PDA

View Full Version : Once you pick up a weapon...



Pages : [1] 2

IrishPisano
April 9th, 2010, 09:31 PM
you stop being a civilian...

all this griping about the way the military treated the civilians..... once you pick up a weapon in direct opposition to a soldier you are no longer a civilian....

and if you are unarmed but are aiding those taking up arms, then you are on their side

IMHO, LT James was completely justified in rifle-butting that one guy.... 1st there was an armed mutiny on board the ship. 2. because said mutineers are armed, said mutineers cease being civilians. 3. the guy that James hit was moving towards her and was not listening to commands. 4. it set an example and ensured that no one else would choose to not listen to Greer


this isn't just a bunch of civilians protesting peacfully
this was an armed attempted coup d'etat...
Young, Greer, and the rest of the military were completely justified in all of their actions for that one simple fact.

Daro
April 9th, 2010, 09:42 PM
I completely disagree with almost everything you said, except that this was indeed an attempted coup. However, James's superior officer reminded all of them before they went into that room to take it easy on the civilians (or resistance fighters, if you want to be extreme about it.) She directly violated that order by striking an unarmed man. Whether you think Rush and Wray v. Young are right or wrong is immaterial. When twenty or so people on the ship have all the guns and have a nasty habit of pointing them in someone's face every day, tension is going to rise. Rifle-butting an unarmed civilian is just stupid.

As for Young being right in every way, I'm not so sure. I think Rush and Wray should have tried to handle things diplomatically, but who can blame Rush for wanting to avoid that? Not only does he figure his life is expendable to Young, but he's got plenty to fear from wild cards like Greer.
Young is reaping what he sowed. He did the wrong thing, and he knows it, by leaving Rush to die. He has fumbled the ball and proven that he cannot control his temper in crucial situations. I don't think Rush or Wray would be any better as leaders than him, but both of them at least have some restraint, it seems.
You can't equate Destiny to Atlantis. The military and civilians are all here against their will (save for Rush, of course) to start with. Contact with SGC is limited. I wouldn't expect Rush or Chloe or anyone else on their side to sit back and just take whatever violence and judgment that Young thinks they deserve.

The Shrike
April 9th, 2010, 09:42 PM
By that logic, the military that's occupying the ship and refusing civilian control is fair game too. Make no mistake, Rush was breifly in control of that ship, and if he wanted to he could have let Young and Scott be vapourized when the ship made the jump. After doing that, he could have depressurized the areas under control by the military and be done with them for good.

Pure logic, brutal logic, and dare I say it, military logic.

PG15
April 9th, 2010, 09:46 PM
Wait, which of the civillians had a weapon?

I don't remember any of them having guns.

Pharaoh Atem
April 9th, 2010, 09:46 PM
Wait, which of the civillians had a weapon?

I don't remember any of them having guns.

me neither

Replicator Todd
April 9th, 2010, 09:48 PM
I think one civilian had a weapon, just one.

PG15
April 9th, 2010, 09:51 PM
Oh right, I remember now. That guy who pointed the gun at Eli.

Still, it seems most of the coup just involved Rush trapping the military folk without the need for a firefight.

Coronach
April 9th, 2010, 09:52 PM
Wait, which of the civillians had a weapon?

I don't remember any of them having guns.

One of them took the weapon that TJ made the marine lay on the ground. This was the only weapon I remember them having, though.

Astria
April 9th, 2010, 09:54 PM
They pulled a gun on Eli. Who commented on the irony of that situation.

Daro
April 9th, 2010, 10:00 PM
Still, one civvie with one handgun. Hardly qualifies the entire group as an armed resistance.

s09119
April 9th, 2010, 10:03 PM
The whole point was that the civilians were fighting back peacefully and the military still treated them like prisoners. Having one gun (really just to keep any military out that may have followed Eli) hardly makes them cease being civilians.

jelgate
April 9th, 2010, 10:04 PM
The whole point was that the civilians were fighting back peacefully and the military still treated them like prisoners. Having one gun (really just to keep any military out that may have followed Eli) hardly makes them cease being civilians.

I'd hardly call the civilians locking everyone and giving no food or water being peaceful

Coronach
April 9th, 2010, 10:07 PM
The whole point was that the civilians were fighting back peacefully and the military still treated them like prisoners. Having one gun (really just to keep any military out that may have followed Eli) hardly makes them cease being civilians.

The point about the "one gun" is actually a very good one. Remember, Volker said "they're the ones with the guns" in the episode Space. This implies that the military had tabs on all of the arms and only distributed them to military personnel. Additionally, Young knew very quickly (based on communications with Greer and others) which military personnel were on his side and which were stuck on the civilian side.

From here, it should have been easy to deduce that they had only the one weapon. The only question now is, was one of those people that Greer laid out in the hallway the person with the gun or not? As they were the "guards", I'd expect they were...though this could be easily confirmed by rewatching the episode.

I only mention this because it's important to establish whether or not the military had reason to believe several civilians were armed or not. Unfortunately, my memory is terrible and the episode is not available on Hulu yet. :P

s09119
April 9th, 2010, 10:08 PM
I'd hardly call the civilians locking everyone and giving no food or water being peaceful

Peaceful simply means a lack of violence, and that's what this was. They didn't want to hurt anyone, they just wanted to force the military's hand. What other options did they have, anyway? They were being as civilized and nonviolent about it as they possibly could, given how Young and the military have treated them thus far.

Daro
April 9th, 2010, 10:11 PM
They didn't deny food and water. They controlled it, same as the military had control over life support and Eli. They made an exchange. I don't think Rush or Wray ever intended to try and starve the military out, just get them to compromise.

Astria
April 9th, 2010, 10:12 PM
There is nothing civilized about leaving people without food or water. Or taking and keeping hostages.

randomking
April 9th, 2010, 10:12 PM
y i some what agree with your thought on this i disagree with that being the case this episode this was more an arm wrestle than a battle of guns....they took control of supply and the gate and then tryed talking it out

s09119
April 9th, 2010, 10:13 PM
There is nothing civilized about leaving people without food or water. Or taking and keeping hostages.

Nor is there anything civilized about leaving people without air. And they weren't keeping hostages, they just locked up the two military personnel for the duration of the standoff to prevent them from trying to sabotage their efforts. Besides, having the one medic on your side, willingly or not, is always a plus.

Again, they did what they had to do.

desertrat1979
April 9th, 2010, 10:16 PM
It was a bad idea to exercise a show of force to armed soldiers, period. Its understandable that civilians do not like being controlled, especially in a stressful time like they are in now. As mentioned in the show, they are trained in a show of force, escape, evasion, armed confrontation. Pissed off, unarmed civillians are in no position draw a line or try to muscle them. Look at the military today. On more than one occasion small numbered squads of highly trained soldiers have held off or defeated large numbered, heavily armed opposition. Don't pick a fight unless you are sure you can win, especially if its a fight over who is in charge. It a balance they need to work out. Without the military the scientists are fairly helpless, with limited survival skills. Without the scientists the military will be unable to figure out destiny, as with many other things that take place where fighting isnt necessary. You cant have one without the other.

Also, no one did what they had to do. If you wish to point a finger, it looks to me like the IOA and Rush instigated this by trying to set Young up. Young responded like many others would. If anything, Young did what he had to do, since he was forced into it.

Daro
April 9th, 2010, 10:16 PM
They didn't leave them without food and water. Watch the episode again. They traded some for Eli. The prisoners they had were incidental, not intentional, and Chloe indicated that they had no intention of keeping them indefinately. They weren't at war; Young was, as TJ so condescendingly described it to Chloe.

Astria
April 9th, 2010, 10:18 PM
Did they cut off the air? No. But they were left without water and food, and could only get it when they gave into Rush's blackmail.

s09119
April 9th, 2010, 10:19 PM
Did they cut off the air? No. But they were left without water and food, and could only get it when they gave into Rush's blackmail.

How was it blackmail...? They were asking for some basic independence and the establishment of more than a military dictatorship. And the soldiers were the ones making it out to be a war that they would do anything to win, not the civilians. The civilians traded food and water and made comments that clearly indicated they had no interest in tormenting the soldiers.

Astria
April 9th, 2010, 10:23 PM
How was it blackmail...? They were asking for some basic independence and the establishment of more than a military dictatorship. And the soldiers were the ones making it out to be a war that they would do anything to win, not the civilians. The civilians traded food and water and made comments that clearly indicated they had no interest in tormenting the soldiers.

Actually, one of the civilians said 'we shouldn't have given them food or water, it's just going to give them more time'. So, yeah they were interested in tormenting the soldiers.

jelgate
April 9th, 2010, 10:24 PM
Nor is there anything civilized about leaving people without air. And they weren't keeping hostages, they just locked up the two military personnel for the duration of the standoff to prevent them from trying to sabotage their efforts. Besides, having the one medic on your side, willingly or not, is always a plus.

Again, they did what they had to do.
I don't think any of us is arguing that the military was being civilizied in thier retaking of the ship . Just in this situation the civilians were just as bad.

Daro
April 9th, 2010, 10:27 PM
One civilian, who was not in charge, made a stupid suggestion. Just like, on the military side, Greer probably would suggest something equally stupid and barbaric. The point is, neither side denied the other essential resources, so they've got a blank slate there. It's in the way the military took back the ship that one finds an issue to differentiate the two sides.

s09119
April 9th, 2010, 10:31 PM
Actually, one of the civilians said 'we shouldn't have given them food or water, it's just going to give them more time'. So, yeah they were interested in tormenting the soldiers.

Obviously they're not going to let them all die, jeesh. It was one civilian making the comment, and not even one of the people in charge.

Nemises
April 9th, 2010, 10:39 PM
I don't think any of us is arguing that the military was being civilizied in thier retaking of the ship . Just in this situation the civilians were just as bad.

what would you have the civilians do then ? take it up the arse everytime ?

its like blaming a person for beating up a bully in self defense!!

Astria
April 9th, 2010, 10:40 PM
Of course they aren't going to let them die, did I say that, but they are by no means civilized or innocent in the whole event. Holding the water and food over their heads, is worse than what the military did, who are not looking so good either. The civilians were not denied food or water, except when it needed to be rationed, and they were confined for safety.

jelgate
April 9th, 2010, 10:43 PM
what would you have the civilians do then ? take it up the arse everytime ?



Thier is not an easy answer but you just switching the power to the other side and the military is going to be resistant in such scenario. Somehow (and this might sound idealist) thier needs some cooperation. Both were wrong

Daro
April 9th, 2010, 10:56 PM
Of course they aren't going to let them die, did I say that, but they are by no means civilized or innocent in the whole event. Holding the water and food over their heads, is worse than what the military did, who are not looking so good either. The civilians were not denied food or water, except when it needed to be rationed, and they were confined for safety.

Well, some of the civilians thought in 'Water' that that's exactly what the military was doing. I'm not saying the military are all bad people. But saying it's wrong for the civilians to hold food and water...I mean, what were they supposed to do? And again, the military had power over the heat and air, so there was a balance of resources there.
I think they were as civilized as one can be when instigating a coup. They did not at any point resort to violence. They gave food and water over to the 'enemy' within a short period of time after the ship was taken. No one was denied anything. Except, of course, Rush and Wray were denied free reign of the ship. And I'm pretty sure that is, at the end of the day, a good thing. So is any attempt to change the status quo. If some non-violent action wasn't taken soon, I'm sure the tension would have eventually erupted in deadly violence.

Gollumpus
April 9th, 2010, 11:08 PM
I feel sorry for everyone in this episode except for Young, Rush and Wray. Each and every other person has in some way or another been manipulated by these three "leaders". The crew was mostly getting along with each other and now they have become even more divided than they were at the start of the show.

That being said, I'm becoming a bit ticked at the on-going "stupidity" of these supposedly critical thinking scientists. Rush is manipulating them far too easily.

regards,
G.

Col.Foley
April 9th, 2010, 11:23 PM
Nor is there anything civilized about leaving people without air. And they weren't keeping hostages, they just locked up the two military personnel for the duration of the standoff to prevent them from trying to sabotage their efforts. Besides, having the one medic on your side, willingly or not, is always a plus.

Again, they did what they had to do.

And yet they did not do that, they discussed doing it, but they did not actually cut off life support to the area. The Civilians illeligitimatly seized control, they took arms, they took hostages, and they were willing to cut off food and other supplies to the rest of the ship. This is hardly non violent, and it is quite scary that this is 'what they had to do'. There were several other options on the table especially since the military has not treated the population at large unfairly. Only Young messing up Rush, and Spencer roughing up Franklin. Where Young intervened in that circumstance. The fact of the matter is this was an illegal operation and they were lucky they weren't all shot. Though its not what I would have done, and I do not think it should have happened.

In regards to the OP, if they were not civilians anymore then what were they? They could not have been soldiers. That leaves Insurgents or terrorists.

Col.Foley
April 9th, 2010, 11:24 PM
Thier is not an easy answer but you just switching the power to the other side and the military is going to be resistant in such scenario. Somehow (and this might sound idealist) thier needs some cooperation. Both were wrong

I do agree that there needs to be cooperation, though I do not agree that the Military was in the wrong.

Astria
April 9th, 2010, 11:26 PM
Well, some of the civilians thought in 'Water' that that's exactly what the military was doing. I'm not saying the military are all bad people. But saying it's wrong for the civilians to hold food and water...I mean, what were they supposed to do? And again, the military had power over the heat and air, so there was a balance of resources there.
I think they were as civilized as one can be when instigating a coup. They did not at any point resort to violence. They gave food and water over to the 'enemy' within a short period of time after the ship was taken. No one was denied anything. Except, of course, Rush and Wray were denied free reign of the ship. And I'm pretty sure that is, at the end of the day, a good thing. So is any attempt to change the status quo. If some non-violent action wasn't taken soon, I'm sure the tension would have eventually erupted in deadly violence.

But that was the plan all along, to keep the water and food from the military, and only give it to them when they thought they earned it. The military was using the fact that they had control of the life support systems as strategic method. They didn't turn it off, and only mentioned it to show Rush that he wasn't in complete control. What were the civilians supposed to do? Well not stage a coup for one. They obviously didn't use logic in their thinking. Military = fighters. Coup = fight. Therefore, start a fight, the fighters will fight. There was no real reason for it other than Rush and Wray convincing them all that the military is bad and needed to be stopped and controlled.

Daro
April 9th, 2010, 11:37 PM
Illegal action? They are on the other side of the universe. Billions of light years from anything resembling authority, with only the communication stones to connect them. While it may not have been the most productive of options, the whole goal of a coup is disrupting the 'law' and authority in the event that the population views the actions of those in power as unjust.
Britain called the uprising of colonial Americans illegal too, and it was. Not that this compares to that, except in the broadest of generalizations to make a point; a rebellion is good or bad depending on your perspective, and on who wins and gets to write the history books afterwards.
Also, Greer has been kicking folks around and making threats since day one. This isn't just a few individuals that got roughed up. It's the constant presence of people, with guns, giving orders. Someone has to, of course, but the military bungled their role so far by letting people like Greer and Spencer menace civilians publicly, constantly, and without any real reprecussions.
The military has to be answereable to someone, and I think that maybe we should count those that are aboard the same ship as such, since every other human being is several galaxies away.

Col.Foley
April 9th, 2010, 11:46 PM
Illegal action? They are on the other side of the universe. Billions of light years from anything resembling authority, with only the communication stones to connect them. While it may not have been the most productive of options, the whole goal of a coup is disrupting the 'law' and authority in the event that the population views the actions of those in power as unjust.
Britain called the uprising of colonial Americans illegal too, and it was. Not that this compares to that, except in the broadest of generalizations to make a point; a rebellion is good or bad depending on your perspective, and on who wins and gets to write the history books afterwards.
Also, Greer has been kicking folks around and making threats since day one. This isn't just a few individuals that got roughed up. It's the constant presence of people, with guns, giving orders. Someone has to, of course, but the military bungled their role so far by letting people like Greer and Spencer menace civilians publicly, constantly, and without any real reprecussions.
The military has to be answereable to someone, and I think that maybe we should count those that are aboard the same ship as such, since every other human being is several galaxies away.
So its not illegal...but is illegal? That is how this is coming off as. But yes, you are right, it is an illegal action because General O'Neill and the legitimate authority of Earth...to the best of my knoweldge...put Young in charge. Rush's and Camille's justification for their little spat was there was no civillian ggovernment authority. Oh really? there is a legitimate governmental body, the United States government, and the Nations of the IOA, they are the legitimate governing authority...for the moment...behind this, and Young has his own superiors.

And Yes, you are right. The Military has fraked up, btut that does not justify a equally grandiose frak up by the 'Civilians'. The one thing that can be learned from this is there needs to be a clearer chain of command set up amongest the interests. Individuals have acted on their own to do...bad things. You will get no argument from me on that. But the official military action has never been too harsh. Young acted on his own, and covered it up, and was not acting in any official capacity. As was Greer and Spencer...especially Spencer. Though I do not really recall Greer getting too...uppity:S

Daro
April 9th, 2010, 11:47 PM
But that was the plan all along, to keep the water and food from the military, and only give it to them when they thought they earned it. The military was using the fact that they had control of the life support systems as strategic method. They didn't turn it off, and only mentioned it to show Rush that he wasn't in complete control. What were the civilians supposed to do? Well not stage a coup for one. They obviously didn't use logic in their thinking. Military = fighters. Coup = fight. Therefore, start a fight, the fighters will fight. There was no real reason for it other than Rush and Wray convincing them all that the military is bad and needed to be stopped and controlled.

Eli pointed it out, yes, that military had the air. They didn't threaten Rush about it, and they didn't have to. Their private conversations showed that they didn't rule the option of doing so out, when Greer suggested freezing them out. Eli was horrified at the idea, didn't believe they'd do it, said so, and was answered with silence. An implied "If that's what the Colnel decides..."
I agree that the civilians didn't think their clever plan all the way through, but then again they weren't trying to win complete control of the ship forever. They said they wanted a compromise. Whether they were right in their concerns or wrong depends on your perspective, but as far as how the events panned out, they behaved in as civilized a fashion as one could expect a rebellion to. Rush and Wray may have taken charge of the rebellion, but that doesn't mean that they alone convinced everyone else on the ship to join them. The feelings of resentment were already there. Franklin complained early on (whined, is more like it, and without good cause.) After that, the military started to become what the civvies had started to expect. I'd be pretty upset too if I thought the commander of the ship abandoned the super-genius scientist who, regardless of how good or bad he is, is still a human being and also a valuable tool in the fight for survival. I would have a problem with anyone who thought he could just throw away a man's life without a trial. Would you want to be at the mercy of someone like that?

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 12:00 AM
But that was the plan all along, to keep the water and food from the military, and only give it to them when they thought they earned it. The military was using the fact that they had control of the life support systems as strategic method. They didn't turn it off, and only mentioned it to show Rush that he wasn't in complete control. What were the civilians supposed to do? Well not stage a coup for one. They obviously didn't use logic in their thinking. Military = fighters. Coup = fight. Therefore, start a fight, the fighters will fight. There was no real reason for it other than Rush and Wray convincing them all that the military is bad and needed to be stopped and controlled.

Why not? Would you not rebel if you were being ruled over by a dictatorship? If you had no say about any aspect of your existence? If the dictatorship controlled the air, food, water, your liberty, your contact with Earth...? I know I would. Young and his minions have no more right to rule that anyone else, and certainly not with an iron fist and the butt of a rifle - this was Wray's point. She tried numerous times to approach Young about these issues but was met with threats. Drawing a line in the sand was the only alternative left to her.

Tabula Rasa
April 10th, 2010, 12:04 AM
Wray and Rush unleashed the dogs of War. TJ said as much to Chloe. Im disapointed that the Military didnt kill at least one civilian to emphasise their point - Destiny is a military dictatorship, not a democracy.

Daro
April 10th, 2010, 12:07 AM
So its not illegal...but is illegal? That is how this is coming off as. But yes, you are right, it is an illegal action because General O'Neill and the legitimate authority of Earth...to the best of my knoweldge...put Young in charge. Rush's and Camille's justification for their little spat was there was no civillian ggovernment authority. Oh really? there is a legitimate governmental body, the United States government, and the Nations of the IOA, they are the legitimate governing authority...for the moment...behind this, and Young has his own superiors.

And Yes, you are right. The Military has fraked up, btut that does not justify a equally grandiose frak up by the 'Civilians'. The one thing that can be learned from this is there needs to be a clearer chain of command set up amongest the interests. Individuals have acted on their own to do...bad things. You will get no argument from me on that. But the official military action has never been too harsh. Young acted on his own, and covered it up, and was not acting in any official capacity. As was Greer and Spencer...especially Spencer. Though I do not really recall Greer getting too...uppity:S

The only connection they have with Earth is now iffy. And if you want to say that General O'Neil and the government are still in charge of Destiny and its mission, then riddle me this: Young already made it clear, after the IOA and the Air Force tried to replace him with Telford when Young refused to obey an order, that he was only taking the orders of his superior officers on Earth as little more than a polite suggestion. He's already broken off from the chain of command, and there's nothing that can be done about it yet. So...is he still the rightful commander, given that he thinks it's okay to disregard orders from his legitimate governement? If so, then don't those under the rule of this military dictator have a right, almost an obligation, to try and overthrow him?

As for 'not acting in an official capacity,' I think that's a bit of a misguided thought. When you are in the public eye, you're in the public eye. These guys weren't off-duty when they roughed people up, and they did it in such a way that everyone in this tiny population knows about it. They did it using the guns and training the military provided them with.
As for Greer's tendancy to misbehave, I'd point to the pilot episode. Disregarding the fact that he was already in detention for punching a superior officer, he pointed his gun at Rush several times. Once was when he thought Rush was about to blow up the ship, but even then, he didn't initially obey a command given to him by Lt. Scott to lower his weapon. After that, it was just the good ol' fashioned 'I have a gun and you don't' routine on the planet.

Gollumpus
April 10th, 2010, 12:12 AM
Realistically, the only sensible way for the civilian pop (other than Rush or Wray) to "rebel" would be to do it passively. Down tools, do not co-operate with the military in any way. Gather food and supplies and withdraw interaction with anyone military (with the obvious exclusion of TJ for medical reasons). After a while the message would get across. Alternatively, keep Young buried in minor problems, all the while commenting that some sort of civilian leadership would be of great help in sorting stuff out.

Astria
April 10th, 2010, 12:31 AM
Eli pointed it out, yes, that military had the air. They didn't threaten Rush about it, and they didn't have to. Their private conversations showed that they didn't rule the option of doing so out, when Greer suggested freezing them out. Eli was horrified at the idea, didn't believe they'd do it, said so, and was answered with silence. An implied "If that's what the Colnel decides..."
I agree that the civilians didn't think their clever plan all the way through, but then again they weren't trying to win complete control of the ship forever. They said they wanted a compromise. Whether they were right in their concerns or wrong depends on your perspective, but as far as how the events panned out, they behaved in as civilized a fashion as one could expect a rebellion to. Rush and Wray may have taken charge of the rebellion, but that doesn't mean that they alone convinced everyone else on the ship to join them. The feelings of resentment were already there. Franklin complained early on (whined, is more like it, and without good cause.) After that, the military started to become what the civvies had started to expect. I'd be pretty upset too if I thought the commander of the ship abandoned the super-genius scientist who, regardless of how good or bad he is, is still a human being and also a valuable tool in the fight for survival. I would have a problem with anyone who thought he could just throw away a man's life without a trial. Would you want to be at the mercy of someone like that?

But they didn't do it. And as bad as Young has acted towards Rush, he wouldn't kill a group of people without merit. Yes, if they didn't give them food or water, he would probably cut off the air. The civilians wanted their compromise. They wanted the military to give something up, but they themselves were gaining. That isn't compromise. They did not know about Young leaving Rush on the planet alive until either Rush or Wray told them. Young would only do that to them if they framed him for murder or did something equally as bad. The word civilized has no place in describing what the civilians on the ship are or what they did, as civilized is an either or description. But in the end no one is right in what has happened on the ship so far.

Fraklin is SGU's Kavanagh, great, just what they need.

Daro
April 10th, 2010, 12:45 AM
Heh, you know, ever since he sat in that chair and lost consciousness, I don't think I've missed Franklin at all. Maybe he'll wake up changed by the whole brain-go-explodey thing.

I agree that Young wouldn't slaughter the civilians, and I agree that he wouldn't take a life on a whim. But he did attempt to kill Rush for all the wrong reasons, not because he was framed, and he at least has taken ownership of that mistake. But just because he's admitted fault doesn't mean that he still won't face reprecussions for his actions.
Wray and Rush confirmed what the civilians suspected was the truth already. Why they'd believe anything Rush says is a bit of a conundrum. The man only gets caught lying every episode. The only logical answer is that they believed what they wanted to, what served their goals.
Of course they wanted their compromise. That's how any dispute, military or political, works. They got it, but it was given to buy Young time to make his move. Nations bargain all the time, often leveraging the threat of sanctions or even military action against another nation that is not doing what they think it should be. Is it uncivilized if the US puts sanctions on a country that is ruled by a military dictator who abuses and oppresses his people?
I guess I would ask this: in light of the fact that Young has ignored the opinions of people like Wray and Rush, what would their rightful course of action be, in your eyes? The rest of the civilians had loudly voiced their own complaints. Young spied on them through Eli, but didn't address those concerns. A good leader provides good communication. What else were they going to do?

Astria
April 10th, 2010, 12:45 AM
Why not? Would you not rebel if you were being ruled over by a dictatorship? If you had no say about any aspect of your existence? If the dictatorship controlled the air, food, water, your liberty, your contact with Earth...? I know I would. Young and his minions have no more right to rule that anyone else, and certainly not with an iron fist and the butt of a rifle - this was Wray's point. She tried numerous times to approach Young about these issues but was met with threats. Drawing a line in the sand was the only alternative left to her.

What does Wray know about leadership? Or Rush? Or any of the civilians? And all the coup would have done if it had succeeded was trade one dictatorship for another. One made up of people who have no idea how to lead. It was not trading for a democracy. The military had to take some control over the supplies. The civilians would not ration, which needs to be done, because they are not equipped to deal with a situation like this. The civilians never had the promise of food or water held over their heads. They weren't withheld food or water. Liberty? Of course they have no liberty and neither do the military personnel, they are stuck on a dangerous unknown ship hurling through space. The scientists in the Stargate world have been shown to leap without thinking, touching things that shouldn't be touch. But sure, give them free rein of the ship right away. They seem pretty free to move around as they please now. We never saw anyone on the ship preventing anyone from using the stones to contact earth. And Space doesn't count. The only person who threatened to withhold communication was the IOA member on earth a civilian.

Cold Fuzz
April 10th, 2010, 12:48 AM
Wray and Rush unleashed the dogs of War. TJ said as much to Chloe. Im disapointed that the Military didnt kill at least one civilian to emphasise their point - Destiny is a military dictatorship, not a democracy.

I'm actually surprised about that myself. Mutineers, especially the ringleaders, aren't usually in the habit of coming out alive during a failed insurrection. In the past, the military would have lined Wray and Rush up to be shot. If that were the case, even Chloe could have faced serious consequences. General O'Neill was right from the beginning: Being on the Destiny is NOT a democracy.

Tabula Rasa
April 10th, 2010, 12:57 AM
Young knows that he cant just shoot Rush, no matter what japes the Mad Scotsman gets up to, until Franklin wakes up or Eli gains a better knowledge of the ships systems then Rush is untouchable. Wray on the other hand can be considered surplus to requirements.

Daro
April 10th, 2010, 01:01 AM
O'Neill's a long way away and Young is an unstable leader. I'm not sure that the Destiny couldn't come up with a representitive form of government on its own, or even that Wray couldn't be an effective and decent leader herself. Young already has shown disregard for his orders and has made it clear to General O'Neill that the ship will be run his way. That makes him a dictator, since he is no longer working for 'the people.'
And we don't line up mutineers and shoot them anymore. We put them on trial. I don't believe the term 'mutiny' even applies unless you are a member of the military and have sworn an oath to obey the chain of command....the only one who might be fitting that description is Young.
The Destiny's government relies entirely on who is in charge and what they say it is. I prefer the idea of Young commanding the military, with a counsel or even a sort of president representing those on board. But of course, you can't satisfy everyone, and trying will just get them all killed. Some sort of stable, strong system needs to be enacted to keep the crew of the Destiny focused on getting home and fighting for their survival, rather than fighting each other.

Gollumpus
April 10th, 2010, 01:08 AM
Young has learned the hard lesson that creating martyrs is bad for your peace of mind. They keep coming back to haunt you, as did Rush. Young will not ever kill or order someone killed (especially Wray) unless it is for the greater good, the greater good recognized it as being for their own good and he could justify it in front of a court martial (assuming they ever get back to Earth).

regards,
G.

Tuvok
April 10th, 2010, 01:09 AM
There is nothing civilized about leaving people without food or water. Or taking and keeping hostages.

This is one of the reasons I LOVE THIS show.

This kind of debates\ arguments.

The fact of the matter I will always put my trust in the military in that kind of situation because I want to survive. Also the moment you take hostages and try to use force be it resources or one gun against a military machine you stop being the civilian and start being the target\hostile.

That being said, Young will never compromise now as it will be seen as a sign of weakness to those who used violence against his men.

Then again, maybe now Young will now realize he is going to have to focus more on the one team aspect then the survive and lead aspect. Then considering the unruly mob the cives are should he ?

:cool:

Astria
April 10th, 2010, 01:12 AM
Heh, you know, ever since he sat in that chair and lost consciousness, I don't think I've missed Franklin at all. Maybe he'll wake up changed by the whole brain-go-explodey thing.

I agree that Young wouldn't slaughter the civilians, and I agree that he wouldn't take a life on a whim. But he did attempt to kill Rush for all the wrong reasons, not because he was framed, and he at least has taken ownership of that mistake. But just because he's admitted fault doesn't mean that he still won't face reprecussions for his actions.
Wray and Rush confirmed what the civilians suspected was the truth already. Why they'd believe anything Rush says is a bit of a conundrum. The man only gets caught lying every episode. The only logical answer is that they believed what they wanted to, what served their goals.
Of course they wanted their compromise. That's how any dispute, military or political, works. They got it, but it was given to buy Young time to make his move. Nations bargain all the time, often leveraging the threat of sanctions or even military action against another nation that is not doing what they think it should be. Is it uncivilized if the US puts sanctions on a country that is ruled by a military dictator who abuses and oppresses his people?
I guess I would ask this: in light of the fact that Young has ignored the opinions of people like Wray and Rush, what would their rightful course of action be, in your eyes? The rest of the civilians had loudly voiced their own complaints. Young spied on them through Eli, but didn't address those concerns. A good leader provides good communication. What else were they going to do?

Yeah don't miss him one bit.

Sometimes it's harder to tell who is more dangerous, Rush or Wray. They seem to both have a kind of power over some people and know how to use it. Of course it's civilized for the US to do that. But this is a whole different situation.

The civilians have to make Young listen. But not through force or threats. A public forum, where they all air their grievances for everyone to hear. Both sides have been way too secretive. Both sides and everyone on board, have to realize that they are all in this together, but oh so alone. They have to do it in a rational and fair way. No screaming, or yelling or whining or complaining. As naive as this all might sound.

Tabula Rasa
April 10th, 2010, 01:19 AM
A billion light years from home, on a ship half of which you dont have access to and you are unable to fully control, being attacked by an alien civilization intent on getting their hands on your ship? Yeah, hokaaaaaaaaaaaay that sounds like just the sort of situation in which your ideal course of action is to set up a forum to elect a 'president' who is 'in charge' of things... Get real people....

Astria
April 10th, 2010, 01:28 AM
Did I say elect? NO. But the way things were going didn't work, and a coup was a bad idea, that didn't work. They obviously had time and the ability to meet to set up and plan the coup, so they have time to talk about their issues in an open way. Young should remain leader until they are in a stable and established situation but not much is going to get done, at least not well, as long as there are two sides bitter fighting each other.

Gollumpus
April 10th, 2010, 01:35 AM
Young already has shown disregard for his orders and has made it clear to General O'Neill that the ship will be run his way. That makes him a dictator, since he is no longer working for 'the people.'

When I saw that scene, I took it to mean that Young saw that he was in an unusual position and the "advice"/orders he was getting from O'Neill on how to handle the situation would not work and would likely make things worse. I saw it that Young realized he would have to be more flexible than what O'Neill was suggesting and be a bit more creative and adaptable to the situation as it developed. In my view that makes him less of a dictator. The fact that he took the ship back without any significant bloodshed (outside of the guys that Greer and James smacked around), and refrained from any reprisals on the civilians seems to support this position.

regards,
G.

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 01:37 AM
What does Wray know about leadership? Or Rush? Or any of the civilians? And all the coup would have done if it had succeeded was trade one dictatorship for another. One made up of people who have no idea how to lead. It was not trading for a democracy. The military had to take some control over the supplies. The civilians would not ration, which needs to be done, because they are not equipped to deal with a situation like this. The civilians never had the promise of food or water held over their heads. They weren't withheld food or water. Liberty? Of course they have no liberty and neither do the military personnel, they are stuck on a dangerous unknown ship hurling through space. The scientists in the Stargate world have been shown to leap without thinking, touching things that shouldn't be touch. But sure, give them free rein of the ship right away. They seem pretty free to move around as they please now. We never saw anyone on the ship preventing anyone from using the stones to contact earth. And Space doesn't count. The only person who threatened to withhold communication was the IOA member on earth a civilian.

I find that bolded statement a little distasteful. Just because the civilians are civilians doesn't make them irrational to the point of consuming their supplies without thought for the future.

Otherwise, I do understand your points, but I suppose we just view events from very different perspectives.

meo3000
April 10th, 2010, 01:42 AM
Im pissed. This is a SGC mission with a military leader, Young. Wray only has a little influence cause shes IOA, which we all know only spell trouble more than anything else. Rush is THE scientist, but is not qualified to lead a military expedition. Anybody else should just shut up and use their skills to help the best they can. Its not a democracy.

Its like Mckay and Weir trying to tell Shepperd hes not qualified to lead Atlantis against the Wraith. Its down right insulting.

The nerd always think hes right, even if hes not. The politician always do whats right for everyone, but only if it serve its ambitions. The soldier does what needs to be done, doesnt matter if its popular or not.

Thats twice now that Rush and Wray failed to take out Young. Wray needs to realize the colonel will eventually tire of her attempts to take command by any mean. I wouldve down right shot her, cause contrary to Rush, she has no skills necessary to their survival, and a man can only take so much betrayal.

EDIT: If Young had a trial for allegedly killing that soldier, will Rush/Wray now be on trial for treason?

asdf1239
April 10th, 2010, 01:44 AM
the arc is going this way because soon the lucian alliance will save the day

Tabula Rasa
April 10th, 2010, 01:49 AM
Amen to that. Bring on Rhona Mitra in tight leather! :D

Gollumpus
April 10th, 2010, 02:02 AM
A billion light years from home, on a ship half of which you dont have access to and you are unable to fully control, being attacked by an alien civilization intent on getting their hands on your ship? Yeah, hokaaaaaaaaaaaay that sounds like just the sort of situation in which your ideal course of action is to set up a forum to elect a 'president' who is 'in charge' of things... Get real people....

Perhaps they're all good at multitasking? :P

regards,
G.

Astria
April 10th, 2010, 02:07 AM
I don't think they'd pig out, but they'd eat until they are full. It's not an insult to say they wouldn't know how to deal with it if they've never experienced it. Most people wouldn't know how to ration with long term needs in mind, unless trained or having gone through the situation before.

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 02:09 AM
Yes. Civilians are just like cats. :rolleyes:

Gollumpus
April 10th, 2010, 02:19 AM
Yes. Civilians are just like cats. :rolleyes:

You have reminded me of that great cat herding commercial from years gone by. :)

regards,
G.

wargrafix
April 10th, 2010, 02:24 AM
The civilians were right in taking a stand against the military dictatorship. and that is exactly what it was.

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 02:27 AM
You have reminded me of that great cat herding commercial from years gone by. :)

regards,
G.

I'll have to see if youtube will come through because you've piqued my curiosity. Perhaps I'm a cat after all. ;)

ETA: Yay youtube! LOL! That was great. :D

janus4ever
April 10th, 2010, 02:30 AM
General O'neill , Carter and Shephard were not dictators...

They've worked with civilian experts with peace and respect.

Young is an dictator and Greer is an psychopathic soldier like Spencer.

Scott is more civilized , Eli is a groveler.

pipi
April 10th, 2010, 02:38 AM
TJ and that other soldier trapped on that otherside. Man that was a bit pathetic. Why do you give up your firearm? I would holster it and kungfu chop all their asses. At the very least I would flush all the bullets, that way they can't hold one over you.

Astria
April 10th, 2010, 02:45 AM
Yes. Civilians are just like cats. :rolleyes:

Ha. I've known quite a few human cats. They even like to play with balls of yarn and chase mice. ;)

IrishPisano
April 10th, 2010, 05:13 AM
TJ and that other soldier trapped on that otherside. Man that was a bit pathetic. Why do you give up your firearm? I would holster it and kungfu chop all their asses. At the very least I would flush all the bullets, that way they can't hold one over you.

i agree

and if i were TJ i would have tackled Chloe when she was "guarding" them, knocked her out, and left...

GateroomGuard
April 10th, 2010, 05:23 AM
The civillians got off easy in my opinion. Mutiny against Young, betray the trust of everyone in the military on Destiny, blackmail, attempted murder. I would have shot Rush and Wray out an airlock. Mutiny is one of the few crimes I'd use capital punishment on. To me its one of the most disgusting and evil acts one can take. Betraying your comrades, your commander.

The civillians should be thankful Young is so forgiving, but its going to take a lot for all the military personel they stabbed in the back to trust them again.

Also if the military, police, anyone like that comes in, tells you to get on the ground and is pointing weapons at you, and you've just taken part in a mutiny against them where some of you may have weapons... DO NOT WALK TOWARDS THE PERSON POINTING THE GUN. THAT PERSON WILL TAKE THAT AS A THREAT AND FLATTEN YOU. If you want to talk, talk after you've done what they said.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 10th, 2010, 06:15 AM
Gateroom Guard,

I sincerely hope the civilians just go on strike. If the military wants control they can have it and all the responsiblities that come with it. Take no action to aid them so long as they refuse to share command with a civilian. I agree with Rush Civilian control of the military is a bedrock principal of all free societies. Until Col. Young is willing to recognize this nothing will be done by Civilians. Period.

Let Col. Young deal with that.

Tuvok
April 10th, 2010, 08:08 AM
General O'neill , Carter and Shephard were not dictators...

They've worked with civilian experts with peace and respect.

Young is an dictator and Greer is an psychopathic soldier like Spencer.

Scott is more civilized , Eli is a groveler.

Wray is a pencil pushing beauracrat with no real leadership qualities who did not have the fortitude to go down with the ship in Light like Young did. And then we have Rush an obsessed manapulative genius with a dangerous streak.

The brady bunch they are not.

That makes it more fun.
:beckett:

s09119
April 10th, 2010, 08:19 AM
The civillians got off easy in my opinion. Mutiny against Young, betray the trust of everyone in the military on Destiny, blackmail, attempted murder. I would have shot Rush and Wray out an airlock. Mutiny is one of the few crimes I'd use capital punishment on. To me its one of the most disgusting and evil acts one can take. Betraying your comrades, your commander.

The civillians should be thankful Young is so forgiving, but its going to take a lot for all the military personel they stabbed in the back to trust them again.

Also if the military, police, anyone like that comes in, tells you to get on the ground and is pointing weapons at you, and you've just taken part in a mutiny against them where some of you may have weapons... DO NOT WALK TOWARDS THE PERSON POINTING THE GUN. THAT PERSON WILL TAKE THAT AS A THREAT AND FLATTEN YOU. If you want to talk, talk after you've done what they said.

...so basically they should just do what the guys with guns say no matter what because they have guns. Yeah, I'm gonna disagree.

And what was the big horrible crime? They sealed off a few doors. That was the extent of their "mutiny." They only wanted to force Young to talk, since they knew he'd never give them a chance to so much as explain their needs otherwise. And really, the civilians were the ones who felt betrayed and had their trust shattered by Young and the soldiers, so I think you have that aspect of it a little backwards.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 08:26 AM
Also, Greer has been kicking folks around and making threats since day one. This isn't just a few individuals that got roughed up. It's the constant presence of people, with guns, giving orders. Someone has to, of course, but the military bungled their role so far by letting people like Greer and Spencer menace civilians publicly, constantly, and without any real reprecussions.

Who? Who has Greer been kicking around? I can think of one person who he struck, on-screen, before this episode: Rush. And that was when Rush tried forcibly taking Greer's water on the desert planet. Greer's actions were not 100% correct, of course, but Rush DID start something he couldn't finish.

Who did he threaten and under what circumstances? Rush when he thought the good doctor was going to inadvertently blow up the ship?

Wray when she said he should be in jail? All the Greer-hate is ridiculous. If he was such a "loose cannon" psychopath, why didn't he shoot Volker in the face in this episode? Why did he "go easy on" those civilian guards rather than knocking them out and placing C4 on their genitals? If he's so barbaric and bloodthirsty, WHY DOESN'T HE SHED BLOOD?!

Let me ask you, who gave orders on Icarus base? The people with guns? Of course. Who gives orders at the SGC? The ones with guns! These people, members of the Stargate Program all, should be used to this fact.


The military has to be answereable to someone, and I think that maybe we should count those that are aboard the same ship as such, since every other human being is several galaxies away.

Who should they answer to? Wray? She has proven that she's basically useless in most situations. I think she should certainly be in on command decisions and help find a place and job for all aboard. Like TJ said in this episode though, not every decision can be made by committee, there just isn't time. Unfortunately, this is exactly how politicians are used to doing things.

Jper
April 10th, 2010, 08:26 AM
i agree

and if i were TJ i would have tackled Chloe when she was "guarding" them, knocked her out, and left...

That isn't TJ. And like Scott said, like it or not, tomorrow they need to live with these people again. :) I was quite surprised with TJ's fierce defense of Young. Besides, TJ never got the chance to do anything. Young and Scott were there soon enough, like she knew and predicted. It was much wiser for her to stay were she was at that moment.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 10th, 2010, 08:29 AM
Lord Hurin,


Let me ask you, who gave orders on Icarus base? The people with guns? Of course. Who gives orders at the SGC? The ones with guns! These people, members of the Stargate Program all, should be used to this fact.

In each of those circumstances there was a possiblity of getting home. The Civilians could get out from under military authority by leaving. That possibility has been denied them by their circumstances. A point I made in another thread which you will see when my posts get unlocked by a mod.

Phenomenological
April 10th, 2010, 08:31 AM
The civillians got off easy in my opinion. Mutiny against Young, betray the trust of everyone in the military on Destiny, blackmail, attempted murder. I would have shot Rush and Wray out an airlock. Mutiny is one of the few crimes I'd use capital punishment on. To me its one of the most disgusting and evil acts one can take. Betraying your comrades, your commander.

The civillians should be thankful Young is so forgiving, but its going to take a lot for all the military personel they stabbed in the back to trust them again.

Also if the military, police, anyone like that comes in, tells you to get on the ground and is pointing weapons at you, and you've just taken part in a mutiny against them where some of you may have weapons... DO NOT WALK TOWARDS THE PERSON POINTING THE GUN. THAT PERSON WILL TAKE THAT AS A THREAT AND FLATTEN YOU. If you want to talk, talk after you've done what they said.

Oh, so the men with guns are always right, and if someone disagrees they should be thrown out of an airlock? Great attitude. The military isn't always right, by any means. If it wasn't for the scientists, all the military personnel would be dead. The same is true in reverse. They're both needed, but BOTH parties need to have a say in decisions, not just one. That is what the civilians were working for, and they are very much correct to do so. Nobody wants to live in a dictatorship.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 08:43 AM
Oh, so the men with guns are always right, and if someone disagrees they should be thrown out of an airlock? Great attitude. The military isn't always right, by any means. If it wasn't for the scientists, all the military personnel would be dead. The same is true in reverse. They're both needed, but BOTH parties need to have a say in decisions, not just one. That is what the civilians were working for, and they are very much correct to do so. Nobody wants to live in a dictatorship.

I don't think either side was right in this episode. The civilians are right to want a say in things. The military was right in not wanting to be strong-armed. I sincerely hope that this whole "their worst enemies are each other" thing is dropped and soon.

IrishPisano
April 10th, 2010, 09:04 AM
tell me, Hurin, what did the military do in this episode to warrant a mutiny against them?

did they betray the crew?
did they unnecessarily endanger the crew's lives?
did they unjustifiably establish martial law?
did they demand a rank-and-file lifestyle from everyone on board?
did they submit the crew to unacceptably harsh living conditions?
did they do anything whatsoever to prove that they are incapable of leading the survival expedition?

NO

the ONLY bad judgment on the part of the military members was Young's rash decision to leave Rush on the planet
however, in light of all of Rush's actions which include stranding them on Destiny, submitting that one guy to the ancient chair, and refusing to disclose that the aliens are tracking him... Young's 1 bad judgment call pales in comparison to the continual flagrant self-servient and dangerous decisions of Rush


this was completely unwarranted




and only served to further stress the relationships of both sides because now they all know they can't trust each other

which is the LAST thing you want in a survival situation

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 10th, 2010, 09:10 AM
IrishPisano,


tell me, Hurin, what did the military do in this episode to warrant a mutiny against them?

wait, i know that......... they did NOTHING...


in fact, without them, many of the refugees most likely would have already died

Nothing, other than their commander deliberately stranding Dr. Rush on an alien planet then lieing to everyone about what he did?

KlaxxonBlue
April 10th, 2010, 09:20 AM
There is nothing civilized about leaving people without food or water. Or taking and keeping hostages.

They weren't leaving them without food and water! They were clearly cooperating, and had no intention of doing anything to harm these people. Young was the first to make the threat of disconnecting life support. :(

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 09:22 AM
tell me, Hurin, what did the military do in this episode to warrant a mutiny against them?

did they betray the crew?
did they unnecessarily endanger the crew's lives?
did they unjustifiably establish martial law?
did they demand a rank-and-file lifestyle from everyone on board?
did they submit the crew to unacceptably harsh living conditions?
did they do anything whatsoever to prove that they are incapable of leading the survival expedition?

NO

the ONLY bad judgment on the part of the military members was Young's rash decision to leave Rush on the planet
however, in light of all of Rush's actions which include stranding them on Destiny, submitting that one guy to the ancient chair, and refusing to disclose that the aliens are tracking him... Young's 1 bad judgment call pales in comparison to the continual flagrant self-servient and dangerous decisions of Rush


this was completely unwarranted




and only served to further stress the relationships of both sides because now they all know they can't trust each other

which is the LAST thing you want in a survival situation

I never said they did. In many other threads, I've been asking the exact same question; why these civilians are feeling so trodden on by the military. And it isn't just from Young's marooning of Rush, it's been since day one on the ship.

I do think the military should be open to working with the civilians and having a joint command on board Destiny.

Jper
April 10th, 2010, 09:25 AM
did they betray the crew?

depends on what you mean by "betray", but Young leaving Rush on the planet and lying about all those things? I'd say that wasn't actually fair to the crew. So I'd say yes.



did they unnecessarily endanger the crew's lives?

Well, they are pointing guns at them. Young doesn't listen to their advice, then gets them into trouble, and then expect a solution for them. I'm sure for a lot of civilians the feeling is there that their lives are on the line, and that they haven't got enough say about their own lives. There are multiple instances of where the crew's lives are unnecessarily endangered, the latest being Young's insistence to fire on the enemy ships.



did they unjustifiably establish martial law?

They should never have let the situation develop and let it come this far.



did they demand a rank-and-file lifestyle from everyone on board?

huh?



did they submit the crew to unacceptably harsh living conditions?

Well, they do constantly restrict them to their quarters, with no information what so ever. Plus, I think the living conditions are far from ideal on the destiny. so it's not really an issue.



did they do anything whatsoever to prove that they are incapable of leading the survival expedition?

Oh yes. Lack of diplomacy. Lack of communication. Disinformation. Lack of information. Close-mindedness. Inability to listen. There are loads of big and little incidents to prove that Young is incapable of leading in this situation.

jelgate
April 10th, 2010, 09:29 AM
I never said they did. In many other threads, I've been asking the exact same question; why these civilians are feeling so trodden on by the military. And it isn't just from Young's marooning of Rush, it's been since day one on the ship.

I do think the military should be open to working with the civilians and having a joint command on board Destiny.
Put Riley in charge. He can be military and civilians

The Mighty 6 platoon
April 10th, 2010, 09:30 AM
If the dictatorship controlled the air, food, water, your liberty, your contact with Earth...?

Err when you sign up to the military you sign away your freedoms as it were, your life becomes controlled by the people above you. The civilians all signed up to the Stargate program, they all volunteered to work with the military, same rules apply. You take orders, you do as your told. If you don't like it, suck it up, you shouldn't have signed that piece of paper. Young might need to be removed because of his actions, but starting a munity, and alienating the rest of the military is a stupid thing to do.

The thing was of course the whole idea of Wray's was idiotic. Rush was two steps ahead with his own agenda, he really doesn't care about the rights and freedoms of the civilians, it just suited him to play along to inconvenience Young. And Wray clearly completely misunderstood the military mindset, her little speech about Colonel Young and him being used to getting what he wanted missed the point. Young only got what he wanted because he fought for it, in the military you want something, you have to go take it. Young wouldn't just take Wray's little mutiny lying down, he'd fight back, something she failed to take into account. The writers were I think aware of this though, I found TJ's little speech to Chloe a nice little counterpoint to Wray, that by challenging Young they didn't know what they had unleashed.

Greer is an psychopathic soldier like Spencer.


When Greer went into the mess he had an unchambered weapon and only chambered his weapon when Volker didnt get down, hardly the action of a psychopath

Coronach
April 10th, 2010, 09:30 AM
tell me, Hurin, what did the military do in this episode to warrant a mutiny against them?

In this episode? Relatively little...but we all know that this wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision by the civilians that they made this episode. It was a long time coming.

Note, I'm not agreeing that what they did was right and it certainly wasn't the best way to go about things. But I don't blame them for what they did, considering Young pretty much never listens to their input and they probably thought this was the only way to get him to listen.

Again, not condoning it.

[EDIT] Wanted to add this part from your post:


did they demand a rank-and-file lifestyle from everyone on board?

In fact, they did. The events of "Life" speak for themselves in this regard. Again, I'm not arguing that a daily exercise regimen isn't justified, but the military did force it on the civilians. Remember poor Franklin? :(

IrishPisano
April 10th, 2010, 09:39 AM
there has yet to be made any argument that the military people on board have done anything to indicate that they should be forced to submit to Wray and Rush's combined authority

save for the ONE incident of Young leaving Rush behind......... which is in part excusable given how very often Rush endangers the crew

IrishPisano
April 10th, 2010, 09:40 AM
In this episode? Relatively little...but we all know that this wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision by the civilians that they made this episode. It was a long time coming.
(

uhm, let's not forget, like you seem to have, that this was not a decision made by "the civilians"

it was a plot hatched by Wray and Rush

Coronach
April 10th, 2010, 09:45 AM
uhm, let's not forget, like you seem to have, that this was not a decision made by "the civilians"

it was a plot hatched by Wray and Rush

What's with the over-confrontational tone? "Like you seem to have"? I have not forgotten who the plan was hatched by....but the civilians still made their decision regarding whether or not to follow said plan.

Additionally, who the plan was made by has nothing to do with my original point. Which was, that it wasn't the events of this episode that sparked the civilian mutiny; it was the cumulative events of the past few episodes.

Jper
April 10th, 2010, 10:02 AM
there has yet to be made any argument that the military people on board have done anything to indicate that they should be forced to submit to Wray and Rush's combined authority

That's not the point. I don't think it's a question of being "forced to submit to Wray's and Rush's combined authority". That's just as bad as what they have now. Now they are forced to submit to Young's authority. And Young has been exposed as someone inadequate to lead in this situation at this time.



save for the ONE incident of Young leaving Rush behind......... which is in part excusable given how very often Rush endangers the crew

Excusable? I disagree. It was far from excusable. There are way better and more decent solutions which a decent leader should be able to provide. Not to mention how Young let things escalate to let it get this far. It seems like Young has no experience as a leader at all. Being a leader means to lead everyone, not being a dictator. That's not leading imho.

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 12:04 PM
tell me, Hurin, what did the military do in this episode to warrant a mutiny against them?

Let's see...


did they betray the crew?

Probably not


did they unnecessarily endanger the crew's lives?

Probably not


did they unjustifiably establish martial law?
Yes.


did they demand a rank-and-file lifestyle from everyone on board?

yes.


did they submit the crew to unacceptably harsh living conditions?

yes.


did they do anything whatsoever to prove that they are incapable of leading the survival expedition?

Yes.



Err when you sign up to the military you sign away your freedoms as it were, your life becomes controlled by the people above you. The civilians all signed up to the Stargate program, they all volunteered to work with the military, same rules apply. You take orders, you do as your told. If you don't like it, suck it up, you shouldn't have signed that piece of paper. Young might need to be removed because of his actions, but starting a munity, and alienating the rest of the military is a stupid thing to do.


There is a very big difference to signing up to work under the military and signing up for a scientific research program which happens to be under military protection. Can you please provide proof that Icarus was the former, rather than the latter?

garhkal
April 10th, 2010, 12:10 PM
By that logic, the military that's occupying the ship and refusing civilian control is fair game too. Make no mistake, Rush was breifly in control of that ship, and if he wanted to he could have let Young and Scott be vapourized when the ship made the jump. After doing that, he could have depressurized the areas under control by the military and be done with them for good.

Pure logic, brutal logic, and dare I say it, military logic.

Not since life support was still with eli. BUT i do agree, he COULD have left them out there to die (supposedly). BUT that would have gone against what they were trying to do.


Actually, one of the civilians said 'we shouldn't have given them food or water, it's just going to give them more time'. So, yeah they were interested in tormenting the soldiers.

That only showed he was wanting to torment them, not that the goal of the resistance was to do that.




Young knows that he cant just shoot Rush, no matter what japes the Mad Scotsman gets up to, until Franklin wakes up or Eli gains a better knowledge of the ships systems then Rush is untouchable. Wray on the other hand can be considered surplus to requirements.



And who knows what additional 'lockouts' rush has placed in the systems. Young now knows the ship cannot do without rush, much as he would like it to.


I sincerely hope the civilians just go on strike. If the military wants control they can have it and all the responsiblities that come with it. Take no action to aid them so long as they refuse to share command with a civilian. I agree with Rush Civilian control of the military is a bedrock principal of all free societies. Until Col. Young is willing to recognize this nothing will be done by Civilians. Period.

That was wray who said that.


Oh yes. Lack of diplomacy. Lack of communication. Disinformation. Lack of information. Close-mindedness. Inability to listen. There are loads of big and little incidents to prove that Young is incapable of leading in this situation.

Plus controling the only way to communicate with home..


When Greer went into the mess he had an unchambered weapon and only chambered his weapon when Volker didnt get down, hardly the action of a psychopath

Agreed, but i felt greer was wrong for chambering a round AT volker...

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 10th, 2010, 12:18 PM
TM6P,


Err when you sign up to the military you sign away your freedoms as it were, your life becomes controlled by the people above you. The civilians all signed up to the Stargate program, they all volunteered to work with the military, same rules apply. You take orders, you do as your told. If you don't like it, suck it up, you shouldn't have signed that piece of paper. Young might need to be removed because of his actions, but starting a munity, and alienating the rest of the military is a stupid thing to do.

The thing was of course the whole idea of Wray's was idiotic. Rush was two steps ahead with his own agenda, he really doesn't care about the rights and freedoms of the civilians, it just suited him to play along to inconvenience Young. And Wray clearly completely misunderstood the military mindset, her little speech about Colonel Young and him being used to getting what he wanted missed the point. Young only got what he wanted because he fought for it, in the military you want something, you have to go take it. Young wouldn't just take Wray's little mutiny lying down, he'd fight back, something she failed to take into account. The writers were I think aware of this though, I found TJ's little speech to Chloe a nice little counterpoint to Wray, that by challenging Young they didn't know what they had unleashed.


When Greer went into the mess he had an unchambered weapon and only chambered his weapon when Volker didnt get down, hardly the action of a psychopath

The Civilians agreed to work with the military not become members of it. Lack of uniforms tells the tale. Further, under normal circumstances the civilians can pack up and leave if they want to. That is no longer possible in their situation. As such, at a minimum, a shared leadership is appropriate.

geewillie86
April 10th, 2010, 12:32 PM
On any ship, military or not, there is a clear command structure. The captain of the ship is the authoritative figure. I've never heard of a ship that was run like a democracy. If they want to survive, they really have to give up this notion of a "civilian government". They aren't a typical society. They aren't civilians anymore. They are a crew on a decrepit ancient ship halfway across the universe.

Sure, Young shouldn't be above authority. Still, the captain of the ship has the authority to maroon people who become threats to the good order of things. Rush definitely qualifies. All of the "civilians" are operating under the assumption that Rush "became an inconvenience". Rush framed him for murder. That definitely warrants being marooned.

Young should tell the crew about what Rush did.

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 12:37 PM
On any ship, military or not, there is a clear command structure. The captain of the ship is the authoritative figure. I've never heard of a ship that was run like a democracy. If they want to survive, they really have to give up this notion of a "civilian government". They aren't a typical society. They aren't civilians anymore. They are a crew on a decrepit ancient ship halfway across the universe.

Sure, Young shouldn't be above authority. Still, the captain of the ship has the authority to maroon people who become threats to the good order of things. Rush definitely qualifies. All of the "civilians" are operating under the assumption that Rush "became an inconvenience". Rush framed him for murder. That definitely warrants being marooned.

Young should tell the crew about what Rush did.

Who exactly is the captain of the Destiny? Young was ordered by O'Neill to rule as a military dictator... does that make him captain? And if being a colonel makes him captain, then I assume all the pro-Young people are now fierce supporters of military dictators the world over?

The Mighty 6 platoon
April 10th, 2010, 12:47 PM
There is a very big difference to signing up to work under the military and signing up for a scientific research program which happens to be under military protection. Can you please provide proof that Icarus was the former, rather than the latter?

Either way your sign up to obey the military command and structure, you do what you're damn well told. And it wouldn't matter if there was a civilian in charge, if Wray was in command the civilians would still have no control, no greater freedoms, it would be up to Wray. When Weir had Atlantis did she have committees about what to do? No she got to it, she was in charge and if people got in her way they were told to bugger off and get on with their jobs.

Whoever was placed in charge of the Destiny would in essence be a dictator, because leadership in dangerous situations becomes dictatorial, to survive you have a strong leader in command who can make the snap decisions. The question over who should replace Young was never a question over Military V Civilians, either would have to act in the same way if they wanted to survive. Wray simply wanted control herself and whipped up the civilians into an antimilitary frenzy to get their support in placing her in charge.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 01:17 PM
Who exactly is the captain of the Destiny? Young was ordered by O'Neill to rule as a military dictator... does that make him captain? And if being a colonel makes him captain, then I assume all the pro-Young people are now fierce supporters of military dictators the world over?

Ok, so they should change the way things have worked aboard a ship for hundreds of years? No matter who is in command they WILL. BE. A. DICTATOR. If Wray thinks she can waltz around holding open votes for everything and deciding everything by committee then she's dead wrong.

The Mighty 6 platoon
April 10th, 2010, 01:20 PM
Ok, so they should change the way things have worked aboard a ship for hundreds of years? No matter who is in command they WILL. BE. A. DICTATOR. If Wray thinks she can waltz around holding open votes for everything and deciding everything by committee then she's dead wrong.

Bang on, good post. It does not matter who will be in charge of the ship military or civilian there will be no democracy, there will be only a single leader.

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 01:27 PM
Only if that is the way leadership is established. There's no reason any one person should be in charge.

carmencatalina
April 10th, 2010, 01:29 PM
Only if that is the way leadership is established. There's no reason any one person should be in charge.

Exactly - I vote for the Trio of Distrust (Young/Rush/Wray) to run things together. That would be fun.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 01:30 PM
Only if that is the way leadership is established. There's no reason any one person should be in charge.

So how do they do it then? Do you think if there was some magical, better way where everyone's input is considered and acted upon that real world ships would still run as a hierarchical dictatorship? You can't even say this is a military problem, because civilian ships follow their "Captain" as well.

jelgate
April 10th, 2010, 01:31 PM
Exactly - I vote for the Trio of Distrust (Young/Rush/Wray) to run things together. That would be fun.

Who all report to Overlord Riley

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 01:32 PM
So how do they do it then? Do you think if there was some magical, better way where everyone's input is considered and acted upon that real world ships would still run as a hierarchical dictatorship? You can't even say this is a military problem, because civilian ships follow their "Captain" as well.

You have representatives of the different groups, like a coalition. Not so hard - there are countless places on Earth that manage it.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 01:34 PM
You have representatives of the different groups, like a coalition. Not so hard - there are countless places on Earth that manage it.

Countless places where today could be your last? Where there are hostiles following you and waiting to attack? Where your very surroundings could be the death of you at any moment? In difficult, surprising situations there's not generally time to talk everything out. Didn't Woolsey learn this in SGA season 5?

The Mighty 6 platoon
April 10th, 2010, 01:35 PM
Only if that is the way leadership is established. There's no reason any one person should be in charge.

Right because that's the way to operate in dangerous situations, have a committee. Apart from the military, groups like the police, fire services, merchant ships all for instance all have a dictatorial hierarchy, someone is in charge overall. Hell even western democracies have a dictatorial element, Presidents and Prime Ministers are empowered to make decisions without consultation in emergency situations.

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 01:38 PM
Countless places where today could be your last? Where there are hostiles following you and waiting to attack? Where your very surroundings could be the death of you at any moment? In difficult, surprising situations there's not generally time to talk everything out. Didn't Woolsey learn this in SGA season 5?

Which is why in always qualify my idealised version of things with the disclaimer that the others should defer to the person with most experience and/or qualifications to deal with each event as it arises. My apologies for not typing that bit out again ;) For example, if the ship is attacked, Young has the chair unless Rush (or Eli) points out that continued firing of the ship's weapons will, in fact, ultimately kill them. That way, no one person poses a threat to everyone else out of pure ignorance.

Lahela
April 10th, 2010, 01:39 PM
Right because that's the way to operate in dangerous situations, have a committee. Apart from the military, groups like the police, fire services, merchant ships all for instance all have a dictatorial hierarchy, someone is in charge overall. Hell even western democracies have a dictatorial element, Presidents and Prime Ministers are empowered to make decisions without consultation in emergency situations.

And can quite easily and totally legally be removed if they are doing a thoroughly crap job.

carmencatalina
April 10th, 2010, 01:39 PM
Just because one person (say Young) is in command, does not mean that no one else can have input into how things are run. In fact, given that many people have different specialties, that would be beyond stupid. I think the civilians want input into the types of decisions that they actually have expertise in.

In the case of this episode - we see Rush (not the most trustworthy of people, but you have what you have) say that what they need to do is divert all power to the shields, that is the correct way to keep the ship from being destroyed. He is the expert. Young (not the expert) thinks they should fire weapons, even though his expert says differently. Now, Young has every reason to not trust this particular expert - but, as Eli points out, Rush is right.

Sometimes you have to allow for input - Young's problem (and this is what, I think, is causing the strife), is that he is letting his personal feelings and his general way of running things get in the way of that. And it is a bad idea.

He doesn't have to give up command - he has to change the way he leads. That's his problem.

Nemises
April 10th, 2010, 01:42 PM
Ok, so they should change the way things have worked aboard a ship for hundreds of years? No matter who is in command they WILL. BE. A. DICTATOR. If Wray thinks she can waltz around holding open votes for everything and deciding everything by committee then she's dead wrong.

was atlantis a dictatorship ?

didn't see any elections taking place there! ;)

Coronach
April 10th, 2010, 01:43 PM
He doesn't have to give up command - he has to change the way he leads. That's his problem.

I agree. The only problem I see with this, though, is that Young and Rush have been at each other's throats since before they were even aboard the Destiny. It's going to take a lot for either to start trusting each other's expertise. :(

The Mighty 6 platoon
April 10th, 2010, 01:44 PM
And can quite easily and totally legally be removed if they are doing a thoroughly crap job.

Ahem, George W Bush, Gordon Brown. Better non controversial example, Richard Nixon, took a hell of a lot to get him out of office, he did not go easily.

And besides Young can have measures taken to remove him from command they speak to O'Neill. If Young doesn't let them use the stones the civilians down tools till someone is allowed to use the stones to talk to O'Neill. But the barmy idea tht everyone should form a lovey dovey committee does not work. You need someone in situations like on the Destiny to make snap decisions, even if some people disagree.

carmencatalina
April 10th, 2010, 01:45 PM
I agree. The only problem I see with this, though, is that Young and Rush have been at each other's throats since before they were even aboard the Destiny. It's going to take a lot for either to start trusting each other's expertise. :(

So true! I didn't say it would be easy - but I'm hoping that is where the journey is taking Col. Young. I think he has it in him to be a real leader - one that people follow, not because a gun it to their heads, but because they want to. He just isn't there yet.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 01:45 PM
was atlantis a dictatorship ?

didn't see any elections taking place there! ;)

Yeah, basically. They did what Weir, and later Carter then Woolsey, said. Sheppard or McKay or whoever else would object, give advice and generally try to help. In the end, it was the Atlantis Expedition leader's decision.

The Mighty 6 platoon
April 10th, 2010, 01:46 PM
was atlantis a dictatorship ?

didn't see any elections taking place there! ;)

Err strictly speaking politically it was, Weir was in charge, had final say and could and would overrule people.

s09119
April 10th, 2010, 01:48 PM
was atlantis a dictatorship ?

didn't see any elections taking place there! ;)

But Weir had the support of all the people under her, and she consulted them all the time in their areas of expertise. Also, she was a civilian, and that alone legitimized what she was doing to the other civilians and gave her some measure of authority over the military.

Would it be so hard to just have an election? All the crewmembers vote for a civilian (or soldier willing to give up his military post if elected) to lead, and said person then organizes a government. Votes would be taken for non-critical thing, and in an emergency, they would consult a few other high-ranking personnel (Young, Rush, Wray, etc.) on the best course of action, with consults to scientists or other military officers in a specialty if the need arose.

Just because the President of the United States sometimes has the power to act without the permission or blessing of other branches of government doesn't make him a dictator. The same would be true on the ship.

Nemises
April 10th, 2010, 01:50 PM
Err strictly speaking politically it was, Weir was in charge, had final say and could and would overrule people.

whilst the military from earth could easily ignore her.

Sheppard agreed with her because she took input from both the military and the scientists which young doesn't do. Leave the military decisions to the military and the day to day stuff to the civilians.

Coronach
April 10th, 2010, 01:51 PM
But the barmy idea tht everyone should form a lovey dovey committee does not work. You need someone in situations like on the Destiny to make snap decisions, even if some people disagree.

Committees could certainly be made for some things. I think the real disconnect here is people seem to be arguing two very different things. The day-to-day life (as proven by "Life") shows that its is mostly mundane and decidedly not dangerous (barring the fact that they're on an Ancient ship, of course ;)). There is no reason for Young to have a say (and certainly not the final say) in absolutely everything that goes on, and I think this is what a lot of the civilians are upset about.

Unfortunately, you have people like Rush and Wray who are not only upset, but have more ulterior motives as to why they are upset. I agree in that I think Wray just wants control for herself. I don't think anyone is being purposefully malevolent about leadership desires either. I just think that the different groups of personalities need to find a better way to work out the more everyday kinds of things.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 01:51 PM
So a civilian is morally a better person than a member of the military, basically? Someone's being in the military makes them inherently unfit to command?

carmencatalina
April 10th, 2010, 01:52 PM
Leave the military decisions to the military and the day to day stuff to the civilians.

Which is exactly what Young is not doing. He overrules the scientists on scientific decisions constantly, and doesn't use Wray (HR specialist) to deal with the stuff she knows about. I'm not saying he doesn't have reason to behave the way he does - but it is setting up the type of situation where he needs to use force to stay in command. That's only going to work for so long - it is inherently unstable.

The Mighty 6 platoon
April 10th, 2010, 01:56 PM
But Weir had the support of all the people under her, and she consulted them all the time in their areas of expertise. Also, she was a civilian, and that alone legitimized what she was doing to the other civilians and gave her some measure of authority over the military.

Would it be so hard to just have an election? All the crewmembers vote for a civilian (or soldier willing to give up his military post if elected) to lead, and said person then organizes a government. Votes would be taken for non-critical thing, and in an emergency, they would consult a few other high-ranking personnel (Young, Rush, Wray, etc.) on the best course of action, with consults to scientists or other military officers in a specialty if the need arose.

Just because the President of the United States sometimes has the power to act without the permission or blessing of other branches of government doesn't make him a dictator. The same would be true on the ship.

whilst the military from earth could easily ignore her.

Sheppard agreed with her because she took input from both the military and the scientists which young doesn't do. Leave the military decisions to the military and the day to day stuff to the civilians.

And Hitler only remained in power because he had the SS. How one rules, whether one consults with people has no bearing on whether something is a dictatorship. As it is places like the SGC, Atlantis and now Destiny aren't political entities, they bases of the stargate program, and like one doesn't expect bases in Afghanistan to start holding elections and letting everyone have rights and freedoms they enjoy at home you can't do that on the Destiny, it isn't practical.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 01:56 PM
Which is exactly what Young is not doing. He overrules the scientists on scientific decisions constantly, and doesn't use Wray (HR specialist) to deal with the stuff she knows about. I'm not saying he doesn't have reason to behave the way he does - but it is setting up the type of situation where he needs to use force to stay in command. That's only going to work for so long - it is inherently unstable.

I agree on Young. He needs to realize where every person on Destiny has a strength and utilize them to that end. He needs to learn how to cooperate.

Wray though, she's been ordered to try and take command. I don't think she'll be happy until she has.

Coronach
April 10th, 2010, 01:57 PM
So a civilian is morally a better person than a member of the military, basically? Someone's being in the military makes them inherently unfit to command?

Certainly not.


I agree on Young. He needs to realize where every person on Destiny has a strength and utilize them to that end. He needs to learn how to cooperate.

Wray though, she's been ordered to try and take command. I don't think she'll be happy until she has.

This I completely agree with. I don't necessarily blame Wray for wanting command, as she has strong desires to get hom. I'm certainly not convinced she'd do a better job than Young, however.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 02:01 PM
This I completely agree with. I don't necessarily blame Wray for wanting command, as she has strong desires to get hom. I'm certainly not convinced she'd do a better job than Young, however.

Indeed. Last time, she didn't seem to do a lot. You'd think with all her designs for obtaining power, she'd have some plans on what to DO with it if she got it!

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 10th, 2010, 02:05 PM
I think the problem with Young is his tendency to react with pure emotion when intellect is called for. I think Young is a decent man thrust into a situation he knows he's unprepared for but who believes he's the best of a set of bad options. I simply fear he's not the best of bad options.

carmencatalina
April 10th, 2010, 02:19 PM
I think the problem with Young is his tendency to react with pure emotion when intellect is called for.

This. This here. Is exactly what I see. Can I give you green? I will try!

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 02:20 PM
I think the problem with Young is his tendency to react with pure emotion when intellect is called for. I think Young is a decent man thrust into a situation he knows he's unprepared for but who believes he's the best of a set of bad options. I simply fear he's not the best of bad options.

What exactly is the best option then?

carmencatalina
April 10th, 2010, 02:22 PM
What exactly is the best option then?

I think Young needs to stay in command - but change the way he commands. Come on, you know he can do it!

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 02:30 PM
I think Young needs to stay in command - but change the way he commands. Come on, you know he can do it!

Oh, I completely agree. I just misunderstood your other post.

Jper
April 10th, 2010, 03:05 PM
Skimmed through the last page or so 'cause most has been said, and I don't really strongly disagree, or absolutely agree with anything that has been said, except this:


was atlantis a dictatorship ?

didn't see any elections taking place there! ;)

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. IMHO you're doing Elizabeth a great disrespect by saying or suggesting this, whatever...

Elizabeth was someone who believed in democracy, diplomacy and certainly not in force, violence, threats, and most most certainly not dictatorship. She was appointed to that position, by the elected people, i.e. The President. She was democratically put there in her place, and when she was appointed to the position she decided she would do the best job she could. She'd form her own opinions, consider all sides, and refused to be Kingsey's puppet.

Please do not disrespect this!!! Elizabeth was a great leader and person. I always admired her for that.

Young's nothing, absolutely nothing compared to Elizabeth.

Well, I had my say, I guess. Probably some will disagree.


I think Young needs to stay in command - but change the way he commands. Come on, you know he can do it!

I don't think so. He had loads of changes. And instead of improvement, things only worsened. :S ;) Why would he now suddenly change things. Actually, imho, this was a great moment to changes things, but instead he went the same old way as usual. No I don't believe he can, or maybe better, will change. At least not now.

lordofseas
April 10th, 2010, 03:08 PM
Skimmed through the last page or so 'cause most has been said, and I don't really strongly disagree, or absolutely agree with anything that has been said, except this:



I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with this. IMHO you're doing Elizabeth a great disrespect by saying or suggesting this, whatever...

Elizabeth was someone who believed in democracy, diplomacy and certainly not in force, violence, threats, and most most certainly not dictatorship. She was appointed to that position, by the elected people, i.e. The President. She was democratically put there in her place, and when she was appointed to the position she decided she would do the best job she could. She'd form her own opinions, consider all sides, and refused to be Kingsey's puppet.

Please do not disrespect this!!! Elizabeth was a great leader and person. I always admired her for that.

Young's nothing, absolutely nothing compared to Elizabeth.

Well, I had my say, I guess. Probably some will disagree.



I don't think so. He had loads of changes. And instead of improvement, things only worsened. :S ;) Why would he now suddenly change things. Actually, imho, this was a great moment to changes things, but instead he went the same old way as usual. No I don't believe he can, or maybe better, will change. At least not now.

Must I say it? I agree completely. Green. :D

meo3000
April 10th, 2010, 03:09 PM
Again, this is a SGC expedition. The SGC is run by the military.

The IOA as usual cannot be trusted. Even though they have the authority to take lead, they never do directly, cause they are cowards and dont want to be blamed down the line for bad judment calls. They plot, they scheme, and ultimately screw everything up.

Storm is head of the IOA and still, O'Neill only has to listen to his concerns, he doesnt have to do anything unless told by his superior, the President. Same apply to Young and Wray, he has to listen but is not obligated to do anything she says unless his superior, O'Neill, tell him so.

Wray is a human resources executive, a glorified accountant, who in this situation, is expected to organize the civilian everyday life aboard Destiny, nothing more, nothing less. Rush is the scientific team leader, nothing more, nothing less. His role is to supervise the scientific aspect of the expedition.

All that said, Young is still the expedition leader. Every civilian on that ship needs to understand this and respect it. If Rush and Wray still continue to challenge this fact, Young would be right to confine them to quarters, something like house arrest, or something...

I dont get why people still argue about this. Stargate is basicaly a military based show. Weve been rooting for them for 15 years. But now the lines have been blurred and all of a sudden im supposed to change sides and root for the civilians, the same group that always find a way to screw up the missions and end up being saved by the military. Theyve been saving the planet(s) and every other species for 15 years and now im supposed to root for the IOA? or Rush?

I cant wait for Daniel to visit and tell those egocentric scientist to shut it.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 03:09 PM
I don't think so. He had loads of changes. And instead of improvement, things only worsened. :S ;) Why would he now suddenly change things. Actually, imho, this was a great moment to changes things, but instead he went the same old way as usual. No I don't believe he can, or maybe better, will change. At least not now.

Who should command the ship then? Rush and Wray don't look to be better alternatives.

As for Weir, I agree with everything you said about her level-headedness and fairness. I loved the character, love Tori Higginson (she's from my hometown to boot :D ) and thought she was great. She controlled Atlantis though. When she said to do something, it was done. She never HAD to take any advice that Sheppard, McKay, Ronon, etc gave her.

Nemises
April 10th, 2010, 03:17 PM
Who should command the ship then? Rush and Wray don't look to be better alternatives.

As for Weir, I agree with everything you said about her level-headedness and fairness. I loved the character, love Tori Higginson (she's from my hometown to boot :D ) and thought she was great. She controlled Atlantis though. When she said to do something, it was done. She never HAD to take any advice that Sheppard, McKay, Ronon, etc gave her.

Part of being a leader is to take advice from your subordinates.

The general in the US military doesn't get out of his bed and make decisions that risk the lives of soldiers.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 03:36 PM
Part of being a leader is to take advice from your subordinates.

The general in the US military doesn't get out of his bed and make decisions that risk the lives of soldiers.

You have GOT to be kidding me! That's EXACTLY what they do! War isn't all rainbows and butterflies! The Taliban and insurgents in Iraq aren't attacking coalition troops with unicorns and lollipops! Every order a soldier of any rank gives could put their subordinates in harm's way.

Nemises
April 10th, 2010, 03:39 PM
You have GOT to be kidding me! That's EXACTLY what they do! War isn't all rainbows and butterflies! The Taliban and insurgents in Iraq aren't attacking coalition troops with unicorns and lollipops! Every order a soldier of any rank gives could put their subordinates in harm's way.

so you're telling me that the US general makes decisions without consulting people on the ground or taking advice from the intelligence agencies ? :S

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 03:42 PM
so you're telling me that the US general makes decisions without consulting people on the ground ? :S

Yes. When the decision is made to attack an enemy base or launch another offensive action, it comes from higher-ups with no consultation. That's what being a soldier, sailor or airman is all about; following orders.

Jper
April 10th, 2010, 03:43 PM
Again, this is a SGC expedition. The SGC is run by the military.

The IOA as usual cannot be trusted. Even though they have the authority to take lead, they never do directly, cause they are cowards and dont want to be blamed down the line for bad judment calls. They plot, they scheme, and ultimately screw everything up.

Storm is head of the IOA and still, O'Neill only has to listen to his concerns, he doesnt have to do anything unless told by his superior, the President. Same apply to Young and Wray, he has to listen but is not obligated to do anything she says unless his superior, O'Neill, tell him so.

All good, all good, but in the end they are on the ship and people on Earth don't have much influence or authority on Destiny. And I don't think it really matters all that much what people on Earth say or do, if there would be a decent leader on Destiny, the people on board would need to be the first concern, Earth is not so much a concern.



Wray is a human resources executive, a glorified accountant, who in this situation, is expected to organize the civilian everyday life aboard Destiny, nothing more, nothing less.

I think you're underestimating Wray. It's easy to say that, but she has a lot of influence.


Rush is the scientific team leader, nothing more, nothing less. His role is to supervise the scientific aspect of the expedition.

All that said, Young is still the expedition leader.

Actually, you're wrong about that . Young is Icarus Base commander, and not the Destiny expedition leader. That was Telford. Young didn't want to go, and now he's pissed on everyone that gets in his away for, and blames them for being stuck on Destiny. That way you cannot be a good leader.


Every civilian on that ship needs to understand this and respect it. If Rush and Wray still continue to challenge this fact, Young would be right to confine them to quarters, something like house arrest, or something...

I disagree...



I dont get why people still argue about this. Stargate is basicaly a military based show.
So? Doesn't mean a thing. SGU is a totally new concept.


Weve been rooting for them for 15 years. But now the lines have been blurred and all of a sudden im supposed to change sides and root for the civilians, the same group that always find a way to screw up the missions and end up being saved by the military. Theyve been saving the planet(s) and every other species for 15 years and now im supposed to root for the IOA? or Rush?

I cant wait for Daniel to visit and tell those egocentric scientist to shut it.

Then you'll be disappointed. I hardly think it will be like that. I seriously doubt it.


Who should command the ship then? Rush and Wray don't look to be better alternatives.

So Young should stay in charge, 'cause there's no immediate perfectly better alternative? Young should have the decency to step aside. Wray was briefly in charge, wasn't that bad IMHO, certainly not worse than Young. I liked TJ being in charge, but the problem isn't who else would be in charge, as I think you need to have some shared command, as in one civilian like Wray, one scientist like Rush, and someone from the military like Young, and the important thing would be for them to properly communicate! The problem now however is that Young is being the sole ruler, forcing his rule over the ship, and disrespecting other input that he dislikes. Anyway, I've been over Young's flaws before. That's the problem.



As for Weir, I agree with everything you said about her level-headedness and fairness. I loved the character, love Tori Higginson (she's from my hometown to boot :D ) and thought she was great. She controlled Atlantis though. When she said to do something, it was done. She never HAD to take any advice that Sheppard, McKay, Ronon, etc gave her.

No she didn't had to take their advice, but she listened to them and valued their input. Elizabeth and John Sheppard were a great example of shared rule, civilian and military. It worked great. They listened to each other and respected each other. They also had each other's back. And they valued McKay's input, even when he was his usual abrasive self. Surely this must be possible on Destiny, too.


Part of being a leader is to take advice from your subordinates.

The general in the US military doesn't get out of his bed and make decisions that risk the lives of soldiers.

Forgot what I was going to say. :S

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 03:50 PM
So Young should stay in charge, 'cause there's no immediate perfectly better alternative? Young should have the decency to step aside. Wray was briefly in charge, wasn't that bad IMHO, certainly not worse than Young. I liked TJ being in charge, but the problem isn't who else would be in charge, as I think you need to have some shared command, as in one civilian like Wray, one scientist like Rush, and someone from the military like Young, and the important thing would be for them to properly communicate! The problem now however is that Young is being the sole ruler, forcing his rule over the ship, and disrespecting other input that he dislikes. Anyway, I've been over Young's flaws before. That's the problem.

No, I don't think Young is always right or should stay in command. I also don't think that Wray or Rush should be in sole command. All three need to grow some so they can work together, and I think that's possible. It all depends on whether the writers want to do. For cash-strapped MGM, it could be the most viable option to continue to have the majority of the show's conflicts stem from these three.



No she didn't had to take their advice, but she listened to them and valued their input. Elizabeth and John Sheppard were a great example of shared rule, civilian and military. It worked great. They listened to each other and respected each other. They also had each other's back. And they valued McKay's input, even when he was his usual abrasive self. Surely this must be possible on Destiny, too.

This is what I'm hoping for as well, I think it worked very well on Atlantis. I was just pointing out that Weir was never obliged to bow to anyone else's wishes or advice. She simply did because she was diplomatic and she trusted her people. Hell, it rarely led her wrong.

Nemises
April 10th, 2010, 03:53 PM
Yes. When the decision is made to attack an enemy base or launch another offensive action, it comes from higher-ups with no consultation. That's what being a soldier, sailor or airman is all about; following orders.

No wonder the taliban are still at it.

I dont know where you're getting your facts from but you're wrong. When a decision is made to attack a base atleast some thought is put to it. You dont just point a place in a map and give orders to bomb it. Its not like obama would get up tomorrow morning and give the order "lets invade country x"

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 03:57 PM
No wonder the taliban are still at it.

I dont know where you're getting your facts from but you're wrong. When a decision is made to attack a base atleast some thought is put to it. You dont just point a place in a map and give orders to bomb it. Its not like obama would get up tomorrow morning and give the order "lets invade country x"

What? I never said it wasn't discussed. It's just not usually discussed with those on the ground. Politicians debate about whether to go to war and if they agree upon it then they call up the generals and tell them to devise a strategy. Generals discuss strategy amongst themselves and when they make a decision, they radio the ground troops and tell them to get it done.

They don't ask every soldier whether or not they think it's a good idea.

Nemises
April 10th, 2010, 04:06 PM
What? I never said it wasn't discussed. It's just not usually discussed with those on the ground. Politicians debate about whether to go to war and if they agree upon it then they call up the generals and tell them to devise a strategy. Generals discuss strategy amongst themselves and when they make a decision, they radio the ground troops and tell them to get it done.

They don't ask every soldier whether or not they think it's a good idea.

But they would ask the person in charge of them to tell them the situation on the ground.

lordofseas
April 10th, 2010, 04:15 PM
But they would ask the person in charge of them to tell them the situation on the ground.

A person that makes those judgment calls looks at the situation from an outside perspective. They have to take everything in and make an assertion logically. So yes, they would ask for the situation, but not an opinion, unless they actually wanted one.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 04:17 PM
A person that makes those judgment calls looks at the situation from an outside perspective. They have to take everything in and make an assertion logically. So yes, they would ask for the situation, but not an opinion, unless they actually wanted one.

And realistically if a theatre general doesn't know the situation on the ground (barring a communications breakdown) then he's not worth his stars.

Jper
April 10th, 2010, 04:27 PM
Problem is, you're all talking about getting the facts of an outside perspective, and that's a nice thing, but in the situation on Destiny there are facts, but I see two problems. 1. Having an outside perspective is difficult. You need someone who's able to step back, take a moment from time to time, and then make a rational decision. Clearly not Young... And 2. There are facts yes, but a lot of things on Destiny are experts their opinions and not facts.

The Shrike
April 10th, 2010, 05:30 PM
I do agree that there needs to be cooperation, though I do not agree that the Military was in the wrong.Not the military as a whole, just the person at the top of the chain of command....in this case Young. He has failed miserably, and should be demoted, and removed from command.

Lt.Colonel John Sheppard
April 10th, 2010, 05:33 PM
What they need to do is contact O'Neill and ask him what they should do.

Lord Hurin
April 10th, 2010, 05:37 PM
What they need to do is contact O'Neill and ask him what they should do.

I agree with this. If they're going to do something about Young, go through the right channels! At least the other military personnel won't be able to argue.

Lt.Colonel John Sheppard
April 10th, 2010, 06:51 PM
I wonder how Colonel Telford would handle this situation. I swear the characters on Universe dislike everyone. telford hates young and rush. young dislikes telford and rush. greer dislikes rush and telford. so

The Shrike
April 10th, 2010, 07:19 PM
I agree with this. If they're going to do something about Young, go through the right channels! At least the other military personnel won't be able to argue.I'm actually surprised they didn't, but I wonder if that was what Wray was going to do when Young prevented her from using the stones.

Shpinxinator
April 10th, 2010, 08:53 PM
If I may offer my completely worthless opinion...

I think in a way both sides were right and both sides were wrong for different reasons.

First of all we need to look at ALL of these people as human. They're terrifed, confused, hopeless, on edge...the list goes on. So at least in Lt. James rifflebutting the civilian it was more of a reflex of a terrifed and angry soldier, I didn't sense any melicious intention behind it..but thats just me.

Col. Young is clearly compromised as a leader, he is emotional and irrational, HOWEVER that doesn't change the fact the in terms of military action he is the best qualified to lead. The civilian authority is a little trickier. Wray clearly has her own motives. So the best solution would be to have a small group of civilians to make non-military decisions (that doesn't not exclude them from weighing in on those issues however.

But what is obivious to me is that trying to subdue the military on the ship by force is the wrong thing to do. What needs to happen is a daily "town hall" meeting in the gate room or mess hall to dicuss all issues

the fifth man
April 10th, 2010, 09:21 PM
If I may offer my completely worthless opinion...

I think in a way both sides were right and both sides were wrong for different reasons.

First of all we need to look at ALL of these people as human. They're terrifed, confused, hopeless, on edge...the list goes on. So at least in Lt. James rifflebutting the civilian it was more of a reflex of a terrifed and angry soldier, I didn't sense any melicious intention behind it..but thats just me.

Col. Young is clearly compromised as a leader, he is emotional and irrational, HOWEVER that doesn't change the fact the in terms of military action he is the best qualified to lead. The civilian authority is a little trickier. Wray clearly has her own motives. So the best solution would be to have a small group of civilians to make non-military decisions (that doesn't not exclude them from weighing in on those issues however.

But what is obivious to me is that trying to subdue the military on the ship by force is the wrong thing to do. What needs to happen is a daily "town hall" meeting in the gate room or mess hall to dicuss all issues

Eventually, maybe that is the route they will go. One thing is for sure - they won't last long if they continue fighting each other like this.

An-Alteran
April 10th, 2010, 10:36 PM
I wonder how Colonel Telford would handle this situation. I swear the characters on Universe dislike everyone. telford hates young and rush. young dislikes telford and rush. greer dislikes rush and telford. so
Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Phenom
April 11th, 2010, 06:20 AM
If I may offer my completely worthless opinion...

I think in a way both sides were right and both sides were wrong for different reasons.

First of all we need to look at ALL of these people as human. They're terrifed, confused, hopeless, on edge...the list goes on. So at least in Lt. James rifflebutting the civilian it was more of a reflex of a terrifed and angry soldier, I didn't sense any melicious intention behind it..but thats just me.

Col. Young is clearly compromised as a leader, he is emotional and irrational, HOWEVER that doesn't change the fact the in terms of military action he is the best qualified to lead. The civilian authority is a little trickier. Wray clearly has her own motives. So the best solution would be to have a small group of civilians to make non-military decisions (that doesn't not exclude them from weighing in on those issues however.

But what is obivious to me is that trying to subdue the military on the ship by force is the wrong thing to do. What needs to happen is a daily "town hall" meeting in the gate room or mess hall to dicuss all issues

Yep Young is compromised as a leader, but name one leader on the planet who isn't compromised in some form. He made an error in how he handled Rush on the planet but he remains the most competent and qualified to lead. Wray couldn't lie straight in bed and would simply be doing the bidding of whatever puppet master was pulling her strings on Earth. Rush has no puppet master, except for his own personal ambitions to do whatever it is that he wants to eventually do. So it certainly appears as though everybody has their pros and cons. In my opinion, better the devil you know and lets be honest, Young hasn't done too bad given the circumstances.

The townhall idea is a good one. It seems the most efficient way to lead would be to identify those with leadership qualities in key areas and consult with the leaders of those portfolios on a regular basis.

Coronach
April 11th, 2010, 08:40 AM
The townhall idea is a good one. It seems the most efficient way to lead would be to identify those with leadership qualities in key areas and consult with the leaders of those portfolios on a regular basis.

I third this assertion. Hopefully Young will realize this. Yes, such meetings could get hectic at times...but they really are necessary in being a good leader. That, or something very similar in idea needs to be set up.

meo3000
April 11th, 2010, 11:24 AM
O'Neill would relieve Young if he could, but he cant. Young is stuck with the job, unless he resign his commission which he will never do as long as Rush lives and plays with everyones lives on a daily basis.

So were back to square one, a SGC expedition, with a military leader.

Why would Young give any authority to Rush who tried to pin a murder on him? Why would he give any authority to Wray who didnt have any problem putting him on trial only to get his job?

Many of you say Young need to step down, i dont agree but lets say youre right, you cant replace him with someone worst. Remember, we have an outside the box perspective here. The civilian maybe against Young but are not for Rush, and Wray only has her IOA title to back her supposed authority.

The way i see it, Young is like the parent figure and the civilian as a group are going through the stages of an adolescents life. First they trust blindly, then question authority and push to see how far they can get, then compromise and realize that theyll only be fully independent the day they leave the house. The only way to do that is to leave the ship, that means forgetting about getting back to Earth.

Some think Young is too hard on the civilian, do you really think Telford would be has nice? If Young is a dictator, then Telford is the Starwars emperor. Wait till the Lucian Alliance gets hold of Destiny, with Rush trying to make a deal to save his own skin and Wray is scared off her mind. Wait till Young and his dictatorial regime put their lives on the line for this bunch of ungrateful whining civilians. Theyll come around and acknowledge the fact that after all, Young is not that bad at all.

Sami_
April 11th, 2010, 12:40 PM
you stop being a civilian...

all this griping about the way the military treated the civilians..... once you pick up a weapon in direct opposition to a soldier you are no longer a civilian....

and if you are unarmed but are aiding those taking up arms, then you are on their side

IMHO, LT James was completely justified in rifle-butting that one guy.... 1st there was an armed mutiny on board the ship. 2. because said mutineers are armed, said mutineers cease being civilians. 3. the guy that James hit was moving towards her and was not listening to commands. 4. it set an example and ensured that no one else would choose to not listen to Greer


this isn't just a bunch of civilians protesting peacfully
this was an armed attempted coup d'etat...
Young, Greer, and the rest of the military were completely justified in all of their actions for that one simple fact.

Not true, at least in the United States, where civilians have the constitutional right to own firearms and be prepared to use them in defense of liberty. Now I'm not saying I agree with the actions of those on Destiny but its definetly possible for civilians to bare arms against soldiers without becoming enemy combatants in the eyes of the law.

Lt.Colonel John Sheppard
April 11th, 2010, 01:04 PM
Not true, at least in the United States, where civilians have the constitutional right to own firearms and be prepared to use them in defense of liberty. Now I'm not saying I agree with the actions of those on Destiny but its definetly possible for civilians to bare arms against soldiers without becoming enemy combatants in the eyes of the law.

I love that amendment. The right to bear arms.

FallenAngelII
April 11th, 2010, 01:15 PM
you stop being a civilian...

all this griping about the way the military treated the civilians..... once you pick up a weapon in direct opposition to a soldier you are no longer a civilian....

and if you are unarmed but are aiding those taking up arms, then you are on their side

IMHO, LT James was completely justified in rifle-butting that one guy.... 1st there was an armed mutiny on board the ship. 2. because said mutineers are armed, said mutineers cease being civilians. 3. the guy that James hit was moving towards her and was not listening to commands. 4. it set an example and ensured that no one else would choose to not listen to Greer


this isn't just a bunch of civilians protesting peacfully
this was an armed attempted coup d'etat...
Young, Greer, and the rest of the military were completely justified in all of their actions for that one simple fact.

They were armed when now? We saw one guy wielding one gun which was taken away from a soldier who happened to be caught on the wrong side of the divide. And he wasn't even in the scene where James pistol-whipped that other guy. That guy (the pistol-whipped one) was unarmed.

I love this revisionist history where a bunch of military fan(atic)s are running around claiming this was somehow an armed coup d'etat. Because clearly it's an armed coup if one guy is shown wielding one weapon which was confiscated from an enemy combattant.

No one threatened anyone except Eli with a gun and even then Chloe told that guy to lower his gun.

An-Alteran
April 11th, 2010, 02:15 PM
They were armed when now? We saw one guy wielding one gun which was taken away from a soldier who happened to be caught on the wrong side of the divide. And he wasn't even in the scene where James pistol-whipped that other guy. That guy (the pistol-whipped one) was unarmed.

I love this revisionist history where a bunch of military fan(atic)s are running around claiming this was somehow an armed coup d'etat. Because clearly it's an armed coup if one guy is shown wielding one weapon which was confiscated from an enemy combattant.

No one threatened anyone except Eli with a gun and even then Chloe told that guy to lower his gun.

Uh:

I love this revisionist history where a bunch of military fan(atic)s are running around claiming this was somehow an armed coup d'etat. Because clearly it's an armed coup if one guy is shown wielding one weapon which was confiscated from an enemy combattant.

Revisionist history?
It is a TV show.

Yeash. What is it with people.

The man stood up to James. He was ordered to stand down and get on the ground.

He refused.

She made him comply in the easiest and most efficient manner.

Worse happens to kids at middle school.

What is it with the naiveté of most people these days?

"Oh boo hoo she punched me!" /cry

Oy vey.

major davis
April 11th, 2010, 02:20 PM
Wait, which of the civillians had a weapon?

I don't remember any of them having guns.

When they traded Eli for food and water one guy had a gun.

Shpinxinator
April 11th, 2010, 02:42 PM
Yep Young is compromised as a leader, but name one leader on the planet who isn't compromised in some form. He made an error in how he handled Rush on the planet but he remains the most competent and qualified to lead. Wray couldn't lie straight in bed and would simply be doing the bidding of whatever puppet master was pulling her strings on Earth. Rush has no puppet master, except for his own personal ambitions to do whatever it is that he wants to eventually do. So it certainly appears as though everybody has their pros and cons. In my opinion, better the devil you know and lets be honest, Young hasn't done too bad given the circumstances.


In a perfect world, I would agree. However....the people on the ship for some reason refuse to realize they are in a survival siituation, in this case normal chain of command doesn't work anymore. I mean there are still people wanting to ditch the ship for the first habitable planet they find, regardless of the fact that very few of the non-military personel would have the skills the survive in the wild, hunting, fishing, filtering water, defense from predators, building shelters.

http://www.canpages.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/haircut_predator.jpgI mean come ON!

I doubt any of the civilians would have those skills, unless as personal hobbies and even then it takes years to hone those skills for practical use. And these are smart people, they know that is probley true and YET they still want to put themselves into a situation that would be more deadly then staying on Destiny. They refuse to accept their situation, so they need to follow those who have accepted it.

Jper
April 11th, 2010, 03:06 PM
When they traded Eli for food and water one guy had a gun.

Which they got from Airman Dunning.

Shpinxinator
April 11th, 2010, 03:11 PM
Which they got from Airman Dunning.

True, but it doesn't matter where they got the gun from, it was still picked up and pointed at someone else.

Jper
April 11th, 2010, 03:16 PM
True, but it doesn't matter where they got the gun from, it was still picked up and pointed at someone else.

Oh yeah that civilian was an idiot we can agree on that. :) And he was quickly told to put it down and stow it away by Chloe and the others. :)

garhkal
April 11th, 2010, 03:42 PM
Either way your sign up to obey the military command and structure, you do what you're damn well told. And it wouldn't matter if there was a civilian in charge, if Wray was in command the civilians would still have no control, no greater freedoms, it would be up to Wray.


You got that wrong dude. if it is a Civilian/scientist structure with mil defense, there is NO following of the mil command structure all the time. Only in certain circumstances does that happen. Who knows whether the icarus area was that way or not.
BUT i will give you that they would still be under someone's authority.


But Weir had the support of all the people under her, and she consulted them all the time in their areas of expertise. Also, she was a civilian, and that alone legitimized what she was doing to the other civilians and gave her some measure of authority over the military.

Good point. Young does not seem to value let alone even TAKE inputs from the civilians, where at least wier almost always did.




So a civilian is morally a better person than a member of the military, basically? Someone's being in the military makes them inherently unfit to command?



The difference is, nearly every civilian run org takes inputs from everyone else, before the 'head' makes decisions. Mil run ones, especially how Young is showing he handles things, seem to NOT care what others think.


I think Young needs to stay in command - but change the way he commands. Come on, you know he can do it!

If he can do that, i will change my view of him for the better. BUT with the way things have so far gone, i won't be holding my breath.


Part of being a leader is to take advice from your subordinates.

Which so far, Young does not show he seems to be doing.

asdf1239
April 11th, 2010, 03:49 PM
I dont get why people still argue about this. Stargate is basicaly a military based show.

you cannot enjoy sgu because of its divergence from previous shows and at the same time use a characteristic of the old ones as an argument.

jelgate
April 11th, 2010, 03:56 PM
you cannot enjoy sgu because of its divergence from previous shows and at the same time use a characteristic of the old ones as an argument.
Sure you can. As long as all the shows have the same element. Just because SGU is different doesn't mean its cut off all ties to SG1/SGA

FallenAngelII
April 11th, 2010, 11:22 PM
Yeash. What is it with people.

The man stood up to James. He was ordered to stand down and get on the ground.

He refused.
He didn't "stand up to James". He was already standing when the military burst in. And James gave him all of two seconds in the midst of the confusion and fear (he might have been frozen with fear) to lay down before pistol-whipping him. He was clearly no threat. He had already put his hand over his head. He was just frozen in shock, fear or something as he made no gestures towards James.

He wasn't standing up to anyone, he was just standing up. Also, even if he was, it wouldn't have given her the right to pistol-whip him in the face (if you break someone's nose in the "correct" way, it goes into their brain and they die). James, miraculously, was the more level-headed of the two. He merely threatened to shoot someone without actually harming them.


She made him comply in the easiest and most efficient manner.
And most violent.


Worse happens to kids at middle school.
What a brilliant defense.

IrishPisano
April 12th, 2010, 04:57 AM
He didn't "stand up to James". He was already standing when the military burst in. And James gave him all of two seconds in the midst of the confusion and fear (he might have been frozen with fear) to lay down before pistol-whipping him. He was clearly no threat. He had already put his hand over his head. He was just frozen in shock, fear or something as he made no gestures towards James.


he had a chance to complay
Greer and crew burst through the doors and they demanded everyone get on the ground

that 1 guy didn't

he then moved towards James

THEN LT James made him comply



you may not like it, but these are standard operating procedures for securing a threat
which is what the non-military personnel were

and if you move towards someone with a gun, you are most definitely considered a threat
especially in a mutiny situation

beafly
April 12th, 2010, 06:22 AM
One of them took the weapon that TJ made the marine lay on the ground. This was the only weapon I remember them having, though.

Yes. He picked up airman shmuckatelly's sidearm (something else I'd like to addresss, maybe in a different thread)

To the many points above...

Col Young was the commanding officer and recognized authority on the ship. Rush, Wray and everyone else involved or complicit used threat of death (dehydration/starvation) to take control of the ship and demand that the other side surrender it's arms. Some of you are deluding yourselves, this was NOT a peaceful negotiation.

Let's be very clear. Rush and Wray's actions were EXACTLY the same as Young putting a gun to their heads and telling them to submit to his authority. They threatened them with death!

In that respect TJ was absolutely correct about the civilians being the ones to escalate the situation when they mutinied. They changed the rules of the game when they made that threat. In point of fact, they moved the game to the court that the military plays best on (stupid move in my opinion).

Lt James used force to stop the escalating situation and take control. She used just enough to make it clear that this was not a negotiation.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 12th, 2010, 07:14 AM
beafly,

If the science team went on strike refusing to make necessary repairs to the ship until Young agrees to some power sharing plan the military personel would be put in the same jeopardy as the attempted mutiny. Are you saying Young has the authority and right to force these people to work at the point of a gun? Should Young be willin to execute scientists until they agree to go back to work?

IrishPisano
April 12th, 2010, 07:52 AM
In that respect TJ was absolutely correct about the civilians being the ones to escalate the situation when they mutinied. They changed the rules of the game when they made that threat. In point of fact, they moved the game to the court that the military plays best on (stupid move in my opinion).

Lt James used force to stop the escalating situation and take control. She used just enough to make it clear that this was not a negotiation.

yup

FallenAngelII
April 12th, 2010, 07:53 AM
Lt James used force to stop the escalating situation and take control. She used just enough to make it clear that this was not a negotiation.
Which is exactly why the civilians wanted the military out of power. The civilians outnumber the military, yet the military rules the ship autocratically. They do not negotiate, they do not listen to the civilians' concerns.

Young would never willingly relinquish command. Which is why they resorted to what they resorted to.

Lord Hurin
April 12th, 2010, 07:56 AM
Young would never willingly relinquish command. Which is why they resorted to what they resorted to.

Except when he did, in "Justice"

FallenAngelII
April 12th, 2010, 08:16 AM
Except when he did, in "Justice"
He didn't do so voluntarily out of the goodness of his heart just because he felt like it. He was ordered to by the people back on Earth because he was accused of a heinous violent crime.

Lord Hurin
April 12th, 2010, 08:29 AM
He didn't do so voluntarily out of the goodness of his heart just because he felt like it. He was ordered to by the people back on Earth because he was accused of a heinous violent crime.

I'll have to view the transcript. I remember a lot of talk about Wray having no evidence and him not having to cede power without a verdict. I don't remember an Earth trip in that episode. You're probably right though.

FallenAngelII
April 12th, 2010, 08:47 AM
I'll have to view the transcript. I remember a lot of talk about Wray having no evidence and him not having to cede power without a verdict. I don't remember an Earth trip in that episode. You're probably right though.
I'm not 100% certain myself either, it was aired, after all, 5 months ago. Also, it would be wrong of him to retain command on the ship while under suspicion of murder.

And even if he wasn't ordered to relinquish command, he still didn't do it just because. He didn't do it just because Wray asked him or because the civilians wanted him to. He did it because he had no choice but to relinquish command since he was to be "prosecuted" for murder.

Lord Hurin
April 12th, 2010, 08:52 AM
I'm not 100% certain myself either, it was aired, after all, 5 months ago. Also, it would be wrong of him to retain command on the ship while under suspicion of murder.

And even if he wasn't ordered to relinquish command, he still didn't do it just because. He didn't do it just because Wray asked him or because the civilians wanted him to. He did it because he had no choice but to relinquish command since he was to be "prosecuted" for murder.

True, all good points. I'd even go so far as to say that he doesn't have much choice in this instance either. Let's hope he realizes that. I SO don't want another mutiny episode any time soon.

IrishPisano
April 12th, 2010, 10:47 AM
Which is exactly why the civilians wanted the military out of power. The civilians outnumber the military, yet the military rules the ship autocratically. They do not negotiate, they do not listen to the civilians' concerns.

Young would never willingly relinquish command. Which is why they resorted to what they resorted to.

the LT James incident never would have happened if the guy did not approach James after being told to get on the ground... further, it never would have happened if they did not attempt a mutiny

FallenAngelII
April 12th, 2010, 11:02 AM
the LT James incident never would have happened if the guy did not approach James after being told to get on the ground... further, it never would have happened if they did not attempt a mutiny
He barely moved towards her... with his hands above his head. She gave him 2 seconds of being daze/confused/afraid/frozen in fear. He barely moved towards her and in a completely non-threatening manner and she yelled at him to get on the ground. The way she hit him and what she shouted at him also indicates to me she did it not because "he moved towards her" but because he didn't get on the ground fast enough.

Also, what the flying fig did any of that have to do with the post you just quoted?!

beafly
April 12th, 2010, 11:31 AM
If I wanted to disarm you, I'd probably try to look as non-threatening as possible while I closed the gap prior to making my move too.

She made the right decision.

You do not under any circumstances move towards someone threatening you with deadly force and expect anything other than a bullet in the chest.

The fact that she only hit him and didn't' shoot him, shows that she was following Lt Scott's orders perfectly.

FallenAngelII
April 12th, 2010, 12:48 PM
If I wanted to disarm you, I'd probably try to look as non-threatening as possible while I closed the gap prior to making my move too.
He barely moved towards her. It was more like a little, very slow, stumble, if even that. She gave him two seconds to react to the shock of the situation.


The fact that she only hit him and didn't' shoot him, shows that she was following Lt Scott's orders perfectly.
Yes. Because it's OK to hit someone in the head as long as they don't die. As I said earlier, she hit him straight on in the face, in the nose. If you break the nose at the right angle, you might punch it into someone's brain, killing them. She could've pistol-whipped him in the stomach or chest or something.

She chose the face.

beafly
April 12th, 2010, 02:16 PM
Pretty sure the whole nose into the brain thing has been debunked on numerous occasions. You can google around a few minutes and find that trauma to the brain and spinal cord are what causes death when striked in the face. And it takes a TON of force to do it.

Bottom line in this fiction is. She was there. You weren't.

She used the amount of force she deemed necessary to stop him from approaching and disarming her in what appeared to be a pretty calculated strike.

She chose to end the situation.

It worked and he's not dead.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 12th, 2010, 02:33 PM
Beafly,

If one of the soldiers had put a few rounds into Volker, center mass as they are trained to, when he didn't immediately lie down and tried to talk to Greer, would that have been justified in your opinion?

Captain Obvious
April 12th, 2010, 02:45 PM
He didn't "stand up to James". He was already standing when the military burst in. And James gave him all of two seconds in the midst of the confusion and fear (he might have been frozen with fear) to lay down before pistol-whipping him. He was clearly no threat. He had already put his hand over his head. He was just frozen in shock, fear or something as he made no gestures towards James.

He wasn't standing up to anyone, he was just standing up. Also, even if he was, it wouldn't have given her the right to pistol-whip him in the face (if you break someone's nose in the "correct" way, it goes into their brain and they die). James, miraculously, was the more level-headed of the two. He merely threatened to shoot someone without actually harming them.

OK, either she is a sexist representation of a classic " weak female" or she is the stereotypical " butch angry military woman".

make up your mind already. You are not allowed to claim she is 2 exact opposite stereotypes. No way.


Pretty sure the whole nose into the brain thing has been debunked on numerous occasions. You can google around a few minutes and find that trauma to the brain and spinal cord are what causes death when striked in the face. And it takes a TON of force to do it.

Bottom line in this fiction is. She was there. You weren't.

She used the amount of force she deemed necessary to stop him from approaching and disarming her in what appeared to be a pretty calculated strike.

She chose to end the situation.

It worked and he's not dead.

Exactly. She is trained to use force to subdue a possible threat.

By having possession of the "Heavy gun" in the situation, her responsibility is to provide fire support and ground suppression for Greer and whoever else was around and working with her. She is a Marine heavy gunner and acted EXACTLY how a good heavy gunner would react to possible disarmament.

asdf1239
April 12th, 2010, 06:51 PM
Exactly. She is trained to use force to subdue a possible threat.

By having possession of the "Heavy gun" in the situation, her responsibility is to provide fire support and ground suppression for Greer and whoever else was around and working with her. She is a Marine heavy gunner and acted EXACTLY how a good heavy gunner would react to possible disarmament.
yes, because an unarmed and confused civilian is clearly a possible threat to multiple combat-ready armed soldiers. they really needed fire support too, maybe she should have opened fire to hold the deadly civilians off.

IrishPisano
April 12th, 2010, 07:09 PM
yes, because an unarmed and confused civilian is clearly a possible threat to multiple combat-ready armed soldiers. they really needed fire support too, maybe she should have opened fire to hold the deadly civilians off.

when your ship is being taken over, you cannot assume that people who appear confused and unarmed are actually confused an unarmed when others just like them have pulled weapons on you or your people and have managed to start a mutiny

Taiko
April 12th, 2010, 08:22 PM
yes, because an unarmed and confused civilian is clearly a possible threat to multiple combat-ready armed soldiers. they really needed fire support too, maybe she should have opened fire to hold the deadly civilians off.
Well he was, he was in danger close proximity. He was a man with superior upper body strength close enough to use his biological advantage to seize an automatic weapon during a combat situation. If he wasn't that close a butt stroke would not have connected.

The war had already started the soldiers were having their life support cut off. They had two tactical choices assault the ambush before DR. Rush and his allies could kill them or dig in and let the enemy retain the initiative.

Taiko
April 12th, 2010, 08:26 PM
Which is exactly what Young is not doing. He overrules the scientists on scientific decisions constantly, and doesn't use Wray (HR specialist) to deal with the stuff she knows about. I'm not saying he doesn't have reason to behave the way he does - but it is setting up the type of situation where he needs to use force to stay in command. That's only going to work for so long - it is inherently unstable.

Does Colonel Young ignore "scientist" suggestions or has he questioned the counsel of one Dr. Young who has with held information either because he believes he is superior and no peon can understand or because he retains power through information and may be plotting an accident for young Eli to retain his power base?

Coronach
April 12th, 2010, 08:40 PM
Does Colonel Young ignore "scientist" suggestions or has he questioned the counsel of one Dr. Young who has with held information either because he believes he is superior and no peon can understand or because he retains power through information and may be plotting an accident for young Eli to retain his power base?

You mean Dr. Rush, right, ;). Also, have we seen any indication that Rush is plotting to harm Eli in any way? I mean, I can't remember anything like this...though maybe it was hinted at somewhere along the way.

Daro
April 12th, 2010, 09:42 PM
You mean Dr. Rush, right, ;). Also, have we seen any indication that Rush is plotting to harm Eli in any way? I mean, I can't remember anything like this...though maybe it was hinted at somewhere along the way.

You haven't missed anything, I'm pretty sure. Unless I have to, and I've seen each episode more times than a mentally stable person probably should. Rush has shown at every turn that he regards Eli at least a little higher than he does anyone else aboard the ship (except maybe Chloe, now.) I think he recognizes that he is somewhat responsible for Eli. He apologized to him in "Light" when he thought they were going to die. He ran to check on Eli immedietly in "Air pt. 3" when Eli came back through the stargate after having held it open with his arm. He also explains himself to Eli a lot more than he does to anyone else, even knowing that Eli cannot keep his mouth shut. Also, I've never been convinced that Rush actively wanted to kill anyone. Let them die if the situation was bad enough, maybe, but not kill them.

asdf1239
April 12th, 2010, 09:51 PM
Well he was, he was in danger close proximity. He was a man with superior upper body strength close enough to use his biological advantage to seize an automatic weapon during a combat situation. If he wasn't that close a butt stroke would not have connected.

1) there's no proof he had superior upper body strength, especially since james is a trained soldier
2)she moved towards him to hit him with the gun

Taiko
April 12th, 2010, 10:05 PM
1) there's no proof he had superior upper body strength, especially since james is a trained soldier
2)she moved towards him to hit him with the gun
Men and women are simply built differently. The secondary gender characteristics besides what's between the legs make him a third heavier with superior upper body strength unless he was disabled in some way. Lieutenant James was in line with her squad and as the obvious weak link, because of those secondary gender distinctions, for a hand to hand attack. That is why she was chosen as the soldier he would attempt to disarm thus gaining an automatic weapon to continue the fight with.


The war had already started the soldiers were having their life support cut off. They had two tactical choices assault the ambush before DR. Rush and his allies could kill them or dig in and let the enemy retain the initiative.

Oh I did already post the squad was in attack to put down an uprising and not sitting back wiating for Dr Rush to finish killing them off by cutting life support. My bad.

Daro
April 12th, 2010, 10:07 PM
3. He had his hands up in the air and was surrounded by other armed military folks. I'm sure that grabbing a gun from a highly trained soldier was the last thing on his mind.

asdf1239
April 12th, 2010, 10:15 PM
Men and women are simply built differently. The secondary gender characteristics besides what's between the legs make him a third heavier with superior upper body strength unless he was disabled in some way. Lieutenant James was in line with her squad and as the obvious weak link, because of those secondary gender distinctions, for a hand to hand attack. That is why she was chosen as the soldier he would attempt to disarm thus gaining an automatic weapon to continue the fight with.

again, some women are stronger than some men, plus james being a soldier has hand to hand training while the civilian does not. i seriously doubt he could just pull the gun out of her hands without being hurt/killed/injured by her or the other soldiers.

2)she moved towards him to hit him with the gun
oh i did already post he was not close enough and she had to move forward to hit him. my bad.



Oh I did already post the squad was in attack to put down an uprising and not sitting back wiating for Dr Rush to finish killing them off by cutting life support. My bad.
not sure what youre trying to prove with this, it doesnt make the bash necessary.

Daro
April 12th, 2010, 11:44 PM
Men and women are simply built differently. The secondary gender characteristics besides what's between the legs make him a third heavier with superior upper body strength unless he was disabled in some way. Lieutenant James was in line with her squad and as the obvious weak link, because of those secondary gender distinctions, for a hand to hand attack. That is why she was chosen as the soldier he would attempt to disarm thus gaining an automatic weapon to continue the fight with.


Oh I did already post the squad was in attack to put down an uprising and not sitting back wiating for Dr Rush to finish killing them off by cutting life support. My bad.

I have a problem with just about everything you said here, sorry. I think you may need to rewatch this episode, or maybe all of them so far, as the details you cite here to support your argument and also in a few other posts are just downright wrong. No offense intended, but I feel like I should suggest it. It's been a long time since the beginning of the series, after all, with a long break in between.

First off, I'm with those who say that, despite what might be generally true about the differences of men and women physiologically, that doesn't mean that James, or any woman (especially a military officer) should be assumed as weaker than any man she meets. She's been trained to pretty much the same standard a man would have been in the military. She can handle herself without having to resort to pre-emptive attacks on any man who didn't hit the deck the second she told him to.

Though you're responding to someone else's comment that Rush would 'dig in and kill the soldiers off by cutting off life support, I don't see you disagreeing. So. Rush has shown, in every episode, that while he may not always reject the possibility of sacrificing a human life in bad situations, he certainly doesn't go about trying to end them. I see no indication that he or Wray would have actually cut off life support. In point of fact, might I add, they didn't even have control of life support; the military side did. It wasn't even in his power. And even if he'd had the option, he had Chloe right there, and Wray, reminding him of his promise not to let anyone get hurt. I know there are plenty of people on this forum that think Rush is evil incarnate and eats babies and nuns for breakfast, but clear-cut evil or good characters are rare in real life, which is what this show seeks to immitate in its characters.

Once the blocked hallways were breeched, there was pretty much nothing the rebels could do. Greer and Young alone likely could have taken the other side down. Greer had an assault rifle, Young had at least a handgun. Unarmed folks are not going to be able to do anything but surrender if those two storm into the room. The civilians obviously never counted on the military being able to get past the defenses Rush had in place. Eli was able to distract Rush long enough to get Young and Greer through the hole before the shields would have kept them out.

Even if Rush had been made aware in time to act, what could he have done? The doors were open, the military was inside. The only thing he might have been able to do was barricade himself inside the secondary control room and try to use the power he had over the majority of the systems as a bargaining chip.

FallenAngelII
April 12th, 2010, 11:53 PM
Pretty sure the whole nose into the brain thing has been debunked on numerous occasions. You can google around a few minutes and find that trauma to the brain and spinal cord are what causes death when striked in the face. And it takes a TON of force to do it.
Whatever. She could still have broken his nose. It's not that hard.


She used the amount of force she deemed necessary to stop him from approaching and disarming her in what appeared to be a pretty calculated strike.
He tried to disarm her in a "pretty calculated strike"? What alternate universe episode are you watching? He barely moved towards her.


It worked and he's not dead.
Yes, because it's all fine and dandy since he's not dead!


OK, either she is a sexist representation of a classic " weak female" or she is the stereotypical " butch angry military woman".
I'm sorry, I said she's a "butch angry military woman" when? I even insinuated such a thing when? I'm saying she used unnecessary force in this episode.


By having possession of the "Heavy gun" in the situation, her responsibility is to provide fire support and ground suppression for Greer and whoever else was around and working with her. She is a Marine heavy gunner and acted EXACTLY how a good heavy gunner would react to possible disarmament.
My God you're all watching the episode with "The Military Can Do No Wrong" Goggles. He was not trying to disarm her! Re-watch the scene please.

Coronach
April 12th, 2010, 11:58 PM
Note: snipped for brevity.



He tried to disarm her?...He barely moved towards her.

I don't agree with FAII on a lot of stuff, but I do agree with this. I rewatched this scene multiple times, and each time I cannot pick out a hostile (or even ambiguous) act by the man that Lt. James hits in the face even if I try to see it. He's literally just standing there, then the camera pans a bit to show others getting to the ground, then James does her thing. It's all very quick, and though arguments might be made about what she deemed appropriate...it cannot be said that the man made a hostile (or even possibly-hostile) move toward her. He, quite literally, just stood there with his hands in the air. :S

IrishPisano
April 13th, 2010, 03:24 AM
Note: snipped for brevity.



I don't agree with FAII on a lot of stuff, but I do agree with this. I rewatched this scene multiple times, and each time I cannot pick out a hostile (or even ambiguous) act by the man that Lt. James hits in the face even if I try to see it. He's literally just standing there, then the camera pans a bit to show others getting to the ground, then James does her thing. It's all very quick, and though arguments might be made about what she deemed appropriate...it cannot be said that the man made a hostile (or even possibly-hostile) move toward her. He, quite literally, just stood there with his hands in the air. :S

it's all great to sit back in our armchairs and say, "hey, you can't that" or "hey he's not threatening you"
but alas, there's no such thing as an "armchair soldier"

it's not whether or not he was actually threatening her
it was whether or not he was PERCEIVED by James as either A. a threat, or B. completely non-compliant
i would say that A. taking part in a mutiny - especially one where your food and water has been cut off - is considered a threat... Ab. any movement towards you in a situation like that cannot be trusted, and is more often than not considered a threat especially when a mutineer has already displayed a firearm in their possession. B. non-compliance in a defensive raid situation - like this was - will result in forced compliance

these people cordonned off the military personnel on-board the ship
and cut off their food and water supply
and threatened to starve them to death
with the goal of forcing them to become 100% submissive to Wray and Rush
for no reason other than Wray wants to be in charge and Rush hates Young - for no valid reason
no, this is not about being left behind on the planet, Rush has disliked Young since Rush put together the team for the Destiny - which was to be commanded by Telford.... the abandonment situation was simply the straw that broke the camel's back

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 04:14 AM
IP,

How do you know he was "taking part in a mutiny" was everyone stuck on the civilian side of the line part of the mutiny? Standing up because you are startled is certianly not an overly threatening act. I understand Jame's actions she was asserting command and control of the situation and it was not the worst thing she could have done. However, that doesn't make it the morally correct choice even if it made tactical sense.

Daro
April 13th, 2010, 04:16 AM
it's all great to sit back in our armchairs and say, "hey, you can't that" or "hey he's not threatening you"
but alas, there's no such thing as an "armchair soldier"

it's not whether or not he was actually threatening her
it was whether or not he was PERCEIVED by James as either A. a threat, or B. completely non-compliant
i would say that A. taking part in a mutiny - especially one where your food and water has been cut off - is considered a threat... Ab. any movement towards you in a situation like that cannot be trusted, and is more often than not considered a threat especially when a mutineer has already displayed a firearm in their possession. B. non-compliance in a defensive raid situation - like this was - will result in forced compliance

these people cordonned off the military personnel on-board the ship
and cut off their food and water supply
and threatened to starve them to death
with the goal of forcing them to become 100% submissive to Wray and Rush
for no reason other than Wray wants to be in charge and Rush hates Young - for no valid reason
no, this is not about being left behind on the planet, Rush has disliked Young since Rush put together the team for the Destiny - which was to be commanded by Telford.... the abandonment situation was simply the straw that broke the camel's back

Just because some of us don't like one action the miliatry took in this particular episode doesn't mean we don't understand or appreciate the kind of training and thinking that goes into being a real soldier. When they 'percieve a threat' that isn't there, though, and respond with force, we have a right to point that out.

I think you should try to watch the episode(s) again and objectively evaluate what's going on. Military science fiction tends to reinforce the idea that the commander of the ship is always right, always the ultimate hero, etc. SGU is meant to be a little less black and white. The SG franchise so far has dealt with the civilian/military thing, but it's been in a structured environment where, at the end of the day, the SG commander has every right to be in charge because that's what the government says, and the government is accountable to the people.

And being as you're not in James's head, we can't even say for sure what she percieved. I know what her commanding officer told her, and that was to go easy on the civilians. Noses and all. :P


Also, no one in that room that James went into had a gun. One guy did, earlier, in the corridor where Eli was. Either he thought better of carrying it around, didn't ever draw it, or got knocked out by Greer. The civilians hit the deck the second the military came in and told them to, with the exception of Volker. James steps into the room, yells, and rifle-butts the guy in less than two seconds.

At no point was anyone's food and water cut off. You act like this was a seige, when it took less than a few hours for the military to breach the hull. During that time, they had food and water to drink because the civilians sent it over in the exchange for Eli. Rush didn't even threaten to cut them off, until after Young implied he'd cut off life support. What was Rush supposed to do? The civilians never 'threatened' to starve anyone to death. They wanted to be able to have control of the ship until Young would sit down and bargain with them. Rush even went out of his way and compromised the entire operation, fatally I might add, so that he could let Young and Scott survive. Still not knowing whether or not Young was going to shoot him dead.

Mutiny is a term I wouldn't use lightly. Mutiny is an attempt by enlisted soldiers/sailors to seize control of a ship from the commanding officer, and I believe that in America at least you can't even be charged with mutiny unless you're in the military to begin with. Whether the popular definition of the word applies or not, if we're going to call Destiny a military vessel, then the USAF is in charge of it and the American legal term applies. It was a non-violent rebellion. That's not saying that it isn't of course obvious that the military will try and take it back by force, but let's stop pretending that Rush and Wray and all the other civilians did something monstrous to the military.

And yes, the idea was to get Young to comply with civilian authority, which happened to be Wray and Rush. Destiny is not part of Icarus Base anymore. It is hard to make the argument that it has any allegience to any group so far, per the words and actions of Young himself. He agreed to keep communications open with Earth, but made it kinda clear that he's running the show and will not follow orders from Gen. O'Neill. If he is not accountable to the chain of command any longer, then he is by definition a military dictator. If he hadn't thrown Rush off the ship, that might have been tolerated longer than it was, but considering that Young could do the same to anyone else if he desired (we know he isn't that bad, but hear me out) then he alone is lord and emperor of the ship.

To say Rush had no better reason than simply not liking Young is ludicrous. For one, the dislike was very mutual, if you watch the first episode again. In "Divided," Rush chooses to begin the revolt sooner rather than later because he's afraid that Young will kill him if the truth comes out about the tracking device. Not about to say he's justified for keeping it a secret, but I can't blame him for not wanting to give Young an actually decent excuse for airlocking him.

Laxian of Earth
April 13th, 2010, 05:34 AM
I completely disagree with almost everything you said, except that this was indeed an attempted coup. However, James's superior officer reminded all of them before they went into that room to take it easy on the civilians (or resistance fighters, if you want to be extreme about it.) She directly violated that order by striking an unarmed man. Whether you think Rush and Wray v. Young are right or wrong is immaterial. When twenty or so people on the ship have all the guns and have a nasty habit of pointing them in someone's face every day, tension is going to rise. Rifle-butting an unarmed civilian is just stupid.

As for Young being right in every way, I'm not so sure. I think Rush and Wray should have tried to handle things diplomatically, but who can blame Rush for wanting to avoid that? Not only does he figure his life is expendable to Young, but he's got plenty to fear from wild cards like Greer.
Young is reaping what he sowed. He did the wrong thing, and he knows it, by leaving Rush to die. He has fumbled the ball and proven that he cannot control his temper in crucial situations. I don't think Rush or Wray would be any better as leaders than him, but both of them at least have some restraint, it seems.
You can't equate Destiny to Atlantis. The military and civilians are all here against their will (save for Rush, of course) to start with. Contact with SGC is limited. I wouldn't expect Rush or Chloe or anyone else on their side to sit back and just take whatever violence and judgment that Young thinks they deserve.

not only that - diplomacy with YOUNG?...sorry, those suggesting that should see a councillor...it's delusional (sorry young might laugh at the attempt and then shrug it off)

and once greer would hear about such a motion he would beat up the person suggesting it - i am sure of it (he after all beat up a supperior officer (Telford), a colonel to boot (almost as bad as beating a general!))


By that logic, the military that's occupying the ship and refusing civilian control is fair game too. Make no mistake, Rush was breifly in control of that ship, and if he wanted to he could have let Young and Scott be vapourized when the ship made the jump. After doing that, he could have depressurized the areas under control by the military and be done with them for good.

Pure logic, brutal logic, and dare I say it, military logic.

I personally would have just done that (without much second thought for the people on board - i would have mourned the loss of the shuttle, but nothing else!)


I think one civilian had a weapon, just one.

right!


Peaceful simply means a lack of violence, and that's what this was. They didn't want to hurt anyone, they just wanted to force the military's hand. What other options did they have, anyway? They were being as civilized and nonviolent about it as they possibly could, given how Young and the military have treated them thus far.

right, too!


They didn't deny food and water. They controlled it, same as the military had control over life support and Eli. They made an exchange. I don't think Rush or Wray ever intended to try and starve the military out, just get them to compromise.

agreed - if the would have thought of doing that, they might as well have left the ship (rigging the controlls with a command code to lock out young and the others if they managed to reach those controlls)


How was it blackmail...? They were asking for some basic independence and the establishment of more than a military dictatorship. And the soldiers were the ones making it out to be a war that they would do anything to win, not the civilians. The civilians traded food and water and made comments that clearly indicated they had no interest in tormenting the soldiers.

yes, i completely agree with that (they could have taunted them on losing to civilians or something)


I don't think any of us is arguing that the military was being civilizied in thier retaking of the ship . Just in this situation the civilians were just as bad.

civilized? hiting unarmed people, threatening them with harm (weapons pointed at them)? - no, negotiations would have been civilized...on the other hand, there should have been no need for those, if young and his blockheads would stepp down from their pedestal and behave like they would on earth (taking command from civilian authority!)


what would you have the civilians do then ? take it up the arse everytime ?

its like blaming a person for beating up a bully in self defense!!

to right (i myself would cease to work with young in any way (if i was rush...if the ship falls appart: not my fault!))


it's all great to sit back in our armchairs and say, "hey, you can't that" or "hey he's not threatening you"
but alas, there's no such thing as an "armchair soldier"

it's not whether or not he was actually threatening her
it was whether or not he was PERCEIVED by James as either A. a threat, or B. completely non-compliant
i would say that A. taking part in a mutiny - especially one where your food and water has been cut off - is considered a threat... Ab. any movement towards you in a situation like that cannot be trusted, and is more often than not considered a threat especially when a mutineer has already displayed a firearm in their possession. B. non-compliance in a defensive raid situation - like this was - will result in forced compliance

these people cordonned off the military personnel on-board the ship
and cut off their food and water supply
and threatened to starve them to death
with the goal of forcing them to become 100% submissive to Wray and Rush
for no reason other than Wray wants to be in charge and Rush hates Young - for no valid reason
no, this is not about being left behind on the planet, Rush has disliked Young since Rush put together the team for the Destiny - which was to be commanded by Telford.... the abandonment situation was simply the straw that broke the camel's back

what would you do, if i had a gun, was a lunatic (like young and his blockheads are) and you could only look me in somewhere as you were never trained to assault a trained military officer and take my weapon? would you let me roam around free or would you trigger the lock up, too?

i BET YOU, YOU WOULD!

greetings LAX

IrishPisano
April 13th, 2010, 05:45 AM
just a quick note, Daro, mainly bc i don't feel like reading your unnecessarily long post... it WAS INDEED an attempted mutiny...

one need not be in formal military service in order to conduct or be the victim of a mutiny

a mutiny is a forced change of command of any organization by the members of that organization
most often it occurs on ships - civilian, pirate, military, or otherwise

Young was in command of the Destiny
Rush and Wray attempted to remove Young from command and place themselves in command
that is attempted mutiny

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 05:50 AM
IP,


just a quick note, Daro, mainly bc i don't feel like reading your unnecessarily long post... it WAS INDEED an attempted mutiny...

one need not be in formal military service in order to conduct or be the victim of a mutiny

a mutiny is a forced change of command of any organization by the members of that organization
most often it occurs on ships - civilian, pirate, military, or otherwise

Young was in command of the Destiny
Rush and Wray attempted to remove Young from command and place themselves in command
that is attempted mutiny

Okay, does that mean any attempted mutiny is automatically unjustified or unjustifiable. Young had attempted to kill the leader of the Destiny science team then lied about what he did. That, among other things, shows Young has anger managment and impluse control problems. Not traits you want in someone with sole command of a group of people like this. I disagree with the manner in which Wray/Rush attempted to take control. That said I do not think their actions were unjustified or unjustifable. They had good cause to assert Young should, at a minimum, share command with another individual.

IrishPisano
April 13th, 2010, 08:14 AM
IP,
Okay, does that mean any attempted mutiny is automatically unjustified or unjustifiable. Young had attempted to kill the leader of the Destiny science team then lied about what he did. That, among other things, shows Young has anger managment and impluse control problems. Not traits you want in someone with sole command of a group of people like this. I disagree with the manner in which Wray/Rush attempted to take control. That said I do not think their actions were unjustified or unjustifable. They had good cause to assert Young should, at a minimum, share command with another individual.

explain to me, then, how Wray or Rush is more qualified than Young to be in command?

as for Young's "anger management and impulse control problems".... does he really have them? or does he simply have a personal disdain for Rush (and Telford who's instigated things with Young)

i mean its quite funny how ppl always bring up "young stranded rush" but they never bring up how everyone's stranded on destiny bc of Rush or how that alien ship attacked the destiny again because of Rush or how Rush cannot be trusted at all or how Wray has zero self-confidence and puts her own self-interests first and foremost ahead of the rest of the crew (which makes you a bad leader, not a good one)
etc
etc
etc

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 08:16 AM
IP,


explain to me, then, how Wray or Rush is more qualified than Young to be in command?

as for Young's "anger management and impulse control problems".... does he really have them? or does he simply have a personal disdain for Rush (and Telford who's instigated things with Young)

i mean its quite funny how ppl always bring up "young stranded rush" but they never bring up how everyone's stranded on destiny bc of Rush or how that alien ship attacked the destiny again because of Rush or how Rush cannot be trusted at all or how Wray has zero self-confidence and puts her own self-interests first and foremost ahead of the rest of the crew (which makes you a bad leader, not a good one)
etc
etc
etc

I'm not saying they're more qualified than Young. I'm not saying it has to be Wray and Rush. I'm saying there are issues surrounding Young that shouldn't be ignored and could be addressed by a shared command structure.

beafly
April 13th, 2010, 08:40 AM
Whatever. She could still have broken his nose. It's not that hard.


He tried to disarm her in a "pretty calculated strike"? What alternate universe episode are you watching? He barely moved towards her.


Yes, because it's all fine and dandy since he's not dead!


I'm sorry, I said she's a "butch angry military woman" when? I even insinuated such a thing when? I'm saying she used unnecessary force in this episode.


My God you're all watching the episode with "The Military Can Do No Wrong" Goggles. He was not trying to disarm her! Re-watch the scene please.

As it has been stated above by a number of people.

His intentions do not matter.

He failed to comply with an order from a soldier with a gun.

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 08:46 AM
Beafly,

If James had shot the man would you claim it was justified?

IrishPisano
April 13th, 2010, 08:46 AM
IP,
I'm not saying they're more qualified than Young. I'm not saying it has to be Wray and Rush. I'm saying there are issues surrounding Young that shouldn't be ignored and could be addressed by a shared command structure.


Rush has far more issues that preclude him from being a competent commander than Young
as does Wray

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 13th, 2010, 08:52 AM
IP,

I don't necessarily disagree. Accepting what you say as true for purpose of discussion, how do you propose to deal with Young's issues?

IrishPisano
April 13th, 2010, 08:58 AM
IP,

I don't necessarily disagree. Accepting what you say as true for purpose of discussion, how do you propose to deal with Young's issues?

and what issues are those? the personal grudge he has with Rush?
well, given the situation, and given that he is most qualified to be in command, i would leave him in command
put him in charge of the entire crew and ship (like a Base commander)
put Wray in charge of administrative/personnel issues for everyone else
Rush in charge of science/tech/research
with Wray and Rush reporting to Young

you cannot relieve him of command in this situation because this is not a normal situation on a normal base
this is a group of 80 refugees struggling for survival and a way home



as for Young stranding Rush on the planet, well, Rush framed him for murder..... at least Young's actions are somewhat understandable given that they were enacted as a consequence of Rush's unwarranted actions...

don't forget - which most of the posters on here are doing - Rush has caused the vast majority of problems on board Destiny..........

FallenAngelII
April 13th, 2010, 09:00 AM
As it has been stated above by a number of people.

His intentions do not matter.

He failed to comply with an order from a soldier with a gun.She gave him two seconds. Everyone was shocked, bewildered, frozen to the spot, etc. She gave him two seconds to react before assaulting him to make a point.

She wasn't threatened at all! He wasn't being defiant either, the look in his eyes, it was fear. She gave him two seconds and then, when he didn't get on the ground fast enough for her liking, she assaulted him quite unnecessarily merely to illustrate what the military was capable of doing to anyone who "got out of line" or simply didn't do things "fast enough".

This argument is ridiculous. First "your side" drones on for half a week about how he was moving towards her in a threatening way or trying to disarm her or whatever. Then someone said "Well, maybe she just perceived it that way". Now it's "Well, he didn't do as he was told".

She gave him 2 seconds to react. Most people, when confronted in fear, freeze. This is why so many people freeze up when faced with a speeding car heading straight for them or when someone's shooting at them, etc. And considering that James is a military officer, she knows that. She knows what shock, fear and stress does to people, especially civilians who are not trained to react rationally or fast in situations like that.

If I were to burst into your room, wave a gun in your face yell at you to get to the ground, would you be able to do it within 2 seconds? And if you didn't, would I have the right to pistol-whip you because you didn't do it fast enough? I thought so.

Daro
April 13th, 2010, 09:14 AM
just a quick note, Daro, mainly bc i don't feel like reading your unnecessarily long post... it WAS INDEED an attempted mutiny..

I feel that my argument was appropriate in length. Many other posts on this forum run about as long. If you participate in a discussion, then you read the other person's response and let the conversation evolve as you go back and forth. Otherwise, you're just stating your opinion in soap box fashion. :/

My problem with your use of the word is that you seem to imply that Rush and Wray are guilty of violating the military laws pertaining to mutiny. I am saying that law doesn't apply to civilians. I did concede that the common definition, not law, is applicable here, just misleading.

beafly
April 13th, 2010, 09:15 AM
Beafly,

If James had shot the man would you claim it was justified?

No.

She used appropriate force in my opinion.

FallenAngelII
April 13th, 2010, 09:36 AM
She used appropriate force in my opinion.
Because he didn't get on the ground fast enough?! Yeah, allow me to do to you and see how you feel. I'll give you 2 seconds to drop to the ground after I burst into your kitchen sometime within the next 5 weeks and if you don't do it fast enough, I'll assault you.

Then, when the police show up, I'll say "Well, he didn't do it fast enough" whereupon the police will say "Oh, then you used appropriate force." and we'll see how you feel about it.

beafly
April 13th, 2010, 09:47 AM
Because he didn't get on the ground fast enough?! Yeah, allow me to do to you and see how you feel. I'll give you 2 seconds to drop to the ground after I burst into your kitchen sometime within the next 5 weeks and if you don't do it fast enough, I'll assault you.

Then, when the police show up, I'll say "Well, he didn't do it fast enough" whereupon the police will say "Oh, then you used appropriate force." and we'll see how you feel about it.

I won't quote all of the times above you stated that he barely moved towards her.

He moved towards her. He was subdued for that action. Not the speed which he didn't comply.

If he had taken 5 seconds to lower himself slowly to the ground, he'd probably not have been hit.

Fact is, he moved towards her.

beafly
April 13th, 2010, 09:48 AM
Oh, and if it was me...

I'd have slowly backed away from the threatening lady with a machine gun and slowly lowered myself to the floor.

FallenAngelII
April 13th, 2010, 09:56 AM
Oh, and if it was me...

I'd have slowly backed away from the threatening lady with a machine gun and slowly lowered myself to the floor.
Stress... shock... fear... people react to it differently.

Also, you can claim he moved towards her in a threatening manner or in a manner which James interpreted as threatening as much as you want. The footage speaks for itself.

beafly
April 13th, 2010, 10:07 AM
Stress... shock... fear... people react to it differently.

Also, you can claim he moved towards her in a threatening manner or in a manner which James interpreted as threatening as much as you want. The footage speaks for itself.

I never claimed he moved towards her threateningly. Re-read please.

I said, he moved towards her.

You yourself agreed.

She's trained to protect herself by ensuring she's not disarmed.

As is anyone who carries a firearm.

I dare say you'd not allow someone to approach and take your weapon too.

FallenAngelII
April 13th, 2010, 11:35 PM
I never claimed he moved towards her threateningly. Re-read please.

I said, he moved towards her.

You yourself agreed.

She's trained to protect herself by ensuring she's not disarmed.

As is anyone who carries a firearm.

I dare say you'd not allow someone to approach and take your weapon too.
It was a 2 inch stumble, if anything. She overreacted. Because as a trained military professional, she would've recognized that he wasn't trying to disarm her at all. He was his disoriented, in shock and plainly just confused.

IrishPisano
April 14th, 2010, 03:14 AM
It was a 2 inch stumble, if anything. She overreacted. Because as a trained military professional, she would've recognized that he wasn't trying to disarm her at all. He was his disoriented, in shock and plainly just confused.

and that could all be a ploy to get close to her to disarm her


i just rewatched the scene on Hulu.com, and very short though the microscene we're talking about may have been, it was long enough to notice a few things:
1. "Guy" did NOT stumble towards James
2. Guy walked towards James under his own conscious power
3. he also walked with his hands slightly out to either side. now, that is usually a sign of "i'm not armed" but it can also be a facade used by someone who is either A. secretly armed, or B. trying to get close to you to unarm you. When you're raiding a location, you do not take chances
4. after the one or two steps, he was close enough to grab her weapon.

and before you say, "well if he was close enough, why didn't he grab it?" James reacted quickly enough to prevent that from happening


so, please, stop saying that he was stumbling around in fear
go back and rewatch the scene and you'll see he was deliberately moving towards James
intent unknown, yes, but that is why he got rifle-butted

you do not approach a person with a firearm pointed at you telling you to get down on the floor and expect not to be dropped forecfully if you fail to immediately comply

FallenAngelII
April 15th, 2010, 05:49 AM
you do not approach a person with a firearm pointed at you telling you to get down on the floor and expect not to be dropped forecfully if you fail to immediately comply
There were a gazillion ways of incapacitating him that didn't involve trauma to his face. Kicking him in the shins, kicking him anywhere not the least vital, cocking her gun and threatening to shoot him, etc.

Also, I disagree with your assessment of what happened. Also, James' actions doesn't indicate that she believes he was trying to disarm her. She just shouted "I said: Get on the floor!", which indicates she was livid not because he was trying to disarm her (nor did she interpret his intentions to be those) but because he simply didn't get on the floor (fast enough).

IrishPisano
April 15th, 2010, 06:36 AM
There were a gazillion ways of incapacitating him that didn't involve trauma to his face. Kicking him in the shins, kicking him anywhere not the least vital, cocking her gun and threatening to shoot him, etc.

Also, I disagree with your assessment of what happened. Also, James' actions doesn't indicate that she believes he was trying to disarm her. She just shouted "I said: Get on the floor!", which indicates she was livid not because he was trying to disarm her (nor did she interpret his intentions to be those) but because he simply didn't get on the floor (fast enough).


this is not kindergarten where everyone holds hands and the bad people have to stand in the corner
nor is this a bunch of civilians completely void of any military commitments who are peaceably assembled

these are civilians attached to work with and for the US military
they were also been dispatched to a field base for the us military
and are now refugees from said base
they may in fact be subject to the UCMJ right now...... (though i have to check that)... any civilian who is dispatched into the field with a military sqaud is subject to all the rules and regulations of the UCMJ pertaining to said situation

also, like i said, this is NOT a peaceful assembly
this was an attempted mutiny where at least 1 person was publicly known to be armed
the military personnel on-board Destiny cannot safely presume that none of the mutineers are armed when one has already been publicly armed
in fact, when raiding a room filled with mutineers - after learning that one of the mutineers was armed - you must, for the safety of you, your personnel, and for the mutineers - assume that they are all armed

further
when Greer and his team raided the room, they busted through the door with firearms raised and pointed at the mutineers
then Greer communicated a simple order: get on the floor.
remember, they are mutineers he was speaking to, at least one of whom was armed

in a situation like this, when you do not comply with a command, you are forced to comply
the use of non-lethal force was appropriately authorized in this situation
sometimes, use of non-lethal force is the only way to ensure compliance so that order can be restored and an attempted mutiny ended as quickly and calmly as possible

now, you may like for the world to be all sunshine and rainbows
to think that the man who deliberately walked towards LT James was confused, dazed, and stumbling
but he was not dazed, confsued, or stumbling - as can be clearly seen
and the world ain't all sunshine and rainbows

LT Scott, LT James, MSGT Greer, COL Young, General Jack O'Neill, Major Davis, Colonel Carter, Colonel Sheppard, LT Ford, Colonel Sumner, Kowalski, Hammond, Walter, Sylar, all receive proper training for how to enact a raid on a potentially armed group of people WHILE MINIMIZING casualties if not avoiding them at all costs... there are rules to be followed when raiding... there are procedures to be used to ensure as peaceful and "injury-less" a raid as possible...

Greer, James, and their team precisely followed their training
one of the potentially armed mutineers failed to comply with Greer's commands and moved towards LT James
at no time did he ever make any attempt to get on the floor or move AWAY from James....... therefore he is to be rightfully (and legally) considered a threat
and the threat was dispatched accordingly

you may not like it
you may think (or know) what his intentions were
but the fact still remains that there was no way for Greer and James to know whether or not he was armed
and after one mutineer was already armed, you MUST - for the safety of your team AND of the mutineers - assume that everyone is armed until proven otherwise
that being the case, James acted appropriately, ensuring compliance through non-lethal force, and eliminating the threat


and, yes, using non-lethal force against the mutineers can ensure their safety
had the mutineers refused to cooperate, had they stood their ground, or worse, attack Greer's team, then one or more of them would have been shot
sometimes setting an example with one person can guarantee compliance from everyone else, thus ensuring them that no one else will be harmed

had James stomped his face once he was on the ground
or had she fired a bullet at him
or had the mutineers been attacked once they complied with Greer's commands, then the attackers would be wrong

HOWEVER
that is not the case

a potentially armed mutineer refused to comply with a simple command, then willfully and deliberately approached one of the military personnel who had raided the room... in such a situation, said potentially armed mutineer is rightfully and legally considered a threat, and thus LT James rightfully and legally eliminated the threat through the properly and lawfully authorized use of non-lethal force

Q.
E.
motha beeping
D.

FallenAngelII
April 15th, 2010, 06:45 AM
I TL;DR:ed you half-way through that ridiculous justification of excessive force. There was no need to hit him in the face no matter how much you pontificate.

IrishPisano
April 15th, 2010, 07:16 AM
I TL;DR:ed you half-way through that ridiculous justification of excessive force. There was no need to hit him in the face no matter how much you pontificate.

i'm sorry, but there was ZERO "excessive" force used.

a potentially armed mutineer approached LT James.
James eliminated the threat that he posed using lawfullly authorized non-lethal force


but, please, enlighten us all as to:
1. what you consider to be "non-excessive" force
2. what you would have done if you were LT James



and if you can't be bothered reading my entire post, then don't reply to it
but you're going to speak to or criticize my post, read the entire thing so that you can properly structure your counter-argument

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 15th, 2010, 12:09 PM
IP,


a potentially armed mutineer approached LT James.
James eliminated the threat that he posed using lawfullly authorized non-lethal force

Armed with what? Dirty fingernails? The pistol was at the door with the "guards" Greer took them out presumably recovering the weapon. There were no other concealable weapons available to the people on the science team side of the line. Finally, we have no idea whether the man James clocked was even among those plotting to take control.

jelgate
April 15th, 2010, 12:25 PM
IP,



Armed with what? Dirty fingernails? The pistol was at the door with the "guards" Greer took them out presumably recovering the weapon. There were no other concealable weapons available to the people on the science team side of the line. Finally, we have no idea whether the man James clocked was even among those plotting to take control.
Better safe then sorry. He approached James. It only takes a second for the civilian to catch James off guard and overpower you. That is what happen in riot situations. They bang you even if you don't have a weapon to prevent a person from getting out of control

FallenAngelII
April 15th, 2010, 12:27 PM
a potentially armed mutineer approached LT James.
Oh wow, not it's "potentially armed" and "approached".

Where was he hiding the weapon, in his underwear? Also, he "approached" her? He barely moved towards her. And if you go by the script, James did not think he was armed, dangerous or even going to try to disarm her!

She just said "I said get down!", which indicates that he didn't get to the ground fast enough, not that she thought he was armed and dangerous. Because if she did, she would've searched him as well! So don't give me that bullpuckey.


James eliminated the threat that he posed using lawfullly authorized non-lethal force
But why couldn't she have just kicked him in the shins? Or, you know, pointed her gun at him threateningly like Greer did with Volker?


but, please, enlighten us all as to:
1. what you consider to be "non-excessive" force
2. what you would have done if you were LT James
Hit him somewhere less dangerous, like in the shoulder, stomach (lightly), legs, kicked him in the shins, legs, etc., pointed my gun at him, etc.

beafly
April 15th, 2010, 12:48 PM
Oh wow, not it's "potentially armed" and "approached".

Where was he hiding the weapon, in his underwear? Also, he "approached" her? He barely moved towards her. And if you go by the script, James did not think he was armed, dangerous or even going to try to disarm her!

She just said "I said get down!", which indicates that he didn't get to the ground fast enough, not that she thought he was armed and dangerous. Because if she did, she would've searched him as well! So don't give me that bullpuckey.


But why couldn't she have just kicked him in the shins? Or, you know, pointed her gun at him threateningly like Greer did with Volker?


Hit him somewhere less dangerous, like in the shoulder, stomach (lightly), legs, kicked him in the shins, legs, etc., pointed my gun at him, etc.

Is dodge-ball a dangerous sport for elementary school kids?

IrishPisano
April 15th, 2010, 02:06 PM
But why couldn't she have just kicked him in the shins? Or, you know, pointed her gun at him threateningly like Greer did with Volker?
Hit him somewhere less dangerous, like in the shoulder, stomach (lightly), legs, kicked him in the shins, legs, etc., pointed my gun at him, etc.

uhm, 1. she did have her firearm pointed at him, in fact everyone in the room had firearms pointed at them, and he did not comply
2. you do not eliminate a potentially armed threat by lightly tapping them, or kicking them in the shins....


Armed with what? Dirty fingernails? The pistol was at the door with the "guards" Greer took them out presumably recovering the weapon. There were no other concealable weapons available to the people on the science team side of the line. Finally, we have no idea whether the man James clocked was even among those plotting to take control.
how would James, Greer, Scott, et al know for certain that there were no other weapons in the mutineers' possession?

did i miss the part where someone walked into the room and said, "hey guys, we're going to raid you in a few minutes, do you have any guns that we should know about beforehand? No? okay, well, we'll be right back as soon as we put our guns away, then we'll knock three times and wait until you respond."

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 15th, 2010, 03:13 PM
IP,


[B]Armed with what? Dirty fingernails? The pistol was at the door with the "guards" Greer took them out presumably recovering the weapon. There were no other concealable weapons available to the people on the science team side of the line. Finally, we have no idea whether the man James clocked was even among those plotting to take control.
how would James, Greer, Scott, et al know for certain that there were no other weapons in the mutineers' possession?

did i miss the part where someone walked into the room and said, "hey guys, we're going to raid you in a few minutes, do you have any guns that we should know about beforehand? No? okay, well, we'll be right back as soon as we put our guns away, then we'll knock three times and wait until you respond."

Okay, the military presumably has control of all the firearms brought through the gate. They should have a count of the weapons and ammunition. They know two personel were stuck behind the line, one with a weapon. They can, after a review of their equipment, know with certianty who has possession of the weapons they control. Assuming the only weapon caught on the civilian side of the line was the pistol once that pistol is recapture by Greer it is safe to assume (provided all other firearms are accounted for) no one else on the civilian side is armed.

IrishPisano
April 15th, 2010, 05:42 PM
IP,



Okay, the military presumably has control of all the firearms brought through the gate. They should have a count of the weapons and ammunition. They know two personel were stuck behind the line, one with a weapon. They can, after a review of their equipment, know with certianty who has possession of the weapons they control. Assuming the only weapon caught on the civilian side of the line was the pistol once that pistol is recapture by Greer it is safe to assume (provided all other firearms are accounted for) no one else on the civilian side is armed.

let me ask you something... what's more important in a situation where your food and water have been cut off and your'e under threat of mutiny?
retaking the ship and stopping the mutiny right away?
or stopping to take time to do a full count of all ammunition and weaponry knowing full well that some of it might be cut off from you because... GASP... YOU'VE BEEN LOCKED OUT OF MANY PARTS OF THE SHIP!!!


not to mention that you cannot guarantee that no one smuggled a gun with them from Icarus
after all, at least 1 military person knows that a gun was acquired by a civilian and planted in someone's room...
and, don't forget, all the lying and deception that's knowingly gone on with Rush...


the most reasonable course of action is to retake the ship as soon as possible
not wasting any time to cover the ship looking for weapons first when you know that you've been cut off from most of the ship and risk being even further cut off


the more time they delayed retaking the ship
the more time Rush had to further restrict their access to the ship
which means the less time and ability they would have to stop the mutiny and retake the ship

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 15th, 2010, 05:56 PM
IP,

I wasn't under the impression that many weapons came in with them and that the military is pretty careful about keeping track of the arms they do have. As such It wouldn't take long to check the weapons the know about. Further I wpould imagine a pretty tight cordon is kept on those weapons. Finally, if I'm palnning an assault knowing how many firearms my opposition posseses seems like good information to have in advance of that assault.

asdf1239
April 15th, 2010, 05:59 PM
i reiterate that james is a fully trained marine and thus well versed in hand to hand combat while the civilian is...a civilian. a disarmament attempt from any civilian stupid enough to try would not go well especially when theres two other armed soldiers in the very near vicinity

beafly
April 15th, 2010, 06:12 PM
i reiterate that james is a fully trained marine and thus well versed in hand to hand combat while the civilian is...a civilian. a disarmament attempt from any civilian stupid enough to try would not go well especially when theres two other armed soldiers in the very near vicinity

I'd suggest... it didn't go well for him.

IrishPisano
April 15th, 2010, 06:42 PM
IP,

I wasn't under the impression that many weapons came in with them and that the military is pretty careful about keeping track of the arms they do have. As such It wouldn't take long to check the weapons the know about. Further I wpould imagine a pretty tight cordon is kept on those weapons. Finally, if I'm palnning an assault knowing how many firearms my opposition posseses seems like good information to have in advance of that assault.


again: they (Greer and his commando raid) were cut off from most of the ship
aside from a weapons inventory being a colossal (and idiotic) waste of time, it would have been nearly impossible unless they were massively lucky

the ONLY way they could have done one was if all of the weapons were present and accounted for wherever they got the assault rifles from

other than that, to wander around a ship that you are mostly cut off from, hoping to find weapons is an incredibly stupid thing to do when you and your personnel are under seige and threat of mutiny

this ain't the Cub Scouts

Taiko
April 15th, 2010, 08:04 PM
i reiterate that james is a fully trained marine and thus well versed in hand to hand combat while the civilian is...a civilian. a disarmament attempt from any civilian stupid enough to try would not go well especially when theres two other armed soldiers in the very near vicinity

Exactly how much hand to hand fight training you think Marines and airmen get? She is Air Force Security or Special Forces (whatever that is in a Stargate context) Mostly you get two big padded sticks and get put into a pit with another recruit and bash each other to instill fighting spirit.. A few go to combative school, but hand to hand is not the business of a soldier, its the business of an MMA fighter. They teach a soldier to use a club, a shovel, a knife, their helmet.

And faced with that situation the butt stroke was the tactic called for. Or was she suppose to lay down her rifle and try an elbow strike or a knee kick generally go hand to hand for a few minutes while the rest of the squad jokes about her needing or not needing help. Then after she had taken a few punches and given some somehow get behind him to apply some arm bar, wrist lock, etc. He was close enough to touch her weapon therefore he was close enough to cause that weapon to discharge. That situation had to end with immediate action.

As TJ said earlier the entire thing was stupid to begin with, they had no ideal what they were getting into. Why are we to believe people would stop acting stupidly? Once a fight begins few give up easily.

Shpinxinator
April 16th, 2010, 01:07 AM
I think it's pretty clear everyone on the ship is pretty stupid in one way or another...better hope the ancients included scissors with rounded edges and took all the paste away

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 16th, 2010, 03:49 AM
IP,

So, It is your position that it is a waste of time to, by a simple count, determine how many firearms your enemy has before going into battle? They knew how many they had on board. Most were with them. They count those they have and those that don't turn up can be presumed to be in civilian hands, correct? But that's a waste of time because knowing the number of potentially armed civilians is useless information, right?

IrishPisano
April 16th, 2010, 05:54 AM
IP,

So, It is your position that it is a waste of time to, by a simple count, determine how many firearms your enemy has before going into battle? They knew how many they had on board. Most were with them. They count those they have and those that don't turn up can be presumed to be in civilian hands, correct? But that's a waste of time because knowing the number of potentially armed civilians is useless information, right?

1. they're not going into battle, they're raiding a room filled with mutineers
2. going around a ship that you do not have very much access to just to look for weapons is a colossal waste of time


if you knew anything about military raids, you would know that delaying es muy mal...



my position is the same exact position as Young and Greer's was in the episode



in retaking the ship, not one of the military personnel did anything wrong
well, TJ and the guy that she was locked up with should have taken out Chloe and left the room... i thought that was a mistake on the writers part, but i'll let that slide

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 16th, 2010, 06:27 AM
IP,


1. they're not going into battle, they're raiding a room filled with mutineers
2. going around a ship that you do not have very much access to just to look for weapons is a colossal waste of time


if you knew anything about military raids, you would know that delaying es muy mal...



my position is the same exact position as Young and Greer's was in the episode



in retaking the ship, not one of the military personnel did anything wrong
well, TJ and the guy that she was locked up with should have taken out Chloe and left the room... i thought that was a mistake on the writers part, but i'll let that slide

You're being contradictory here. You say the Jame's use of force is legitimate because the civilian might be armed. Then you say it's a waste of time to count the weapons in the possession of the military to see how many firearms the civilians might have. Knowing how your enemy is armed is useless information? Really? How long would it take to have all the military count what they've got and compair it to their lists of arms and ammunition? Five minutes or less once all the uniformed personel with access to firearms are in the same room?

IrishPisano
April 16th, 2010, 06:45 AM
IP,



You're being contradictory here. You say the Jame's use of force is legitimate because the civilian might be armed. Then you say it's a waste of time to count the weapons in the possession of the military to see how many firearms the civilians might have. Knowing how your enemy is armed is useless information? Really? How long would it take to have all the military count what they've got and compair it to their lists of arms and ammunition? Five minutes or less once all the uniformed personel with access to firearms are in the same room?


1. that's not being contradictory
2. i already said that the only way they could do a weapons inventory without wasting time is if they stored all the weapons together in the location from where they got their assault gear...

3. assuming for any reason that your enemy is not armed when you're going to raid their location is an incredibly stupid idea and goes against any and all logic pertaining to military action for any civilization past and present on the face of this planet (and their non-Earth based locales)


being prepared for the anything and everything is the best strategy

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 16th, 2010, 06:54 AM
IP,

Yes, therefore counting what you have and assuming your opposition has what you don't have is a good preperatory measure.

IrishPisano
April 16th, 2010, 08:19 AM
IP,

Yes, therefore counting what you have and assuming your opposition has what you don't have is a good preperatory measure.

not if you have to go roaming around a ship that you have little access to
nor if it requires any time beyond that which is needed for you to gear up and move out

what part of "wasting time is bad" do you not understand?

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 16th, 2010, 09:07 AM
Young is such a wonderful commander that he leaves firearms scattered randomly throughout the ship? The arms are going to be in a centeralized location or on the person of the uniformed members of the crew. Therefore, determining what known firearms are not in their possession, and thus are presumably in the possession of civilians, should be a fairly easy task to accomplish. Heck they can do it while Young and Greer are walking to the hole.

jelgate
April 16th, 2010, 09:09 AM
Young is such a wonderful commander that he leaves firearms scattered randomly throughout the ship? The arms are going to be in a centeralized location or on the person of the uniformed members of the crew. Therefore, determining what known firearms are not in their possession, and thus are presumably in the possession of civilians, should be a fairly easy task to accomplish. Heck they can do it while Young and Greer are walking to the hole.
Um no the firearms are locked up. Young said so in Justice

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 16th, 2010, 09:34 AM
Jelgate,

Which means counting the guns would be fairly easy.

IrishPisano
April 16th, 2010, 10:49 AM
Jelgate,

Which means counting the guns would be fairly easy.

yes, but you never talked about it from this standpoint, SSAE, until I brought it up...

in fact, you continuously avoided addressing the point that most of the ship had been locked down by Rush prevent Greer and his team from doing a sweep count for weapons


i find it interesting that you have failed to discuss these two points.........

beafly
April 16th, 2010, 11:05 AM
I'm still trying to understand how counting the weapons changes anything.

So they have an accurate count now.

Greer is still going to take out the two guarding the passageway.

James is still going to deck the guy trying to get close enough to take her weapon.

The information doesn't change their actions.

IrishPisano
April 16th, 2010, 11:11 AM
I'm still trying to understand how counting the weapons changes anything.

So they have an accurate count now.

Greer is still going to take out the two guarding the passageway.

James is still going to deck the guy trying to get close enough to take her weapon.

The information doesn't change their actions.

ah, but you see, beafly, if you count all the weapons, and you ahve all the weapons then you don't need any weapons bc the innocent civilians wouldn't have any weapons... and all you'd have to do is knock on the door and politley ask them to stop being mean, and they'll say okay, and if they don't, then all you would have to do is lightly pat one on the stomach to make an example............

Ser Scot A Ellison
April 16th, 2010, 11:21 AM
IP,

If the guns are counted and the only weapon the Civilians have is the pistol. Once the pistol is in possession of members of the military the level of force necessary to regain conteol changes, IMO. Further everyone's claim that James was worried the man who she clocked was armed seems rather silly. Unless you believe the science team can build firearms from the materials onboard Destiny.

IrishPisano
April 16th, 2010, 11:35 AM
IP,

If the guns are counted and the only weapon the Civilians have is the pistol. Once the pistol is in possession of members of the military the level of force necessary to regain conteol changes, IMO. Further everyone's claim that James was worried the man who she clocked was armed seems rather silly. Unless you believe the science team can build firearms from the materials onboard Destiny.

if you understood anything about raiding a ship to retake control of said ship, then you would understand that weaponry is always required, as is the use of non-lethal force to subdue any non-compliant combatants