Once you pick up a weapon...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

IP,

note: there is no evidence definitively and unequivocally proving that he was not participating.
plus, i sincerely doubt young was given a roster from Rush detailing who was a mutineer and who wasn't

and, again, you cannot analyze this from your point of view, you have to analyze the situation from the point of view of those involved in the situation in order to determine if LT James was justified in her actions.

so go ahead and give that a try.....

My point has always been she didn't have to clock the guy with the butt of her rifle. She could have pushed him back, if she was concerned about him approching a number of ways. One that comes to mind is shoving him down with her foot as he "approched" her. I think she clocked him to show everyone one else they weren't playing. That's my beef. It was a show of force for a show of force's sake.

[IrishPisano]

IP,

My point has always been she didn't have to clock the guy with the butt of her rifle. She could have pushed him back, if she was concerned about him approching a number of ways. One that comes to mind is shoving him down with her foot as he "approched" her. I think she clocked him to show everyone one else they weren't playing. That's my beef. It was a show of force for a show of force's sake.

hahahahahahahaha.... sorry, but your post makes me laugh when you say things like, "she could have pushed him back" or "shoving him down with her foot"....... mostly because 1. shoving someone with your foot places you off-balance and thus vulnerable to attack by the person you're pushing or someone else. and 2. pushing someback causes you to drop your assault rifle and make physical contact with that person with your hands, thus also leaving you vulnerable to attack.

those are 2 things that every soldier and police officer is trained to NOT do
you NEVER open yourself up for an attack

still, though, she was fully justified for several reasons
1. LT Scott - her superior (given that he's Young's XO) - authorized the use of non-lethal force
2. the mutineer failed to comply with 2 separate commands from 2 separate soldiers armed with assault rifles
3. he approached her after willfully refusing to comply with the commands

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

IP,

You clearly think James did nothing wrong. Out of curiosity, given Scott's instruction and qualification what would have been too much force? Do the consequences of James's actions matter? If this guy was still unconsious in the sickbay would you then say she hit him too hard?

[IrishPisano]

IP,

You've clearly think James did nothing wrong. Out of curiosity, given Scott's instruction and qualification what would have been too much force? Do the consequences of James's actions matter? If this guy was still unconsious in the sickbay would you then say she hit him too hard?

uhm, the guy was never rendered unconscious and therefore cannot be "still unconscious in the sickbay"

as for what i would constitute as too much force:
1. anything lethal (obviously)
2. the firing of ammunition at anyone unless someone's physical well-being was in immediate danger
3. the repeated use of unnecessary physical force to subdue a non-compliant mutineer, such as kicking him when he's down, clocking her with a rifle two or three times when one would suffice
4. charging into the room with guns a-blazing and immediately attacking the mutineers without ever given them the opportunity to peacefully comply by getting on the ground.


by the way, have you analyzed the situation from LT James' point of view yet?
or are you going to continue to avoid doing so?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

IP,

Yes. I do see where she may have felt threatened. Which, by the standards you set above (Pararaph 2) she could have shot the guy. Do you think it would have been wrong if she had shot him?

My point was a hypo. If he had been rendered comatose by the hit would you sauy she hit him too hard?,

[beafly]

IP,

Yes. I do see where she may have felt threatened. Which, by the standards you set above (Pararaph 2) she could have shot the guy. Do you think it would have been wrong if she had shot him?

My point was a hypo. If he had been rendered comatose by the hit would you sauy she hit him too hard?,

While Scott's order wasn't crystal clear, I think we can all agree that she was ordered to refrain from using lethal force. Which, she didn't.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

So, she blows out his knee with a bullet. That's not "lethal" force. What Scott said was, "If you have to use force, so be it. But remember we have to live with these people tomorrow."

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

yes, "live"
none of the mutineers was killed
sure, a few are bruised and shaken up, but if you're going to start a mutiny, you should expect something.

[beafly]

So, she blows out his knee with a bullet. That's not "lethal" force. What Scott said was, "If you have to use force, so be it. But remember we have to live with these people tomorrow."

She didn't do that though.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

evilgrin,

We have no idea whether the man James clocked was participating in the attempt to seize control. Therefore, he may not have reasonably expected anything.

beafly,

She didn't do that though.

I don't believe I said she did. I'm asking whether, if she had, IP would have found that to be too much force.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

evilgrin,

We have no idea whether the man James clocked was participating in the attempt to seize control. Therefore, he may not have reasonably expected anything.

beafly,



I don't believe I said she did. I'm asking whether, if she had, IP would have found that to be too much force.

was she supposed to conduct an interview with him first to discover what he was doing on that side with the mutineers?

You're in a convenience store during a robbery
a policeman approaches you with a weapon drawn and tells you to get down on the ground
sure, you can say that you're not involved, and the policeman may even believe you, but I can guarantee you that if you don't get down, and worse, if you continue to approach, you're going to be very lucky if you don't get shot that day.

it's not a perfect world and people do the best they can. She could have shotr him dead, and didn't. He could have got on the ground. And didn't.

I don't think it would have mattered what she had done; it seems that there is another animus at work here that has little to do with what happened on a fictional show.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Evilgrin,

There do not appear to have been any bad consequences from her action. I'm not saying there were. I, and others, question the necessity of clocking the guy with the butt of her rifle, that's all. I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possiblity that she had cause. I'm saying it may not have been the best choice.

[IrishPisano]

I do see where she may have felt threatened

discussion over. you have now said that you see where LT James may have felt threatened. Thank you for finally realizing this. Now, since you have stated that LT James may have felt threatened then, by the training and laws that govern use of force by military personnel (UCMJ, Rules of Engagement (which were clearly laid out by Scott prior to raiding the room), approved by CIVILIAN AUTHORITY) LT James was justified in using the force she did to subdue the threat you now agree was present.


as for firing a bullet at him... in that specific situation, from what we saw and from what i assume LT James perceived, firing on him, even once in a non-lethal part of the body, i would say would be unjustified. HOWEVER, if said mutineer made a deliberate attempt to physically attack LT James or someone else by lunging with a weapon, pulling a firearm, or grabbing one of the assault rifles, then yes, shooting him would be acceptable provided it was 1 shot in a non-lethal manner

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

There do not appear to have been any bad consequences from her action. I'm not saying there were. I, and others, question the necessity of clocking the guy with the butt of her rifle, that's all. I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possiblity that she had cause. I'm saying it may not have been the best choice.

The civilian was a threat, whether a mutineer or not, he was an unknown factor. The situation required for quick immediate control which means force must be applied quickly in a limited but effective way. A tap on the head got him down, the mess was secured. What happened was nothing out of the ordinary for military personnel, counter terrorist teams will handcuff hostages as a standard SOP and treat them as possible threats, because even if they aren't terrorists hiding amongst them, uncontrolled panicking civilians running around is dangerous.

It was the right choice, in a military situation you need fast effective action, you can't afford to dither or wait or discuss what to do, there's no time to start giving people a gentle shove. James hit the guy, area secured and the guy is suffering from a bashed head and a brusied ego but no more and the military personnel have one less thing to worry about.