Main > The Round Table

Walking Dead Series: {WARNING SPOILER ALERT}

(1/5) > >>

Sir Brian:
I don’t know who else on this forum maybe a fan of the Walking Dead series, but if you are I am referring to the second episode of the second season that was on last night 10/30/2011 so if you haven’t seen this episode I am going to discuss a major spoiler so continue reading at your own risk!  ;)





                                        !!!  SPOILER ALERT  !!!






In last night’s episode at the end it was revealed that the primary character Shane shot Otis (a new character this season) in the leg with his last bullet in order to escape from the horde of walkers as they ate Otis. If you followed the previous episode you’d know they were trying to get some vitally needed medical supplies in order to save young Carl’s life because he was accidentally shot by Otis ironically enough. The last scenes show Shane taking a shower after successfully delivering the medical supplies in time to save Carl’s life and reliving what he had ruthlessly done to get away with the supplies.

Now the question for this debate:

Was Shane justified by his actions and was it honorable, outright evil or just a hard tactical decision that had to be made?

IMO Shane made an extremely hard and utterly ruthless tactical decision but the only viable one given the circumstances. ~ Overall I think their initial plan of infiltration was utter crap and could have been planned much better. ~ Be that as it may, the primary objective Shane probably felt was that he was honor bound to ensure that the medical supplies reached Carl. I suspect he of course probably had some suppressed anger issues towards Otis who had been the reason why they were both in that dire situation to begin with, but ultimately the action was justifiable and honorable in that he followed through with his vow to his lifelong friend to get what Carl needed to live.

Discuss:  :)

Sir Edward:
Thanks for the warning! I haven't watched it yet, and it might be another night or two. I'll come back and read/discuss afterward.

Thorsteinn:
I don't have to run faster than the Monster. I just have to run faster than You.

Sir Wolf:
hahaha ya what a shocker. he is sorta an odd duck character isn't he.

i think shane knew they both weren't gonna make it so he had to make a quick fast decision. he prob also held some hate towards him for the boy too so it made it easier.

Sir James A:
I have no idea about the show or the context within which that happened, but if it was a decision between both of them losing their life and the other guy losing his life too (because the medicine never arrives), it would be a tough judgement call in that one is sacrificed to save two, rather than all three of them dying.

Is it honorable to kill one if it saves two? Or is it honorable to accept fate, not sacrifice anyone and allow everyone to perish as a result?

I think part of the answer or yes or no lies in viewing it through the glasses of "modern" or "historical" chivalry.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page