I agree with everything you said.

So this is an ep I will never watch again and it has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I think what may have salvaged it a little for me if John had of admitted in his quarters that what he did was wrong, but that he did it for Rodney and would have to live with it. At least Wallace admitted that what he did was wrong and was willing to take responsibitly for his actions.. but John shirked all responsibility.

Me too! Luckily my handicapped daughter didn't understand what shep had done so I didn't have to explain it to her. I feared they would show the wraith feeding on Wallace and was ready to turn the tv off.



Encouraging someone (Wallace) who is likely to be suicidally depressed into a situation where they can act out their regrets would be considered immoral in most societies.

Furthermore, wraith feeding is a traumatic experience, so Shep not only executed a death sentence he led the guy to be tortured.

Now, given Wallace likely would have been convicted of 2nd degree murder (if McKay's sister died) and kidnapping, in some societies he could have gotten the death penalty from a court. Nevertheless, the crimes were committed in Canada, and would not have been death-penalty worthy.

So not only did Shep encourage an immoral act and contribute to torture, he overrode the laws of a sovereign nation.

Overall what a terrible thing for the TPTB to do with their lead character.

First--You have some great point however, he would not have gotten the death penalty. Second degree murder would not warrant it--it would have to be premeditative first degree murder. Wallace's mental state would have been his defense and he would have been found guilty of second degree murder if mckay's sis died and most likely guilty of second degree homicide for his daughter's death due to the injection of nanites. He also would not have spent the rest of his life in prison but 25 years with parole evaluations. The kidnapping in US is a federal offense and that could keep him in jail longer but I don't think his trial would be public or American.

Now, if shep was to be found out and put on trail it would be interesting to see what he would get. First he influenced a mentally unstable man to kill himself--that would be homicide or second degree murder. He fudged the reports--I'm not sure what that charge is but I would imagine it would be under false documentation.

Wallace died a cruel and unusual way--it is unclear as to whether or not Wallace would have known before hand that his death would be very painful. So, Shep could be charged on torture and cruelty.

Shep's trail would be military--he would get a stiffer punishment than if it was civil. Probably 25 years to live--maybe execution.

As a military officer Shep is sworn to up hold an oath conduct as an Officer and a Gentleman at ALL times--no matter what!!!!. He broke that oath and his conduct would also be grounds for a dishonorable discharge.



It is very interesting what Sheppard did at the end, comming from his character. I would expected like some IOA/NID suit to come with something like this, not just for saving Jeannie but the Wraith who is apparently a valuable asset giving his programming knowledge and the replicator threat.


Barrett would have made more sense in the story. If he talked Wallace into killing himself I think the story would have worked and not shocked and turned off dozens of people.


Not to mention repeated actions like this are liable to make any sane caring person mentally unhinged and potentially dangerous all round. But then you change your lead/hero into the bad guy. To me he is the bad guy. Rodney at least commits terrible acts because he's blinded by ego and arrogance (blowing up half a solar systems). Sheppard commits acts of mass murderer knowingly and 'pre-meditated' (he had the bomb on the planet in 'Misbegotten' just incase...and was willing to use it even against innocent humans).

If John's a good guy, he has the deaths of hundreds of innocent lives on his conscience, thats a lot of blood on his hands. Think of the nazi's, many of the ones who committed the worst attrocities were loving family men who believed they were doing the best for their friends and family. Didn't make them any less evil and twisted, and John's want to save Rodney or Jeanies life was nothing different to this. It solely depends on what side of the fence you are on.

Any normal person of conscience would be suffering terrible conseqeneces mentally at least. So he would be heading for a nervous breakdown, or he would be becoming cold and ruthless to the point of crossing the line from good guy, to very bad.

Of course I dont see them having the guts to do either of those things. Its fluffy, brainless scifi where morals are ignored if its the easiest way to tie up the plot, rapists are funny and if your not one of the 'team' then who gives a crap if you die in various horrible ways?

At the end of the day, it makes it very hard to 'care' about a character.

Having shep show wallace the pics and nudge a mentally unhinged man into killing himself is what's so shocking. Barret would have been a better choice at nudging wallace.


Quote:


Actually, Jenny (misspelled for Jeanie?) lived. It was SHARON who died.

Having said that, I admit I turned a blind eye to some other minor quibbles in this episode: 1) We saw nobody in authority at the SGC (not Landry or some other placeholder general), 2) a Wraith--an enemy whose primary goal is to find earth--is brought to Earth on what looked like nothing more than ]Shepard's say-so [see item 1, above], 3) at first this ep seemed like Desperate Measures from SG-1, season 5, but proved to be different enough that it didn't bother me too much, 4) other than the first scene w/ Radek, I missed the rest of the Atlantis crew, and 5) not only wasn't Agent Barrett given enough to do, but he didn't even ask about Carter!!

By the way, I thought Ronan was rocking that dress-shirt-and-blazer look! ;)

I was talking about Mrs. Miller--not the daughter. Sharon was a red shirt and plot device to begin with.

There were many other issues with the ep:

Investigation wise was horrible.

Ronin was nothing more than wallpaper in the ep.

Teyla was forgotten completely

There was no real investigator, officers or anything more than Walter telling bad jokes.

Sending the family to a hotel room after a kidnapping was wrong--especially since they had no idea who did the kidnapping or demands.

Sending letting Barrett run the investigation was a mistake--there should have been an Air Force investigator that was not supposed to be shep.

Wallace motive for kidnapping was retarded--if he was smart all he had to do was offer Jeanie a job or ask for her help. Most parents would know that. Wallace in general was retarded...was I supposed to hate the guy or feel sorry for him? He didn't act like a grieving father or a criminal.

I would have enjoyed seeing Wallace die if it turned out the dying kid was a hoax to get jeanie to help. Then he would have deserved it.

But the way the ep was written he came across as a unstable, grieving father who needed meds desperately.


OK, people keep saying that Sheppard convinced Wallace to commit suicide. If I were Wallace, I would WANT a chance to redeem myself and try to fix what I messed up. Jeanie was dying because Wallace had injected her with the nanites. Is it really so hard to believe that Wallace did not let the Wraith feed on him simply because he wanted to die, but because he realized what he had done and decided to do whatever it takes to make up for it? Maybe the fact that living in his grief would have been excruciating helped his decision, but I don't believe that this was a suicide. People keep saying Sheppard "guilted" Wallace into giving his life. Well, yeah he felt guilty! And so he should have! I think if he knew there was a way to help save Jeanie, he would have volunteered, regardless of whether or not Sheppard showed him pictures of his victim's family. But, he had no idea the Wraith existed and knew nothing of what was happening beyond the fact that the nanites were going to kill Jeanie. Personally, I liked what Wallace did in the end. I believed from the start that he was doing to save Jeanie, not to commit suicide. In my eyes, he redeemed himself for what he did.

Now, I suppose all that was slightly off the subject... not really though, because whether Wallace was committing suicide or giving his life to save another does change Sheppards level of guilt, IMO. Either way, I think Sheppard went a little too far, but nothing more than what I would've done in his place. At least, the more I think about it, that's the conclusion I would have come to. The difference is that I might not have had the courage to do it. But like I keep saying, none of this excuses Sheppard of his guilt. It just brings to question how guilty and ruthless he actually was. I guess I'm also saying that would have done the wrong thing, too. I think my emotions would drive me to it, and possibly cloud my judgment of right and wrong. Although, in Sheppard's case, it was also a matter over which choice would have the best outcome. Apparently, he thought the ends justified the means. Did it? No, I don't think it did. Would I have done the same thing? I really can't say for sure, but I very well might have. Do I dislike Sheppard now? No. He's certainly not perfect, but maybe I like that...

BTW, I think it's great and shows some good writing that we're even having these discussions. Very stimulating stuff. Healthy for the mind and soul. :)

If I were Wallace--I would simply pick up the phone and call Jeanie and tell her I need to speak to her right away. Then I would give her enough info to convince her to come to my lab and help stop the nanites.

Once she was there--she could request her brother comes and helps her. If needed--she could get him back to earth and appeal to his ego (aka let men think they are smarter than us) to get him to help.

Then McKay has the issue of keeping me and his sister's project a secret or running to the feds.

If my daughter died...at least it wouldn't have been in vain...we would have gained a huge step in the fight against cancer and maybe someone else would be saved.

If I was in shep's shoes:

I wouldn't approach a mentally unstable man with a situation. I would keep Rodney away from the wraith and ask him to sit with his sister and use whatever time she has to mend whatever issues he has with her.

If I wrote the ep:

Jeanie would die with rodney by herside. Rodney would then find himself with the only thing he has left of his sister and that was her daughter. It should end with Rodney and the niece reading a bed time story and Rodney promising her that he always be there for her--no matter what.

Never would I have had rodney feel so guilty he bought her a new car.

doylefan22
December 1st, 2007, 05:01 PM
OK, people keep saying that Sheppard convinced Wallace to commit suicide. If I were Wallace, I would WANT a chance to redeem myself and try to fix what I messed up. Jeanie was dying because Wallace had injected her with the nanites. Is it really so hard to believe that Wallace did not let the Wraith feed on him simply because he wanted to die, but because he realized what he had done and decided to do whatever it takes to make up for it?

That's the way I think it was presented to be honest. Wallace made the choice because he knew he could make up for what he had done and be more use that way than rotting in a prison cell.

jenks
December 1st, 2007, 05:05 PM
I wish people would realise that just because they're the main characters, doesn't mean they are supposed to be holier than thou and always righteous, it's not like they're supposed to be role models or anything...

Mitchell82
December 1st, 2007, 06:02 PM
Sheppard gave the man a choice - the way people are writing are as if he pushed Wallace in there with the Wraith which is an (imo) incorrectly simplistic interpretation.

Sheppard is clearly uncomfortable with it as shown in the conversation at the end. When Rodney assumes he must have talked the guy into feeding himself to the Wraith, Sheppard specifically says that he didn't but that he told Wallace the score and the guy volunteered.

The man's daughter was dead, he had been arrested and was going to prison for an extremely long time (especially considering he is a vast security risk). Not only that but his actions were going to lead to Jeannie's death. I can understand that given the option to help save her he would take it rather than letting her die and spending the rest of his days alone locked away somewhere.

I think Sheppard doesn't like himself much at the end because he suggested it to Wallace not because he made the guy do it or forced a decision on him.

One of things I've always liked about Atlantis is that it is less black and white than some shows and I think this was a perfect demonstration that went just far enough to be interesting without making you dislike the character.

Exactly nicely put.

andromeda_dan
December 1st, 2007, 06:14 PM
Don't you mean "does the end justify the means"?

And yes, ti most certainly did. Jeanie was needed to help reprogram the Replicators, which would save millions, if not billions, of innocent human lives. Sacrificing someone who was going to rot in jail anyway, and was responsible for the whole mess to begin with, was an acceptable loss here.

Normally I'd be opposed to killing a person just because, but here someone needed to die in order to save Jeanie, and Rodney was just too smart and important to do it.

thanks, s09119. I stand corrected.

darkrose
December 1st, 2007, 06:21 PM
This is the problem we had with the retro-virus, we're crossing a very fine line that is turning the people who are supposed to be the good guys into the bad. Especially when there is no consequences for their actions.

Of course there are consequences. The retrovirus thing has bitten them in the butt several times now, and this almost certainly will as well. From "Rising", the underlying theme of the show has been dealing with unintended consequences: Sheppard kills his commanding officer and then wakes the Wraith. Rodney changes the Replicator programming to make them attack the Wraith, and they go after the Wraith's food supply and start wiping out human planets.


John played god, he traded one life for another based on his personal preferences.

No, he did his job. He's a military officer. Determining the value of other lives is what he does, whether it's dropping a bomb on a populated urban area or deciding whether to go in after someone. Yes, it was cold--because in the hard calculus of it all, Rodney is more valuable to Atlantis and the SGC than Jeannie is, and Jeannie is more valuable than Wallace. It's not comfortable; it's not right, and it's not supposed to be either.


And the flippant way (written and portrayed) that he carried out this act left me cold.

I don't think he was flippant about it at all. He's not going to talk about it, because he doesn't talk about anything, but he's clearly not easy with what he did.


These morally wrong (no matter the motivation) actions makes our heroes unlikable. Sheppard is supposed to be the good guy, he's supposed to always try and be above these things.

SGA has never been about black and white. The characters constantly have to make decisions not between right and wrong, but between more wrong and less wrong. It's about what choice you make when none of the options are good, and how you live with yourself afterwards. Frankly, that's why I watch the show--when the writers get it right, it's complex, morally ambiguous, and it makes me think.

Mitchell82
December 1st, 2007, 06:25 PM
Of course there are consequences. The retrovirus thing has bitten them in the butt several times now, and this almost certainly will as well. From "Rising", the underlying theme of the show has been dealing with unintended consequences: Sheppard kills his commanding officer and then wakes the Wraith. Rodney changes the Replicator programming to make them attack the Wraith, and they go after the Wraith's food supply and start wiping out human planets.
Exactly. There will be consequences especially if Woolsey finds out.




No, he did his job. He's a military officer. Determining the value of other lives is what he does, whether it's dropping a bomb on a populated urban area or deciding whether to go in after someone. Yes, it was cold--because in the hard calculus of it all, Rodney is more valuable to Atlantis and the SGC than Jeannie is, and Jeannie is more valuable than Wallace. It's not comfortable; it's not right, and it's not supposed to be either.
Bingo and he also has saved millions from Pegasus. Now they have a viable way to fight the Asurans.




I don't think he was flippant about it at all. He's not going to talk about it, because he doesn't talk about anything, but he's clearly not easy with what he did.
Agreed he was obviously not pleased with himself.




SGA has never been about black and white. The characters constantly have to make decisions not between right and wrong, but between more wrong and less wrong. It's about what choice you make when none of the options are good, and how you live with yourself afterwards. Frankly, that's why I watch the show--when the writers get it right, it's complex, morally ambiguous, and it makes me think.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

darkrose
December 1st, 2007, 06:51 PM
Just like any parent who allows a doctor to use an experiemental new drug or procedure. If the child dies quicker as a result, it doesn't make the parent or the doctor responsible for their death.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. If a particular DA wants to make a case of it, they can and have argued that if the parent knew or had reason to believe the treatment was risky, they're liable for manslaughter.

Myn McGeek, Third Sentinel
December 1st, 2007, 07:22 PM
If I were Wallace--I would simply pick up the phone and call Jeanie and tell her I need to speak to her right away. Then I would give her enough info to convince her to come to my lab and help stop the nanites.

Once she was there--she could request her brother comes and helps her. If needed--she could get him back to earth and appeal to his ego (aka let men think they are smarter than us) to get him to help.

Then McKay has the issue of keeping me and his sister's project a secret or running to the feds.

If my daughter died...at least it wouldn't have been in vain...we would have gained a huge step in the fight against cancer and maybe someone else would be saved.
Yeah, that would have been the right and logical thing to do, but he didn't. I don't know why. But that really isn't the issue. This is about what Sheppard did after Wallace had messed everything up.


If I was in shep's shoes:

I wouldn't approach a mentally unstable man with a situation. I would keep Rodney away from the wraith and ask him to sit with his sister and use whatever time she has to mend whatever issues he has with her.
Sure... but was he really mentally unstable? He seemed pretty stable to me. Emotionally, he was pretty messed up, but that doesn't neccesarily mean he wasn't in control or was mentally unstable.


If I wrote the ep:

Jeanie would die with rodney by herside. Rodney would then find himself with the only thing he has left of his sister and that was her daughter. It should end with Rodney and the niece reading a bed time story and Rodney promising her that he always be there for her--no matter what.

Never would I have had rodney feel so guilty he bought her a new car.
So you think Sheppard should be thought of and portrayed as the perfect hero? IMO, that would be quite dull. And predictable. The fact that Sheppard did what he did shows that he is human and capable of making mistakes. It shows how ruthless he can be in protecting his team, as well. The story was dark, the morals questionable, but that's life. Life isn't this perfect fantasy world and I felt that the writers did a good job in showing a situation that doesn't have a completely happy, perfect ending. Remember The Other Side? What Jack did at the end in closing the iris? Did you hate that as much as this?

I do hope that SGA doesn't get much darker than this, though. I couldn't stand it much darker... like BSG... :S

Lythisrose
December 1st, 2007, 08:31 PM
I feel the moral ambiguity that characterize Sheppard's actions in this episode add depth to a character that many may have thought they had figured out.
I think they have always written Sheppard as having a potentially darker side under a seemingly laid back exterior and I like the layers of character that this episode reveals, good or bad.
In terms of drama perfect good and perfect evil aren't all that interesting (to me anyway).

SG13-NightOps
December 1st, 2007, 09:38 PM
Did Wallace's punishment fit his crime--since Jenny does live?


His life for hers. If he didn't die, Jeanie would have and he would have killed her.

For another hypothetical, if someone innocent was about to be killed and it was your fault, but you could save them by sacrificing yourself - would you?

Would you be a victim, killer or hero?

garhkal
December 1st, 2007, 11:42 PM
questionable actions that lead to someone's death aren't necessarily immoral.

if it is questionable, how can it not be immoral? I remember a while back during a seminar on morals and proper ettiquette for govt travel/purchase cards where it was said if you ever have to ask yourself is this purchase possibily over the line, then it already is since you are asking the question..


He injected her with nanites. None of this would have happened if he hadn't done that.

She would have stiull died from the disease eating away at her..


He fudged the reports--I'm not sure what that charge is but I would imagine it would be under false documentation.

Lets see.. WE would have forgery (for signing a known wrongful document), falsifying an official report, conspiracy (for getting others to agree to the act), conduct unbecoming of an officer (general 'gotcha').


If I were Wallace--I would simply pick up the phone and call Jeanie and tell her I need to speak to her right away. Then I would give her enough info to convince her to come to my lab and help stop the nanites.

That is one thing i am surprised about. Why this man who wanted their help went to such extremes without checking out other options such as offering her a job, or just flat out begging..


I wish people would realise that just because they're the main characters, doesn't mean they are supposed to be holier than thou and always righteous, it's not like they're supposed to be role models or anything...


They are not just the main characters thoough. They are also supposed to be our heroes.

bluealien
December 1st, 2007, 11:56 PM
Wallace and Sheppard did exactly the same thing, neither of them are right. The one we agree with depends on your point of view or just saying, hell Shep is the hot hero, he must be right!

THEY WERE BOTH WRONG.

Wallace actions were the acts of a desperate man, willing to sacrifice HIMSELF as well as others for the love of his child. What parent wouldn't at least do the former?

The latter... if your child/friend/sister is dying of liver failure, and you know someone who was compatible, would you go out and murder them so that the liver can be given to your child/friend/sister? Would you????? If you did, you'd be on trail for murder and face life in prison, if not the death penalty. REGARDLESS of your intentions or how much of an ******* the person might be.

No matter how much I loved someone, while I would be willing to lay down my own life to save them, I would never EVER take someone elses to do it even if they were responsible for my loved ones potential death, or survival.

Wallace was considered the 'bad guy' because he was working against our so called heroes. He made terrible choices, mistakes but its clear he never intended to kill anyone. His intention was to save his child be that right or wrong. Yes, he could have as a consequence of his actions but its not like taking a gun, aiming it at someone with the INTENTION to kill them and pulling the trigger. INTENTION is the key word.

Sheppard, was willing to sacrifice another human being (he DID NOT make the offer of his own life), to save his friend's sister. So what if Wallace was responsible for Jeanie's potential death, does that make Sheppard actions RIGHT? NO! Does it make it murder? YES! He intentionally manipulated and gave the man the means to end his own life, in order to save his friends sister.

Doesn't matter how noble his intention, he IS wrong and IS a murderer.


Very well said.. You know I never even thought about Sheppard offering up his own life. Now if Sheppard really wanted to save Rodney and as he said he would do anything for his family.. well wouldnt this have been the perfect opportunity for him to prove that.. offering to sacrifice himself.. I loved how Sheppard said he would do anything for his family in Sateda... but little did I know that "anything" would involve talking a man into killing himself.

If Sheppard had offered up himself and Wallace overheard and then volunteered instead, then that is something I could live with. Wallace was now facing the possibility of someone actually offering to give up their life for his mistakes... and THAT caused him to come to his decision to allow himself to be fed on... that would have allowed Wallace some dignity and a much more believable way of allowing himself to be sacrified. It would have also made me respect Sheppard even more.. but the scenario we got just made me loose all respect for Sheppard.:S

jenks
December 2nd, 2007, 12:05 AM
She would have stiull died from the disease eating away at her..



What's your point? Everyone's going to die eventually, killing someone with cancer is just as immoral as killing someone healthy.

Linzi
December 2nd, 2007, 02:45 AM
That's the way I think it was presented to be honest. Wallace made the choice because he knew he could make up for what he had done and be more use that way than rotting in a prison cell.
I agree.

I wish people would realise that just because they're the main characters, doesn't mean they are supposed to be holier than thou and always righteous, it's not like they're supposed to be role models or anything...
I agree again!

Actually, that's not necessarily true. If a particular DA wants to make a case of it, they can and have argued that if the parent knew or had reason to believe the treatment was risky, they're liable for manslaughter.
Very true. All of the expedition have crossed the moral line at times. Whether it's authorising torture, making a retro -virus that had disastrous moral implications, or giving someone the opportunity to commit suicide. However, no court would convict Sheppard of murder. If people think that's true, they don't know the law very well. The worst is manslaughter. However, that's not what happened here. Sheppard's actions were morally ambiguous here, and, so? What's new? This is a dark show, with dark themes.

I feel the moral ambiguity that characterize Sheppard's actions in this episode add depth to a character that many may have thought they had figured out.
I think they have always written Sheppard as having a potentially darker side under a seemingly laid back exterior and I like the layers of character that this episode reveals, good or bad.
In terms of drama perfect good and perfect evil aren't all that interesting (to me anyway).
I totally agree :)

His life for hers. If he didn't die, Jeanie would have and he would have killed her.

For another hypothetical, if someone innocent was about to be killed and it was your fault, but you could save them by sacrificing yourself - would you?

Would you be a victim, killer or hero?

Good point.

TJuk
December 2nd, 2007, 03:08 AM
I wish people would realise that just because they're the main characters, doesn't mean they are supposed to be holier than thou and always righteous, it's not like they're supposed to be role models or anything...

Wrong. Totally WRONG.

"A person noted for feats of courage or NOBILITY of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life."
- www.thefreedictionary.com

A hero/good guy by defintion, strives to be the best he can be. To be a role model and example of what is right. No one expects them to be right all the time, just try to be. Its not just about the ultimate consequences of their actions, its about their attitude and efforts to be that good person. No one is perfect and to err is human. But when the good guys start making CONSCIOUS choices to do morally objectional things over and over again...thats when we stray into the dangerzone.

The reality is, no one is truely good or truely evil, just greater or lesser extents of it. And what some might say is 'wrong' others will have no understanding of; society and upbringing dictates you moral viewpoint.

The 'Good' guys or 'Heroes' unselfishly strive to uphold what is right, morally, ethically and socially (i.e. as written in law), even if it means making personal sacrifices. We're all capable of terrible acts and war with our better nature and selfish instincts.

What McKay did was morally right, he offered to sacrifice himself. What Sheppard did was morally wrong, he did not offer to sacrifice himself, he found a victim to take Jeanie's place. Whether Wallace was guilty or not is beside the point. If a drunk driver knocked someone down, and damaged their heart, a judge (who is at least qualified by law to make a judgement) does not offer the drunk driver the chance to die and offer their body parts to the victim who could be saved by it, that would be illegal and utterly morally wrong. Leaving Wallace with his guilt and the chance to redeem what he'd done HIMSELF, in his own way was the right thing to do. He didn't seek redemption, he was given a choice, thats no redemption thats assisted suicide.

The mere fact Sheppard walked into a room with an emotional and irrational man and not only presented the situation and also pushed his mental state further by telling Wallace his daughter was dead, then adding the guilt trip on top to get what SHEPPARD wanted didn't just cross the line, it obliterated it. Sheppard gave him the CHOICE, he facilitated the sacrifice, that makes him RESPONSIBLE for Wallace's death.

Wallace wasn't even aware of the wraith, what was happening in the Pegasus Galaxy with the replicators or the manner in which he was going to die. If Sheppard was the good guy he should never have given Wallace the chance to be in that situation. No ifs, buts or maybes.

If Jeanie were so important to anyone but McKay and therefore Sheppard, she would not have been allowed to work on anything top secret outside of the SGC or an approved government facility. She would therefore have been protected. Obviously she wasn't that important...although the email should NEVER have been sent to her in the first place. Though that was a silly plot device to give DMT a reason to kidnap her... Why would they even be watching her in the first place? The previous project she worked on with McKay had nothing to do with Nanites.

And as others have said, fudging reports, having a prisoner die under his watch, asking others to lie...and so many other things without consequence (and by that I mean LEGALLY) or punishment makes Sheppard doubly guilty and reprehensible. I refuse to blame the character because I do not think he should have been written like that in the first place. This episode is an example of taking the easy way out within the realm of the story, and in the writing stakes. Sheppard is an OFFICER and has to abide by the same rules that govern any officer. I cant see any of his superiors ordering this, or even agreeing to it. So he acted without orders, another crime on his list of so many.

McKay could have snuck into the lab and given 'Todd' a snack, not a full meal, but enough to save his sister. That would have been a noble act. Sheppard also, could have made sure Todd didn't kill Wallace and he knew from experience the Wraith didn't have to completely drain a human to regenerate. Then not only would Wallace have to live in his premature old(er) age with his guilt, grief and loss, no blood would be on Sheppard's hands. And an aged Wallace leaving the lab might been more of a shock, especially for McKay and an imprisonment in of itself.

jenks
December 2nd, 2007, 04:08 AM
You've missed the point entirely. I'm not debating what a hero is, I'm saying he's not supposed to be a hero, at least not in the childish, cliché, comic book style you seem to be referring to.

TJuk
December 2nd, 2007, 04:31 AM
You've missed the point entirely. I'm not debating what a hero is, I'm saying he's not supposed to be a hero, at least not in the childish, cliché, comic book style you seem to be referring to.

So you're saying asking for the 'good guy' to at least try and do the 'right' thing is childish, cliché and comic book? You're saying Sheppard isn't the good guy or 'hero' or role model, well you'd be right with actions like those.

And its you, my friend who have missed the point of this discussion entirely. This thread is about debating over wheather Sheppard crossed a line, morally, for what he did and whether he was right to do it. Read the title "How far is too far? Sheppard's Actions in MC." Establishing his 'role' within the show as the 'good guy' is a valid point because it emphaises why he shouldn't be crossing those moral lines...repeatedly. I haven't seen you make any valid points or even logical arguements as to the nature of the discussion going on here.

And last time I checked, Shepard IS supposed to be the hero according to Scifi, the ads, merchendise, the writers and showrunners who always call him 'the hero'. Not to mention the dictionary definition:

Noun: hero
"2. The principal character in a play or movie or novel or poem"
- www.wordwebonline.com

No one is asking him to wear a white hat and go running around helping old ladies to cross the road. But we are asking that he doesn't keep making morally objectional and sometimes down right reprehensible choices, without consequence or punishment (especially as an easy route to wrap up the plotline) that make him neither the 'good guy' nor likeable.

wise one
December 2nd, 2007, 05:24 AM
i felt that was wrong


wallace only wanted to help his daughter and never wanted anything to happen to her or the mckays

he shouldnt of presented it to wallace, in a way he was innocent compared to the many killers and muderers facing death row, they could of been fed upon.

wallace was even evil

but i guess he wanted to make it up for jeannie and his family and had nothing to live for anymore.

thats human love

ToasterOnFire
December 2nd, 2007, 06:00 AM
Actually, that's not necessarily true. If a particular DA wants to make a case of it, they can and have argued that if the parent knew or had reason to believe the treatment was risky, they're liable for manslaughter.
All experimental treatments are risky, all patients/guardians are made aware of the risks before starting such treatments and have to sign paperwork. Where do you draw the line?


What's your point? Everyone's going to die eventually, killing someone with cancer is just as immoral as killing someone healthy.
It's immoral to kill someone dying with cancer by using an experimental treatment to try and save them?

TJuk
December 2nd, 2007, 06:22 AM
All experimental treatments are risky, all patients/guardians are made aware of the risks before starting such treatments and have to sign paperwork. Where do you draw the line?

Good point!

Which is worse, action or inaction? Is it better to do nothing incase they might die quicker, or to do something and the result being they died quicker? To me, its the trying that counts, sitting idly by while there was a chance, however slim, would be wrong. Wallace crossed the line when he injected Jeanie, but up to that point (or before he kidnapped Jeanie) he was taking a legitimate risk.

And we do not progress if we dont take risks. Sometimes the result is we loose, but without that risk we would never have known. If Wallace was succesful, he could have potentially have cured cancer, a great achievement for mankind. Simply because he failed does not therefore make it wrong or ultimately unaccountable for his actions, but neither does failure automatically make it wrong to try and save her.


It's immoral to kill someone dying with cancer by using an experimental treatment to try and save them?

If that were the case, there would be no such thing as modern medicine.

bluealien
December 2nd, 2007, 06:29 AM
1. Wallace wants to save his daughter. He steals the highest level government secrets, experiments with dangerous technology, tries an unfinished, experimental treatment on his daughter, kidnaps two people at gunpoint to help him and injects the dangerous treatment into one of them, in effect causing her eventual death. This all takes place over a span of time and is all premeditated. Wallace takes responsibility for his actions when he tells them that he knew he would go to prison, but that does not absolve him nor does his reason for doing it absolve him. He chose his position and was the cause of everything else that happened. He also had to have known that the secrets he knows would preclude any kind of normal trial. He does feel remorse and that is what saves his character.

I don't think there is any disputing that what Wallace did was wrong, but this does not effect the decision that Sheppard ultimatley made. Like Wallace Sheppard had a choice. I don't accept that Wallace killed his daughter either.. she was dying and only had a very short time to live. He was trying to save her and it nearly worked. If he had done nothing she would definitly have died.. by taking the action he did he gave her a chance of living .. allbeit a very small chance, but at the end of the day it was still a chance. He didnt want to hurt anyone and only injected Jeannie when Rodney forced his hand by refusing to help his daughter. He planned the kidnapping but his action of injecting Jeannie was not premeditated.


2. McKay wants to save his sister. The Wraith can do it in time, but he needs to feed. McKay chooses to commit suicide by allowing the Wraith to feed on him. He asks Sheppard for permission, thus making him an accessory to his death. He has to ask him, because Sheppard has to prevent the Wraith from being killed when he starts to feed. Sheppard would have actual culpability in this scenario.

Why should Sheppard be culpable. Rodney is an adult and not in the military so Sheppard has no jurisdiction over him.. sure he feels responsible for him but other than that Sheppard cannot order Rodney not to sacrifice himself. He can prevent him by keeping him away from the Wraith or giving the Wraith someone else to feed on.


3. Sheppard wants to save McKay. He knows McKay well enough to know that telling him ‘no’ would not stop him from trying to prevent his sister’s death by committing suicide. He needs to find someone else for the Wraith to feed on. In the most egregious sense, the implication is that Sheppard asks Wallace to commit suicide to rectify the situation he created. But Sheppard’s actions are actually passive, he lays out the situation and the expected outcome, albeit, adding a big dose of deserved guilt, in hopes that Wallace has a conscience.


Why didn't Sheppard offer to take Rodney's place if he wanted to prevent him from being killed. Sheppard vowed to give up his life for any one of them in Sateda but yet the first time he is faced with such a situation he immediately looks to find some other scapegoat. Sheppard went into the room with the sole intention of convincing Wallace to sacrifice himself... He tells him his daughter has just died and in the next breath lays on a huge guilt trip.. He knew Wallace wasn't a bad person and knew by playing on this mans conscience that he would most likely get him to agree to killing himself.. I find this utterly dispickable. Sheppard played not only judge and jury and basically decided what fate Wallace deserved, and all because Sheppard wanted to save someone he cared about.


Sheppard did not kill Wallace; he made it possible for the man to minimize his crimes. This would not have worked if Wallace had not been an essentially good man pushed beyond his tolerance.
No Sheppard did not kill Wallace, the Wraith did, but Sheppard played a huge part in Wallace coming to his decison to sacrifice himself... If Sheppard had not presentated the options Wallace would be alive.


He had committed serious crimes in the name of love. He killed his daughter (probably just manslaughter) and he would have been guilty of capital murder if Jeannie died (killed in commission of a felony). He chose to prevent her death. An argument could be made that Sheppard presented him with a desirable alternative, a way to make the rest of his life and his death atone for his sins and prevent a murder that he was still in the act of committing.

Again I disagree that he killed his daughter... and no one else had died when Sheppard decided to push him toward suicide. Why is everyone convinced that Wallace would even have spent his entire life in prison.. He may only have been convicted on kidnapping and manslaughter and could be out of prison in 15/20 years. That means he still may have had many years left to live. So do we advocate that all criminals should kill themselves so they can atone for their sins.. who gives us the right to do that.


But Jeannie’s life is not the only issue here. The replicators are killing planets full of humans. The Wraith is necessary to stopping them. The Wraith’s original goal in contacting Sheppard was to stop the replicators from attacking them.

It was only Rodney's life at stake here. If Rodney had been fed on then the wraith could have finished his work and saved Jeannie.



As McKay told the Wraith, figuring out how to program the nanites to save Jeannie is a step toward doing that. McKay and possibly Jeannie is also vital to this effort. There is a lot more at stake here than Jeannie’s or Wallace’s life.

The Wraith had been in the custody of Sheppard for at least a few weeks considering the level of starvation he was showing... and the MOST infuriating hypocritical part of the whole situation is that Rodney refused to work with the Wraith... Think back to the opening scene.. the Wraith had contacted Sheppard so they could work together to reprogramme the Wraith and Rodney wouldn't even work with him.. so the fate of millions are at stake here..... and already several worlds were distroyed because of Rodney reprogramming the Relicators... but yet Rodney cant be bothered to ask the Wraith for help... BUT then his sister is in danger and he grovels to the Wraith... so bottom line, not willing to ask the Wraith for help when millions of lives are at stake, but yet is willing when ONE is at stake..



Sheppard needs the Wraith to help turn off the attack code to try to save the humans of the Pegasus Galaxy

Exactly, so why was Sheppard letting him starve to death... why didnt he go down his dark and slippery path when millions of lives were at stake but is willing to go there just for ONE.


Feeding the Wraith did not become an issue until the Wraith collapsed. They had no way of knowing his feeding schedule.
All they had to do was look at him..



Wallace is responsible for Jeannie’s eminent death. Time is critical. Sheppard shows the man responsible in very human terms what will be the outcome of his actions and tells him what the solution is. An act that obviously bothers Sheppard greatly.

Jeannie wasn't dead yet and it was just so lame that the Wraith couldn't hang on a few more minutes to complete the work. If time was critical again why didnt Sheppard offer to change places with Rodney... that would have made for an excellent scene.. Sheppard once again finding himself being fed on by the Wraith.. he showed he could take small amounts the last time.. so why not this time. I wouldnt say that talking someone into killing themself, just to solve your own problem, is in any way humane. I hope it did bother Sheppard but not enough to prevent him from taking such action.. and the momentarily guilty look on Sheppards face just brought home to me just how wrong he was.


]Allowing anyone to be fed upon by a Wraith must be among the hardest things that Sheppard can imagine doing, but he makes that choice here.
Considering he had been through the very same thing himself makes it even more dispickable that Sheppard would subject someone else to such a thing. Weir had said that Koyla had crossed a line when he fed Sheppard to the Wraith and I'm sure Koyla considered Sheppard just as deserving of it as Sheppard seemed to think Wallace was, but yet here is Sheppard doing the very same thing. He stood by while Wallace was sucked dry.. I would hope that he had the decency to show a bit of guilt or remorse, though it didnt last very long.



He chooses McKay, Jeannie, and the hope of being able to save many human lives in Pegasus over the life of a man that in his own interest put national security and other people’s lives in jeopardy.

Sheppard's decision was personal. It had nothing to do with the military or anything of national security. He crossed a line to save his friend, the same way Wallace crossed the line to save his daughter. Rodney was the one who put national security at risk by sending uncrypted emails to his sister about alien technology. The wraith was the one who was able to save many lives in the Pegasus Galaxy but as I said before his help was rejected and he was left to starve but only pulled out when One life was at stake.



Being able to make the hard decisions, being willing to take the dark path is in Sheppard’s job description and is completely in character given his history. I prefer serious Sheppard, in command and doing what needs to be done.

I also prefer serious Sheppard but not this kind of Sheppard who was unwilling to admit that he even played any part in Wallace death. He was not only involved in his death but the cover up that would have involved several SG1 soldiers and personel. This to me is not acceptable. Sheppard was not acting under any orders, he took the law into his own hands and cohersed an emotionally grief striken father to kill himself, just to solve his own problem.. this is not the Sheppard I want to see. I have no problem with him making hard decisions or even taking a dark turn but at least admit it and accept the consequenses. If he had admitted to Rodney that what he did was wrong, and that he would have to live with it, I would have had a lot more respect for him, but all I saw was him shirking all responsibility.



I hope we do see more fallout from this, but we have already seen more than we did from The Eye. Sheppard killed 60+ Genii Soldiers and the viewer was left to imagine if he had any feelings at all about it. I hope we see more moral ambiguity. It makes the characters more interesting.


I would love to see some fallout for this, the same way I wanted to see some fallout for the Genii incident but I doubt very much we will ever get anything. Things will be back to normal next week and we will have no further mention of it.


A good question to consider is:
Would you give your life to prevent a death from happening, a death that you initiated, but did not intend, given that you are already in custody and admittedly guilty?

Maybe depending on the circumstances... but the whole issue here is not whether Wallace should have given his life up, it's, did Sheppard have the right to push him into that decision... seconds after telling him his daugther had just died.
If Wallace had overheard John and Rodney's converstation and freely offered to take Rodneys place then I would have no problem with that.. but John pushed him into doing something that he may never had done if it hadnt been seconds after hearing that his daughter was dead.

jenks
December 2nd, 2007, 06:37 AM
So you're saying asking for the 'good guy' to at least try and do the 'right' thing is childish, cliché and comic book? You're saying Sheppard isn't the good guy or 'hero' or role model, well you'd be right with actions like those.

What was the right thing to do? Morality isn't black and white, and Shep wasn't written into the sort of situation where there is a straight forward moral decision to make. Life doesn't work like that, and neither should fiction, the only place is does is kids TV and shallow 'hero' stories. He was a human being faced with a moral dilemma, the kind of emotionless heroism you're talking about doesn't exist.


And its you, my friend who have missed the point of this discussion entirely. This thread is about debating over wheather Sheppard crossed a line, morally, for what he did and whether he was right to do it. Read the title "How far is too far? Sheppard's Actions in MC." Establishing his 'role' within the show as the 'good guy' is a valid point because it emphaises why he shouldn't be crossing those moral lines...repeatedly. I haven't seen you make any valid points or even logical arguements as to the nature of the discussion going on here.

I haven't missed the point at all, this discussion started when you quoted my post.

ciannwn
December 2nd, 2007, 06:42 AM
Maybe there is one very interesting aspect to all this.

We tend to think of Atlantis humans as wonderful good guys fighting Wraith who are evil because they have to eat humans in order to live. The expedition's made morally questionable decisions when dealing with Wraith such as the retrovirus. Sheppard now makes a morally questionable decision in this story concerning a fellow human.

Stargate universe humans are as flawed a species as they are in the real world. Sheppard was out in Afghanistan so it's likely he's killed humans before he even went to Atlantis and disposed of those Genii soldiers. In the Stargate universe it's likely that more humans have died at the hands of other humans than literally at the hands of the Wraith. Jaffa killed a lot of people and they are humans. The Ori followers were humans etc. etc. etc.

jckfan55
December 2nd, 2007, 06:50 AM
Wallace and Sheppard did exactly the same thing, neither of them are right. The one we agree with depends on your point of view or just saying, hell Shep is the hot hero, he must be right!

THEY WERE BOTH WRONG.

:indeed: If they were going to have Shep do this, they should have explored the consequences of such an action.

TJuk
December 2nd, 2007, 06:51 AM
Wallace is responsible for Jeannie’s eminent death. Time is critical. Sheppard shows the man responsible in very human terms what will be the outcome of his actions and tells him what the solution is. An act that obviously bothers Sheppard greatly.

If we want to do the blame game, by logic ultimately Rodney is responsible for the whole state of affairs. It was HIS pride and fear that stopped him from using the Wraith's knowledge in the first place and therefore led to the email (which should never have been sent) which saw Jeanie kidnapped. Wallace wouldn't have even known about Jeanie if Rodney hadn't sent the email. He was also responsible for forcing Wallace's hand into injecting her. So its his ultimate responsibility that Wallace had to forfeit his life for Jeanie's.

It was also Rodney who only decided to ask the Wraith for help once his sister was in danger. Yet he wasn't willing to do so with the full knowledge that millions of innocent lives in the Pegasus Galaxy were at risk and had already been taken thanks to HIS actions. Not only that, but if time was an issue he knew MONTHS ago that by not changing the base code, hour by hour more lives were being lost. If anyone is more deserving to have to forfeit their life based on actions that have led to deaths, its Sheppard and McKay.

If we judge Sheppard and McKay by the same standards we are judging Wallace, then ultimately he was only responsible for 1 possibly 2 lives, as apposed to the MILLIONS of lost and potentially lost by Sheppard and McKay's.

I will however give credit where credit was due. Rodney was willing to sacrifice his life for his sisters and accept responsibility for his actions knowing the full extent of the situation. Sheppard however, never even once offered or suggested such, he decided who was going to die instead. And I'm sure had Wallace not agreed, he would have still fed him to the Wraith.

With that in mind I have far more sympathy for Wallace, and the way the solution to the problem has been written makes McKay and Sheppard both extremely selfish, irresponsible and morally corrupt men who have severely abused their power. I dont agree with that sort of portrayal for the people supposed to be the good guys and I dont think that sits well with either of the characters...in my mind at least.

blue-skyz
December 2nd, 2007, 07:03 AM
i felt that was wrong
wallace only wanted to help his daughter and never wanted anything to happen to her or the mckays
he shouldnt of presented it to wallace, in a way he was innocent compared to the many killers and muderers facing death row, they could of been fed upon.
wallace was even evil
but i guess he wanted to make it up for jeannie and his family and had nothing to live for anymore.
thats human love
I don’t understand the rampant belief that Wallace’s motivation somehow makes him the victim here. His motivation is irrelevant.

He is a dangerous criminal. He stole government secrets and used them to create and experiment with nanites. He may be trying to use them for good, but they are very dangerous. He has no government supervision and, probably, inadequate containment and security for such potentially hazardous things as nanites.

He injects these unfinished, experimental nanites into his daughter. This may be the act of a desperate parent, but the treatment has in no way been approved as experimental or otherwise. If he causes her premature death, he is guilty of manslaughter. In injecting his daughter with the nanites he has provided them with another way of escaping his lab.

When the nanites prove harmful, he has Jeannie kidnapped from her bedroom by armed assailants. Then he has McKay kidnapped and a government agent assaulted. Kidnapping is a felony. They are taken by plane, so they, probably, have been transported across international boundaries back into the states.

Wallace personally injected the now-known-to-be-dangerous dangerous nanites into Jeannie to keep her and McKay in line. Again, possibly, releasing the nanites into the world. Since we know the nanites will become deadly, Jeannie’s death would be compounded by the fact that it was caused during the felony of kidnapping. That elevates her death to capital or first degree murder, regardless of the intent.

Wallace did all this with premeditation and wonton disregard of the consequences to others. The fact that he expected consequences for himself (some maximum security, top secret cell forever, no doubt) and did not, initially, intend to physically harm anyone is immaterial. Kidnapping, by its very nature, is mentally harmful to all involved. He progressed to physically harming Jeanie. Even though he is not an evil man, he has committed serious crimes.

He is not the victim.

Does he deserve to fed on by a Wraith? No. No one does. But it was a way for this man with a conscience to avoid killing a good woman and keep her family from being destroyed. He chose to save her.

Sheppard, at great cost to his peace of mind and knowing full well what he was doing, provided Wallace with the facts of the situation and the means to act on those facts. He is an accessory to the man’s death. All of the mitigating circumstances in the world will not change the fact that he has to live with that.

TJuk
December 2nd, 2007, 07:05 AM
What was the right thing to do? Morality isn't black and white, and Shep wasn't written into the sort of situation where there is a straight forward moral decision to make. Life doesn't work like that, and neither should fiction, the only place is does is kids TV and shallow 'hero' stories. He was a human being faced with a moral dilemma, the kind of emotionless heroism you're talking about doesn't exist.

Actually morality is a lot more clear cut then you're suggesting. Society and law dictate the rules and that is in black and white. There are many grey areas, but this is not one of them. It wouldn't be so hard if Sheppard hadn't basically done exactly what Wallace did. If Wallace is wrong, so is Sheppard and as deserving to die, the reason he didn't is because he is the central character (and there's not much of a show without him).

And this was a straight forward decision. He could choose to exchange one life for another rather then find an alternate solution or offer up his own life. But he took the easy way out. If he judged himself by the same standards that he judged Wallace, then he himself or Rodney was ultimately more deserving to die. And why did Wallace have to die in the first place? The Wraith didn't need to completely drain him and Shepard knows this and therefore allowed the man to be killed.

Wallace died because they thought it would show he was seeking 'redemption'. This would have been the case had he ultimately come to the decision himself based on knowing the full situation. He did not, he was led even coerced into it by Sheppard who might have ultimately forced him to his death. Fortunately they realised that was crossing the line at least. It wouldn't have been 'redemption', it would have made Sheppard utterly unredeemable, hence they left it ambiguous. Which is wrong, I dont think they should left us wondering if Sheppard was clearly a murderer or not.

And as for the way 'life' works...if there were the real world, Shepard would be in prison and about to be court martialed for just the act of 'covering it up' by falsifying the report into a death. He would also be on trail for murder/manslughter, Rodney also being cuplable by sending classified data to his sister. That makes them the BAD GUY as well as Wallace.

I dont expect him to be a goody two-shoes, but I do not expect the writers to be so careless with their writing and have their 'Good Guys' doing EXACTLY the same thing as the 'bad guy' and assume its the right solution merely by the fact its the main character caring out the act. That is childish, cliche, not to mention 'comic book' and hypocritcal in the extreme.

ciannwn
December 2nd, 2007, 07:14 AM
I dont agree with that sort of portrayal for the people supposed to be the good guys and I dont think that sits well with either of the characters...in my mind at least.

Why are Sheppard and Rodney regarded as 'good guys'? Is it simply because they fight Wraith so, as Wraith are supposed to be 'bad guys', anyone who fights them has to be the traditional squeaky clean hero in the white hat? The Genii are humans who were developing weapons for fighting Wraith with but would we regard Kolya as a 'good guy' just because he was anti-Wraith?

In real life wars the 'good guys' are the soldiers fighting on our side but this doesn't mean that all the soldiers on our side are morally upright human beings.

jenks
December 2nd, 2007, 07:16 AM
Actually morality is a lot more clear cut then you're suggesting. Society and law dictate the rules and that is in black and white. It wouldn't be so hard if Sheppard hadn't basically done exactly what Wallace did, so if Wallace is wrong, so is Sheppard and as deserving to die, the reason he didn't is because he is the central character (and theres not much of a show without him).

I'm sorry, but society and law do not, in any way, dictate the 'rules' of morality.


And this was a straight forward decision. He could choose to exchange one life for another rather then find an alternate solution or offer up his own life. But he took the easy way out. If he judged himself by the same standards that he judged Wallace, then he himself or Rodney was ultimately more deserving to die. And why did Wallace have to die in the first place? The Wraith didn't need to completely drain him and Shepard knows this and therefore allowed the man to be killed.

He never exchanged one life for another, he explained the situation to Wallace, and he volunteered.


Wallace died because they thought it was show he was seeking 'redemption'. This would have been the case had he ultimately come to the decision himself based on knowing the full situation. He did not, he was led even coerced into it by Sheppard who might have ultimately forced him to his death. Fortunately they understood that was at least, neither 'redemption' and would have made Sheppard utterly unredeemable, hence they left it ambiguous.

He did have full knowledge of the situation.


And as for the way 'life' works...if there were the real world, Shepard would be in prison and about to be court martialed for just the act of 'covering it up' by falsifying the report into a death. He would also be on trail for murder/manslughter, Rodney also being cuplable by sending classified data to his sister. That makes them the BAD GUY as well as Wallace. I dont expect him to be a goody two-shoes, but I do not expect him to do EXACTLY the same thing as the 'bad guy' that is hypocritcal in the extreme.

First of all, morality and the law are two very different things. Second, what was the right decision? Should he have left the situation as it was and leave Jeannie to die, or offer (even encourage) Wallace redemption? This is by no means a clear cut moral decision, hell, I'm sure plenty of people could justify just feeding Wallace to the Wraith, he had essentially condemned and innocent woman to death at this point...


Oh and...

he·ro /?h??ro?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[heer-oh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -roes; for 5 also -ros.
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.
4. Classical Mythology.
a. a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity.
b. (in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability.
c. (in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod.
5. hero sandwich.
6. the bread or roll used in making a hero sandwich.

TJuk
December 2nd, 2007, 07:19 AM
In real life wars the 'good guys' are the soldiers fighting on our side but this doesn't mean that all the soldiers on our side are morally upright human beings.

Indeed, and those soldiers that cross the line into criminal acts (like coercing and faciliting an action that led to a death) on our side will hopefully be caught and face prosecution, jail and possibly execution (I'm anti-death penalty too) depending on which juristriction their crimes fall under.

Sheppard will face no trail, no punishment and no consequences for his actions. Thats unrealistic in the extreme.

And as I said granted you have point on the 'is Sheppard the good guy/hero or not'. The answer to that is yes, this is the role Scifi, the writers, the producers etc protray Sheppard as the 'good guy' and are doing so untile they have Sheppard held accountable for such actions.

expendable_crewman
December 2nd, 2007, 07:28 AM
Why should Sheppard be culpable. Rodney is an adult and not in the military so Sheppard has no jurisdiction over him.. sure he feels responsible for him but other than that Sheppard cannot order Rodney not to sacrifice himself. He can prevent him by keeping him away from the Wraith or giving the Wraith someone else to feed on.

Blue, anyone who went to the Wraith to be fed upon could only get there with Sheppard's permission. Sheppard had control of the Wraith by having command of the Wraith's security detail.

Legally, Rodney or Wallace, same moral gray goo, same legal issues, and, btw, just because no one had to have a conversation with Rodney using visual aids doesn't mean Rodney was less traumatized or grief-stricken than Wallace.

If one viewer found Wallace more sympathetic or "worthy" of life than Rodney, that's the viewer's perception and not the intent, IMO, of the ep.


So why is Johns decision to coherce someone into killing himself acceptable and yet Wallace's decision to kidnap Rodney and Jeannie in order to save his daughter unacceptable.

In my state, coercing someone into killing himself is illegal.

Having knowledge that someone intends to kill himself and looking the other way while they do it is illegal.

Kidnapping multiple someones is also illegal.


Rodneys life is only important to Sheppard.

Ah, now here is where individual preference and individual perception takes hold.

Rodney's life is not only important to Sheppard. It matters to more than one person. The life of Wallace matters as well, and the life of his daughter.

Individuals assess value to lives in a hierarchal manner. As an example, some find Wallace's position as father to a child and his grief as he faces loss deserving of a leg up on the value chain.

Jeannie's position as mother to a child, wife to a husband, sister to a brother was not addressed directly until the ending sequences, when she appeals to Wallace for her life and, later, when Rodney offers himself to the Wraith.

Wallace was not portrayed as assigning value to those things (for Jeannie) until confronted by Sheppard at the end.


In the scheme of things Rodney can easily be replaced by another scientist.. even his sister was more intelligent than him.. so I'm sure there are loads of other scientists out there who could do what Rodney does. So John wasn't doing anything that was going to make a huge impact on anything, he was trying to save his friend, the same way Wallace was trying to save his daughter.

If you're applying a hierarchy of value to lives, and Rodney and Jeannie have come up short, then you are indeed coming from the same place as Wallace. In setting this drama in motion, Wallace too used a scale with which to rate lives. On that scale, his daughter was at the top, and Jeannie's daughter's life fell somewhere below the "meaningful" line, just like Jeannie's and Rodney's.

Rodney can easily be replaced ... John wasn't doing anything that was going to make a huge impact on anything ...

How very cold, sort of like a math problem.

Here's another math problem.

Wallace's daughter = Jeannie, Rodney, injured (but faceless) others, and the well being of Madison.

I got the impression that Wallace's daughter meant the world to him.

At the very least, she was worth sacrificing his, Wallace's, dignity, freedom, and resources, as well as the dignity and freedom of his staff, plus the dignity, freedom, and well being of his victims.

Can we agree that Jeannie, Rodney, Caleb, and Madison were Wallace's victims?

It was sweet of him to get a tear at the end, when he is able to face the consequence of his crimes in the form of photos of his victims. I do not say that sarcastically. I felt for him for a good chunk of the ep, never more so than at the end.

For me, it looked like a light switch came on and like many other criminals who have been confronted (after the fact) with photos and stories of their victims' lives, he acknowledged what he'd done.

I'm conflicted about Sheppard's actions, but what I saw in the interview room from Sheppard was a frank analysis of what Wallace did, not a single breath of which was a lie.

I did not want Wallace coddled, and I did not want him killed.

Wallace's grief aside, I did not see him as beyond the ability to make a decision, and I do not believe the story would allow for this guy, or any other, to be dragged screaming (or tied to a chair) to be fed upon by a Wraith.

A volunteer was needed, and Sheppard found one.

Incidentally, it's hard to compare what went before with regard to feeding the Wraith or not the feeding the Wraith, because the Wraith didn't "drop" until this ep. Would they have done something if the Wraith had been Atlantis when he started to die from starvation?

The writers chose to frame that dilemma within the story of Miller's Crossing, so we don't know.


Both men were wrong but yet one was treated with contempt and like he deserved what happened to him while the other walks away unaccountable for his actions.

I think it was more like one (Wallace) was treated as though he was the reason the trouble was brought (in the first place) to Sheppard's hands, and the other (in this case Sheppard) survived his actions. I do not believe Sheppard walked away clean. He did walk away with the save though, since both Jeannie and Rodney lived. One could argue that the Millers and McKay ended the ep in the same health and state of well being that they enjoyed before Wallace forced his way (and his problem) into their lives. But we aren't supposed to infer that, I think. I believe we're supposed to see there are scars, and some dark water running under a low-hanging bridge.


Jeannie wasn't dead yet and it was just so lame that the Wraith couldn't hang on a few more minutes to complete the work.

Lol, at the end of the day, it's just a story and a story is supposed to shake us at one or two levels sometimes. The writers "fainted" that Wraith when they did so we'd spend our entire weekend talking about it with our keyboards.

TJuk
December 2nd, 2007, 07:29 AM
First of all, morality and the law are two very different things. Second, what was the right decision? Should he have left the situation as it was and leave Jeannie to die, or offer (even encourage) Wallace redemption? This is by no means a clear cut moral decision, hell, I'm sure plenty of people could justify just feeding Wallace to the Wraith, he had essentially condemned and innocent woman to death at this point...

Law and the rules of Soceity are based upon what is moral right and wrong. Rape is 'morally wrong' and socially unacceptable, therefore it is illegal. Murder is morally wrong and socially unacceptable (whatever the motivation) and therefore illegal. Both acts which when commited, the person is accountable by LAW to be put on trail and punished accordingly when caught. This is why Sheppard covered up his acts by falsifying the report.

Suicide is deemed moral wrong by some and in the case of the law, illegal if you aide a person to take their own life. Thats exactly what Sheppard did regardless of his motivations and what purpose Wallace's death had.

And under the same judgement, Wallace was POTENTIALLY responsible for the death of an innocent women by a mistake not intention (some can rightly argue that point), and you conclude that he deserved to die. Jeanie did not die, so it is a paradox because the justification for his death did not accure, therefore he did not deserve to die.

Sheppard is responsible for Wallace's death, and many others from his mistakes (or in this case for Rodney's as he sent the email that made Jeanie a target). Wallace was portrayed as not intending to ultimately kill Jeanie but would have through a mistaken judgement. How many mistaken judgements have Rodney, Sheppard etc made that left to the death of someone. Not to mention Sheppard walked into the brig with the sole purposes of talking Wallace to his death.

By that logic, Sheppard is responsible for a lot of deaths. As is McKay and many of the other charaters. If we judge a protagonist by those rules, we must also judge our main characters by the same.

gebtkd
December 2nd, 2007, 07:29 AM
Yes, the man made major mistakes and made major screw ups that endangered Jenny but what was wallace frame of mind when sheppard "presented the situation" to him?

Who cares about his state of mind. He willingly injected Jeannie with the nanites knowing that it would kill her in order to manipulate her and Rodney. Anyway, I agree with the fact that in the end he was not totally a bad guy but a desperate one. Anyone with kids will agree that you will go at any lenght to say you child's life and he certainly crossed many lines to get there but in the end she still died. The bottom line is that no matter what, he still committed crimes and condemmed Jeannine to death by his actions. So Sheppard gave him a way to redeem himself, how many times have we seen a murderer on trial saying that they were sorry, that they wish they could change what they did but knowing that they couldn't. Sheppard gave him that choice, he gave him that opportunity and Wallace took it, so yes, in the end he was not a bad guy, but still a criminal.

Integrabyte
December 2nd, 2007, 07:35 AM
Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I think Teal'c had it worse than Sheppard and Weir.


He is a dangerous criminal. He stole government secrets and used them to create and experiment with nanites. He may be trying to use them for good, but they are very dangerous. He has no government supervision and, probably, inadequate containment and security for such potentially hazardous things as nanites.

...and how do you figure that? What did he do to show us that? Stole government secrets and did what? Used them for world domination? The man lost his wife, was close to losing his daughter. He saw it as an opportunity!!! He threw his life away to save his daughter.


He injects these unfinished, experimental nanites into his daughter. This may be the act of a desperate parent, but the treatment has in no way been approved as experimental or otherwise. If he causes her premature death, he is guilty of manslaughter. In injecting his daughter with the nanites he has provided them with another way of escaping his lab.


I think you need to watch the episode again. Didn't he tell Rodney and Jeannie that his best experts finished the coding and that they were ready to be implemented? He was sorry for what he did and he promised he will let them go. He gave them access to the world!!!! What kind of "criminal" as you say does that?



Wallace personally injected the now-known-to-be-dangerous dangerous nanites into Jeannie to keep her and McKay in line. Again, possibly, releasing the nanites into the world. Since we know the nanites will become deadly, Jeannie’s death would be compounded by the fact that it was caused during the felony of kidnapping. That elevates her death to capital or first degree murder, regardless of the intent.

With the risk of repeating myself, I ask you why did he do that? Just randomly? I might be off on this one, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't McKay provoke him? I mean Wallace puts a gun to his head by organising this whole operation,trusts McKay and Jeannie with his daughter's life and what do these two do? A nice F**k y**!!! we don't care about your daughter eventhough we are the foremost experts in nanite programming!!! Of course Wallace's world came down crashing and he gave McKay an incentive. He panicked because his last resort showed him the bird :P.



And as for the way 'life' works...if there were the real world, Shepard would be in prison and about to be court martialed for just the act of 'covering it up' by falsifying the report into a death. He would also be on trail for murder/manslughter, Rodney also being cuplable by sending classified data to his sister. That makes them the BAD GUY as well as Wallace.

Then he will share a cell with Weir. Weir took a decision to throw human rights out the window when she ordered Ronon to torture Kavanaugh.



P.S.

Reading your post,blueskyz ,and ignoring that I saw the episode makes me think that this Wallace guy was a tyrant, the worse possible person on the planet. You described something unreal and something that was never portrayed in MC. People who read your post and did not see the episode yet will not even bother to see it because you painted something in green which in real life is in red.

TJuk
December 2nd, 2007, 07:48 AM
I mean Wallace puts a gun to his head by organising this whole operation,trusts McKay and Jeannie with his daughter's life and what do these two do? A nice [B]F**k y**!!! we don't care about your daughter eventhough we are the foremost experts in nanite programming!!! Of course Wallace's word came down crashing and he gave McKay an incentive.


Putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment, Jeanie (we need to see more of her!) actually didn't want to leave once she knew they were working toward saving a childs life. She wanted to help the girl and McKay ignored that and her misgivings about the consequences of trying to escape had it proved, as it did, unsuccessful.


Then he will share a cell with Weir. [SIZE=4][SIZE=2]Weir took a decision to throw human rights out the window when she ordered Ronon to torture Kavanaugh.

She would indeed, but Kavanaugh wasn't actually laid a hand upon and as Sheppard said, they're not bound by the rules of the Geneva Convention in the Pegasus Galaxy. And at least we saw a little of Weir trying to resist doing it, and wrestle with her conscience. I dont feel we saw enough if any of that from Sheppard in MC. And what she did was in another galaxy outside of Earth or US law. However, I dont agree with her decision to torture him.


Reading your post and ignoring that I saw the episode makes me thing that this Wallace guy was a tyrant the worse possible person on the planet. You described something unreal and something that was never portrayed in MC. People who read your post and did not see the episode yet will not even bother to see it because you painted something in green which in real life is in red.

Firstly, if they haven't seen the ep they shouldn't be in this thread if they dont want to be spoiled.

Secondly, I'm hoping you're refering to the above person's post rather then mine as I've constantly defended the opinion that Wallace, while responsible for his actionsa ultimately a crinimal, was made redeemable because he did it out of love for his child and without the intentions to hurt anyone. What he did were acts of a desperate man to irrationally blinded by his anguish to see or care about all the consequences of his actions would be. And that if we judge him, we much judge Sheppard by the same standards.

If the loss of innocent life, even by an unintentonal mistake should see you fed to a Wraith, then Sheppard, McKay and all our character should be offering themselves up to Todd.... damn I bet he'll think its Christmas!!!!

expendable_crewman
December 2nd, 2007, 07:51 AM
And under the same judgement, Wallace was POTENTIALLY responsible for the death of an innocent women by a mistake not intention (some can rightly argue that point), and you conclude that he deserved to die. Jeanie did not die, so it is a paradox because the justification for his death did not accure, therefore he did not deserve to die.

No one in this ep deserved to die.

Jeannie was injected with something that would kill her as an incentive for Rodney to act, placing the onus on Rodney to save her.

No argument needed. In my state, if she'd died, it would be intentional murder, and that's just using the murder statute.

If you look at the special circumstances statute, most penal codes say that if a kidnapped person dies while abducted, it's murder. In my state, it's capital murder. Other states or countries may call it felony murder or murder in the first degree.

The assumption is if you leave innocent people asleep in their beds, they won't die because of something you did. Kidnapped people shouldn't have to assume risks imposed on them by felons.

ciannwn
December 2nd, 2007, 07:51 AM
Sheppard will face no trail, no punishment and no consequences for his actions. Thats unrealistic in the extreme.

Since when has Stargate been realistic?


And as I said granted you have point on the 'is Sheppard the good guy/hero or not'. The answer to that is yes, this is the role Scifi, the writers, the producers etc protray Sheppard as the 'good guy' and are doing so untile they have Sheppard held accountable for such actions.

Or maybe they're just portraying Sheppard as the guy who fights Wraith and he gets away with things because the plot requires it. After all, even if they did decide to have a 'let's hold him accountable' episode where his actions are investigated, they'd find a loophole for him unless (a) they wanted to get rid of the character to shake things up or (b) Joe Flanigan wanted to leave.

Maybe Sheppard should be seen as more of an anti-hero than a hero.

http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-hero

From the Literary Dictionary -

anti-hero or anti-heroine, a central character in a dramatic or narrative work who lacks the qualities of nobility and magnanimity expected of traditional heroes and heroines in romances and epics. Unheroic characters of this kind have been an important feature of the Western novel,

From the wikepedia article -

An anti-hero in fictional works will typically take a leading role, performing acts which might be deemed "heroic" (at least in scale and daring), but using methods, manners, or intentions that may not be so - indeed they are often underhanded or deceitful.

Sheppard definitely performs acts which are regarded as heroic in the sense of scale and daring but we aren't obliged to regard him as a 'good guy' just because the plot calls for him to get away with things we disapprove of.

Season 4 is meant to be a lot darker so maybe the writers are now trying to follow the example of Battlestar Galactica - leading characters will no longer be 'good guys' in the traditional sense.

jelgate
December 2nd, 2007, 08:05 AM
No one in this ep deserved to die.Jeannie was injected with something that would kill her as an incentive for Rodney to act, placing the onus on Rodney to save her.No argument needed.?* In my state, if she'd died, it would be intentional murder, and that's?* just using the murder statute.If you look at the special circumstances statute, most penal codes say that if a kidnapped person dies while abducted, it's murder.?* In my state, it's capital murder.?* Other states or countries may call it felony murder or murder in the first degree.The assumption is if you leave innocent people asleep in their beds, they won't die because of something you did.?* Kidnapped people shouldn't have to assume risks imposed on them by felons.I'm a little confused on what you. Anyway it does show how far Sheppard will go to save the ones he cares about. Also, its not like he took Wallace and put the CG Wraith on Wallace. The fact that Wallace wasn't a evil man just a desperate man means he wanted repent his actions. ?*

Integrabyte
December 2nd, 2007, 08:07 AM
I'm a little confused on what you. Anyway it does show how far Sheppard will go to save the ones he cares about. Also, its not like he took Wallace and put the CG Wraith on Wallace. The fact that Wallace wasn't a evil man just a desperate man means he wanted repent his actions. ?*


After all is said and done...Sheppard gave Wallace the hangman boots and he will have to live with that.

CalmStorm
December 2nd, 2007, 08:14 AM
Can Sheppard’s actions in Miller’s Crossing be justified?

To me, yes Sheppard's actions can be justified.

Wallace justified his actions in kidnapping Jeannie. He justified his actions in kidnapping McKay. He justified his actions by putting Jeanie's life at risk when he injected her with the nanites. As brilliant as both Jeannie and Rodney are, there was no guarantee that they could come up with a solution in the time necessary to save Wallace's daughter or Jeannie.

I don't think Sheppard forced Wallace to be fed upon, but as he said, did present the situation. Jeannie was facing a death sentence due to Wallace's actions. Wallace was facing a possible death sentence with the wraith. Who dies? The innocent one who was kidnapped and then injected with nanites, or the one who did the kidnapping and injecting and was responsible for the situation at hand? Everything that happened was a result of Wallace's actions and only escalated once he placed Jeannie's life at risk and then, escalated further when the team was unable to undo that action.

In essence, Wallace had a gun (the nanites) placed to Jeannie's head and a sniper team (Sheppard and the wraith) had a good shot and took him out, saving the life of the innocent hostage.

jelgate
December 2nd, 2007, 08:15 AM
After all is said and done...Sheppard gave Wallace the hangman boots and he will have to live with that.Agreed but in the end it was Jeanie's or Wallace's life. This how I see it, If you saw a family/friends life, threaten would you pull the trigger to save your family member/friend. You bet I would? Sheppard isn't the first character to do something unethical

expendable_crewman
December 2nd, 2007, 08:26 AM
I'm a little confused on what you. Anyway it does show how far Sheppard will go to save the ones he cares about. Also, its not like he took Wallace and put the CG Wraith on Wallace. The fact that Wallace wasn't a evil man just a desperate man means he wanted repent his actions. ?*

The poster I quoted commented that Wallace's culpability in the death of Jeannie-- if she'd died --could be argued. I don't see much room for argument there. I think it's pretty cut and dry. If she'd died, she was murdered. I was responding to that.

As for Sheppard, I am conflicted, I mean really conflicted, but I do agree with you on this one: to me Sheppard went far out on a limb this time, and IMO the ep showed him out there. He didn't appear to take it lightly.

I also agree that Wallace volunteered, and after several viewings and reading much discussion I think Wallace was capable of making his decision, at least to my comfort level. Let's just say I think Wallace and Rodney were in the same place, except Wallace had the chance to keep Rodney from experiencing the loss that Wallace was experiencing, a loss that Wallace would be responsible for.

As you know, evil is subjective. I didn't see "evil" but if I was Rodney, looking at Jeannie in a hospital bed, I might have easily thought Wallace was evil. I liked Wallace more for making his choice after I re-watched the ep, but that's likely due to the fact I looked more objectively at his actions. He's easily sympathetic, but, man, what did the Millers and McKay ever do to him or his daughter, you know what I mean?

Now, when you ask Sheppard, what did Wallace ever do to you, Sheppard can make a list, even if it's on Rodney's behalf.

No, Sheppard is not going to be warm and fuzzy in the interview room, and, no, I don't see that he forced the guy either. In what RL scenario will we ever have this set of cirsumstances? How do we compare this to everyday? We can't.

Still, what Sheppard did was illegal and immoral and I'm 100% ecstatic I'm not him, even if he is a fictional character. He gets points for being able to make a decision but then loses them all for making the decision-- there are some emergency response and military folks who will get this part better than some of the civilians.

The interview room was the least of what he did. You realize, don't you, that he had to stand by and let the Wraith feed on the man? And that he facilitated this act?

All I can think of to say to all of this is I'm glad it's just a TV show.

TJuk
December 2nd, 2007, 08:51 AM
Maybe Sheppard should be seen as more of an anti-hero than a hero.

He is indeed in this ep, but thats not a consistant portrayal of the character. Remember back in s1 with 'Poisoning the Well' he berated the Hoffan's for offering their people a choice to vote on the serum, something he deemed 'potential suicide'. Yet he turned round and offered Wallace that choice (granted his character has changed since this time but as I've only watched s1 repeatedly, I cant think of a more recent example).

He was and has taken the moral highground before. Sometimes he does this, and uses it as the excuse for his actions. Other times he does exactly the opposite. Thats extremely sloppy character development and portrayal.

And dont get me wrong, I like anti-heroes, they tend to be interesting and complex characters. And I dont expect for the 'good guys' to be perfect. One of things I adored Carson for. The fact he saw the retrovirus as a way of illiminating the Wraith threat without the preceived loss of life, yet essentially he was committing genocide and the death of 'self' for the Wraith made the whole moral delemma juicy. But his character had an unlying morality, humanity and at least tried to portray the toll upon his conscience (and it seemed toward the end, the choice made were not all his). He was also much more consistent..and when he wasn't I was annoyed by the portrayal.


Season 4 is meant to be a lot darker so maybe the writers are now trying to follow the example of Battlestar Galactica - leading characters will no longer be 'good guys' in the traditional sense.

Yeah and thats what scares me because they are neither consistent, nor do they have a track record of being able to handle these moral situations intelligently. Sometimes even treating them as a joke as a way to dismiss the whole situation or stuff the story into 42 mins.

I'm all for the 'dark turn', but I do not want SGA to become BSG because as much as I enjoy that show, I am not a fan nor do I give a crap about the characters for exactly those reasons.

bluealien
December 2nd, 2007, 10:34 AM
He is indeed in this ep, but thats not a consistant portrayal of the character. Remember back in s1 with 'Poisoning the Well' he berated the Hoffan's for offering their people a choice to vote on the serum, something he deemed 'potential suicide'. Yet he turned round and offered Wallace that choice (granted his character has changed since this time but as I've only watched s1 repeatedly, I cant think of a more recent example).

I think the moral superiority displayed by the Atlantis team and Sheppard is what I find annoying. I don't have a problem with them taking a dark turn or committing questionable deeds.. but then don't go condeming or passing judgement of other races who are pretty much doing the same thing. Their list of questionable deeds include experimenting on the Wraith and end up with the Wraith hypbrid who was responsible for killing a whole race of people. What about unleashing the Wraith on the Pegasus Galaxy, changing the Replicator code that resulted in several worlds being distroyed and more in danger.. the list could go on. Granted they didnt intentioanlly mean for any of this to happen.. but did Wallace intend for anyone to be hurt by his actions.. so since Sheppard and the team have actually caused so much catastroph in the Pegasus Galaxy, shouldn't someone be sitting them down and coaxing them to do the right thing... by sacrificing themselves. John could strap a bomb and go and find some hive ships and do some kamikase...
I know it sounds rediculous but no more rediculous than Sheppard telling Wallace that he should kill himself to make things right and fix his mess, how utterly arrogant of Sheppard considering the mess he has caused in the Pegasus Galaxy.


He was and has taken the moral highground before. Sometimes he does this, and uses it as the excuse for his actions. Other times he does exactly the opposite. Thats extremely sloppy character development and portrayal.

I find Sheppards character flits from being the easy going flyboy who easily gets distracted by a pretty face to a ruthless killer and there is no inbetween. I still want to see a harder and more serious side to Sheppard but not one who tosses away all morals when it suits him but yet treats others with contempt when they do the same.



And dont get me wrong, I like anti-heroes, they tend to be interesting and complex characters. And I dont expect for the 'good guys' to be perfect. One of things I adored Carson for. The fact he saw the retrovirus as a way of illiminating the Wraith threat without the preceived loss of life, yet essentially he was committing genocide and the death of 'self' for the Wraith made the whole moral delemma juicy. But his character had an unlying morality, humanity and at least tried to portray the toll upon his conscience (and it seemed toward the end, the choice made were not all his). He was also much more consistent..and when he wasn't I was annoyed by the portrayal.
I would love to see more of the serious side of Sheppard which would make him a more complex character but the writers don't go there. Mostly we just get the quirky banter or deadly and ruthless. It would be nice if the writers could explore a bit more in between. The conversation in Sateda was a wonderful Sheppard moment and it showed a little of the emotions he keeps buried. I thought it sounded so noble when he said he would give his life for anyone of his team and that he would do anything for them. But his actions in MC were not what I thought he ment when he said he would do anything for them. As I said before why not offer to go in Rodney's place but stooping to coaxing someone to kill themselves was not something I had in mind. I always expected Sheppard would act with some kind of honour but this is not what I saw here, and sadly I think Todd has displayed more honour than Sheppard has recently... but the Wraith are just the big bad evil monsters who cannot be trusted. I wonder why Todd restored Shep's life then if that is the case.



Yeah and thats what scares me because they are neither consistent, nor do they have a track record of being able to handle these moral situations intelligently. Sometimes even treating them as a joke as a way to dismiss the whole situation or stuff the story into 42 mins.

I always cringe when the writers try and go down the moral and ethical route as they usually make a hash of it and I think they have here as well. They threw in their dark moment for Sheppard to spice things up but at what cost to the character.


I'm all for the 'dark turn', but I do not want SGA to become BSG because as much as I enjoy that show, I am not a fan nor do I give a crap about the characters for exactly those reasons.

Me neither. I want the characters to keep their humanity,if their motto is that they will anything that is necessary, and it doesn't matter how low they sink then I guess it's survival at any cost and morals are thrown out of th window. I have no problem with them taking this dark turn if they admit that is what they are doing.. but it's the complete lack of conscience that I find unacceptable. I want to see some consequenses for their actions.. they cannot keep committing immoral acts and walking away without any reprecussions. I would like to see some personal ramifications, especially to Sheppard. Kolya's actions were deemed irreprehensible but yet we see Sheppard doing the same thing when he feels it's warranted .. so I guess it depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on.

Question...

Larrin kidnapped Sheppard in Travelers, beat him up, put his life in danger and threatened to keep him prisoner indefinitely .. do you think he would have fed her to the Wraith if the need arose.. Weren't her actions as bad as Wallace's.

Pegasus_SGA
December 2nd, 2007, 11:12 AM
How far is too far?

Morality is not an absolute; it is fluid; it is defined by the situation. A simple example: killing someone is not murder if they are trying to kill you. Morality can be very complex. Acting morally may be choosing the lesser of two evils or the logically best course of action for the most people. It is doing what produces the maximum benefit, irrespective of the outcome to the individual making the choice.

Is it doing what produces the maximum benefit, irrespective of the outcome to any one individual?

Can Sheppard’s actions in Miller’s Crossing be justified?

Thanks for opening this thread! *cracks knuckles and prepares herself for battle* ;)

After watching the ep the first time, I was surprised to see Shep's actions over this. We know he's capable of manipulating his environment, and those around him to suit his own needs. And we know that he's said from the onset that the team are his family and he'd do anything for any one of them. Which for me is an admirable quality. Given the situation they're in, you need someone like that to watch your six. So, after all was said and done when Rodney came to him and said in effect, "I'm giving my life up to save my sister." Shep (from my perspective) was thinking, 'Why should you have to give your life up? It's not your responsibility. Wallace was the one that put you and Jeannie into this position in the first place, and he should be the one to fix it!" That's how I saw it played out.

I really liked the fact that Sheppard talked to Wallace, and I don't for one minute think that Wallace was suicidal. I think when Shep talked to him and explained the facts (without emotion) he did manipulate Wallace. He called on Wallace's guilt (because that was a way in for him). He presented him with pictures of Jeannie's family and what will happen to her family when Jeannie dies (and that was a real possibility at that stage). I do think he played on Wallace's guilt and made him see things from a different perspective, Jeannie's daughters, and her husbands. Wallace knew what it was like to lose his wife and have his daughter without her mother. So, for me that was Wallace's area of weakness. Morally was it the right thing to do? That's a good question, and I should really try and answer it as best as I can, now that i'm here. :D

Was there an alternative? Yes, Mckay could have been fed on and could have died. The Wraith may not have given back Rodney's life, and then you'd be in the position of, who can the Wraith feed on now to save Rodney?

Sheppard could have given his life for his friend, as he said he would do so many times. But again, we're in the same situation as above.

They could have let Jeannie die. That chain of events would have not only killed Jeannie, but also the Wraith who had been helping Rodney. It would have led to a lifetime of guilt, regret and anguish for Rodney, Shep and Rodney's family.

Wallace could have been executed/sentenced to death/life in prison and the above would still have happened. So using this scenario, Jeannie, the Wraith, Rodney and Wallace would be dead, and his daughter dead at his hands. So 5 deaths, and a family without their wife/mother/sister and daughter, brought on by the actions of one man, who abused his position, and selfishly tried to save the life of one person by potentially taking the lives of 4 others.

So, with that, I think Sheppard did the right thing given the alternatives. He presented an option to Wallace (that we're aware of) do the right thing, or watch 4 more people die because of your actions. Wallace eventually made the right choice.

Do I think Sheppard took this decision lately? Nope! I think it'll haunt him for a long time. But, he did what was necessary to save not one life, but 4!

jelgate
December 2nd, 2007, 11:18 AM
I think the moral superiority displayed by the Atlantis team and Sheppard is what I find annoying.?* I don't have a problem with them taking a dark turn or committing questionable deeds.. but then don't go condeming or passing judgement of other races who are pretty much doing the same thing. Their list of questionable deeds include experimenting?* on the Wraith and end up with the Wraith hypbrid who was responsible for killing a whole race of people.?* What about unleashing the Wraith on the Pegasus Galaxy, changing the Replicator code that resulted in several worlds being distroyed and more in danger.. the list could go on.?* Granted they didnt intentioanlly mean for any of this to happen.. but did Wallace intend for anyone to be hurt by his actions..?* so since Sheppard and the team have actually caused so much catastroph in the Pegasus Galaxy, shouldn't someone be sitting them down and coaxing them to do the right thing... by sacrificing themselves.?* John could strap a bomb and go and find some hive ships and do some kamikase... I know it sounds rediculous but no more rediculous than Sheppard telling Wallace that he should kill himself to make things right and fix his mess, how utterly arrogant of Sheppard considering the mess he has caused in the Pegasus Galaxy.Those are all things that have happeed indirectly of Sheppard's action. The second Wallace injected Jeanie with nanities he had commitied premeditated murder. That said, Sheppard never forced Wallace to sacrifice himself. He just pushed in the direction to show him what the right thing to do was.?*
I find Sheppards character flits from being the easy going flyboy who easily gets distracted by a pretty face to a ruthless killer and there is no inbetween.?* I still want to see a harder and more serious side to Sheppard but not one who tosses away all morals when it suits him but yet treats others with contempt when they do the same.I would love to see more of the serious side of Sheppard which would make him a more complex character but the writers don't go there.?* Mostly we just get the quirky banter or deadly and ruthless.?* It would be nice if the writers could explore a bit more in between.?* The conversation in Sateda was a wonderful Sheppard moment and it showed a little of the emotions he keeps buried.?* I thought it sounded so noble when he said he would give his life for anyone of his team and that he would do anything for them.?* But his actions in MC were not what I thought he ment when he said he would do anything for them.?* As I said before why not offer to go in Rodney's place but stooping to coaxing someone to kill themselves was not something I had in mind.?* I always expected Sheppard would act with some kind of honour but this is not what I saw here,The flyboy thing is his normal personality. I think Miller's Crossing and showed how far he would go for the people he cared about. There is no way McKay (or the SGC for that matter)would allow Sheppard to sacrifice his life.
?*I think Todd has displayed more honour than Sheppard has recently... but the Wraith are just the big bad evil monsters who cannot be trusted.?* I wonder why Todd restored Shep's life then if that is the case.I always cringe when the writers try and go down the moral and ethical route as they usually make a hash of it and I think they have here as well.?* They threw in their dark moment for Sheppard to spice things up but at what cost to the character.They didn't throw it in there. There have been past episodes that show that Sheppard has a dark side. Overall hes a good guy but his dark side adds more depth to his character
Me neither.?* I want the characters to keep their humanity,if their motto is that they will anything that is necessary, and it doesn't matter how low they sink then I guess it's survival at any cost and morals are thrown out of th window.?* I have no problem with them taking this dark turn if they admit that is what they are doing.. but it's the complete lack of conscience that I find unacceptable.?*?* I want to see some consequenses for their actions.. they cannot keep committing immoral acts and walking away without any reprecussions.?* I would like to see some personal ramifications, especially to Sheppard.?*?* Kolya's actions were deemed irreprehensible but yet we see Sheppard doing the same thing when he feels it's warranted .. so I guess it depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on.Apparently you didn't see the end of the episode where Sheppard shows remorse for his actions. I suppose thats why I support his actions. Its was a hard decision to make and he chose a hard option. If he was guiltless about his actions then I would have to agree with you.
Question...Larrin kidnapped Sheppard in Travelers, beat him up, put his life in danger and threatened to keep him prisoner indefinitely .. do you think he would have fed her to the Wraith if the need arose.. Weren't her actions as bad as Wallace's.No, Larin never directly harmed Sheppards life like Wallace did to Jeanie

Kael
December 2nd, 2007, 11:32 AM
I see people place an unconditional value on life, but I believe life for the sake of life is worthless. That guy's life was already over, and everyone knew it. There was nothing to save but a lifetime of horrid imprisonment. There was utterly no value left to him or anyone he knew except as food for the wraith, so unless you have a blanket policy that all life has the same immeasurable value, that's clearly a win-win; he gets to avoid the meaningless, tragically torturous prison existence and gets to help save a life that actually holds value. The only way to see immorality or a downside here is if you believe he had something to live for and had death forced upon him, which the episode quite clearly shows he didn't. He may have been suicidally depressed, but it wasn't just an emotional decision; the logic is solid, so his state of mind really doesn't matter. In fact, if he did decide he wanted to live, then I'd think he's not thinking straight.

Man, what a great episode.

Platschu
December 2nd, 2007, 11:39 AM
Todd should have eaten him only for a little, so Wallace shouldn't have died. It would be a great BSG type twist, if John ordered Todd to kill him. I hope we will learn more about this storyline in "Outcast".

I don't like that the whole feeding process will be Todd's crime in the IOA reports. :S

expendable_crewman
December 2nd, 2007, 11:56 AM
Larrin kidnapped Sheppard in Travelers, beat him up, put his life in danger and threatened to keep him prisoner indefinitely .. do you think he would have fed her to the Wraith if the need arose.. Weren't her actions as bad as Wallace's.

This is a great question, but first ...


think the moral superiority displayed by the Atlantis team and Sheppard is what I find annoying. I don't have a problem with them taking a dark turn or committing questionable deeds.. but then don't go condeming or passing judgement of other races who are pretty much doing the same thing. Their list of questionable deeds include experimenting on the Wraith and end up with the Wraith hypbrid who was responsible for killing a whole race of people. What about unleashing the Wraith on the Pegasus Galaxy, changing the Replicator code that resulted in several worlds being distroyed and more in danger.. the list could go on. Granted they didnt intentioanlly mean for any of this to happen.. but did Wallace intend for anyone to be hurt by his actions.. so since Sheppard and the team have actually caused so much catastroph in the Pegasus Galaxy, shouldn't someone be sitting them down and coaxing them to do the right thing... by sacrificing themselves. John could strap a bomb and go and find some hive ships and do some kamikase...

I'm as likely as the next person to go on a rant about consequences and taking the moral high ground when the expedition makes decisions for cultures / societies in the Pegasus it knows nothing about.

I just don't think the above examples (except Michael) fit the framework set in MC. Unleashing the Wraith was a consequence, not an act, and it wasn't done in the commission of a crime, unless gate travel and exploration are crimes. You could argue leaving "home" to begin with is an act of hubris, but seeking sanctuary (as Atlantis was failing) and rescuing comrades is not a reprehensible act, or a criminal one.

Changing the Replicator code AGAIN, while not criminal, is a big issue for me, SO big that I have chosen to keep my comments on it off this board, but for the present, we can be reasonably sure that the decision to turn on the "kill Wraith" switch wasn't written into the story arc to show the team committing a crime. There's no intent to harm the PG humans, even if the act was, well ... anyway ...

Wallace committed a crime, deprived people of their freedom, not during a state of war (Wraith v. human) but to serve a personal desire. While we can empathize with his reason, his actions are not comparable to the above.

I'm a fan of defining mistakes versus intentional acts, because it helps keep the players straight.

The retrovirus use on Michael was an intentional act. It was (1) done in a time of war, and (2) done with the blessing of an oversight committee, but it was an act that if it saw the light of day, would be condemed as an attrocity and the people responsible punished. It WILL NEVER see the light of day.

Same goes for the people responsible for Wallace's death. Would NOT play well on the 5 o'clock news. Human fed to beast while military looks on? Please. Everyone in the room would either turn government witness or go to jail.

Here's the thing. I'm not going to put Wallace's actions in the same box as the above because they don't belong there. He was a criminal, pleasant, but a criminal, except, at the end, the more I watch that scene, the more I see this guy making the same choice Rodney did. He'd already made it with respect to his own welfare versus his daughter's; he was intimate with the "at all costs" road. At the end, the final "cost" was rotten and maybe a bit too high, so he did the math about as efficiently as he did the math when his daughter's life was in the mix.

Then ... back to the moral high ground thing. I hate it when the show spills its present-day Earth, western culture whatever morality all over the place, and PG humans (Poisoning the Well) are cast in the dingy light left by their shadow. Walk a mile in their shoes first ...

It's probably a bad idea to ask, "Are the PG humans better off today than they were four years ago ..." OMG. But if they were, man, would we have a boring series.

Back to your question about Larrin. Larrin kidnapped Sheppard in Travelers, beat him up, put his life in danger and threatened to keep him prisoner indefinitely .. do you think he would have fed her to the Wraith if the need arose.. Weren't her actions as bad as Wallace's.

The first question ends with "if the need arose" and the answer is yes. If she'd kidnapped Jeannie and Rodney and forced poison into Jeannie's body that could only be neutralized by a Wraith that had just dropped from hunger ... bye, bye, Larrin. Sure as Miller's Crossing is canon, Larrin is a goner.

The second question was were her actions as bad as Wallace's?

The answer is also yes, especially when taken out of context. By Earth standards, and the standards of my culture, I can name Larrin's offenses one by one, and they add up to about forty or fifty years in the penitentiary.

In context, as in from within Larrin's culture, everyone not of her people is viewed by the Traveler's code as prey. So, what she did "feels" wrong to me (and to Sheppard), and by my book, unless Larrin's genes flicker differently than mine, she should at least feel a guilt spasm here and there. But in her world, kidnapping, torture, and coercion (of random individuals outside the theater of war) are acceptable tactics. Which makes her an enemy of Atlantis, since someone who operates as she does cannot make a reliable ally. My guess is we'll probably have to watch the team learn that lesson all over again too.

Pegasus_SGA
December 2nd, 2007, 12:34 PM
Wallace may of been guilty of a lot of things...but Wallace also wasn't in the right frame of mind. He obviously wasn't thinking like a normal human being. He just lost his wife and now his only child was dying.

I disagree, he knew exactly what he was doing. Just because you're grieving it doesn't mean that you're incapable of making a rational decision. He lost his wife several years before, and while i'm not saying he wasn't depressed (because I think he was), it does not mean that he was suicidal. Depression and suicide don't always go hand in hand. What makes him so special that he had the right to forceably take someone else family and kill them (technically) because of what he was going through. He did it because he had the means at his disposal. He was a powerful man, with lots of money at his disposal, but he was the one without any morals. He deliberately sentanced to death someone else's daughter to save his own. So no sympathies here.


No one in any of their post have brought up Wallace mental state. He obviously wasn't criminally insane under US law becuase he knew what he was doing was wrong however he was desperate and depressed.

Desperate and depressed does not always equate to suicidal tendacies.



If you have someone suffering from depression you don't place a loaded gun in front of them.


Why? Because you feel they can't make a choice?



Sheppard essentially did just that. I mean heck, shep put the gun in the man's hand and helped him him at his at his own head...being metaphoric here.


No he didn't. The man had a choice, spend an eternity in jail (which he did say he knew that would happen), or make amends. he chose the latter. how is that putting a gun to his head? He was more than willing to go to jail for his actions. So why did he choose to get fed on to the Wraith? Because Shep told him what his actions had caused.

Here's an example for you. If someone said your actions had resulted in the loss of someone's life. Would you want to correct the errors you made because someone explained that they had a family and how your actions have impacted on that family? Or not?



You have a man who just lost everything--he took a huge gamble becuase he wasn't in his frame of mind to begin with. You tell them that if he "volunteers" to die that everything can be made right. What depressed person with nothing to gain would turn that down. That's a no brainer.


You're assuming that depressed/grieving people are incapable of making a decision, on what basis?



IMO TPTB did cross that moral line in this ep and never even brought up the victem's mental state. Just that he had nothing to live for and he could fix everything by dying.

The ep would have been more realistic of Jenny did die in the end and Wallace went to a mental facility.

Again I disagree. Wallace was not a victim, Wallace was a perpetraitor. He wasn't some innocent bystander who Sheppard cornered and fed to the wraith. Why would that ending have been more realistic. Oh they've lost a family member, quick sent them to the mental hospital, they must be unstable! Come on Jackie. Have you ever lost a close family member? Do you know what it's like to lose your whole family?


I agree with everything you said. Shep passed a moral line here and as usual we can wrap it up in cotten wool and give all the reasons why he did it. But at the end of the day he went into that room with the intention of talking Wallace into killing himself.

I saw it different. He went into that room to explain to Wallace the ramifications of his actions. I'll agree that Shep may have been hoping that Wallace would atone for his actions. But there were no guarantee's, Sheppard couldn't force him to do it. It had to be his choice.


Its irrelevant that Wallace was going to spend the rest of his life in prison or whatever punishment he was going to get... Sheppard wanted him dead so that he could feed him to the Wraith... to solve his problem ie Rodney sacrificing himself.

Nope it wasn't irrelevant. It goes to show his state of mind. Sheppard how I saw it, wanted Wallace to put things right, and this was his opportunity to do it. To save the life of the person he had sentanced to death.


There was no threat to the Pegasus Galaxy here or to Earth.. this was about John wanting to save Rodney's life and crossing the line to do so. What made him any different to Wallace. Wallace did what he did to save his daughter. He would also go to any lenghts to save his family.. but Rodney refused to try and help her and tries to escape and therefore forces his hand. Wallace was deparate and yes he crossed a moral line as well when he injected Jeannie... but in the end he paid the ultimate price.. But Sheppard never gets to pay for his actions... he coherced someone into killing themselves and very conveniently Wallace obliged.. or as I said in the ep thread.. did he.. why is it so difficult to believe that Sheppard didnt feed him to the Wraith anyway.. after watching tonights ep I'm not so sure he wouldn't be capable of doing this.

Yes, it was about Shep wanting to stop his friend dying. Is that so wrong that he wanted to help his friend? Why should Rodney pay for someone elses mistakes?

Why is it that you can accept that Wallace did it to save his family, but you can't at least entertain the possibility that Shep did exactly the same?

Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but if you were able to save your friend or family member, wouldn't you do what was necessary? That's what Wallace did, that's what Shep did. The difference between the two is that the team wouldn't have been put into this position if not for Wallace's actions. Shep relied on Wallace to do the right thing. If you intentionally took the life of another, wouldn't the family expect you to be held accountable and pay penance for your actions? If the reverse had happened and someone had hurt your child, wouldn't you want them to pay for it? Wouldn't you want to talk to the person that hurt your family in that way and tell them how you've been effected by it all? I would! And if they took their own life as a consequence of that, then that's their choice. I would have only presented the facts and told them of the impact. It's their choice whether to listen or not.




No ones life is useless. So John is now Judge and jury and should make decisons on who lives and who dies. John is a soldier and that means defending his team and his country.. not murdering people or cohersing anyone into killing themself.

Shep is Rodney's commanding officer, his friend and for all intense and purposes his family. His job is to look out for him and make sure he doesn't get into trouble. I see this as just an extention of that duty. He was helping his friend in the only way he could. If his intentions were simply to kill the man and feed him to the Wraith, then he would have just got out his P90 or his berreta and shot him, then dragged his ass to the wraith. He didn't. Why was that do you think? Because he's afraid of the fall out of his actions? Nope, that's one thing he's never had a problem with before, so why start now?


I agree, two wrongs do not make a right.

Was Wallace wrong? Yes, morally and ethically. He had his motivations, we can intellectually understand them doesn't make him right, or evil for that matter.

Was Sheppard wrong? Yes, morally and ethically, again we can understand them but does that make them any less wrong? Hell freakin no.

I don't think anyone is saying what he did was morally right at all, I think people are simply saying that this was the only real option available to them. What were the alternatives? I've stated mine, i'd like to hear your alternatives (given how things played out on screen).



This is the problem we had with the retro-virus, we're crossing a very fine line that is turning the people who are supposed to be the good guys into the bad. Especially when there is no consequences for their actions.


So you think that Beckett was a mass murderer because of his actions with the retro-virus?



John played god, he traded one life for another based on his personal preferences. And the flippant way (written and portrayed) that he carried out this act left me cold. Who is to say Wallaces life is more valuable then Jeanie's? These morally wrong (no matter the motivation) actions makes our heroes unlikable. Sheppard is supposed to be the good guy, he's supposed to always try and be above these things. And if he does do them, then we should damn well have some serious consequences.


Flippant way? Are you talking about when he and Wallace were talking?


For starters, I cant see Landry allowing a man to essentially be murderer, so why wasn't Sheppard arrested and the Wraith killed or at least locked up? Whether Wallace went willingly or not, he would not have had the option. If he was suicidal, you wouldn't give him a gun, noose or access to a high roof. Its called assisted suicide and in the west, that usually has you on trail for murder or manslaughter. Sheppard wont go on trail or face consquences legally for what he did, thats a cover-up.

Why wasn't Sheppard arrested? Because the report reflected that an accident took place and the Wraith escaped from his bindings.

The difference was Wallace certainly didn't seem suicidal did he?



This isn't the first time Sheppard has committed murder (the slaughter of innocent Wraith in 'Misbegotten' for one), in fact he is a mass murderer regardless of whether those actions saved the lives of his friends or not.

Innocent Wraith? Oh dear.......


Not to mention repeated actions like this are liable to make any sane caring person mentally unhinged and potentially dangerous all round. But then you change your lead/hero into the bad guy. To me he is the bad guy. Rodney at least commits terrible acts because he's blinded by ego and arrogance (blowing up half a solar systems). Sheppard commits acts of mass murderer knowingly and 'pre-meditated' (he had the bomb on the planet in 'Misbegotten' just incase...and was willing to use it even against innocent humans).

Right! So double standards are ok then?



If John's a good guy, he has the deaths of hundreds of innocent lives on his conscience, thats a lot of blood on his hands. Think of the nazi's, many of the ones who committed the worst attrocities were loving family men who believed they were doing the best for their friends and family. Didn't make them any less evil and twisted, and John's want to save Rodney or Jeanies life was nothing different to this. It solely depends on what side of the fence you are on.


Shep has taken hundreds of innocent lives? Are we watching the same programme?

So now you're comparing Shep's actions to what the Nazi's did? Do you understand the concepts of the Geneva convention? Would you like a quick lesson, or the cliff notes version of the rules of war?


Any normal person of conscience would be suffering terrible conseqeneces mentally at least. So he would be heading for a nervous breakdown, or he would be becoming cold and ruthless to the point of crossing the line from good guy, to very bad.

On what basis? Heading for a nervous breakdown because he lost his daughter. I've lost more family members than I count over the last 3 years. I believe i'm up to 9 members of my family dead now. Am I heading for a nervous breakdown? (Don't answer that :P) You know what I did? I flipped death the bird! So mentally unstable, I think not. Although others on this forum may disagree. :D

Linzi
December 2nd, 2007, 12:43 PM
I disagree, he knew exactly what he was doing. Just because you're grieving it doesn't mean that you're incapable of making a rational decision. He lost his wife several years before, and while i'm not saying he wasn't depressed (because I think he was), it does not mean that he was suicidal. Depression and suicide don't always go hand in hand. What makes him so special that he had the right to forceably take someone else family and kill them (technically) because of what he was going through. He did it because he had the means at his disposal. He was a powerful man, with lots of money at his disposal, but he was the one without any morals. He deliberately sentanced to death someone else's daughter to save his own. So no sympathies here.



Desperate and depressed does not always equate to suicidal tendacies.



Why? Because you feel they can't make a choice?



No he didn't. The man had a choice, spend an eternity in jail (which he did say he knew that would happen), or make amends. he chose the latter. how is that putting a gun to his head? He was more than willing to go to jail for his actions. So why did he choose to get fed on to the Wraith? Because Shep told him what his actions had caused.

Here's an example for you. If someone said your actions had resulted in the loss of someone's life. Would you want to correct the errors you made because someone explained that they had a family and how your actions have impacted on that family? Or not?



You're assuming that depressed/grieving people are incapable of making a decision, on what basis?



Again I disagree. Wallace was not a victim, Wallace was a perpetraitor. He wasn't some innocent bystander who Sheppard cornered and fed to the wraith. Why would that ending have been more realistic. Oh they've lost a family member, quick sent them to the mental hospital, they must be unstable! Come on Jackie. Have you ever lost a close family member? Do you know what it's like to lose your whole family?



I saw it different. He went into that room to explain to Wallace the ramifications of his actions. I'll agree that Shep may have been hoping that Wallace would atone for his actions. But there were no guarantee's, Sheppard couldn't force him to do it. It had to be his choice.



Nope it wasn't irrelevant. It goes to show his state of mind. Sheppard how I saw it, wanted Wallace to put things right, and this was his opportunity to do it. To save the life of the person he had sentanced to death.



Yes, it was about Shep wanting to stop his friend dying. Is that so wrong that he wanted to help his friend? Why should Rodney pay for someone elses mistakes?

Why is it that you can accept that Wallace did it to save his family, but you can't at least entertain the possibility that Shep did exactly the same?

Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but if you were able to save your friend or family member, wouldn't you do what was necessary? That's what Wallace did, that's what Shep did. The difference between the two is that the team wouldn't have been put into this position if not for Wallace's actions. Shep relied on Wallace to do the right thing. If you intentionally took the life of another, wouldn't the family expect you to be held accountable and pay penance for your actions? If the reverse had happened and someone had hurt your child, wouldn't you want them to pay for it? Wouldn't you want to talk to the person that hurt your family in that way and tell them how you've been effected by it all? I would! And if they took their own life as a consequence of that, then that's their choice. I would have only presented the facts and told them of the impact. It's their choice whether to listen or not.



Shep is Rodney's commanding officer, his friend and for all intense and purposes his family. His job is to look out for him and make sure he doesn't get into trouble. I see this as just an extention of that duty. He was helping his friend in the only way he could. If his intentions were simply to kill the man and feed him to the Wraith, then he would have just got out his P90 or his berreta and shot him, then dragged his ass to the wraith. He didn't. Why was that do you think? Because he's afraid of the fall out of his actions? Nope, that's one thing he's never had a problem with before, so why start now?



I don't think anyone is saying what he did was morally right at all, I think people are simply saying that this was the only real option available to them. What were the alternatives? I've stated mine, i'd like to hear your alternatives (given how things played out on screen).



So you think that Beckett was a mass murderer because of his actions with the retro-virus?



Flippant way? Are you talking about when he and Wallace were talking?



Why wasn't Sheppard arrested? Because the report reflected that an accident took place and the Wraith escaped from his bindings.

The difference was Wallace certainly didn't seem suicidal did he?



Innocent Wraith? Oh dear.......



Right! So double standards are ok then?



Shep has taken hundreds of innocent lives? Are we watching the same programme?

So now you're comparing Shep's actions to what the Nazi's did? Do you understand the concepts of the Geneva convention? Would you like a quick lesson, or the cliff notes version of the rules of war?



On what basis? Heading for a nervous breakdown because he lost his daughter. I've lost more family members than I count over the last 3 years. I believe i'm up to 9 members of my family dead now. Am I heading for a nervous breakdown? (Don't answer that :P) You know what I did? I flipped death the bird! So mentally unstable, I think not. Although others on this forum may disagree. :D

Great post, Peg. I agree with all you say here. :)

Ltcolshepjumper
December 2nd, 2007, 12:52 PM
Whether it was moral or not, Shep did walk into that room with the intention of convincing Wallace that he should give his life for Jeannie. He layed the guilt on him, essentially pressuring him into agreeing. While he may not have physically forced Wallace into "killing" himself, he did play on his emotions. What I don't get is, if it was that bad, why not use the Asgard tech to clone an empty shell of a person and let the wraith feed off that. It's no more immoral than being an accomplice to suicide.

P-90_177
December 2nd, 2007, 12:56 PM
Whether it was moral or not, Shep did walk into that room with the intention of convincing Wallace that he should give his life for Jeannie. He layed the guilt on him, essentially pressuring him into agreeing. While he may not have physically forced Wallace into "killing" himself, he did play on his emotions. What I don't get is, if it was that bad, why not use the Asgard tech to clone an empty shell of a person and let the wraith feed off that. It's no more immoral than being an accomplice to suicide.

maybe an empty shell doesn't have what a wraith needs to feed on to survive.

Pegasus_SGA
December 2nd, 2007, 12:57 PM
Great post, Peg. I agree with all you say here. :)
:eek: You agree that i'm mentally unstable?! Linz, I thought you were my friend. I'm wounded. I don't know if i'll ever recover from the trauma. You've stood by me all this time. Been there when I needed you the most, and now...

*sniff*

Are you feeling guilty yet? ;)

jelgate
December 2nd, 2007, 12:59 PM
:eek: You agree that i'm mentally unstable?! Linz, I thought you were my friend. I'm wounded. I don't know if i'll ever recover from the trauma. You've stood by me all this time. Been there when I needed you the most, and now... *sniff*Are you feeling guilty yet? ;)I thought she was agreeing with you post about the morality. If it helps, you are both mentally unstable?*

Pegasus_SGA
December 2nd, 2007, 01:04 PM
I thought she was agreeing with you post about the morality. If it helps, you are both mentally unstable?*
I was being facetious, hon. Did you not get that? Wow, I must be slipping. ;)

Linzi
December 2nd, 2007, 01:07 PM
:eek: You agree that i'm mentally unstable?! Linz, I thought you were my friend. I'm wounded. I don't know if i'll ever recover from the trauma. You've stood by me all this time. Been there when I needed you the most, and now...

*sniff*

Are you feeling guilty yet? ;)
I am. I need to atone for my sins! Where's Todd? He must be feeling a bit peckish by now! ;)

I thought she was agreeing with you post about the morality. If it helps, you are both mentally unstable?*
Thanks Jel! But to be honest, Peg's worse than me! ;)

I was being facetious, hon. Did you not get that? Wow, I must be slipping. ;)

I got it, but you are mentally unstable, well more so than me - possibly!

garhkal
December 2nd, 2007, 01:17 PM
If Wallace had overheard John and Rodney's converstation and freely offered to take Rodneys place then I would have no problem with that.. but John pushed him into doing something that he may never had done if it hadnt been seconds after hearing that his daughter was dead.

That is a very valid comment. If the situation was Wallace had come to that decision on his own, rahter than being coerced into it, there would not be 4+ pages here and 12+ pages on the other thread concerning whether it was right, moral etc..


What was the right thing to do?

How's about follow through with his statement he made to Teyla in Sateda. Where he would give his life for anyone of his friends/family. EG put himself in place of rodney to feed 'todd'.


and the way the solution to the problem has been written makes McKay and Sheppard both extremely selfish, irresponsible and morally corrupt men who have severely abused their power. I dont agree with that sort of portrayal for the people supposed to be the good guys and I dont think that sits well with either of the characters...in my mind at least.

That it does. Where as wallace fully knew he was going to pay a big price to save his daughter, it seemed that neither rodney or shep knew they were or were willing to accept a price to pay to save Ms Miller. Though rodney came closest when he offered to have himself be fed upon.



And as for the way 'life' works...if there were the real world, Shepard would be in prison and about to be court martialed for just the act of 'covering it up' by falsifying the report into a death. He would also be on trail for murder/manslughter, Rodney also being cuplable by sending classified data to his sister. That makes them the BAD GUY as well as Wallace.

Very true. Also those soldiers who helped out would also be going to court martial, the base commander for allowing this to happen would be getting replaced and a full inquiry would be happening..


He never exchanged one life for another, he explained the situation to Wallace, and he volunteered.

Yes he did. By coercing Wallace to give his up, he exchanged Wallaces for mccays. Also other than Shepard saying he volunteered, we will never know if he truly did so.


He did have full knowledge of the situation.

How. If i told you once, that this guy can suck your life out of you and is of an alien race, does tha make you full knowing of what they are and how they act? NO. It DOES make you informed.


A volunteer was needed, and Sheppard found one.

BUt why was a volunteer needed.. McCay had already offered.


And at least we saw a little of Weir trying to resist doing it, and wrestle with her conscience. I dont feel we saw enough if any of that from Sheppard in MC. And what she did was in another galaxy outside of Earth or US law. However, I dont agree with her decision to torture him.

Very true. Wier struggled with that decision and had 3 people (ronon, shep and Cadwell) all egging her on to do it. So we could say she was coercied. BUT if it came to legal light, she would still get punished. Shep did it on his own, willfully and with no concern for legalities, AND did it on earth.


I think the moral superiority displayed by the Atlantis team and Sheppard is what I find annoying...
snip.
John could strap a bomb and go and find some hive ships and do some kamikase...
I know it sounds rediculous but no more rediculous than Sheppard telling Wallace that he should kill himself to make things right and fix his mess, how utterly arrogant of Sheppard considering the mess he has caused in the Pegasus Galaxy.

Very true Blue. Shep and co have endangered a whole hell of a lot of people by their acts, where as Wallace endangered Jeanie. He was offered 'redemption' while as yet, they have not. heck the best example i have seen of Shep almost getting it, was when in The Siege Part 2, he was willing to Kamakasi that one jumper into the hive himself.


I find Sheppards character flits from being the easy going flyboy who easily gets distracted by a pretty face to a ruthless killer and there is no inbetween. I still want to see a harder and more serious side to Sheppard but not one who tosses away all morals when it suits him but yet treats others with contempt when they do the same.

it does seem like he treats others with contempt when they do the same as he does..


Larrin kidnapped Sheppard in Travelers, beat him up, put his life in danger and threatened to keep him prisoner indefinitely .. do you think he would have fed her to the Wraith if the need arose.. Weren't her actions as bad as Wallace's.

Good parallel, but we already saw that shep forced a wraith to give her life back...


Why is it that you can accept that Wallace did it to save his family, but you can't at least entertain the possibility that Shep did exactly the same?

BUt then if that is the case, it makes shep as bad as what wallace did.

Worse infact since wallace did not intentionally go out to kill anyone, shep did.


Why wasn't Sheppard arrested? Because the report reflected that an accident took place and the Wraith escaped from his bindings.

BUT if that 'accident had happend as shep put fourth' then why the hell was the wraith still alive after killing someone, let alone still out of his bindings?
The fact he was NEITHER of the above shows it was a covered up killing
'

Integrabyte
December 2nd, 2007, 01:28 PM
Do I think Sheppard took this decision lately? Nope! I think it'll haunt him for a long time. But, he did what was necessary to save not one life, but 4!


Not a bad post BABE and yes Sheppard did save 4 people. Good for him, but how did he do it? Well, he put price on human life. He explained Wallace that the life of the 4 people you mentioned is worth more than his life. This is what happened in that room. The eternal question: "Would you kill 1000 to save 10.000?" Why are the lives of those 1000 worth less than the lives of those 10.000"? Why play God? Sheppard played God in this episode...

P-90_177
December 2nd, 2007, 01:34 PM
Not a bad post BABE and yes Sheppard did save 4 people. Good for him, but how did he do it? Well, he put price on human life. He explained Wallace that the life of the 4 people you mentioned is worth more than his life. This is what happened in that room. The eternal question: "Would you kill 1000 to save 10.000?" Why are the lives of those 1000 worth less than the lives of those 10.000"? Why play God? Sheppard played God in this episode...

and quite rightly too. It's unsettleing to think about it like this but in the end the wraith, Jeanie and Rodney are all way more important than wallace. And lets face it, even if they weren't Shep still would have done it to save Jeanie for McKay. That to me is a sign of true friendship.

The_Carpenter
December 2nd, 2007, 01:43 PM
and quite rightly too. It's unsettleing to think about it like this but in the end the wraith, Jeanie and Rodney are all way more important than wallace. And lets face it, even if they weren't Shep still would have done it to save Jeanie for McKay. That to me is a sign of true friendship.

Indeed I totally agree, If I had to make a similar choice to save a life of a friend or loved one then I would not hesitate to do what had to be done, this episode has made me look at Shep. in a whole new light and has elevated him to one of my fav. stargate Characters.

Pegasus_SGA
December 2nd, 2007, 02:10 PM
I am. I need to atone for my sins! Where's Todd? He must be feeling a bit peckish by now! ;)

Well he'll do wonders for your figure, and he's probably cheaper than liposuction. :P



Thanks Jel! But to be honest, Peg's worse than me! ;)


I got it, but you are mentally unstable, well more so than me - possibly!

You keep telling yourself that hon. ;)

Okay so before I get whacked with the noodle....... :P



That is a very valid comment. If the situation was Wallace had come to that decision on his own, rahter than being coerced into it, there would not be 4+ pages here and 12+ pages on the other thread concerning whether it was right, moral etc..

Coerced? So, being told the truth is being coerced? Telling him about the Jeannie's family is coersion. And for those that have killed hundreds of people in the real world? All we had to do was to tell them about the families that have been effected and they'd top themselves. Wow had I known that, i'd have made more of an effort on certain individuals. ;)


How's about follow through with his statement he made to Teyla in Sateda. Where he would give his life for anyone of his friends/family. EG put himself in place of rodney to feed 'todd'.

Now see the whumper in me is saying hell yeah, but alas the only thing I can say here is... why the hell should he?



That it does. Where as wallace fully knew he was going to pay a big price to save his daughter, it seemed that neither rodney or shep knew they were or were willing to accept a price to pay to save Ms Miller. Though rodney came closest when he offered to have himself be fed upon.


The point is, he should never have put the team in that position to start with. Irrespective of his motives. It was Wallace's mess, and it was up to Wallace to clean up his crap. And he did.



Very true. Also those soldiers who helped out would also be going to court martial, the base commander for allowing this to happen would be getting replaced and a full inquiry would be happening..

It's never going to happen. You know that, and so do I. All of this will be reviewed by the IOA and who knows they may hold Shep accountable and the others further on down the line.



Yes he did. By coercing Wallace to give his up, he exchanged Wallaces for mccays. Also other than Shepard saying he volunteered, we will never know if he truly did so.

You're forgetting that it was a choice! And no, we'll never know for certain one why or another whether Shep held a gun to Wallace's head and forced him into it, but how I see it, is that Wallace agreed. Shep did say in the interrogating room that it was voluntary. Do you think he lied to Wallace at that point?


How. If i told you once, that this guy can suck your life out of you and is of an alien race, does tha make you full knowing of what they are and how they act? NO. It DOES make you informed.

And the difference is what? Do you really think that the conversation was as simple as what was shown?


BUt why was a volunteer needed.. McCay had already offered.

And that makes it alright does it? McKay volunteers and no redress from Wallace. Would you have been happier with that outcome? And if the wraith didn't comply then what? He feeds on McKay, doesn't help Jeannie, but it's okay because Wallace doesn't have to face up to any responsibility.



Very true. Wier struggled with that decision and had 3 people (ronon, shep and Cadwell) all egging her on to do it. So we could say she was coercied. BUT if it came to legal light, she would still get punished. Shep did it on his own, willfully and with no concern for legalities, AND did it on earth.


How do we know he did it on his own? Earlier you were saying the whole base was in on it.



Very true Blue. Shep and co have endangered a whole hell of a lot of people by their acts, where as Wallace endangered Jeanie. He was offered 'redemption' while as yet, they have not. heck the best example i have seen of Shep almost getting it, was when in The Siege Part 2, he was willing to Kamakasi that one jumper into the hive himself.


Which they've acknowledged. They woke up the Wraith and are now making amends for that error in judgement. So by that logic shouldn't that principle be applied to Wallace? he made an error, so shouldn't he have rectified it? Why should other people be expected to clean up his mess?



it does seem like he treats others with contempt when they do the same as he does..

Sheppard is the same person he's been since Rising. His character hasn't changed at all. People's perceptions of him have.



Good parallel, but we already saw that shep forced a wraith to give her life back...


And what's to say that he would get lucky a second time?



BUt then if that is the case, it makes shep as bad as what wallace did.


Worse infact since wallace did not intentionally go out to kill anyone, shep did.


Wallace didn't intentionally go out and kill anyone? Why then the guns? Why inject Jeannie with the nanites knowing the harm they were causing his own daughter. Where was his morality?

Shep was not involved in the set up, kidnap and attempted murder of Rodney and Jeannie, Wallace was. Sheppard told Wallace what was happening to Jeannie and the people she would be leaving behind because of his immoral acts. Do you really think telling Wallace these things is on the same level as kidnapping and attempted murder?



BUT if that 'accident had happend as shep put fourth' then why the hell was the wraith still alive after killing someone, let alone still out of his bindings?
The fact he was NEITHER of the above shows it was a covered up killing
'

The Wraith was kept alive because he's more valuable to them alive than dead.


Not a bad post BABE and yes Sheppard did save 4 people. Good for him, but how did he do it? Well, he put price on human life. He explained Wallace that the life of the 4 people you mentioned is worth more than his life. This is what happened in that room. The eternal question: "Would you kill 1000 to save 10.000?" Why are the lives of those 1000 worth less than the lives of those 10.000"? Why play God? Sheppard played God in this episode...

Thanks sweetie. ;) How did he do it? Through guilt tactics! Shep exploited Wallace's weaknesses (Maddison and Caleb) and used it to get Wallace to see the consequences of his actions. It was a sneaky and underhand way of getting Wallace to do the right thing, but you have to go with what works, and it did.

That's the thing though, is one life worth more than a 1000? I remember having this discussion in the Ark thread at the time, and we debated this back and forth. The problem is, until you are in that situation you'll never know what way you'll react. We have the luxury of time to evaluate all the options and hindsight. When it's presented in front of you sometimes you just have to go with gut instincts, rightly or wrongly. Sheppard played God? Nope if he had, Wallace would not have had a choice would he, he would have taken Wallace's life into his own hands and made the decision for him. He didn't. That's the difference.

CalmStorm
December 2nd, 2007, 02:17 PM
Not a bad post BABE and yes Sheppard did save 4 people. Good for him, but how did he do it? Well, he put price on human life. He explained Wallace that the life of the 4 people you mentioned is worth more than his life. This is what happened in that room. The eternal question: "Would you kill 1000 to save 10.000?" Why are the lives of those 1000 worth less than the lives of those 10.000"? Why play God? Sheppard played God in this episode...

I have to disagree with the statement that "Sheppard played God in this episode..."

Wallace is the one who 'created' the problem. He was the one to use an experimental treatment on his daughter. He was the one who kidnapped a woman with a family. He was the one who placed the nanites in Jeannie without knowing if a solution could be made in sufficient time to save not only his daughter, but that innocent, kidnapped mother.

His life or hers? Wallace created the position he was in. Sheppard pointed that out. His life or hers? Pointing out to Wallace what had to be done to save the life of someone he put in danger through his actions. That's hardly playing God. It's more along the lines of answering for your actions.

Wallace placed someone's life on the line and that life was about to be lost. Given the choice, whose life is to be lost? The innocent victim, or the one who KNOWINGLY put that victim's life at risk?

Integrabyte
December 2nd, 2007, 02:31 PM
Thanks sweetie. ;) How did he do it? Through guilt tactics! Shep exploited Wallace's weaknesses (Maddison and Caleb) and used it to get Wallace to see the consequences of his actions. It was a sneaky and underhand way of getting Wallace to do the right thing, but you have to go with what works, and it did.

...but this proves my point dear ;). Using these tactics he showed him his life is worth less than the 4 he will save. In a manner of speaking he did take the decision for Wallace and by choosing who will live and who will die you play GOD. Simple as that ;)

Sheppard: "You know Wallace, uhmm...Jeannie has a daughter...a husband...friends...family...uhmm...you have nothing left so....
Wallace: "Uhmm...well yes..you are right my life is worthless compared to hers.....no point in living....feed me to the wraith '

:P:P:P:P

Wraith_Boy
December 2nd, 2007, 02:31 PM
I don't see him crossing the line.

It was McKay who endangered his sisters life in the 1st place. He was willing to sacrifice hismelf to the Wraith because he felt guilty.

Wallace was the one who infected her with the nanites. As well as kidnapping her from her home in front of her family.

His daughter died because of his rash actions that lead to them developing nanites, then kindapping the McKays & forcing them to proceed with something that wasn't ready.

His daughter died as a result of his actions. He was getting done for kidnapping & probably a few other things as well. He was responsible for almost killing McKay's sister.

Therefore I think Shep did the exact right thing. It was him who put McKays sister in danger, so it should be up to him to help right the wrong that was all his doing.

As for the guys mental state. I don't think he was in full control of his faculties when he kidnapped people & injected tiny robots in to force someone to help him. So that shouldn't be used as an excuse to make Shep out the bad guy.

If he hadn't kidnapped them in the 1st place. Neither would have been in any danger. So I don't see his mental state coming into play.

He probably seen the error of his ways. He lost his daughter as a result of his actions. He was gonna be responsible for another innocent life that he deliberately placed in jeopardy. His sense of decency probably came into play at the end, there was someone that could help save her life. It was him who was directly responsible for placing it in jeopardy in the 1st place. So he probably felt that it should fall on him to help save her life. Meaning the only way he could do it was to give up his own.

Which since it was him who endangered it in the first place, then I think that's a fair & honourable way for him to go out!

Pegasus_SGA
December 2nd, 2007, 02:47 PM
...but this proves my point dear ;). Using these tactics he showed him his life is worth less than the 4 he will save. In a manner of speaking he did take the decision for Wallace and by choosing who will live and who will die you play GOD. Simple as that ;)

Sheppard: "You know Wallace, uhmm...Jeannie has a daughter...a husband...friends...family...uhmm...you have nothing left so....
Wallace: "Uhmm...well yes..you are right my life is worthless compared to hers.....no point in living....feed me to the wraith '

:P:P:P:P

Okay, so it's late and you know how I get when i'm tired.... so i'll answer you then go to bed. I do need my beauty sleep you know. So don't feel offended if I don't answer your post that I know you're going to do after this one. Okay did that make any sense whatsoever? :lol:

Using 'guilt tactics' Shep showed Wallace the error of his ways. Not necessary that his (Wallace's) life is worth less than the others, but by showing him that the chain of events that Wallace started in trying to save his daughter, was going to result in the loss of 5 people in total.

The thing is hon, Shep didn't make that choice, Wallace did. And by taking on that responsibility himself and making a decision on his own life the 'Playing God' thing never took place. When you play God with someone's life, you take on the responsibility and do with them what you will. Now the fact that Wallace made his own decisions with regards to his life means that Shep didn't play god. Morallity and ethics are never that simple. If it was we wouldn't be on page 8, nor would the discussion thread be so embroiled in theories. :D

:lol: your script attempts appear to be a little one sided, I wonder why that is? ;) :P :D

Jackie
December 2nd, 2007, 03:21 PM
and quite rightly too. It's unsettleing to think about it like this but in the end the wraith, Jeanie and Rodney are all way more important than wallace. And lets face it, even if they weren't Shep still would have done it to save Jeanie for McKay. That to me is a sign of true friendship.

That to me is a sign of a man who thinks Rodney can't survive with his won mistakes. Rodney brought his sister into the mess when he e-mailed classified material to her--which would have gotten him a criminal charges.

Shep did it becuase he didn't think Rodney had the gull to stand up and take responsibility for bringing his sister into it in the first place.



Indeed I totally agree, If I had to make a similar choice to save a life of a friend or loved one then I would not hesitate to do what had to be done, this episode has made me look at Shep. in a whole new light and has elevated him to one of my fav. stargate Characters.

Made me look at him in a whole new light too--a red one. Doesn't you statement reflect what Wallace did--anything to save the life of a loved one. BUT Wallace was killed for his actions--Sheppard was not!


I have to disagree with the statement that "Sheppard played God in this episode..."

Wallace is the one who 'created' the problem. He was the one to use an experimental treatment on his daughter. He was the one who kidnapped a woman with a family. He was the one who placed the nanites in Jeannie without knowing if a solution could be made in sufficient time to save not only his daughter, but that innocent, kidnapped mother.

His life or hers? Wallace created the position he was in. Sheppard pointed that out. His life or hers? Pointing out to Wallace what had to be done to save the life of someone he put in danger through his actions. That's hardly playing God. It's more along the lines of answering for your actions.

Wallace placed someone's life on the line and that life was about to be lost. Given the choice, whose life is to be lost? The innocent victim, or the one who KNOWINGLY put that victim's life at risk?

BUT--2 wrongs don't make a right. Sheppard did indeed play god by taking away Wallace's right to a trial. He became judge, jury and executioner.

In every crime there must be a motive. From the sick to the greedy. In this crime: Wallace--kidnapped, attempted murder--what his motive? TO SAVE A LIFE.

In Shep's crime: Document falsification, luring a depressed man to sucicde--murder or accessory to murder--what his motive? TO SAVE A LIFE.

How is shep justified when they are both just as guilty and shep really did CAUSE a death.

Wallace's daughter was going to die anyways! Injecting her with nanites was his last ditch effort to save her.

So, in the end of the day--Shep actually killed a man and the man he killed had the same goal as him.

Shep is no officer and a gentleman. He should have a dishonorable discharge at least!

jelgate
December 2nd, 2007, 03:30 PM
That to me is a sign of a man who thinks Rodney can't survive with his won mistakes. Rodney brought his sister into the mess when he e-mailed classified material to her--which would have gotten him a criminal charges.Shep did it becuase he didn't think Rodney had the gull to stand up and take responsibility for bringing his sister into it in the first place. Clarify??
Made me look at him in a whole new light too--a red one. Doesn't you statement reflect what Wallace did--anything to save the life of a loved one. BUT Wallace was killed for his actions--Sheppard was not!BUT--2 wrongs don't make a right. Sheppard did indeed play god by taking away Wallace's right to a trial. He became judge, jury and executioner.In every crime there must be a motive. From the sick to the greedy. In this crime: Wallace--kidnapped, attempted murder--what his motive? TO SAVE A LIFE.In Shep's crime: Document falsification, luring a depressed man to sucicde--murder or accessory to murder--what his motive? TO SAVE A LIFE.How is shep justified when they are both just as guilty and shep really did CAUSE a death.Wallace's daughter was going to die anyways! Injecting her with nanites was his last ditch effort to save her. So, in the end of the day--Shep actually killed a man and the man he killed had the same goal as him.You have got to be kidding me. Anyway, did we ever see Sheppard take the Wraiths hand and put it on Wallace chest, No. He never committied murder because he never forced Wallace to sacrifice life. Wallace never showed that he was mentally unstable. The only thing I saw from him was a man who felt remorse for injecting Jeanie with nanities. Knowing they had tried there best made Wallace realize that he had to do what was right to sacrifice his life. Sheppard wouldn't be the first person to falisfy mission reports in the SG universe. Shep is no officer and a gentleman. He should have a dishonorable discharge at least![/QUOTE]

CalmStorm
December 2nd, 2007, 03:52 PM
BUT--2 wrongs don't make a right. Sheppard did indeed play god by taking away Wallace's right to a trial. He became judge, jury and executioner.

Wallace WAS guilty. Sheppard did not execute Wallace. Sheppard presented the situation and from what we have been led to believe Wallace agreed to let the wraith feed upon him. Wallace entered the land of SGC, a program that does not exist, just like Area 51. What judge and jury would be assigned that case. He entered a world where civilian law does not apply. His risk, he took it.



In every crime there must be a motive. From the sick to the greedy. In this crime: Wallace--kidnapped, attempted murder--what his motive? TO SAVE A LIFE.

There were other alternatives available to him. He could have made it known that he was aware of the SGC and pleaded with them to seek Jeannie's assistance. I would be more disappointed in the SGC if they would have denied his request. A chance to cure cancer! Isn't that part of the goal of the Atlantis expedition, to find solutions to aide the welfare of mankind?

He crossed the line when he threatened to take the life of another. By injecting Jeannie with the nanites, he was sentencing her to death. There was no way to be certain that she and McKay could come up with a solution in time. It was a very huge risk.



In Shep's crime: Document falsification, luring a depressed man to sucicde--murder or accessory to murder--what his motive? TO SAVE A LIFE.

At this time, I don't have an opinion on the falsification of documents. As far as luring a depressed man to suicide, again, it was Wallace's actions that created the situation that he was in. The argument might be a bit more difficult if Sheppard held the man against his will and let the wraith feed upon him.



How is shep justified when they are both just as guilty and shep really did CAUSE a death.

Wallace was responsible for the actions that led to his death. Sheppard did not cause Wallace's death. Wallace injecting Jeannie with nanites and placing her life in jeopardy is what caused his death.



Wallace's daughter was going to die anyways! Injecting her with nanites was his last ditch effort to save her.

It was a last ditch effort and one that is acceptable. His actions at placing other lives at risk was not acceptable.



So, in the end of the day--Shep actually killed a man and the man he killed had the same goal as him.


Wallace's daughter was dying of cancer. No one gave her that cancer. Yes, he did everything he could to save her. However, he crossed a line at attempting to take another life. Jeannie's situation was not due to natural causes as was Wallace's daughter. The two scenarios are different. One was dying of cancer, the other was dying due to the actions of a man.

Wallace's actions led to his death. He is solely responsible for the outcome of those actions.

krash
December 2nd, 2007, 04:12 PM
But at the end of the day he went into that room with the intention of talking Wallace into killing himself.
Personally, I wouldn't have given the man a choice. And before all you people defending the abduction, blackmail, and attemtped murder Wallace did...for HIS daughter (which is a sad thing)...take a second to think about what right did he have to cause Jeannie's duaghter to live the rest of her life without a mother? So in his mind, what Wallace wanted for his little girl wins out over the rights of McKay and his family (or any of us) to live their lives free of harm? F-that!

In fact, I would have held the Wallace down on the table for the Wraith and say "Bon Appetit!" :wraithanime11: ...and I wouldn't have had a problem sleeping at night over it. Does that make me a "monster" or someone who doesn't stand for "monsters" in the real world? Because people like Wallace are more of a monster then any Wraith ever would be.

Jackie
December 2nd, 2007, 04:32 PM
Wallace WAS guilty. Sheppard did not execute Wallace. Sheppard presented the situation and from what we have been led to believe Wallace agreed to let the wraith feed upon him. Wallace entered the land of SGC, a program that does not exist, just like Area 51. What judge and jury would be assigned that case. He entered a world where civilian law does not apply. His risk, he took it.



There were other alternatives available to him. He could have made it known that he was aware of the SGC and pleaded with them to seek Jeannie's assistance. I would be more disappointed in the SGC if they would have denied his request. A chance to cure cancer! Isn't that part of the goal of the Atlantis expedition, to find solutions to aide the welfare of mankind?

He crossed the line when he threatened to take the life of another. By injecting Jeannie with the nanites, he was sentencing her to death. There was no way to be certain that she and McKay could come up with a solution in time. It was a very huge risk.



At this time, I don't have an opinion on the falsification of documents. As far as luring a depressed man to suicide, again, it was Wallace's actions that created the situation that he was in. The argument might be a bit more difficult if Sheppard held the man against his will and let the wraith feed upon him.



Wallace was responsible for the actions that led to his death. Sheppard did not cause Wallace's death. Wallace injecting Jeannie with nanites and placing her life in jeopardy is what caused his death.



It was a last ditch effort and one that is acceptable. His actions at placing other lives at risk was not acceptable.



Wallace's daughter was dying of cancer. No one gave her that cancer. Yes, he did everything he could to save her. However, he crossed a line at attempting to take another life. Jeannie's situation was not due to natural causes as was Wallace's daughter. The two scenarios are different. One was dying of cancer, the other was dying due to the actions of a man.

Wallace's actions led to his death. He is solely responsible for the outcome of those actions.

I never said wallace wasn't guilty--now did I? I'm not justifying Wallace--I'm explaining that Sheppard didn't uphold his oath as an officer of the us air force.

First, in custady Wallace's well being IS the responsibility of the SGC. His health and mental state IS their concern. Wallace may have created the situation--but Sheppard did NOT unp hold his duty!

No one in their right mind wants to die when they are NOT suffering. Wallace just lost everything--it's safe to assume he is not in his right frame of mind.

Next--it is the responsibility to make sure Wallace does injure himself or those around him--he is their prisoner. It's not like Wallace knocked on the door and said--"yo--feed me to the green guy."

Wallace does INDEED have a trail coming. There ARE special committees in the UN and the US senate for top secret issues such as the one presented. Wallace would not give up his rights to the military--that would be illegal--unless you live in a military state--like china.

Wallace is in the eyes of the law INNOCENT till proven guilty. He was never given a chance to be proven guilty--now was he?

In the Stargate world--there would be a committee. Wallace would be tried under Canadian Law and incarcerated in a Canadian prison.

By nudging Wallace into allowing a feeding Sheppard had denied him his right to: Mental evaluation, a trail by committee, the punishment to not exceed the crime, his right to council, his right to live. In law--a prisoner gives up their freedom in time not their rights to a fair trial and human treatment. A prisoner is not at your disposal--they are not to be subject to torture mentally or physically despite their crime. Most guards do not even know what the inmate did becuase of the chance of prejudice.

By allowing Wallace--even if he wasn't nudged into it--to die at the hands of the Wraith whether it be by his own hand or someone else's the state is responsible for that death becuase it happened when he was in custody.

Shep by law--is responsible. He opened that door and led Wallace to the room where the wraith waited to feed on him. If that's not placing the hand of the wraith in Wallace's chest--then I must be too stupid to know the differnce.

andromeda_dan
December 2nd, 2007, 04:43 PM
Sheppard does have a history of doing things that is contrary to what is expected of him. He was court martialed for an incident, I think it was mentioned on the pilot episode for something like selling arms to the enemy to gain freedom for captured military personnel.

Sheppard's character can be akin to a rebel, a rogue. He will cross the line, even if it means he has to sacrifice himself. In this episode, he is risking another court martial, and he knows it. 'Presenting the situation', as how he subtle puts it, is just the same as placing a gun with 1 bullet on the the table, and leaving the suspect (Wallace) alone in the room.

With that said, the question I have to ask is, what are his intentions in 'presenting the situation' to Wallace? Was John's motivation to present the situation to Wallace personal (Rodney=friend, I stand by my friends and the people I care) or tactical (Rodney, Jeannie= saviours of 2 galaxies)? I would have to say that though he may have a very strong bond to Rodney, his approach to Wallace maybe purely motivated by tactical.

John wouldn't even have McKay reactivate the nanites in Weir to save her, why would he let his friendship with Rodney cause him to help Rodney into guilting Wallace to sacrifice himself? John have always said how he is, as military, trained to survive, so it would only make sense that in order for the people of 2 galaxies to survive an impending Wraight threat, the solution is to feed the wraight, who can save the life of Jeannie, who can help in the fight. Though given that Wallace's high tech company can be an asset in the fight against the evils of the universe, his company is just but 1 in the hundreds of other civilian companies that can be replaced. In short, Wallace and his company (hardware) is expendable than McKay and Jeannie (software) are not.

But regardless of how pure his motivation is, it is not his place to push Wallace into making an irreversible decision.

If this is an STG episode, they can always place Jeannie into the transporter and use her original pattern stored in the transporter memory buffer to reconstitute her pattern back to pre-nanite infection state..;)

Hunter391
December 2nd, 2007, 04:51 PM
What is that old saying about doing unto others?
Honestly if I was given the situation of either Rodney or Shepard I would have first tried to convince Wallace to do the right thing and sacrifice himself. If that failed I would have forced his hand and slept well that night knowing I had done the right, just and moral thing.
Some might think I'm sick for saying that but it is the moral thing to do.

A woman was kidnaped and given an injection that will lead to her death unless the person who gave her the injection dies.

Take away all other elements you have been discussing and that is what it boils down to.

Now ask yourself who should die him or her? Grey area does not exist here.

My two cents...

avidffan
December 2nd, 2007, 05:08 PM
A woman was kidnaped and given an injection that will lead to her death unless the person who gave her the injection dies.
Take away all other elements you have been discussing and that is what it boils down to.
Now ask yourself who should die him or her? Grey area does not exist here.
My two cents...

i agree just as john said on the seer too much info

MIZA
December 2nd, 2007, 06:12 PM
Oh, I didn't even consider that Wallace didn't volunteer and Shep forced him to do it anyway. Certainly a possibility since we never saw Wallace make his decision. Creepy.


You have a point ,but of course ....


He did volunteer his daughter was dying and he had nothing to loose or gain , of course he volunteered , volunteering would make things right by saving Jeanne's life

SG13-NightOps
December 2nd, 2007, 07:14 PM
He should have a dishonorable discharge at least!

Oh God.. I can see the SJS threads already....

krash
December 2nd, 2007, 07:26 PM
A woman was kidnaped and given an injection that will lead to her death unless the person who gave her the injection dies.

Take away all other elements you have been discussing and that is what it boils down to.

Now ask yourself who should die him or her? Grey area does not exist here.

My two cents...
Thank you Hunter391, for bringing some common sense back to this thread!

Jackie
December 2nd, 2007, 07:59 PM
What is that old saying about doing unto others?
Honestly if I was given the situation of either Rodney or Shepard I would have first tried to convince Wallace to do the right thing and sacrifice himself. If that failed I would have forced his hand and slept well that night knowing I had done the right, just and moral thing.
Some might think I'm sick for saying that but it is the moral thing to do.

A woman was kidnaped and given an injection that will lead to her death unless the person who gave her the injection dies.

Take away all other elements you have been discussing and that is what it boils down to.

Now ask yourself who should die him or her? Grey area does not exist here.

My two cents...

so now YOU will make it your responsibility to see who lives and who dies...mighty godly of you.

You do not have the right to make that decision. Cops have an opportunity to blow off the head of a fleeing criminal that just killed another cop. They don't shoot a fleeing criminal for a reason.

You can only use deadly force when your life or the life of a comrade is in immediate danger--in the USA.

In some countries you have no right to defend your home or family with deadly force.

Case in point:

A British man (true story--read it in an NRA magazine) is currently in jail because he didn't turn in his legally owned 22 rifle when the gov outlawed them. A known thief and killer broke into his house for a home invasion and threated to kill him and his wife. He got his hunting rifle and shot him. The man died.

The owner of the house is now sitting in prison for weapon's charges and murder because he didn't have the right to use deadly force to protect his home and family.

In some countries you don't even have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. Where would get the right to choose who lives and dies in a kidnapping case?

jenks
December 2nd, 2007, 08:18 PM
Law and the rules of Soceity are based upon what is moral right and wrong. Rape is 'morally wrong' and socially unacceptable, therefore it is illegal. Murder is morally wrong and socially unacceptable (whatever the motivation) and therefore illegal. Both acts which when commited, the person is accountable by LAW to be put on trail and punished accordingly when caught. This is why Sheppard covered up his acts by falsifying the report.


They're not actually, they exist to protect, that's all. Immorality in it's self is not a crime, in fact I think there are several laws that are particularly immoral themselves.

Cory Holmes
December 2nd, 2007, 09:14 PM
He was and has taken the moral highground before. Sometimes he does this, and uses it as the excuse for his actions. Other times he does exactly the opposite. Thats extremely sloppy character development and portrayal.


But still very human. In my personal life I've come across people who do just that in a single conversation to support their theories/reasons/whatever.

To me, what Sheppard did was very true to his established personality: protect and defend those he cares about, and to hell with the rules in the process. His posting to Antarctica, his actions in Hot Zone, planting the nuke in Misbegotten, all of his actions in both parts of The Return. What happened in this episode is just one more onto the list.




Season 4 is meant to be a lot darker so maybe the writers are now trying to follow the example of Battlestar Galactica - leading characters will no longer be 'good guys' in the traditional sense.


What, you mean like how O'Neill shot Reese the android (even though she agreed to turn off her toys) in Menace? Like how O'Neill betrayed Fifth in Unnatural Selection? How Sheppard buried a nuke and was ready to use it in Misbegotten? How Weir double-crossed the Genii in Coup d'Etat?

Let's face it. Stargate has always had moments where the heroes have to make dubious less-than-heroic choices. There's no need to say that only recently is it taking after BSG, a show I despise.

Jill_Ion
December 2nd, 2007, 09:31 PM
Lest we forget, the nuke in Misbegotten was a fail-safe. A last-ditch, only if it realllllly needed to be done, only to keep human-eating Wraith from escaping the planet item.

And I'm sure the nuke wasn't placed there on a whim by Sheppard with no one else above him having a say.

They had fail safe bombs in some Alpha/Beta/Gamma sites too in SG-1, right?

blue-skyz
December 2nd, 2007, 09:45 PM
Very true. Also those soldiers who helped out would also be going to court martial, the base commander for allowing this to happen would be getting replaced and a full inquiry would be happening
It would be interesting to know the logistics of providing a Wraith with sustenance. Sheppard did not force Wallace, that would have been totally out of character and impossible in a heavily guarded situation with many witnesses in the SGC. Sheppard did have to walk the man into the room and make sure that everyone there understood what was about to happen so they wouldn’t kill the Wraith. Even if he sent everyone out but the three of them, the implication would be obvious. There would be a withered body and a healthy Wraith. When McKay enters, Sheppard states what the report will say, making it plain to the viewer and everyone in the room that something else actually happened. Two guards came to Earth with the Wraith, so two of the guards in the room are probably still the ones from Atlantis, Sheppard’s men. There is at least one other guard and the two men removing the body at the time. I suppose, he might have been able to pull this off without outside knowledge by having only his two guards in the room, but it would be difficult. There would still be a body and a healthy Wraith. But Sheppard made no attempt to hide the deception.

Did Sheppard get permission before hand? Probably. I think SGC personnel tend to be very pragmatic and the treat to Pegasus by the Replicators has to be a top priority. Sheppard is important on Atlantis but in the SGC he’s just a Lieutenant Colonel. There would be some number of colonels there and a general (Landry). Someone would be paying attention to the Wraith’s presence on base. McKay’s access privileges were changed. Sheppard would have identified the need to keep McKay away from the Wraith, but he wouldn’t have the capability or the authority to change access privileges. Someone with more authority in the SGC did that for him.

The SGC was aware of what Sheppard was doing and provided assistance in accomplishing it and approval of the explanation that would be given on official reports. Who exactly gave him permission is an interesting topic of speculation. (My guess is he called O’Neill. That would be the quickest way and O’Neill knows about doing what needs to be done.) By not actually showing Sheppard asking for permission, the SGC is left unsullied in the casual viewer’s mind. Sheppard appears to act alone, but that would not be possible.

Sheppard does, however, assume the responsibility and the moral baggage that goes with it.

And I like him even more for being able to do it.

Cory Holmes
December 2nd, 2007, 09:52 PM
And this episode does show that McKay was right allllllll the way back on S1's Suspicion. "How do we meet Steve's dietary requirements?" Well, now they had to. And it's not like Todd is like Jeannie in that he can choose to eat something else.

I'm glad the show finally had us face just exactly what it means to be working with a Wraith, other than slightly skewed humour :)

blue-skyz
December 2nd, 2007, 11:00 PM
With the risk of repeating myself, I ask you why did he do that? Just randomly? I might be off on this one, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't McKay provoke him? I mean Wallace puts a gun to his head by organising this whole operation,trusts McKay and Jeannie with his daughter's life and what do these two do? A nice F**k y**!!! we don't care about your daughter eventhough we are the foremost experts in nanite programming!!! Of course Wallace's world came down crashing and he gave McKay an incentive. He panicked because his last resort showed him the bird :P.

Kidnapping scenario

A man with little money and without health insurance has a daughter that needs a very expensive operation or she will die. He is a loving father and desperate to keep his daughter alive. He kidnaps a woman from her bedroom at gunpoint, putting a bag over head and dragging her out into the night. He asks for a ransom from her frantic husband. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone, he only wants the money to keep his daughter from dying.

Does that give him the right to kidnap someone?

Does the kidnapped woman owe her kidnapper money to save his daughter because she can afford it?

Say the woman he kidnapped tries to escape and is seriously injured. She will die without medical help.

Is she responsible for her own injuries and eventual death because she tried to escape?

Is the kidnapper responsible for her death if she dies from her injuries?

Is he guilty of capital murder?



Reading your post,blueskyz ,and ignoring that I saw the episode makes me think that this Wallace guy was a tyrant, the worse possible person on the planet. You described something unreal and something that was never portrayed in MC. People who read your post and did not see the episode yet will not even bother to see it because you painted something in green which in real life is in red.

Sorry you feel that way.

Wallace proved to be basically good, but he did very foolish and bad things.

All of the crimes that I described can be inferred from the episode, they didn’t need to be spelled out explicitly. He started with stealing government secrets and ended with capital murder for the eventual death of Jeannie. He compounded his crimes as he went along. Go back and think about it, they are all there.

Integrabyte
December 3rd, 2007, 01:35 AM
Okay, so it's late and you know how I get when i'm tired.... so i'll answer you then go to bed. I do need my beauty sleep you know. So don't feel offended if I don't answer your post that I know you're going to do after this one. Okay did that make any sense whatsoever? :lol:

Using 'guilt tactics' Shep showed Wallace the error of his ways. Not necessary that his (Wallace's) life is worth less than the others, but by showing him that the chain of events that Wallace started in trying to save his daughter, was going to result in the loss of 5 people in total.

The thing is hon, Shep didn't make that choice, Wallace did. And by taking on that responsibility himself and making a decision on his own life the 'Playing God' thing never took place. When you play God with someone's life, you take on the responsibility and do with them what you will. Now the fact that Wallace made his own decisions with regards to his life means that Shep didn't play god. Morallity and ethics are never that simple. If it was we wouldn't be on page 8, nor would the discussion thread be so embroiled in theories. :D

:lol: your script attempts appear to be a little one sided, I wonder why that is? ;) :P :D

No worries hon. I was sleeping like a baby when you wrote this :P. One sided? Of course my dialogue seems one sided because Wallace got capital punishment for his actions, which is wrong. No matter what you say, Wallace was pushed by Sheppard. Wallace was doing very well, until Johnny came and played the guilt card on him. Erase the whole Wallace and Sheppard scene and Wallace would have been sent to prison...


When someone manipulates you and pushes your buttons in their own interest it means they already took the decision for you ;).

He played GOD....G O D :D

Integrabyte
December 3rd, 2007, 01:36 AM
Is he guilty of capital murder?

The only thing worth replying....


NO HE IS NOT GUILTY FOR CAPITAL MURDER!

Capital punishment is a middle-ages immature mentality. You have red hair yuk, you are a witch!!! Burn her!!! We live in a modern world where ethics plays an important role...most of the time :D

jenks
December 3rd, 2007, 01:48 AM
When someone manipulates you and pushes your buttons in their own interest it means they already took the decision for you ;).


False.


No worries hon. I was sleeping like a baby when you wrote this :P. One sided? Of course my dialogue seems one sided because Wallace got capital punishment for his actions, which is wrong. No matter what you say, Wallace was pushed by Sheppard. Wallace was doing very well, until Johnny came and played the guilt card on him. Erase the whole Wallace and Sheppard scene and Wallace would have been sent to prison...

He didn't force Wallace to do anything, in fact he didn't even persuade him to do anything. What he did do was explain the situation to him in the hope that he would sacrifice himself. Is this immoral? Arguably. Is this manslaughter? No way.




Capital punishment is a middle-ages immature mentality. You have red hair yuk, you are a witch!!! Burn her!!! We live in a modern world where ethics plays an important role...most of the time :D

Agreed.

scholar
December 3rd, 2007, 02:19 AM
It is very clear that Wallace is the villian here. Besides the various other crimes he is responsible for (ie kidnapping, assault, espionage, maybe even treason), he injected nannies into Jeannie that is attempted murder at a minimum. If she had died, it would have been murder one. It was no different then had he injected poison into her veins and told her and Rodney to come up with an antidote.

Seen quite a few movies where the main villian used similar tactics. Only difference was the other villians were motivated by greed, revenge or some other less then amirable trait. It's unlikely that we'd see similar complaints if the "bad guy" in most of those films came to an untimely end due to actions by the hero in those films.

The_Carpenter
December 3rd, 2007, 02:35 AM
It is very clear that Wallace is the villian here. Besides the various other crimes he is responsible for (ie kidnapping, assault, espionage, maybe even treason), he injected nannies into Jeannie that is attempted murder at a minimum. If she had died, it would have been murder one. It was no different then had he injected poison into her veins and told her and Rodney to come up with an antidote.

Seen quite a few movies where the main villian used similar tactics. Only difference was the other villians were motivated by greed, revenge or some other less then amirable trait. It's unlikely that we'd see similar complaints if the "bad guy" in most of those films came to an untimely end due to actions by the hero in those films.

Sorry just had images of loads of little old ladies with handbags running round Jennys veins moaning about kids today and what not ahem. But Wallace had no idea that the Nanites could be fixed just hope that they could be, and on that desperate hope injected them into Jenny.

On another note if the Nanites were human manufactured why did no-one think to have them easily knocked out by EMP especially since they were experimental hmmm that's a new thread me thinks

ciannwn
December 3rd, 2007, 04:30 AM
What, you mean like how O'Neill shot Reese the android (even though she agreed to turn off her toys) in Menace? Like how O'Neill betrayed Fifth in Unnatural Selection?

Reese and Fifth were non-humans. Stargate has always treated enemy and potential enemy aliens/artificial intelligences as 'different' to humans. This is the format of the show. Maybe it could be argued that O'Neill was thinking with a military mindset where Reese and Fifth were concerned - they were potential major threats to Earth.


How Sheppard buried a nuke and was ready to use it in Misbegotten?

Sheppard's actions in 'Misbegotten' can be seen as despicable although he was attempting to protect Earth. Even so, what he did is comparable to dropping bombs on enemy cities and killing civilians. The Allies did that in WW2 and one very famous example is Dresden. The US also dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Stargate military are often presented as having a 'shoot first' mindset and this was used as the basis for 'First Strike'.

Ronon dismisses the humanised Wraith in a sentence which roughly translates as collateral damage.

DEX: They're about to become casualties of war.

Collateral damage definition -

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=collateral%20damage

(euphemism) inadvertent casualties and destruction inflicted on civilians in the course of military operations


How Weir double-crossed the Genii in Coup d'Etat?

I've just read the plot summary for this episode. The Genii were trying to double cross the Atlantis expedition. They'd also captured Lorne and his team for research purposes although the Atlantis personnel believed they were dead at first. Here are some excerpts -

At the village on the planet where Lorne's team was killed, Ronon and Teyla go to a bar to follow up the investigation. There are spies watching who will kill anyone who talks. Having no luck, they leave. But the barmaid catches up to them with a satchel they apparently left behind; it is a ruse to pass information, which turns out to be reward posters for the capture of key Atlantis team members, including Lorne and his team, Sheppard, and McKay. Examining the photographs, Ronon realizes these have been distributed on numerous worlds.

The Genii, however, can't fly the Jumpers because they don't have the Ancient gene. They captured Lorne's team in order to experiment with their own Ancient gene therapy. The circulated wanted posters were for Atlantis personnel with the Ancient gene, to aid their experiments. Major Lorne's team was probably turned in for the reward offered. Sheppard is locked up with Lorne and the others.

Dr. Weir tries to negotiate with Cowen, telling him they can cure many of the Genii hostages -- including Ladon's sister. Cowen tells her he doesn't care, and sends Ladon to kill Sheppard. But Ladon has other plans, especially now that he knows his sister can be cured.

The result is that Ladon then double crosses Cowan and blows him up along with his elite guard. Beckett succeeds in saving Ladon's sister so Weir did keep her word where giving medical treatment to Genii was concerned.


Let's face it. Stargate has always had moments where the heroes have to make dubious less-than-heroic choices.

'Talion' was a very dark episode. It seems, though, that Teal'c's actions were regarded as perfectly acceptable in Jaffa culture if the following is anything to go by.

TEAL'C: Arkad took credit for the murder of my mother.

TEAL'C: If he was responsible, he was too much a coward to do it himself. The one who did died by my hand.

BRA'TAC: You never told me.

TEAL'C: Still…Arkad got what he deserved.

BRA'TAC: There are many more as corrupt as he was.

TEAL'C: Then we will hunt them until they are no more.

It finishes with -

BRA'TAC: I have not said this to you before, and I should have. You are the son I never had. I could not be more proud.


There's no need to say that only recently is it taking after BSG, a show I despise.

Sheppard wasn't making a military decision in this episode. It's likely that Teal'c and Bra'tac would have approved of his actions but Sheppard wasn't on a Jaffa planet. He was on Earth in a country where his actions would be seen as taking the law into his own hands.

prion
December 3rd, 2007, 05:57 AM
Sorry just had images of loads of little old ladies with handbags running round Jennys veins moaning about kids today and what not ahem. But Wallace had no idea that the Nanites could be fixed just hope that they could be, and on that desperate hope injected them into Jenny.

On another note if the Nanites were human manufactured why did no-one think to have them easily knocked out by EMP especially since they were experimental hmmm that's a new thread me thinks

Didnt' Barrett (or someone) mentioned using EMP but the idea was scratched because, oh, uh, I forgot why but it wasn't feasible in this instance.

Wallace may truly have been desperate, but he planned out everything. The kidnapping, backup nanites to inject into someone to force someone else to talk. It was all premeditated. Remember, this is a guy who runs a HUGE company; he didn't get there by going off half-cocked. He knew what he was doing, and even said so.

And I think Wallace chose to redeem himself, to a point, by sacrificing himself to the wraith. Not that he had much choice. The gov't doesn't take kindly to contractors breaking contracts and using top secret data for their own personal benefit. And Wallace knew that.

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 06:03 AM
It was noted on a earlier post (sorry I forgot the handle) that shep couldn't have done it alone. The base commander would have to know what was going on.

Maybe the question should be was Landry responsible for allowing shep to lead a suicidal man to his death while in custody, in his base, right under his nose.

Landry is actually responsible for Wallace's well being.

Landry really had nothing to gain--the replicator code would be broke eventually--Earth was not in immediate danger of attack. The only one who would gain anything was Jeannie--an innocent civilian.

By allowing the feeding to take place Landry jeopardized the code of conduct, allowed shep to falsify documents, allowed a man that he was responsible for to kill himself--that could cost Landry his career if not more.

Allowed a Wraith prisoner in the SGC--at the request of McKay for the sole purpose of saving Jeannie. There is no real way of telling that Todd wouldn't be able to figure out where Earth was after being in custody for so long. The Wraith can never be released.

The Wraith can also over power a man easily--who's to say that now Todd has his strength back that he won't try to escape, gain access to the computers and lead the wraith to earth eventually.

Seems to me Landry too a big risk for the sake of one person who isn't even a part of the SGC.

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 06:12 AM
He didnt want to hurt anyone and only injected Jeannie when Rodney forced his hand by refusing to help his daughter. He planned the kidnapping but his action of injecting Jeannie was not premeditated.
Gosh! McKay didn’t trust his kidnapper. Imagine that. That makes it okay to put his sister (also kidnapped) in jeopardy. Makes perfect sense to me.

Injecting Jeannie was premeditated. He filled the syringe. He gave the reason for doing it when he injected her: he wanted to motivate McKay. That’s premeditation. Lack of premeditation is getting mad, picking up a bookend and breaking someone’s skull. Spur of the moment stuff.

Anyway, premeditation isn’t required here. Wallace is in the act of committing a felony, kidnapping. Death during commission of a felony is capital or first degree murder in most places.

BTW, McKay and Jeannie are the victims here.

Why didn't Sheppard offer to take Rodney's place if he wanted to prevent him from being killed. Sheppard vowed to give up his life for any one of them in Sateda but yet the first time he is faced with such a situation he immediately looks to find some other scapegoat. Sheppard went into the room with the sole intention of convincing Wallace to sacrifice himself... He tells him his daughter has just died and in the next breath lays on a huge guilt trip.. He knew Wallace wasn't a bad person and knew by playing on this mans conscience that he would most likely get him to agree to killing himself.. I find this utterly dispickable. Sheppard played not only judge and jury and basically decided what fate Wallace deserved, and all because Sheppard wanted to save someone he cared about.
If Wallace, the man responsible for everything, had not stepped up to try to save the Jeannie, then I can see Sheppard sacrificing himself to keep McKay from doing it. But Wallace is very guilty of some very significant crimes. Jeannie is dying because of him. If he had had no conscience, Sheppard would probably be dead. He would not have let McKay die. McKay after being kidnapped and seeing his sister dying from it was not thinking straight. McKay was one of Wallace’s victims. Sheppard would not even be on Earth if Wallace had not kidnapped Jeannie and McKay.

Again I disagree that he killed his daughter... and no one else had died when Sheppard decided to push him toward suicide. Why is everyone convinced that Wallace would even have spent his entire life in prison.. He may only have been convicted on kidnapping and manslaughter and could be out of prison in 15/20 years. That means he still may have had many years left to live. So do we advocate that all criminals should kill themselves so they can atone for their sins.. who gives us the right to do that.
Wallace stole government secrets. He possessed information that he had no right and no clearance to have. That alone should have put him in a secure government facility for a long, long time. And he was playing with nanites. Here’s my list of Wallace’s crimes.

I don’t understand the rampant belief that Wallace’s motivation somehow makes him the victim here. His motivation is irrelevant.

He is a dangerous criminal. He stole government secrets and used them to create and experiment with nanites. He may be trying to use them for good, but they are very dangerous. He has no government supervision and, probably, inadequate containment and security for such potentially hazardous things as nanites.

He injects these unfinished, experimental nanites into his daughter. This may be the act of a desperate parent, but the treatment has in no way been approved as experimental or otherwise. If he causes her premature death, he is guilty of manslaughter. In injecting his daughter with the nanites he has provided them with another way of escaping his lab.

When the nanites prove harmful, he has Jeannie kidnapped from her bedroom by armed assailants. Then he has McKay kidnapped and a government agent assaulted. Kidnapping is a felony. They are taken by plane, so they, probably, have been transported across international boundaries back into the states.

Wallace personally injected the now-known-to-be-dangerous dangerous nanites into Jeannie to keep her and McKay in line. Again, possibly, releasing the nanites into the world. Since we know the nanites will become deadly, Jeannie’s death would be compounded by the fact that it was caused during the felony of kidnapping. That elevates her death to capital or first degree murder, regardless of the intent.

Wallace did all this with premeditation and wonton disregard of the consequences to others. The fact that he expected consequences for himself (some maximum security, top secret cell forever, no doubt) and did not, initially, intend to physically harm anyone is immaterial. Kidnapping, by its very nature, is mentally harmful to all involved. He progressed to physically harming Jeanie. Even though he is not an evil man, he has committed serious crimes.

He is not the victim.
Jeannie was going to die. He killed her during commission of a felony. That’s capital murder as I said before. Death penalty or life depending on the location.

It was only Rodney's life at stake here. If Rodney had been fed on then the wraith could have finished his work and saved Jeannie.
McKay is a victim like his sister. Why should he give his life instead of Wallace?

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 06:27 AM
Landry really had nothing to gain--the replicator code would be broke eventually--Earth was not in immediate danger of attack. The only one who would gain anything was Jeannie--an innocent civilian.

‘Earth was not in immediate danger of attack.’ Hmmmm. Guess we no longer care about all those Pegasus Galaxy humans, the ones that they are working with the Wraith to save.


The Wraith can also over power a man easily--who's to say that now Todd has his strength back that he won't try to escape, gain access to the computers and lead the wraith to earth eventually.
At least three guards and Sheppard in the room and more guards outside. And he is with them to help turn off the Replicator attack code.

P-90_177
December 3rd, 2007, 06:32 AM
‘Earth was not in immediate danger of attack.’ Hmmmm. Guess we no longer care about all those Pegasus Galaxy humans, the ones that they are working with the Wraith to save.


At least three guards and Sheppard in the room and more guards outside. And he is with them to help turn off the Replicator attack code.

Landrys first duty though is to earth and the atlantis expedtion. Not to the pegasus galaxy humans.

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 06:58 AM
Landrys first duty though is to earth and the atlantis expedtion. Not to the pegasus galaxy humans.
Yeeeeeesssssss. Why would that prevent him from saving Jeannie and helping the Pegasus Galaxy humans?

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 08:13 AM
Why should Sheppard be culpable. Rodney is an adult and not in the military so Sheppard has no jurisdiction over him.. sure he feels responsible for him but other than that Sheppard cannot order Rodney not to sacrifice himself. He can prevent him by keeping him away from the Wraith or giving the Wraith someone else to feed on.
Sheppard would have to order the guards to stand down and do nothing to the Wraith while it fed on McKay. McKay could not have made a valid case to the SGC for being allowed to sacrifice himself. The SGC would not have given him permission. Sheppard would have had to do it on his own. At that point he is acting against orders. McKay’s death, his being vital to the human race and all, would cause Sheppard some serious consequences.

Sheppard had to order the guards to stand down when he allowed the Wraith to feed on Wallace. I believe, he had permission for Wallace to sacrifice himself and authority to falsify the report. Wallace would have asked the SGC himself to allow him to save Jeannie. He had a reason that could be understood; he wanted to prevent a death that he had caused and the destruction of a family. He would also prevent McKay from sacrificing himself to prevent it.

This is a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation. Like it or not, Wallace dying comes out as the lesser of the available evils.

bluealien
December 3rd, 2007, 08:17 AM
‘Earth was not in immediate danger of attack.’ Hmmmm. Guess we no longer care about all those Pegasus Galaxy humans, the ones that they are working with the Wraith to save.

But that's the problem, they were not working with the Wraith to save the Pegasus Galaxy humans. They refused his help. How many weeks had gone by and how many more worlds were distroyed because Rodney couldnt put his ego aside and let the Wraith help him.

But all of a sudden when his sister is in danger he asks the Wraith to help.. why didnt he beg the Wraith to help them before this. So I don't know why so many keep saying that what Sheppard did was also to save the people in the Pegasus Galaxy. Sheppard was allowing the Wraith to starve and he may have been just left to die if the whole Wallace thing hadn't happened.
Why didnt they utilise the expertise of the Wraith before this incident. How many lives were lost because they refused his help... We already knew that several worlds were distroyed by the Replicators in the space of a few days in the Seer, so god knows how many more Worlds or lives have been lost since then. Wallace is pushed into committing suicide because he put ONE life in jeopardy but Rodney and even Sheppard put millions because they refused to trust or allow the Wraith to help them.


There is so much in Millers Crossing that paints both McKay and Sheppard in a bad light. I don't understand why the writers wrote McKay as refusing to ask the Wraith for help when so much was at stake. The Wraith came to John to offer his help.. why did John refuse it again when so many worlds were being distroyed. But then suddenly Sheppard is prepared to go to any lenghts to save just one life. I expected more from both of them and I really think the writers didn't do them any favours in this ep. I have no problem with Sheppard being a bit dark but at least let us see him admit it and accept responsibilty for what he is doing.

I thought I knew the character before Millers Crossing but now I don't know anymore... I really don't know what Sheppard could be capable of. I was expecting him to follow up what he said in Sateda and offer up his own life for any of his people, but not this underhanded act of pushing someone to commit suicide just to solve his own dilemma and then shirk all responsibility.

kymeric
December 3rd, 2007, 08:27 AM
I agree, two wrongs do not make a right.

Was Wallace wrong? Yes, morally and ethically. He had his motivations, we can intellectually understand them doesn't make him right, or evil for that matter.

Was Sheppard wrong? Yes, morally and ethically, again we can understand them but does that make them any less wrong? Hell freakin no.

This is the problem we had with the retro-virus, we're crossing a very fine line that is turning the people who are supposed to be the good guys into the bad. Especially when there is no consequences for their actions.

John played god, he traded one life for another based on his personal preferences. And the flippant way (written and portrayed) that he carried out this act left me cold. Who is to say Wallaces life is more valuable then Jeanie's? These morally wrong (no matter the motivation) actions makes our heroes unlikable. Sheppard is supposed to be the good guy, he's supposed to always try and be above these things. And if he does do them, then we should damn well have some serious consequences.

For starters, I cant see Landry allowing a man to essentially be murderer, so why wasn't Sheppard arrested and the Wraith killed or at least locked up? Whether Wallace went willingly or not, he would not have had the option. If he was suicidal, you wouldn't give him a gun, noose or access to a high roof. Its called assisted suicide and in the west, that usually has you on trail for murder or manslaughter. Sheppard wont go on trail or face consquences legally for what he did, thats a cover-up.

This isn't the first time Sheppard has committed murder (the slaughter of innocent Wraith in 'Misbegotten' for one), in fact he is a mass murderer regardless of whether those actions saved the lives of his friends or not.

I disagree. First off -1 + +1 doesnt make a right, it makes a zero. And thats wut we got here. Sheppards morally dubious act undid a wrong and while it took something from him, saved the situation.

The actor pulled it off really well i think. Did you see his eyes while he was saying it? You could tell it was killing him what he had to do. Did you see him afterwords, he was hiding from what he had to do. JF performed extremely well, and he is really good at these little things like this. Remember his face in Sunday and Doppleganger? Yikes at looking psycho and /cry at his looking bereved.

And im pretty sure really horrifying killers get promoted and paid more, not less. He is seriously scary as #$%^ and i would totally hire sheppard as a body guard and feel safer than hell anywhere i went. Lol....

P-90_177
December 3rd, 2007, 08:31 AM
that's the thing with shep. he acts like this happy go lucky guy who always jokes around and everything but really there's this deep seated dark side to him. Darker i think than o'neill was.

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 08:56 AM
But that's the problem, they were not working with the Wraith to save the Pegasus Galaxy humans. They refused his help. How many weeks had gone by and how many more worlds were distroyed because Rodney couldnt put his ego aside and let the Wraith help him. But all of a sudden when his sister is in danger he asks the Wraith to help.. why didnt he beg the Wraith to help them before this.
I may be wrong, I need to watch it again, but ….

The Wraith was working on the Replicator attack code programming with McKay.

In the teaser joke, McKay was trying to make headway with reprogramming the nanites, as in Weir’s nanites. He told Zelenka that the Wraith wouldn’t help. Maybe he had asked, maybe he just assumed. Who knows. He did have to talk the Wraith into helping with the nanites when he got to the SGC.

Two different problems, but related. And before we go there, McKay may have needed to think about something else besides the Replicator code. Programming is like that.

kymeric
December 3rd, 2007, 08:58 AM
that's the thing with shep. he acts like this happy go lucky guy who always jokes around and everything but really there's this deep seated dark side to him. Darker i think than o'neill was.

If you had that darkness inside you wouldnt you try to get away from it? Watch cartoons, listen to silly music, think monty python is funny? Kinda intresting he picked a killer job but his personality reflects escapism from it.

Thats a conflicted personality and is interesting as hell. WTB backstory.

P-90_177
December 3rd, 2007, 09:09 AM
If you had that darkness inside you wouldnt you try to get away from it? Watch cartoons, listen to silly music, think monty python is funny? Kinda intresting he picked a killer job but his personality reflects escapism from it.

Thats a conflicted personality and is interesting as hell. WTB backstory.

i think there's a part of sheps past that we actually haven't heard about yet. something that he regrets and hates himself for more than anything else. Perhaps it may even shine some light on his insobordinate attitude.

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 09:15 AM
If you had that darkness inside you wouldnt you try to get away from it??* Watch cartoons, listen to silly music, think monty python is funny??* Kinda intresting he picked a killer job but his personality reflects escapism from it.?* Thats a conflicted personality and is interesting as hell.?* WTB backstory.I just had a philsophical moment. Don't we all have a dark side.?* Sometimes we all have to make choices that are diffcult.?* If a criminal breaks into my house, I will without a doubt shoot him because he or she is threating my life. I wouldn't be proud of myself but I did what was right. Sheppard had to choose between a victim and murderer life. Thats why I support his decision. Since Jeanie didn't do anything criminal wrong, it makes more sense to Wallace to die. Besides, if Wallace was tried in America, chances are he would be put on death row.

Cory Holmes
December 3rd, 2007, 09:22 AM
Reese and Fifth were non-humans. Stargate has always treated enemy and potential enemy aliens/artificial intelligences as 'different' to humans. This is the format of the show. Maybe it could be argued that O'Neill was thinking with a military mindset where Reese and Fifth were concerned - they were potential major threats to Earth.

As was Wallace, considering that he broke major national security protocols and discovered the Stargate program and Atlantis.



I've just read the plot summary for this episode. The Genii were trying to double cross the Atlantis expedition. They'd also captured Lorne and his team for research purposes although the Atlantis personnel believed they were dead at first. Here are some excerpts

Had you watched the episode itself you would've seen that Weir made the decision to double-cross the Genii before any of the medical information came to light.

ciannwn
December 3rd, 2007, 09:34 AM
Had you watched the episode itself you would've seen that Weir made the decision to double-cross the Genii before any of the medical information came to light.

I'll have to go and study the script transcript thoroughly. I did watch the episode but it was a long time ago. On the other hand, maybe you could find the relevant quotes from a transcript in order to back up the point you are making.

LoneStar1836
December 3rd, 2007, 09:51 AM
Reese and Fifth were non-humans. Stargate has always treated enemy and potential enemy aliens/artificial intelligences as 'different' to humans. This is the format of the show. Maybe it could be argued that O'Neill was thinking with a military mindset where Reese and Fifth were concerned - they were potential major threats to Earth. Exactly. Which is why I have no problem with what he did. Those were two great examples that made you think about the decision carried out, but ultimately at the end of the day, Jack made the decision that needed to be made because they were military threats, even if it was the cold-hearted decision.

Wallace was not a military threat. That was a purely personal decision Sheppard made. I doubt the military value of the wraith even crossed his mind when he decided to do what he did.





Sheppard wasn't making a military decision in this episode. It's likely that Teal'c and Bra'tac would have approved of his actions but Sheppard wasn't on a Jaffa planet. He was on Earth in a country where his actions would be seen as taking the law into his own hands.Which is one of the main problems I have with his action. I mean who hasn't ever thought about that if they could by-pass the law what they would do/like to do to some of the scum who commit such reprehensible crimes, but laws exists to protect their rights/life, especially once they are in custody. I mean even somebody in law enforcement custody who wants to commit suicide is not allowed to do so because laws dictate that such people are to be protected no matter what they wish upon themselves.

That Talion episode sounds rather interesting after reading the lines you quoted. Never made the effort to watch it when it first ran. Suppose I'll have to now if I ever run across it on tv. Thank you for pointing out that comparison.

LoneStar1836
December 3rd, 2007, 10:00 AM
Anyway, premeditation isn’t required here. Wallace is in the act of committing a felony, kidnapping. Death during commission of a felony is capital or first degree murder in most places.

BTW, McKay and Jeannie are the victims here.

If Wallace, the man responsible for everything, had not stepped up to try to save the Jeannie, then I can see Sheppard sacrificing himself to keep McKay from doing it. But Wallace is very guilty of some very significant crimes. Jeannie is dying because of him. If he had had no conscience, Sheppard would probably be dead. He would not have let McKay die. McKay after being kidnapped and seeing his sister dying from it was not thinking straight. McKay was one of Wallace’s victims. Sheppard would not even be on Earth if Wallace had not kidnapped Jeannie and McKay.

Wallace stole government secrets. He possessed information that he had no right and no clearance to have. That alone should have put him in a secure government facility for a long, long time. And he was playing with nanites. Here’s my list of Wallace’s crimes.

Jeannie was going to die. He killed her during commission of a felony. That’s capital murder as I said before. Death penalty or life depending on the location.

And shouldn't that have been for some kind of judiciary to decide?

Ruffles
December 3rd, 2007, 10:05 AM
I think that everyone who disagrees with his action is kinda a wuss, and i wouldnt want anyone that soft in my goverment or military because it would get us all killed or worse because they couldnt make the hard decisions. Sometimes you have to give up your soul to do whats needed. It takes a real man to make the hard choice while sissies sit back behind their laws and morals hoping someone else will make the decision for them.

I'm going to wholeheartedly disagree with you here. To disagree with Sheppard's actions is to have your own opinion. It is to also say that someone else would be the person to die (the Wraith, Jeannie, McKay, Sheppard, etc).

I would be more interested in finding out how those that disagree with Sheppard's actions would handle the situation. Who would you pick to die?


Not to mention repeated actions like this are liable to make any sane caring person mentally unhinged and potentially dangerous all round. But then you change your lead/hero into the bad guy. To me he is the bad guy. Rodney at least commits terrible acts because he's blinded by ego and arrogance (blowing up half a solar systems). Sheppard commits acts of mass murderer knowingly and 'pre-meditated' (he had the bomb on the planet in 'Misbegotten' just incase...and was willing to use it even against innocent humans).

As Ronon said, you can dress them up however you like but they are still Wraith. To allow the Wraith on the planet in Misbegotten to live is to ensure the destruction of Atlantis.


There are three relationships presented in Miller’s Crossing in which one person is willing to do morally reprehensible things to save the other.

<snippage for length>

But Jeannie’s life is not the only issue here. The replicators are killing planets full of humans. The Wraith is necessary to stopping them. The Wraith’s original goal in contacting Sheppard was to stop the replicators from attacking them. As McKay told the Wraith, figuring out how to program the nanites to save Jeannie is a step toward doing that. McKay and possibly Jeannie is also vital to this effort. There is a lot more at stake here than Jeannie’s or Wallace’s life.

Sheppard needs the Wraith to help turn off the attack code to try to save the humans of the Pegasus Galaxy. Feeding the Wraith did not become an issue until the Wraith collapsed. They had no way of knowing his feeding schedule. Wallace is responsible for Jeannie’s eminent death. Time is critical. Sheppard shows the man responsible in very human terms what will be the outcome of his actions and tells him what the solution is. An act that obviously bothers Sheppard greatly.

Allowing anyone to be fed upon by a Wraith must be among the hardest things that Sheppard can imagine doing, but he makes that choice here. He chooses McKay, Jeannie, and the hope of being able to save many human lives in Pegasus over the life of a man that in his own interest put national security and other people’s lives in jeopardy. Being able to make the hard decisions, being willing to take the dark path is in Sheppard’s job description and is completely in character given his history. I prefer serious Sheppard, in command and doing what needs to be done.

<more snippage>

A good question to consider is:
Would you give your life to prevent a death from happening, a death that you initiated, but did not intend, given that you are already in custody and admittedly guilty?

Oh, well said. You get a big ditto (and some mental green) from me on this.

I would like to think that if I were going to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander who is dying because of my actions, that I would be courageous enough to offer myself in her place.


If I were Wallace--I would simply pick up the phone and call Jeanie and tell her I need to speak to her right away. Then I would give her enough info to convince her to come to my lab and help stop the nanites.

Once she was there--she could request her brother comes and helps her. If needed--she could get him back to earth and appeal to his ego (aka let men think they are smarter than us) to get him to help.

Then McKay has the issue of keeping me and his sister's project a secret or running to the feds.

If my daughter died...at least it wouldn't have been in vain...we would have gained a huge step in the fight against cancer and maybe someone else would be saved.

The problem with this scenario is that as soon as Jeannie gets the phone call, she contacts Rodney who contacts the SGC and reports Wallace. He would then get thrown in a deep dark hole somewhere, and his daughter dies.


If I was in shep's shoes:

I wouldn't approach a mentally unstable man with a situation. I would keep Rodney away from the wraith and ask him to sit with his sister and use whatever time she has to mend whatever issues he has with her.

If I wrote the ep:

Jeanie would die with rodney by herside. Rodney would then find himself with the only thing he has left of his sister and that was her daughter. It should end with Rodney and the niece reading a bed time story and Rodney promising her that he always be there for her--no matter what.

Never would I have had rodney feel so guilty he bought her a new car.

Rodney would never forgive himself or John if Jeannie died. He'd pack his bags and leave Atlantis. I doubt Kaleb would let Rodney in the house much less let him read Madison a bedtime story. In the meantime, the Wraith dies and both beings (Rodney and the Wraith) that were rewriting the replicator code in Pegasus are gone, and you've condemned all the humans in that galaxy to death.


Again I disagree that he killed his daughter... and no one else had died when Sheppard decided to push him toward suicide. Why is everyone convinced that Wallace would even have spent his entire life in prison.. He may only have been convicted on kidnapping and manslaughter and could be out of prison in 15/20 years. That means he still may have had many years left to live. So do we advocate that all criminals should kill themselves so they can atone for their sins.. who gives us the right to do that.

Wallace would have never seen the inside of a courtroom. He knows too much. He would never face a judge or a jury. He would be tucked away in a small cell somewhere at the SGC to never see the light of day again. Ever.


And this was a straight forward decision. He could choose to exchange one life for another rather then find an alternate solution or offer up his own life. But he took the easy way out. If he judged himself by the same standards that he judged Wallace, then he himself or Rodney was ultimately more deserving to die. And why did Wallace have to die in the first place? The Wraith didn't need to completely drain him and Shepard knows this and therefore allowed the man to be killed.

Sheppard addresses this with Rodney. The Wraith isn't going to take just a little bit. He's going to kill whomever he feeds on.


Wallace died because they thought it would show he was seeking 'redemption'. This would have been the case had he ultimately come to the decision himself based on knowing the full situation. He did not, he was led even coerced into it by Sheppard who might have ultimately forced him to his death. Fortunately they realised that was crossing the line at least. It wouldn't have been 'redemption', it would have made Sheppard utterly unredeemable, hence they left it ambiguous. Which is wrong, I dont think they should left us wondering if Sheppard was clearly a murderer or not.

You are assuming that Sheppard did not explain exactly what would happen to Wallace. I think, in that same calm cool voice, that John would tell him how a Wraith feeds and what it would feel like.

In my happy place, they sedate Wallace so he doesn't feel a thing.


He is indeed in this ep, but thats not a consistant portrayal of the character. Remember back in s1 with 'Poisoning the Well' he berated the Hoffan's for offering their people a choice to vote on the serum, something he deemed 'potential suicide'. Yet he turned round and offered Wallace that choice (granted his character has changed since this time but as I've only watched s1 repeatedly, I cant think of a more recent example).

I think this is a prime example of how life in the Pegasus Galaxy has changed all of them. What used to seem so clear isn't anymore. Consider the reaction of John in Reunion as they find cocooned humans on the Wraith base. They don't try to help them. In fact he remarks to Teyla that there is nothing they can do for them. This is in direct contrast to his actions in The Hive.


Question...

Larrin kidnapped Sheppard in Travelers, beat him up, put his life in danger and threatened to keep him prisoner indefinitely .. do you think he would have fed her to the Wraith if the need arose.. Weren't her actions as bad as Wallace's.

A question back: were her actions directly causing the death of another?

In answer to your question, no, I don't think he would have fed her to a Wraith. He did the direct opposite in fact. He could have let the Wraith kill her and then kill the Wraith which would allow him to take the ship for himself. Now, if Larrin had kidnapped, let's say, Zelenka, and had injected him with a deadly toxin that only a starving Wraith knew the antidote for.... I think Sheppard would be much more likely to have the same chat with her that he did with Wallace.


Sheppard is the same person he's been since Rising. His character hasn't changed at all. People's perceptions of him have.

Well said.


Shep did it becuase he didn't think Rodney had the gull to stand up and take responsibility for bringing his sister into it in the first place.

I'm assuming you mean he didn't think Rodney had either the guts or the gall to take responsibility. I can't disagree more. I think he knew Rodney had every intention of doing so which is why Rodney was locked out of his own lab.

Rodney might overstate his intellect on occasion, but he never overstates his courage. He complains about splinters and chipped teeth. He certainly would never offer his life if he didn't absolutely mean it.


Capital punishment is a middle-ages immature mentality. You have red hair yuk, you are a witch!!! Burn her!!! We live in a modern world where ethics plays an important role...most of the time :D

I'm not going to argue the merits or lack thereof of capital punishment. Just know that these days a death sentence is not given lightly nor is it given for minor offenses (or for having red hair ;)).


But that's the problem, they were not working with the Wraith to save the Pegasus Galaxy humans. They refused his help. How many weeks had gone by and how many more worlds were distroyed because Rodney couldnt put his ego aside and let the Wraith help him.

Where did you get the idea that they refused the Wraith's help? He is shown helping on more than one occasion. In fact, towards the end of The Seer, he is led from his cell without chains, because he has "work to do". The coding Rodney is working on at the beginning of Miller's Crossing is a medical application for what they did with Weir's nanites, not the coding for shutting off the attack code. And, no, I have no idea why Rodney is working on that unless the Wraith was busy with the other code and McKay needed a break.

LoneStar1836
December 3rd, 2007, 10:22 AM
But that's the problem, they were not working with the Wraith to save the Pegasus Galaxy humans. They refused his help. How many weeks had gone by and how many more worlds were distroyed because Rodney couldnt put his ego aside and let the Wraith help him.

But all of a sudden when his sister is in danger he asks the Wraith to help.. why didnt he beg the Wraith to help them before this. So I don't know why so many keep saying that what Sheppard did was also to save the people in the Pegasus Galaxy. Sheppard was allowing the Wraith to starve and he may have been just left to die if the whole Wallace thing hadn't happened.
Why didnt they utilise the expertise of the Wraith before this incident. How many lives were lost because they refused his help... We already knew that several worlds were distroyed by the Replicators in the space of a few days in the Seer, so god knows how many more Worlds or lives have been lost since then. Wallace is pushed into committing suicide because he put ONE life in jeopardy but Rodney and even Sheppard put millions because they refused to trust or allow the Wraith to help them.


There is so much in Millers Crossing that paints both McKay and Sheppard in a bad light. I don't understand why the writers wrote McKay as refusing to ask the Wraith for help when so much was at stake. The Wraith came to John to offer his help.. why did John refuse it again when so many worlds were being distroyed. But then suddenly Sheppard is prepared to go to any lenghts to save just one life. I expected more from both of them and I really think the writers didn't do them any favours in this ep. I have no problem with Sheppard being a bit dark but at least let us see him admit it and accept responsibilty for what he is doing.

I thought I knew the character before Millers Crossing but now I don't know anymore... I really don't know what Sheppard could be capable of. I was expecting him to follow up what he said in Sateda and offer up his own life for any of his people, but not this underhanded act of pushing someone to commit suicide just to solve his own dilemma and then shirk all responsibility.Nice post. Reflects my thoughts as well. I'd green you again but can't atm.


My only disagreement with it is that even if Shep had offered up himself instead there is no way his action would have been approved by anyone in the position to allow such a request. He would have to have conked a few guards on the head to gain access to the wraith, but considering how pitiful security is at the SGC, he probably could have easily gained access to the wraith in that manner. Oh and I think he did take responsibility for it internally even if it did seem like he shirked it off. Shep's never been one to wear his emotions on his sleeve or offer up too much of himself. But as far as repercussions on the tv screen go, the writers are not known for their brilliance in that regard so under the rug it goes. I mean it's possible it might be mentioned again, but not likely, imo.



Where did you get the idea that they refused the Wraith's help? He is shown helping on more than one occasion. In fact, towards the end of The Seer, he is led from his cell without chains, because he has "work to do". The coding Rodney is working on at the beginning of Miller's Crossing is a medical application for what they did with Weir's nanites, not the coding for shutting off the attack code. And, no, I have no idea why Rodney is working on that unless the Wraith was busy with the other code and McKay needed a break.Seeing as I only watched the episode once and didn't really pay that close attention to exactly what they were working on in the opening bit, I'll take your word for it. Suppose I just assumed they were working on the shutdown code. (Does anybody got a transcript for this ep yet?) But I still find it rather strange that all those scientists were working on that rather than the more pressing issue. *shrug*



I would be more interested in finding out how those that disagree with Sheppard's actions would handle the situation. Who would you pick to die?Me. I'd have shoved McKay's sister into that available stasis chamber and then let Ronon shoot the wraith once he was on his last leg. Only humane thing to do there. (Alright maybe letting Ronon shoot him is a bit too much. :D Fine. Get a doctor to basically perform a lethal injection on him. Whatever happened to those stasis chambers on Atlantis. Do they still work? If they did, I'd put him in there instead.) The honorable thing would be to let the wraith go, but he poses too much of a military liability to Atlantis so that's not an option. If they really needed him around, they go capture some other wraith to feed to him. Unethical? Yes, but I don't particularly value the wraith even if there may be a redeemable one or two among them. I value Wallace more than I do them, and they would be dying for a greater good...the replicator shutdown code which helps us both.

MIZA
December 3rd, 2007, 10:28 AM
that's the thing with shep. he acts like this happy go lucky guy who always jokes around and everything but really there's this deep seated dark side to him. Darker i think than o'neill was.




Nah , i don't think it is darker then O'Neill , but he does have some anti-social tendencies well he used to , with O'Neill his son shot himself with his gun, so that is why he has some darkness.

Pegasus_SGA
December 3rd, 2007, 10:38 AM
That to me is a sign of a man who thinks Rodney can't survive with his won mistakes. Rodney brought his sister into the mess when he e-mailed classified material to her--which would have gotten him a criminal charges.

That is the most unsustainable argument that I think i've ever read. :lol: So Rodney (in another Galaxy) is responsible for a man kidnapping his sister, holding her and her family at gunpoint, getting injected with nanites?

So would you also say the same thing about a rape victim? Oh he/she was asking for it, they should never have been there, never worn that dress or acted like that?

What about genocide victims? Are they also to blame because they refuse to comply with dictators who force their hand, and make them fight back?

How do you know the email wasn't on a secured line?



Shep did it becuase he didn't think Rodney had the gull to stand up and take responsibility for bringing his sister into it in the first place.


Why then did he volunteer to be fed to the Wraith and go seek out Sheppard? Or try and sneek back into the lab using Dr Lee's card Shep was nowhere in sight?



Made me look at him in a whole new light too--a red one. Doesn't you statement reflect what Wallace did--anything to save the life of a loved one. BUT Wallace was killed for his actions--Sheppard was not!


I get that you're angry with Shep and I can understand where you're coming from over this, but Sheppard didn't force Wallace to give up his life. Guilted yes, but the two are not necessarily intertwined.



BUT--2 wrongs don't make a right. Sheppard did indeed play god by taking away Wallace's right to a trial. He became judge, jury and executioner.

In every crime there must be a motive. From the sick to the greedy. In this crime: Wallace--kidnapped, attempted murder--what his motive? TO SAVE A LIFE.



See my previous post on the Judge, Jury and executioner thing. I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Why has there always got to be a motive, some people like killing others purely because they can. So what's their motive?

So you can save a life irrespective of the cost to other people? And shouldn't be culpable?



In Shep's crime: Document falsification, luring a depressed man to sucicde--murder or accessory to murder--what his motive? TO SAVE A LIFE.

How is shep justified when they are both just as guilty and shep really did CAUSE a death.


So documenting reports is equal to kidnap and attempted murder is it? How did he lure Wallace? Did he put a chain around his neck and drag him to the room. Tell him that he could bring his daughter back to life if he promised to do what Shep wanted to do?



Wallace's daughter was going to die anyways! Injecting her with nanites was his last ditch effort to save her.


Yes, noone has a problem with him doing that. It's the other parts of the mess he created that caused the problem. If that was all it was, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.



So, in the end of the day--Shep actually killed a man and the man he killed had the same goal as him.


Wrong. A choice was given To die or not to die, that was the question.



Shep is no officer and a gentleman. He should have a dishonorable discharge at least!

All I can think about now is Shep in Navy whites... *thud* thanks for that image. :D


I never said wallace wasn't guilty--now did I? I'm not justifying Wallace--I'm explaining that Sheppard didn't uphold his oath as an officer of the us air force.

It sounds from your posts as if you're blaming everyone else, except the guilty party.



First, in custady Wallace's well being IS the responsibility of the SGC. His health and mental state IS their concern. Wallace may have created the situation--but Sheppard did NOT unp hold his duty!


Which was what? babysit him? He's a grown man, the SGC are not responsible for someone feeling guilty over their own actions.



No one in their right mind wants to die when they are NOT suffering. Wallace just lost everything--it's safe to assume he is not in his right frame of mind.


As i've said to you before, on what basis did you come to this conclusion? How do you know he's not in the right frame of mind. Again, losing a loved one doesn't mean that you lose your marbles to. have you ever lost anyone?



Next--it is the responsibility to make sure Wallace does injure himself or those around him--he is their prisoner. It's not like Wallace knocked on the door and said--"yo--feed me to the green guy."


Yes to a degree, but if someone wants to kill themselves as you're implying, they will find a way, it may not be conventional, but they'll use whatever they have to hand if the mood takes them. How do you think people in jails commit suicide?


Wallace does INDEED have a trail coming. There ARE special committees in the UN and the US senate for top secret issues such as the one presented. Wallace would not give up his rights to the military--that would be illegal--unless you live in a military state--like china.

Well, no actually he doesn't have a trail coming, because he's dead. And unless he's going to come back as a ghost, i really don't think he'll be in attendance. :P



Wallace is in the eyes of the law INNOCENT till proven guilty. He was never given a chance to be proven guilty--now was he?

In the Stargate world--there would be a committee. Wallace would be tried under Canadian Law and incarcerated in a Canadian prison.

Yes the law says innocent until proven guilty, but he confessed and subsequently repented. Case closed.



By nudging Wallace into allowing a feeding Sheppard had denied him his right to: Mental evaluation, a trail by committee, the punishment to not exceed the crime, his right to council, his right to live. In law--a prisoner gives up their freedom in time not their rights to a fair trial and human treatment. A prisoner is not at your disposal--they are not to be subject to torture mentally or physically despite their crime. Most guards do not even know what the inmate did becuase of the chance of prejudice.


Why would he need a mental evaluation? And how do you know he was offered those things, but declined? These were uniques circumstances after all. It's not that implausible. Oh trust me, the guards know exactly what prisoners have done.



By allowing Wallace--even if he wasn't nudged into it--to die at the hands of the Wraith whether it be by his own hand or someone else's the state is responsible for that death becuase it happened when he was in custody.

Shep by law--is responsible. He opened that door and led Wallace to the room where the wraith waited to feed on him. If that's not placing the hand of the wraith in Wallace's chest--then I must be too stupid to know the differnce.

Have you ever heard of extra-judicial killings? So by that logic, if the guard had opened the door to that room he would have been an accomplice to 'murder' even though you've just said that the guards no nothing about their prisoners?



Oh God.. I can see the SJS threads already....

I actually thought of S.o.S "Save our Shep" I thought it had a nice ring to it. ;)


Thank you Hunter391, for bringing some common sense back to this thread!

I didn't think we did common sense. ;)



No worries hon. I was sleeping like a baby when you wrote this :P. One sided? Of course my dialogue seems one sided because Wallace got capital punishment for his actions, which is wrong. No matter what you say, Wallace was pushed by Sheppard. Wallace was doing very well, until Johnny came and played the guilt card on him. Erase the whole Wallace and Sheppard scene and Wallace would have been sent to prison...


When someone manipulates you and pushes your buttons in their own interest it means they already took the decision for you ;).

He played GOD....G O D :D

Nope he didn't get Capital Punishment, he took the decision to atone for his actions, commit suicide, however you want to put it. Ultimately he was his own, judge, jury and executioner wasn't he? Just because you play the guilt card (which is very effective) those words don't mean that you are responsible for murder if that person kills themselves.




[quote]
But all of a sudden when his sister is in danger he asks the Wraith to help.. why didnt he beg the Wraith to help them before this. So I don't know why so many keep saying that what Sheppard did was also to save the people in the Pegasus Galaxy. Sheppard was allowing the Wraith to starve and he may have been just left to die if the whole Wallace thing hadn't happened.
Why didnt they utilise the expertise of the Wraith before this incident. How many lives were lost because they refused his help... We already knew that several worlds were distroyed by the Replicators in the space of a few days in the Seer, so god knows how many more Worlds or lives have been lost since then. Wallace is pushed into committing suicide because he put ONE life in jeopardy but Rodney and even Sheppard put millions because they refused to trust or allow the Wraith to help them.


How do you know that he hadn't asked the Wraith before, he may have done and the Wraith declined until he was fed. Or maybe made an empassioned plea for help and made the wraith feel guilty for not helping before? :D Our Rodney's growing up, bless him.



There is so much in Millers Crossing that paints both McKay and Sheppard in a bad light. I don't understand why the writers wrote McKay as refusing to ask the Wraith for help when so much was at stake. The Wraith came to John to offer his help.. why did John refuse it again when so many worlds were being distroyed. But then suddenly Sheppard is prepared to go to any lenghts to save just one life. I expected more from both of them and I really think the writers didn't do them any favours in this ep. I have no problem with Sheppard being a bit dark but at least let us see him admit it and accept responsibilty for what he is doing.


There's only so much information that you can fit into 42 though, Blue. Some of it has to come from the viewers own imagination.

When the Wraith approached Shep, at that point in time, they were unaware of the worlds getting obliterated. It was only after they talked that they found out what the score was.



I thought I knew the character before Millers Crossing but now I don't know anymore... I really don't know what Sheppard could be capable of. I was expecting him to follow up what he said in Sateda and offer up his own life for any of his people, but not this underhanded act of pushing someone to commit suicide just to solve his own dilemma and then shirk all responsibility.

They're still the same characters, Blue. Nothing about them has changed. They are as you've always known them to be. Your perception of them has. If I can be honest, you've surprised me at your reaction. Is there a particular reason why you felt so.... betrayed? Sorry, i'm trying to find the right word and can't find it.


that's the thing with shep. he acts like this happy go lucky guy who always jokes around and everything but really there's this deep seated dark side to him. Darker i think than o'neill was.

I agree, he's always had this side of him. But when you have a job like that, you have to have some kind of escapism otherwise you really would lose the plot.

P-90_177
December 3rd, 2007, 10:41 AM
Nah , i don't think it is darker then O'Neill , but he does have some anti-social tendencies well he used to , with O'Neill his son shot himself with his gun, so that is why he has some darkness.

i think he's been under some kind of loss as well. I think personally he may have been at some point indirectly responsable for a friends death. I don't know why, it's just the way he says 'i would do anything for any one of you' to teyla in sateda.

Integrabyte
December 3rd, 2007, 11:23 AM
.....



...you don't want me to argue with you for an eternity on this , do you ? :D

Pegasus_SGA
December 3rd, 2007, 11:40 AM
...you don't want me to argue with you for an eternity on this , do you ? :D

Nah, we'll save that for another thread. :P

*runs and hides*

Ruffles
December 3rd, 2007, 11:41 AM
Seeing as I only watched the episode once and didn't really pay that close attention to exactly what they were working on in the opening bit, I'll take your word for it. Suppose I just assumed they were working on the shutdown code. (Does anybody got a transcript for this ep yet?) But I still find it rather strange that all those scientists were working on that rather than the more pressing issue. *shrug*

I did too, but a couple of things changed my mind. First, the Wraith refused to help. If the scientists were working on the shutdown code, why would he do so? That's why he came.

Second, at Jeannie's house he tells that he had been working on a medical version of the nanites. Ronon asks if that was what he had used on Weir. Answer: yes. What Sheppard wanted Rodney to create in Adrift was a version they could shut down. Perhaps they went back to working on that to help fill in the gaps of the attack shutdown code they lost when the hive was destroyed in The Seer. The Wraith would have no interest in the medical applications. I suspect he was in another lab trying to recreate the portion he'd held back.

Therefore, I think the scientists were still working on the medical version which is what McKay emailed to Jeannie and what caught Wallace's attention.


Me. I'd have shoved McKay's sister into that available stasis chamber and then let Ronon shoot the wraith once he was on his last leg. Only humane thing to do there. (Alright maybe letting Ronon shoot him is a bit too much. :D Fine. Get a doctor to basically perform a lethal injection on him. Whatever happened to those stasis chambers on Atlantis. Do they still work? If they did, I'd put him in there instead.) The honorable thing would be to let the wraith go, but he poses too much of a military liability to Atlantis so that's not an option. If they really needed him around, they go capture some other wraith to feed to him. Unethical? Yes, but I don't particularly value the wraith even if there may be a redeemable one or two among them. I value Wallace more than I do them, and they would be dying for a greater good...the replicator shutdown code which helps us both.

The stasis chamber is a possibilty. Would the nanites stop working just because she was in stasis? I wonder....

However, in a bigger picture scenario, letting the Wraith die (or letting Ronon shoot him) presents another issue. How do they finish shutting down the replicator attack code and save the Pegasus humans? By letting him die, you let all the others die too. It's not that I find value in saving a Wraith, even this particular one who has shown himself to be honorable. He's on Atlantis (and still alive) for only one reason - to help stop the replicators.

Myn McGeek, Third Sentinel
December 3rd, 2007, 11:51 AM
Doesn't matter how noble his intention, he IS wrong and IS a murderer.
I definitely agree with the first statement, but... a murderer? I don't think so. Yes, he assisted in the death of a man, but the man made his own choice to die in the end. I'm not going to argue with you on the fact that what Sheppard did was wrong, but I don't think it should be seen as murder. I don't think it would be in court, at least. An assistant to suicide, maybe. Anyway, going by the logic that what Sheppard did was murder, what Wallace did to Jeanie would also be murder, or, since she didn't end up dying, attempted murder.

Just my opinion.


So you're saying asking for the 'good guy' to at least try and do the 'right' thing is childish, cliché and comic book? You're saying Sheppard isn't the good guy or 'hero' or role model, well you'd be right with actions like those.

And last time I checked, Shepard IS supposed to be the hero according to Scifi, the ads, merchendise, the writers and showrunners who always call him 'the hero'.

No one is asking him to wear a white hat and go running around helping old ladies to cross the road. But we are asking that he doesn't keep making morally objectional and sometimes down right reprehensible choices, without consequence or punishment (especially as an easy route to wrap up the plotline) that make him neither the 'good guy' nor likeable.
I'd say that Sheppard is definitely a "good guy", but whether or not he's a "hero" is debatable. Being a good guy doesn't necessarily mean the same as being a hero.


No worries hon. I was sleeping like a baby when you wrote this :P. One sided? Of course my dialogue seems one sided because Wallace got capital punishment for his actions, which is wrong. No matter what you say, Wallace was pushed by Sheppard. Wallace was doing very well, until Johnny came and played the guilt card on him. Erase the whole Wallace and Sheppard scene and Wallace would have been sent to prison...
In responce to the bolded text... I think that Wallace did feel guilty before Sheppard came to see him. Remember right after his daughter died, Jeanie told him that she had a daughter herself and Wallace said, "I'm so sorry..." so he understood what he had done wrong and did indeed feel guilty about it before Sheppard said anything to him. ;)


When someone manipulates you and pushes your buttons in their own interest it means they already took the decision for you ;).
OMGosh! Ur right! It's just like when my brother and I got into a fight and this random guy came along while I was still heated up and angry and convinced me that my brother deserved to die! He never actually told me to do it... but he was so right! So I killed my brother! Nope, I have no resposibility over it... the random guy TOLD me it would be best... HE made the decision for me! So, there! :p

Em, yeah. :rolleyes:

(Sorry for the sarcasam... no, I didn't really kill anyone... ;))

Myn McGeek, Third Sentinel
December 3rd, 2007, 12:06 PM
OK, I posted this in the main thread and I decided to post it here too. :P


I would like to say something now. Haven't you BEEN saying something?? Well sure, but I meant something new. :o
I think all this discussion about this is intellenctually stimulating and all... but it seems to me that some of us are just repeating the same thing over and over... Personally, I'm not going to argue my point anymore, because: A) it's obvious that I'm not going to change anyone else's opinion by repeating my view on the subject, and B) I completely undersand and really respect all those who are upset by Sheppard's actions and feel what he did was cold-hearted and morally wrong. I even agree to a point. For me, I'm no less of a fan of Sheppard as a character and what he did didn't shock me to the point of hating him. I was pretty disturbed by it at first, but after thinking about it and discussing it I've come to the conclusion that it was not out of character. Still a bit disturbing, though... but like I said, this whole situation has only made Sheppard seem more real to me, because he is capable of making (debatably HUGE) mistakes.

That's my two cents. :) Or three or four. :p

Obviously, if you all would like to continue discussing it then go right ahead. My only point is that if you feel you've been saying the same thing over and over... you might consider giving up, for the sake of everyone's tempers... :p

Integrabyte
December 3rd, 2007, 12:11 PM
Nah, we'll save that for another thread. :P

*runs and hides*

Don't hide in the closet!! I'm there :D

Pegasus_SGA
December 3rd, 2007, 12:15 PM
Don't hide in the closet!! I'm there :D
Yeah I know! With your big stick! ;) Cheeky. :P

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 01:09 PM
Yeah I know! With your big stick! ;) Cheeky. :PWhen will you two learn that violence solves nothing. That said,*throws snowballs at demented Peg

Pegasus_SGA
December 3rd, 2007, 01:13 PM
When will you two learn that violence solves nothing. That said,*throws snowballs at demented Peg
Me ----> http://bestsmileys.com/winter/7.gif<----Jel! :D

Back on topic, Shep is as pure as the driven snow. :D

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 01:15 PM
Me ----> http://bestsmileys.com/winter/7.gif<----Jel! :DBack on topic, Shep is as pure as the driven snow. :DMC proves that Shep isn't pure and has a dark side. and you got the roles reverse. I'm the pink guy

Integrabyte
December 3rd, 2007, 01:21 PM
Me ----> http://bestsmileys.com/winter/7.gif<----Jel! :D

Back on topic, Shep is as pure as the driven snow. :D

...off a cliff :D

Myn McGeek, Third Sentinel
December 3rd, 2007, 01:24 PM
Back on topic, Shep is as pure as the driven snow. :D
As long as you ignore the patches of yellow...

KIDDING! *ducks snowballs* Nyah! :p

Pegasus_SGA
December 3rd, 2007, 01:25 PM
MC proves that Shep isn't pure and has a dark side. and you got the roles reverse. I'm the pink guy

In your dreams you're the pink one. And actually, pink is just for girls. ;) Sorry. :P

You could always start a thread on whether driven snow is pure or not? ;)

Shep is just like driven on snow. People (and I mean women) ;) Turn to mush whenever.... never mind.

*drags herself out the gutter*

Pegasus_SGA
December 3rd, 2007, 01:32 PM
...off a cliff :D


As long as you ignore the patches of yellow...

KIDDING! *ducks snowballs* Nyah! :p

And so it begins....

http://www.youthblog.org/archives/snowball%20fight.jpg

^ ^
GW Members v Peg

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 01:33 PM
In your dreams you're the pink one. And actually, pink is just for girls. ;) Sorry. :P?*You could always start a thread on whether driven snow is pure or not? ;)?*Shep is just like driven on snow. People (and I mean women) ;) Turn to mush whenever.... never mind. ?**drags herself out the gutter*Have you considered psychological help:P:PI think Peg is the red person

Pegasus_SGA
December 3rd, 2007, 01:38 PM
Have you considered psychological help:P:PI think Peg is the red person

Every day ;) And yep that's me in the red. Linz is the one on the floor after too much alcohol. :P

Talking of psychological.... see I can stay on topic on occasisons. ;) I'd love to see how this effects Shep and Rodney's relationship. Will all that's happened change them, or change each other?

garhkal
December 3rd, 2007, 03:25 PM
Coerced? So, being told the truth is being coerced? Telling him about the Jeannie's family is coersion. And for those that have killed hundreds of people in the real world? All we had to do was to tell them about the families that have been effected and they'd top themselves. Wow had I known that, i'd have made more of an effort on certain individuals. ;)


To some yes. Guilt tripping is not called that for kicks. Coersion is not just me putting a gun to your head and telling you do it or die.. It could just be me telling you that someone else gave you up when they did not to get you to confess (or in this case volunteer to do something)..



Now see the whumper in me is saying hell yeah, but alas the only thing I can say here is... why the hell should he?


It would so he is true to his word. That is why.



It's never going to happen. You know that, and so do I. All of this will be reviewed by the IOA and who knows they may hold Shep accountable and the others further on down the line.


Just cause it may never happen does not mean it should not happen or we cannot argue over what the punishments/crimes were.



You're forgetting that it was a choice! And no, we'll never know for certain one why or another whether Shep held a gun to Wallace's head and forced him into it, but how I see it, is that Wallace agreed. Shep did say in the interrogating room that it was voluntary. Do you think he lied to Wallace at that point?

In some ways yes. Since we don't know what he said after showing the photos right up to McCay coming into the room and seeing the body bag, we cannot know whether Shep forced him, lied to him or what else..



And that makes it alright does it? McKay volunteers and no redress from Wallace. Would you have been happier with that outcome? And if the wraith didn't comply then what? He feeds on McKay, doesn't help Jeannie, but it's okay because Wallace doesn't have to face up to any responsibility.


Going to jail and loosing all his family is facing that responsibility. He knew that from the get go and was fully willing to face it. And while i might not be happy if McCay had done it, i would have fully understood why and how he came to that decision and respected him a whole lot more for it. With how they left it off for Wallace, we don't know so i cannot say if i respect him for that.



How do we know he did it on his own? Earlier you were saying the whole base was in on it.

McCay came to him volunteering himself for food, then the next seen we see him on his own talking to wallace. That was on his own he did that. From then on it was the base which was in on what he was doing. Big difference.



Which they've acknowledged. They woke up the Wraith and are now making amends for that error in judgement. So by that logic shouldn't that principle be applied to Wallace? he made an error, so shouldn't he have rectified it? Why should other people be expected to clean up his mess?

Is just sacrificing his life though properly making amends? NO.
And if the group were truely trying to make amends they would not be making as many fubars as they ahve like getting the Asurans into their current state, and potentially making them imune to the one weapon we have against them.




The Wraith was kept alive because he's more valuable to them alive than dead.

And how do we not know wallace was worth more dead than alive?? Was he not working on trying to get the nanites to be useful against cancer? What other discoveries could he have made???


That to me is a sign of a man who thinks Rodney can't survive with his won mistakes. Rodney brought his sister into the mess when he e-mailed classified material to her--which would have gotten him a criminal charges.

Shep did it becuase he didn't think Rodney had the gull to stand up and take responsibility for bringing his sister into it in the first place.

Nore does it show he respects his friends decisions and choices..



Next--it is the responsibility to make sure Wallace does injure himself or those around him--he is their prisoner. It's not like Wallace knocked on the door and said--"yo--feed me to the green guy."

Wallace does INDEED have a trail coming. There ARE special committees in the UN and the US senate for top secret issues such as the one presented. Wallace would not give up his rights to the military--that would be illegal--unless you live in a military state--like china.

Well said Jackie. As with any legal office and yes the SGC is still a legal office of sorts, even if it is secret, there are rules and regulations to follow. Safety and security of prisoners is one..


protect and defend those he cares about, and to hell with the rules in the process. .

But where is his willingness to take responsibility for that ignoring of the rules??



Did Sheppard get permission before hand? Probably. I think SGC personnel tend to be very pragmatic and the treat to Pegasus by the Replicators has to be a top priority. Sheppard is important on Atlantis but in the SGC he’s just a Lieutenant Colonel. There would be some number of colonels there and a general (Landry). Someone would be paying attention to the Wraith’s presence on base. McKay’s access privileges were changed. Sheppard would have identified the need to keep McKay away from the Wraith, but he wouldn’t have the capability or the authority to change access privileges. Someone with more authority in the SGC did that for him.

While what you say is true, i cannot seriously see the SGC allowing a prisoner to be led into a room to his death.



Which is one of the main problems I have with his action. I mean who hasn't ever thought about that if they could by-pass the law what they would do/like to do to some of the scum who commit such reprehensible crimes, but laws exists to protect their rights/life, especially once they are in custody. I mean even somebody in law enforcement custody who wants to commit suicide is not allowed to do so because laws dictate that such people are to be protected no matter what they wish upon themselves.

Great point lonestar. Once in custody the safety and health of the prisoner(s) are the responsibility of those who have them in custody.



I would be more interested in finding out how those that disagree with Sheppard's actions would handle the situation. Who would you pick to die?

Get someone on death row. They are already sentenced to die.


Wallace would have never seen the inside of a courtroom. He knows too much. He would never face a judge or a jury. He would be tucked away in a small cell somewhere at the SGC to never see the light of day again. Ever.

As mentioned before, therer are special military tribunals for situations like this, so he WOULD have had his day in court, even if it was a tribunal..


That is the most unsustainable argument that I think i've ever read. So Rodney (in another Galaxy) is responsible for a man kidnapping his sister, holding her and her family at gunpoint, getting injected with nanites?

Would she have been in that position if he had not sent her the info?? NO.

darkrose
December 3rd, 2007, 04:32 PM
All experimental treatments are risky, all patients/guardians are made aware of the risks before starting such treatments and have to sign paperwork. Where do you draw the line?

It's immoral to kill someone dying with cancer by using an experimental treatment to try and save them?

Did I say that? I said that in some jurisdictions, a District Attorney may try to prosecute. There's a solid body of case law that competent adults have the right to go as far as refusing treatment, but when it comes to minors or people who aren't capable of giving consent, that becomes a lot more complicated. If you decide to give a child chelation of mercury to cure their autism (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=32614), for example, there's a good chance that you'll end up in court because the treatment hasn't been approved by the FDA.

Jill_Ion
December 3rd, 2007, 04:56 PM
garkhal wrote:


Quote:
I would be more interested in finding out how those that disagree with Sheppard's actions would handle the situation. Who would you pick to die?

Get someone on death row. They are already sentenced to die.

I don't understand. Get a person who has nothing to do with the situation and feed him to Todd? It is acceptable to feed an anonymous "someone" to the Wraith rather than Wallace, the person responsible for this entire mess?

Why???

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 05:03 PM
I don't understand.?* Get a person who has nothing to do with the situation and feed him to Todd??* It is acceptable to feed an anonymous "someone" to the Wraith rather than Wallace, the person responsible for this entire mess??* Why???Some people have sympathize with Wallace as he was a desperated man trying to save his daughter and feel like what?* Sheppard did was murder. I don't quite understand their logic either considering Jeanie or Wallace had to die.?* I would chose the murderer over the victim

Jill_Ion
December 3rd, 2007, 05:16 PM
Some people have sympathize with Wallace as he was a desperated man trying to save his daughter and feel like what?* Sheppard did was murder. I don't quite understand their logic either considering Jeanie or Wallace had to die.?* I would chose the murderer over the victim

Their logic confuses me too.

I find it a little scary when people are spitting mad about a kidnapper/attempted murderer dying and then callously call for the death of an anonymous person in lieu of this allegedly sympathetic criminal. What? Death row inmates don't have families or loved ones?

I get that we don't want to harm that which we know/love, and care less for that which we don't know/love. I suppose I don't find Wallace to be as sympathetic or knowable/lovable as other fans do.

Still, I didn't want Wallace to die, but since we can't rewrite the show there were a very limited number of people on the "menu," he would be my choice.

Actionhank
December 3rd, 2007, 05:30 PM
How far is too far?

Morality is not an absolute; it is fluid; it is defined by the situation. A simple example: killing someone is not murder if they are trying to kill you. Morality can be very complex. Acting morally may be choosing the lesser of two evils or the logically best course of action for the most people. It is doing what produces the maximum benefit, irrespective of the outcome to the individual making the choice.

Is it doing what produces the maximum benefit, irrespective of the outcome to any one individual?
That's a very interesting question. Who has the right to make dicisions in which to assess lives against other lives? Or even worse - intervene or do nothing. Both would lead to the death of people. An old example of this (I hope it's not too OT) is the following scenario:
A train is out of control and about to rush into a fully crowded railway station. You could redirect the train onto another track but that would mean certain death of 3 rail workers in place. What would you do? Can you play destiny and weight out the lifes of people? ;)

In the case of Sheppard - if I got it right he only talked with the guy about feeding to Todd. After the guy had already lost everything and was to be imprisoned himself it was an ok decision. One could even say Sheppard did give him the chance to rectify some of the bad things he had done (as opposed to living in pain for the rest of his wicked life). So, Sheppard in my mind would have to be convicted for producing false documents at most. It was the guys decision. But I understand that is very arguable.

What I can't understand: Who would take the risk of letting Todd come to earth in the first place?!? Who is responsible for THAT? And to outsourcing to companies?!? Please, how many people know about the stargate program by now? Thousands to say the least I guess.

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 05:37 PM
A train is out of control and about to rush into a fully crowded railway station.?* You could redirect the train onto another track but that would mean certain death of 3 rail workers in place. What would you do? Can you play destiny and weight out the lifes of people? ;)I would pick the three rail workers. This may sound cold but its a numbers game . A crowded station is worth more than three rail workers
In the case of Sheppard - if I got it right he only talked with the guy about feeding to Todd. After the guy had already lost everything and was to be imprisoned himself it was an ok decision. One could even say Sheppard did give him the chance to rectify some of the bad things he had done (as opposed to living in pain for the rest of his wicked life). So, Sheppard in my mind would have to be convicted for producing false documents at most. It was the guys decision. But I understand that is very arguable.:indeed:
What I can't understand: Who would take the risk of letting Todd come to earth in the first place?!? Who is responsible for THAT?The Wraith was handcuffed and always had an armed guard next to him

Actionhank
December 3rd, 2007, 06:03 PM
I would pick the three rail workers. This may sound cold but its a numbers game . A crowded station is worth more than three rail workers
Oh, that's serious. It may look that easy when you think about it sketchily but think about the implications. It's (where I come from) common sense that killing people to save other people is not just and noone is allowed to make that call.

The Wraith was handcuffed and always had an armed guard next to him
You never know what the wraith has in stock. We know they can influence people, he could have some sort of biological weapon or another tracking device - who knows? After all we don't know much about their skills and abilities.

2ndgenerationalteran
December 3rd, 2007, 06:27 PM
I don't see whats wrong (initial question) he just gave an attempted murderer the chance to save his victim by giving up his own life. Thats more righting your wrongs before you die, plus he had just lost everything in his life and was just going to waste the rest of it away in jail, when he ever came out he would have just been humiliated. Seems like the guy chose to make his last action a good one, to help someone (and possibly everyone).

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 06:28 PM
While what you say is true, i cannot seriously see the SGC allowing a prisoner to be led into a room to his death.
I can see the SGC being fully complicit in allowing a criminal to sacrifice himself to save his victim. The evidence is there to support it. After all, the side effect is a healthy Wraith able to work on disabling the Replicator attack code to save the Pegasus humans.


Would she have been in that position if he had not sent her the info?? NO.
So it’s all McKay’s fault?

Would a man have been mugged if he hadn’t been asked to dinner?
Would a woman have been raped if she hadn't worn the dress her husband asked her to?
Would a couple have had their child kidnapped if they had never had a child?
Would a woman have had an accident if a friend had not emailed her about a sale?

Get real! :eek:

Lorr
December 3rd, 2007, 06:33 PM
I'll admit up front that I have not read every post in this thread, but I did read quite a few. My apologies for any repeated arguments, and for the length. Thanks to Blue-Skyz for such a thought provoking idea and intro to the thread.

My two cents worth:

What Wallace did was reprehensible. His men could have easily caused serious injury or death to Caleb and Madison during the course of kidnapping Jeannie. The same could be said for Agent Barrett. His actions took a valuable person, McKay, away from work that could mean the difference in saving hundreds of thousands of people in the Pegasus Galaxy. It also pulled out Sheppard, Ronon, and ultimately, Todd the Wraith. The time spent on Earth is down the tubes.

Then, Wallace purposefully injected Jeannie with the nanites knowing they would most likely cause her death.

His daughter was dying, and that was tragic. However, he knew the odds were against Rodney and Jeannie being able to fix the coding. He was able to find out a lot about the Stargate program, so he was a pretty smart guy. Since he had sensitive government contracts, he would have been profiled to the nth degree, so he would have also been mentally and emotionally stable.

Don't get me wrong, I found him to be a sympathetic character. He was doing what any parent would do, trying to save his child. That does not go anywhere near excusing his actions, though.

What Sheppard did was morally ambiguous, for sure. He caught Wallace at a low point and presented him with a way to redeem himself and save not only Jeannie, but possibly whole worlds of people. I don't think Sheppard would have pushed Wallace in front of Todd like he was by Kolya. He knew what that felt like.

Sheppard knew, though, that he couldn't lose Rodney, either by letting Rodney be fed upon or by Rodney not going back to Atlantis because Sheppard would not let him save his sister (which was a possible outcome). He needed Rodney back on Atlantis to help save all of the people there from both the Replicators and the Wraith. Sure, there are lots of other scientists, but even Zelenka is not quite the level of McKay.

Sheppard made an incredibly difficult decision and acted on it. It's a decision he was forced to make by Wallace's actions. What I liked is that Sheppard did it quietly. There was no ranting and raving, no guns drawn, no threats. It was just a quiet little "talk". I love that he made sure that Rodney was not part of the decision, the discussion or the action. Sheppard protected his friend. He took a huge, dark burden onto himself. He feels it, too, but has not lost his humanity. Yet.

I, for one, applaud the way TPTB did this. I am really enjoying where they are taking this. SGA is darker than SG1, but it is not the over-the-top, chew-the-scenery, angst-all-day-every-day we see on other shows. I can’t wait to see where they go with it. IMHO, of course!

Actionhank
December 3rd, 2007, 06:35 PM
Would a man have been mugged if he hadn’t been asked to dinner?
Would a woman have been raped if she hadn't worn the dress her husband asked her to?
Would a couple have had their child kidnapped if they had never had a child?
Would a woman have had an accident if a friend had not emailed her about a sale?

Get real! :eek:
The fat one is easy. ;)
I think it was discussed before - E-mailing confidential material was a bad idea in the first place. You can't ask a non-member. Otherwise the whole system of inner security and top secrecy would be a farce. So I'm going to tell you who is really responsible for this mess.

It's Martin Gero - the writer. :D

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 06:38 PM
I don't see whats wrong (initial question) he just gave an attempted murderer the chance to save his victim by giving up his own life.?* Thats more righting your wrongs before you die, plus he had just lost everything in his life and was just going to waste the rest of it away in jail, when he ever came out he would have just been humiliated.?* Seems like the guy chose to make his last action a good one, to help someone (and possibly everyone).When I find out their reasoning, I'll let you know.?* To answer Actionhawk I agree its a lot different when your in the heat in moment and talking about it right now.This is off topic, so let me propose another ethical dilemeaYour spouse is dying of a deadly diease.?* The only cure is an expensive vaccine you can't afford. The only way to afford it, is to committ a robbery.Do you committ the crime or let you spoude die?I once had to write a paper on this in Psychology 101?*

2ndgenerationalteran
December 3rd, 2007, 06:41 PM
agreed, it was done very tastefully. When i saw the episode i initially thought that rodney was going to be fed upon have nanites injected as well and they nurse him to full health. no one dies and everyone is happy at the end but this seemed just as good to invoke us to question ourselves.

Jelgate that is easy for me to answer, you rob the store, it saves a life and no major crime is committed, if you shot someone in the process then yeah, your wrong but if no one is injured its probably the right thing to do. (just dont let your spouse find out ;))

Actionhank
December 3rd, 2007, 06:48 PM
I, for one, applaud the way TPTB did this. I am really enjoying where they are taking this. SGA is darker than SG1, but it is not the over-the-top, chew-the-scenery, angst-all-day-every-day we see on other shows. I can’t wait to see where they go with it.
What I like - the charackters are becoming more "realistic" and maybe their actions too. I like 3d-charackters, not the plain black and white stuff. The struggle to find out what's the right thing to do or at least the thing that comes closest to the right thing is what gives them depth. And I hope they are allowed to make more mistakes in the future (whole season 4 seems to be about coping with the consequences how they dealt with the Assurans in season 3 and they thought they would do a good thing activating the attack code and - boom! The Assurans are nuking human worlds ^^).

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 06:56 PM
Would a man have been mugged if he hadn’t been asked to dinner?
Would a woman have been raped if she hadn't worn the dress her husband asked her to?
Would a couple have had their child kidnapped if they had never had a child?
Would a woman have had an accident if a friend had not emailed her about a sale?

Get real! :eek:

Would Wallace have died if Sheppard hadn't asked him too?:eek:

Actionhank
December 3rd, 2007, 06:59 PM
When I find out their reasoning, I'll let you know.?* To answer Actionhawk I agree its a lot different when your in the heat in moment and talking about it right now.This is off topic, so let me propose another ethical dilemeaYour spouse is dying of a deadly diease.?* The only cure is an expensive vaccine you can't afford. The only way to afford it, is to committ a robbery.Do you committ the crime or let you spoude die?I once had to write a paper on this in Psychology 101?*
Hmmm, from a legal point of view it's clear you can't rob the vaccine. From a personal point of view I would probably give it chance. But on the other hand this is like driving drunk - you could harm others in the process (maybe you hurt or even kill people in the robbery).
In the end you would have to live with either horrible thing and in this case I think you would always chose to help your own people rather than thinking what might happen to others. It sounds selfish but it's also some kind of self-preservation that comes into play, I guess.

2ndgenerationalteran
December 3rd, 2007, 07:01 PM
he didnt ask him to kill himself, he presented the opportunity to help someone who was going to die when it was his fault to begin with. He didn't pull out a gun and say "We're gonna feed you to a Wraith." He didnt even ask if that is what he wanted, he just silently let it be an option. And whose to say he wouldnt recieve the death penalty? Kidnapping, murder, illegal drug testing on a human being they could have warrented a death penalty and his death could have had no positive significance. He OFFERED to rectify his wrongs.

Jill_Ion
December 3rd, 2007, 07:03 PM
Would Wallace have died if Sheppard hadn't asked him too?:eek:

I didn't interpret Sheppard as "asking" Wallace to die, as in, "Will you please die?" ;)

I think he laid out the case and Wallace chose to do it. I watched the ep again and saw resolve in Wallace's face after Shep talked to him.

YMMV, of course. :)

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 07:03 PM
Would Wallace have died if Sheppard hadn't asked him too?:eek:It would depend what country he was tried in.Canada:NoUS:Yes

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 07:06 PM
When I find out their reasoning, I'll let you know.?* To answer Actionhawk I agree its a lot different when your in the heat in moment and talking about it right now.This is off topic, so let me propose another ethical dilemeaYour spouse is dying of a deadly diease.?* The only cure is an expensive vaccine you can't afford. The only way to afford it, is to committ a robbery.Do you committ the crime or let you spoude die?I once had to write a paper on this in Psychology 101?*

I would do the robbery to get the vaccine--because you cannot place a value on any human life. (BTW that question is bogus because it's illegal for the hospital to turn you away and deny you medical treatment because you cannot afford it.)

And this is how I would do it--I would make sure that I don't own a thing in my name. No deeds, no titles, no nothing. Then I would take advantage of every single stupid credit card offer I get the mail and do a cash advance tomax them all out. Pay for the meds and then act like a deadbeat father and quite my job so I won't get my wages garnished and then work under the table.

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 07:07 PM
When I find out their reasoning, I'll let you know.?* To answer Actionhawk I agree its a lot different when your in the heat in moment and talking about it right now.This is off topic, so let me propose another ethical dilemeaYour spouse is dying of a deadly diease.?* The only cure is an expensive vaccine you can't afford. The only way to afford it, is to committ a robbery.Do you committ the crime or let you spoude die?I once had to write a paper on this in Psychology 101?*


It would depend what country he was tried in.Canada:NoUS:Yes

US--only in texas.

2ndgenerationalteran
December 3rd, 2007, 07:08 PM
Amongst other places, California, Nevada, Georgia to name a few.

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 07:10 PM
US--only in texas.He would be tried in federal court and they have put their fair share people on death row.

Actionhank
December 3rd, 2007, 07:15 PM
I would do the robbery to get the vaccine--because you cannot place a value on any human life. (BTW that question is bogus because it's illegal for the hospital to turn you away and deny you medical treatment because you cannot afford it.)

And this is how I would do it--I would make sure that I don't own a thing in my name. No deeds, no titles, no nothing. Then I would take advantage of every single stupid credit card offer I get the mail and do a cash advance tomax them all out. Pay for the meds and then act like a deadbeat father and quite my job so I won't get my wages garnished and then work under the table.
Hehe, you're cheating. ;) Like Kirk did with the Kobayashi Maru Test. LOL

I would sharping the odds a little: Let's say the vaccine is rare and it's already for another patient. It's not for sale. So if you rob it and give it to your spouse, the other person dies.

2ndgenerationalteran
December 3rd, 2007, 07:19 PM
I wouldn't take it, you killed some one to do that, and you spouse wouldnt want to live if her living means someone dieing.

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 07:23 PM
We don't know what country Wallace was from but we do know his company's name was DMT--not where it was located. There is no mention of location in the transcript. You are assuming he is a US citizen.

We don't know Wallace's nationality but it's a safe bet that the IOA would use a committee to conduct the trail and there is no Death penalty for such international organizations like the UN.

It's not likely to have a civilian trial and not likely to have a court martial. It would be an IOA committee going by show cannon and how the IOA is now their watchdog.

2ndgenerationalteran
December 3rd, 2007, 07:26 PM
Well just about every major military contract (especially concerning the stargate program) requires that the person is a US born citizen. There was this brilliant real life rail gun expert, the military wanted to hire him but he wasn't born in the US so they couldnt. This alone makes it a safe assumption that he is American, therefore under US jurisdiction.

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 07:26 PM
Your spouse is dying of a deadly diease.?* The only cure is an expensive vaccine you can't afford. The only way to afford it, is to committ a robbery.Do you committ the crime or let you spoude die?
After reading the posts here, I guess, a lot of people think that stealing can be justified by the situation. If you need money for an altruistic reason, e.g. a family member is dying, then you are justified in stealing it from any random person (or maybe only rich ones). Armed robbery is probably okay too.

So morality really is situational. It can be measured by the motivation/need of the person involved. If one is acting for the welfare of another, especially a family member, then one can be in the right even when committing a crime and harming other people.

Let me get this straight, we’ve worried about Sheppard’s morality? :S :rolleyes:

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 07:27 PM
Hehe, you're cheating. ;) Like Kirk did with the Kobayashi Maru Test. LOL

I would sharping the odds a little: Let's say the vaccine is rare and it's already for another patient. It's not for sale. So if you rob it and give it to your spouse, the other person dies.

Hubby? I would increase hubby's life insurance and then go to Vegas.

If you wanted to change that to my child--wouldn't matter--she has heart defects, gentic problems as well as GI problems--I will probably outlive her. I'm just going to enjoy having my daughter while she's here because that all any of us can do.

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 07:30 PM
Well just about every major military contract (especially concerning the stargate program) requires that the person is a US born citizen. There was this brilliant real life rail gun expert, the military wanted to hire him but he wasn't born in the US so they couldnt. This alone makes it a safe assumption that he is American, therefore under US jurisdiction.

The P-90 is made in Belgian guys. US military does employ it in real life as well.

2ndgenerationalteran
December 3rd, 2007, 07:33 PM
Rail gun is not the same as a P-90. P-90 is a machine gun, a rail gun uses magnetic fields to fire a projectile rather than chemicals. Therefore it can fire in the km/s leaving as much damage with a small artillery shell as a side winder missle could at the same firing range.

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 07:38 PM
Would Wallace have died if Sheppard hadn't asked him too?:eek:
Sheppard didn't ask him to die. He made him aware of the situation: that his victim, Jeannie, would die, that Jeannie has a family, that the Wraith could save her, that the Wraith needed to feed, that the Wraith feeds on humans.
Just the facts.

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 07:52 PM
Rail gun is not the same as a P-90. P-90 is a machine gun, a rail gun uses magnetic fields to fire a projectile rather than chemicals. Therefore it can fire in the km/s leaving as much damage with a small artillery shell as a side winder missle could at the same firing range.

Thank you--I'am aware what a p-90 is...I was referring to the us military only havening us suppliers. Some suppliers are not us.

Also--we don't know for sure if DMV was hired to make the transmitters by the us government or the IOA.

The show started as a us military only base--then the IOA got involved and started running things through budget cuts. The show isn't clear on who hired the contractor either.

But--even is Wallace was a us citizen the IOA would be conducting the trial because of the nature of the program. The IOA wouldn't let a military trial for a civilian and wouldn't let a public trial. Would have to be IOA.

However, Wallace's would not be convicted of premeditated murder. His would be voluntary manslaughter--an action that was brought on by an act of passion that lead to the death.

In that case--1 count of involuntary manslaughter (an action that brought on a death through negligence) that would be for his daughter. 1 count of voluntary manslaughter for injecting nanites into Jeannie to blackmail McKay into saving his child.

1 count blackmail--blackmailed rodney by injecting Jeannie

2 counts kidnapping and unauthorized confinement--kidnapped rodney and jeannie

counts of conspiracy to commit a crime--conspired to kidnap, conspired to gain classified material for personal gain.

1 count involuntary manslaughter for the death of his child due to his negligence.

if jeannie died--I count voluntary manslaughter--death or harm to a person brought on by an act of passion.

If he planned on injecting jeannie with the nanites before he kidnapped her--then it would be premeditated murder. Premeditated would have to be proved.

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 07:57 PM
Sheppard didn't ask him to die. He made him aware of the situation: that his victim, Jeannie, would die, that Jeannie has a family, that the Wraith could save her, that the Wraith needed to feed, that the Wraith feeds on humans.
Just the facts.

Here's your facts:

LATER. John is sitting at a table in a holding cell. Wallace is sitting on the other side of the table, his face full of grief at the loss of his daughter.

SHEPPARD: We're going over the data. We don't understand what happened. I'm sorry.

WALLACE: And Jeanie?

SHEPPARD: She's not gonna make it. We brought in a, uh, specialist from the Pegasus galaxy – part of an enemy race called the Wraith. Somehow McKay has convinced him to create a programme to shut down the nanites in Jeanie's body.

WALLACE: And?

SHEPPARD: He was close, real close, but he hasn't fed in a few weeks so he collapsed. He's too weak to finish the coding modifications.

WALLACE: I don't understand. If it means saving her life, why not just feed him?

SHEPPARD: Well, he feeds on ... humans – their life force.

WALLACE (nodding): I see.

SHEPPARD: A little hard to find volunteers.

WALLACE: So Jeanie will ...

SHEPPARD: She's gonna die, just like Sharon.

WALLACE (anguished): I'm so sorry.

SHEPPARD: I'm sure you are.

(He reaches into his pocket and takes out some photographs. He puts the first one down on the table in front of Wallace. It's a picture of Kaleb holding Madison in his arms, both of them smiling at the camera.)

SHEPPARD: This is Kaleb, her husband ...

(He drops another photo onto the desk. This one is of Madison sitting on some steps with her head propped in her hands. She's grinning at the camera.)

SHEPPARD: ... and Madison, her little daughter.

(Wallace picks the photos up and looks at them, starting to cry.)

WALLACE: I never meant for any of this to happen.

SHEPPARD: I know you didn't. But it did. Now McKay's blaming himself, but I know better. (He looks at Wallace.) You know better.

(Wallace looks back at him, his eyes full of tears, and sighs.


Sheppard stated: "You know better" after telling him the situation. He really did guilt trip him into it!

2ndgenerationalteran
December 3rd, 2007, 08:00 PM
Its murder, if you had a gun and walked down the street and you immediatly though i wanna shoot this guy in the leg, and he could have lived but bleeds out your going away for murder. He didn't accidentaly inject Jeanie, he was fully aware of what he was doing, and chose to do it.

Just because something was done out of passion gives you the right to do something. The reason for law isn't to let off people because of pity, it is to rule justly for everyone. If everyone who had a sad story commited a crime and were pardoned the entire justice system has failed.

Jackie
December 3rd, 2007, 08:04 PM
Right from McKay's lips:




McKAY: You talked Wallace into sacrificing himself.

SHEPPARD: No, I didn't.

McKAY: Well, then, how did he ...?

SHEPPARD: I ... (He shuts the magazine and gazes into the distance for a moment.) I presented a situation. He volunteered.

McKAY: Still, you talked a man into killing himself.

(John looks at him, his face haunted.)

SHEPPARD: He wanted to make things right. I merely, uh ...

(He trails off, still struggling with the guilt. Rodney, realising this, helps him out.)

McKAY: ... presented the situation.

jelgate
December 3rd, 2007, 08:11 PM
Wallace had already shown guilt before Sheppard told him about the moral dilema

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 08:12 PM
However, Wallace's would not be convicted of premeditated murder. His would be voluntary manslaughter--an action that was brought on by an act of passion that lead to the death.

In that case--1 count of involuntary manslaughter (an action that brought on a death through negligence) that would be for his daughter. 1 count of voluntary manslaughter for injecting nanites into Jeannie to blackmail McKay into saving his child.

1 count blackmail--blackmailed rodney by injecting Jeannie
2 counts kidnapping and unauthorized confinement--kidnapped rodney and jeannie
counts of conspiracy to commit a crime--conspired to kidnap, conspired to gain classified material for personal gain.
1 count involuntary manslaughter for the death of his child due to his negligence.
if jeannie died--I count voluntary manslaughter--death or harm to a person brought on by an act of passion.

If he planned on injecting jeannie with the nanites before he kidnapped her--then it would be premeditated murder. Premeditated would have to be proved.

Wallace was committing a felony, kidnapping. A death during or as a result of a felony is first degree or capital murder in most places, regardless of how it happens.

Injecting Jeannie was premeditated. Wallace filled the syringe. He gave the reason for doing it when he injected her: he wanted to motivate McKay. That’s premeditation.

Jill_Ion
December 3rd, 2007, 08:16 PM
I would do the robbery to get the vaccine--because you cannot place a value on any human life. (BTW that question is bogus because it's illegal for the hospital to turn you away and deny you medical treatment because you cannot afford it.)

And this is how I would do it--I would make sure that I don't own a thing in my name. No deeds, no titles, no nothing. Then I would take advantage of every single stupid credit card offer I get the mail and do a cash advance tomax them all out. Pay for the meds and then act like a deadbeat father and quite my job so I won't get my wages garnished and then work under the table.

A hospital can't deny someone emergency services. And even emergency services are expected to be paid.

Reading your "plan"....you'd commit fraud? Can't say I think highly of this scenario.


US--only in texas.

Please don't stereotype Texans. I know plenty who are very anti-death penalty.


Here's your facts:

LATER. John is sitting at a table in a holding cell. Wallace is sitting on the other side of the table, his face full of grief at the loss of his daughter.

SHEPPARD: We're going over the data. We don't understand what happened. I'm sorry.

WALLACE: And Jeanie?

SHEPPARD: She's not gonna make it. We brought in a, uh, specialist from the Pegasus galaxy – part of an enemy race called the Wraith. Somehow McKay has convinced him to create a programme to shut down the nanites in Jeanie's body.

WALLACE: And?

SHEPPARD: He was close, real close, but he hasn't fed in a few weeks so he collapsed. He's too weak to finish the coding modifications.

WALLACE: I don't understand. If it means saving her life, why not just feed him?

SHEPPARD: Well, he feeds on ... humans – their life force.

WALLACE (nodding): I see.

SHEPPARD: A little hard to find volunteers.

WALLACE: So Jeanie will ...

SHEPPARD: She's gonna die, just like Sharon.

WALLACE (anguished): I'm so sorry.

SHEPPARD: I'm sure you are.

(He reaches into his pocket and takes out some photographs. He puts the first one down on the table in front of Wallace. It's a picture of Kaleb holding Madison in his arms, both of them smiling at the camera.)

SHEPPARD: This is Kaleb, her husband ...

(He drops another photo onto the desk. This one is of Madison sitting on some steps with her head propped in her hands. She's grinning at the camera.)

SHEPPARD: ... and Madison, her little daughter.

(Wallace picks the photos up and looks at them, starting to cry.)

WALLACE: I never meant for any of this to happen.

SHEPPARD: I know you didn't. But it did. Now McKay's blaming himself, but I know better. (He looks at Wallace.) You know better.

(Wallace looks back at him, his eyes full of tears, and sighs.


Sheppard stated: "You know better" after telling him the situation. He really did guilt trip him into it!

Bold added by me to note that even though Gateworld transcripted Wallace as having eyes full of tears, he didn't. Nor was he sitting there totally breaking down in sobs at the end.

2ndgenerationalteran
December 3rd, 2007, 08:24 PM
You could also look at it as completing his work. Thats the last positive endering thing he has left.

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 08:44 PM
He really did guilt trip him into it!
Eye of the beholder. Sheppard did play on the man’s guilt and I think it was very intentional.

But what he says is very low key. He sticks strictly to facts that Wallace should know about the situation. There is no embellishment, interpretation or accusation.

The simplicity of the words and the delivery make this an extremely powerful scene.

But he never asks him to die. He never asks him anything.


It is interesting to me that Sheppard’s explanation of the situation to Wallace is so significant to so many people. I think the scene we didn’t see is much more telling on Sheppard. He took Wallace to the Wraith, ordered the guards not to react, and stood by as the Wraith fed. To do this Sheppard had to be convinced that this was what had to be done and he made himself do it. At enormous cost to his peace of mind.

KiLL3r
December 3rd, 2007, 08:44 PM
Bold added by me to note that even though Gateworld transcripted Wallace as having eyes full of tears, he didn't. .

Sheppard did what he had to do. Hes still the coolest on atlantis
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5315/crybabyxl3.jpg

Jill_Ion
December 3rd, 2007, 08:51 PM
OK, I may be wrong. What time code is that at? The moment I'm thinking of, and I will go back and double-check (tomorrow), was right before his scene ended, and McKay's started.

To clarify, I didn't say he never had tears. I know he did earlier in the scene.

blue-skyz
December 3rd, 2007, 08:55 PM
Right from McKay's lips:

McKAY: You talked Wallace into sacrificing himself.
SHEPPARD: No, I didn't.
McKAY: Well, then, how did he ...?
SHEPPARD: I ... (He shuts the magazine and gazes into the distance for a moment.) I presented a situation. He volunteered.
McKAY: Still, you talked a man into killing himself.
(John looks at him, his face haunted.)
SHEPPARD: He wanted to make things right. I merely, uh ...
(He trails off, still struggling with the guilt. Rodney, realising this, helps him out.)
McKAY: ... presented the situation.

And McKay always knows best!

Sheppard definitely facilitated Wallace’s death in the simplest sense.

LoneStar1836
December 3rd, 2007, 09:41 PM
I did too, but a couple of things changed my mind. First, the Wraith refused to help. If the scientists were working on the shutdown code, why would he do so? That's why he came.

Second, at Jeannie's house he tells that he had been working on a medical version of the nanites. Ronon asks if that was what he had used on Weir. Answer: yes. What Sheppard wanted Rodney to create in Adrift was a version they could shut down. Perhaps they went back to working on that to help fill in the gaps of the attack shutdown code they lost when the hive was destroyed in The Seer. The Wraith would have no interest in the medical applications. I suspect he was in another lab trying to recreate the portion he'd held back.

Therefore, I think the scientists were still working on the medical version which is what McKay emailed to Jeannie and what caught Wallace's attention.Ah. Makes a bit more sense. Suppose I need to rewatch this episode this Friday, but it was so boring to sit through the first time.... I'll see. Will probably just go dig up a transcript.




The stasis chamber is a possibilty. Would the nanites stop working just because she was in stasis? I wonder....I wonder too but it was never mentioned one way or the other. Replicators are affected by time dilation fields, don't see why nanites wouldn't be affected by stasis chambers that I guess slow down time??


However, in a bigger picture scenario, letting the Wraith die (or letting Ronon shoot him) presents another issue. How do they finish shutting down the replicator attack code and save the Pegasus humans? By letting him die, you let all the others die too. It's not that I find value in saving a Wraith, even this particular one who has shown himself to be honorable. He's on Atlantis (and still alive) for only one reason - to help stop the replicators.Bigger picture should have already been being contemplated long before this point and episode had arrived.

They knew that this point in time would eventually arrive. The wraith was going to have to be fed, let go, killed, or starve to death. Obviously if he hadn't completed the coding by the time he needed sustenance, they were going to have to provide some if he was really that indispensable. They should have already been planning for this. Yet we get this convenient episode with a convenient solution. I want to know what their plan would have been if this episode hadn't occurred. Like I said, my solution would have been to capture some wraith and feed him them. Most likely a dangerous, difficult task, but they helped dig themselves this hole. And if that had been their plan, they should have already executed it since this wraith was already apparently reaching his limits.

What were they going to do if this episode had never occurred? Inquiring minds want to know. :D Someone needs to go ask JM that.

expendable_crewman
December 3rd, 2007, 10:23 PM
Thank you--I'am aware what a p-90 is...I was referring to the us military only havening us suppliers. Some suppliers are not us.

Also--we don't know for sure if DMV was hired to make the transmitters by the us government or the IOA.

The show started as a us military only base--then the IOA got involved and started running things through budget cuts. The show isn't clear on who hired the contractor either.

But--even is Wallace was a us citizen the IOA would be conducting the trial because of the nature of the program. The IOA wouldn't let a military trial for a civilian and wouldn't let a public trial. Would have to be IOA.

However, Wallace's would not be convicted of premeditated murder. His would be voluntary manslaughter--an action that was brought on by an act of passion that lead to the death.

In that case--1 count of involuntary manslaughter (an action that brought on a death through negligence) that would be for his daughter. 1 count of voluntary manslaughter for injecting nanites into Jeannie to blackmail McKay into saving his child.

1 count blackmail--blackmailed rodney by injecting Jeannie

2 counts kidnapping and unauthorized confinement--kidnapped rodney and jeannie

counts of conspiracy to commit a crime--conspired to kidnap, conspired to gain classified material for personal gain.

1 count involuntary manslaughter for the death of his child due to his negligence.

if jeannie died--I count voluntary manslaughter--death or harm to a person brought on by an act of passion.

If he planned on injecting jeannie with the nanites before he kidnapped her--then it would be premeditated murder. Premeditated would have to be proved.

If a person dies while in the custody of his/her kidnapper, it's felony murder, the theory being if you were left alone by the person who dragged you out of bed at gunpoint, you'd still be alive.

The law is very clear about culpability in the case of Jeannie's death, if she'd died.

Interesting how posters think manslaughter applies to what almost happened to Jeannie.

Wallace died in custody. He was in custody because he committed multiple criminal acts, not because he discovered some nifty scientific application for nanites and somebody wanted to exploit that knowledge.

Looking back at Stargate to see how they handle this stuff, there appears to be a short history of intimidating inquiries in lonely rooms. It looks like Wallace's inquiry would have been more of a debriefing, since he wasn't clinging to a defense.

For me, though, what would have happened to Wallace doesn't matter. Just like some tend to try to mitigate the things Wallace did by saying he did them for his daughter, even calling Jeannie's (almost) death manslaughter, some also look at the Wallace character like his brain took a powder.

Going by what was shown, and nothing else, Wallace wasn't shy making decisions about the lives of others, and he didn't look like he was incapable of making a decision about his own.

No one can "guilt" me into doing something I don't want to do. Maybe that's why I feel the way I do about Wallace's part. If I kidnapped someone, I'd know I was wrong and I wouldn't need to call it something else. When Wallace is pouring the champagne, this is his posture: he knew he was going to prison, he said. The guy was not written like he was an idiot. He wasn't jelly. He wasn't a blank slate for Sheppard or anyone else to write upon. He's calling his own shots.

If Sheppard had come to me and filled me in on the existence of life-sucking aliens, saying "oh by the way we have one of those creatures next door and he can undo your mess but he needs to feed" I would be capable of making up my own mind. Wallace made up his own mind.

While we're applying value to what the characters did, Wallace and Sheppard, we should at least try to remain realistic.

Not manslaughter if Jeannie died, but felony murder: she was a kidnap victim.

Wallace was not in the room with Sheppard because he was dragged innocent from his bed: he'd committed crimes and he'd hurt people in the process.

Sheppard did not allow a prisoner to die on his watch: he facilitated it. After his prisoner chose to go to the Wraith, Sheppard walked the man down to the Wraith and made sure the security detail did not interfere while the Wraith fed. We've seen a Wraith feeding go thirty to sixty seconds. That's a long minute to stand by and do nothing while a human being dies in front of you.

How and whom to feed to a starving Wraith is not in the guidebook, the IOA policy manual, the SGC rules of engagement, and it's going to whack our RL sensibilities pretty hard. Check out the producer's blog. They wanted viewers to get worked up about it.

As far as reports go, Woolsley talks openly about coloring his reports or ommitting data, so in the official inquiry into Sheppard's conduct, I doubt if Woolsley is going to care there is an official document structured to cover the IOA's butt.

If anything positive can be said about the principals in the drama, Sheppard & Wallace, it is that at a mimimum each man knew what he was doing start to finish. I think we should acknowledge that.

Integrabyte
December 3rd, 2007, 10:43 PM
And so it begins....

http://www.youthblog.org/archives/snowball%20fight.jpg

^ ^
GW Members v Peg


You seem to be on the dark side. In my opinion the one in the Snow is Sheppard and not Linzi. He is making snow angels hoping someone will forgive him for murdering a desperate father!


*Don't touch my STICK :D*

FallenAngelII
December 4th, 2007, 12:24 AM
What John did was certainly not right.

The man was obviously not in his right state of mind when he made the bad decisions he made. Rodney was willing from the start. He wanted to sacrifice himself (part of his lifespan) to save his sister.

And we know that he probably wouldn't have needed to give Todd all of his life, just a few years, decades. And he was all for it.

John couldn't accept this, however, despite having Sam and Zelenka to take over Rodney's job. It's quite possibly a selfish decision (not a slashy one). John sees Rodney as an "invaluable asset to his team" (or quite possibly "my best friend") and is therefore much more unwilling to sacrifice him than he would, say, Random Marine #62, not just for his brain but for the bond they share.

In order to prevent this from happening, John instead goes to Wallace. He not only laid down the stakes, he wittingly manipulated him. He knew Wallace was a family man who'd just lost it all. And he pulled on those strings. Not only did he pull out the "These are the people she's leaving behind"-crap, he also, in a thinly veiled way, said "This is all your fault! Fix it!" ("McKay's blaming himself. I know better. You know better.").

He even let Wallace allow the Wraith to drain him completely. Now we know that's not necessary. Todd was able to do marvellous things from just partially draining John back when. Many other Wraith have been able to do the same. To get Todd lucid enough to at least finish the coding before either receiving another victim (a blood-thirsty criminal or Lucius or something) or being released would not have required Wallace to give up all of his years.

This was a John who tapped into his darkest parts and used his manipulative skills to at least try to manipulate Wallace into doing his bidding. And we never did see Wallace's decision, but even assuming he chose to do it himself, he was manipulated into it in a state of utter grief, despair and distress (from having just lost his daughter).

A man in such a state would not be allowed to legally sign a will, no less decide whether or not to sacrifice his life.

To those who claim otherwise, have you recently lost someone very close to you? Like a sister, husband, wife, brother, father, mother? Someone so close you'd kidnap innocent people if it could help them survive? Now remember back to how you felt when they first died. Now think... were you capable of making decisions such as these rationally back then?

John also knew that what he did was wrong and that it was against the law and that he'd go to prison for it. That is why he said that he'd lie in his debriefing. And he probably got some of the other military personnel to lie for him since it'd be pretty hard to fake something like that on your own.

Cory Holmes
December 4th, 2007, 01:38 AM
More than anything, this episode reminds me of what the SGC did in the 2nd (?) season episode, where Jacob Carter was introduced and a reporter discovered the Stargate program. He was involved in an "accident" and was run over by a hit-and-run driver.

Always loved that moment. Bitter and hard to watch, but so enjoyable to see.

expendable_crewman
December 4th, 2007, 04:14 AM
The man was obviously not in his right state of mind when he made the bad decisions he made. Rodney was willing from the start. He wanted to sacrifice himself (part of his lifespan) to save his sister.

Rodney and Wallace were in the same position, poised to lose loved ones. I believe both men were capable of making a rational decision.


He even let Wallace allow the Wraith to drain him completely. Now we know that's not necessary.

There's dialogue in the scene prior to the feeding to tell us viewers what the stakes are. It's between Rodney and Sheppard and it says the Wraith will kill whoever it feeds on.


To those who claim otherwise, have you recently lost someone very close to you?

I'm curious as to why there are people who assume that those who can see Wallace's actions objectively are free of loss, pain, and despair.

There are vast numbers of people today, yesterday, and tomorrow who will suffer major and tragic losses and who will bear them without becoming criminals or assuming the right to intrude upon and damage the lives of innocents as a consequence. Other posters have shared their personal histories to make this point. I'm not going to, not at this late stage, because their stories were far more compelling than mine.


Someone so close you'd kidnap innocent people if it could help them survive?

No, absolutely not. Because then I'd have to believe that the innocent person has less of a right to well being and happiness than I do, or my family member does. There are other ways to manage grief without preying upon our fellows.

I should probably say again that from a purely emotional standpoint, I'm not a fan of what Sheppard did. I liked Wallace for lots of good and bad reasons. From an objective standpoint, and from within my eleven-year-old Stargate bubble, where this stuff tends to happen, I get it. I buy the story as it was presented and confirmed on the producer's blog. It's made the character of Sheppard about five times more interesting to me, and probably for the same reasons Wallace was interesting to me.

Ditto with Rodney.

Jill_Ion
December 4th, 2007, 05:58 AM
OK, I may be wrong. What time code is that at? The moment I'm thinking of, and I will go back and double-check (tomorrow), was right before his scene ended, and McKay's started.

To clarify, I didn't say he never had tears. I know he did earlier in the scene.

I checked. I was wrong to say Gateworld's interpretation of the scene was incorrect. I believe the scene is open to interpretation. If I were going to describe his eyes, I would say teary, moist, soft, and rather pretty. :) *I* wouldn't say filled with tears, but I take back saying someone else shouldn't.

http://www.totem-media.com/files/miller_tears_sm.jpg (http://www.totem-media.com/files/miller_tears.jpg)

Click on the pic to see a full-sized version.

As I have stated previously, I say his expression is resolute.

kymeric
December 4th, 2007, 06:07 AM
If i take my daughter to a holistic healer who dies as a result of their medicine, that does NOT make me a murderer. Neither was what Wallace did with his daughter.

LOL i remember that southpark, as i recall it ended with the townspeople killing the holistic healer then stealing one of cartmans kidneys.

Ps Gero roolz!

kymeric
December 4th, 2007, 06:17 AM
Lets face it if any of this was real todd would be in a basement of area 51 inventing all sorts of crap while the pentagon fed him a steady stream of death row criminals in exchange for huge monetary payments sent to their families. Thats how it works.