Walking Dead Series: {WARNING SPOILER ALERT}

[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.

[Sir Edward]

It's a tough call in this one.

James, the situation is that Otis (the one who got sacrificed) accidentally had shot the kid (Carl), and so when they needed medical supplies for the kid, he felt bound to set things right and go get the supplies. Shane went with him. Throughout the excursion to get the supplies, there were several moments where it looked like they might leave one of them behind, Shane even yelling at Otis to get going, but Otis wouldn't leave him. Then, when they were down to their last round of ammo each, Shane shot Otis in the leg to leave him as a distraction for the zombies, so he could take the supplies back to save the kid. If he hadn't they probably would have both died, and so would the kid.

It's a tough call and I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. Shane is a "get things done" kind of guy, and sometimes a loose cannon, but mostly has his heart in the right place. I think he's sort of mentally adopted the kid too.

The biggest problem I have is that he didn't give Otis the choice. Otis was such a good guy, and wanted to set things right, that he might have chosen to stay back, but Shane made a quick and ruthless tactical choice and decided for him.

The thing that's not clear, is how much of Shane's decision was motivated by saving the kid, and how much was self-preservation. There's nothing wrong with self-preservation of course, but how would we feel about Shane's choice had there not been a kid's life at stake? Or if Otis wasn't the one responsible (accidental as the situation was)?

In the end, he saved the kid, and he's going to be haunted by what he did. Yet another secret he has to keep from his friends. I'm wondering if one or two of the folks in that farm house might join the group, perhaps the attractive young lady? He'll have to keep it secret from them for sure.

What he did was both wrong and right. He did something unthinkable for the greater good. But also selfishly. Wow.

This is why I love this show. The writing is awesome.

[Sir William]

I'll have to check this show out...not being 'in' with all of the info, I'd have to second Shane's decision.  As you said, it was Otis' actions that led them to that particular juncture...he wanted to set things right so Shane made sure he did.  Ruthless?  Maybe.  Tactical?  Certainly.  A good choice?  Yes.

[Ian]

...

It's a tough call and I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. Shane is a "get things done" kind of guy, and sometimes a loose cannon, but mostly has his heart in the right place. I think he's sort of mentally adopted the kid too.

The biggest problem I have is that he didn't give Otis the choice. Otis was such a good guy, and wanted to set things right, that he might have chosen to stay back, but Shane made a quick and ruthless tactical choice and decided for him.

The thing that's not clear, is how much of Shane's decision was motivated by saving the kid, and how much was self-preservation. There's nothing wrong with self-preservation of course, but how would we feel about Shane's choice had there not been a kid's life at stake? Or if Otis wasn't the one responsible (accidental as the situation was)?

Finally watched this episode last night.  It seemed a little cold-blooded to me.  I understand the argument of making the tough tactical decision in order to save the kid, etc... There are some details missing that could be important if we want to get nit-picky.  How far away was the vehicle when Shane made the decision to shoot Otis?  They were both hobbling at this point from presumed ankle injuries from their respective falls.  The moment when Shane fires the shot, they seemed to be well ahead of the advancing zombie horde... could they have made it to the car together?  Did Shane shoot Otis simply because he wasn't sure, got scared, and wanted to guarantee he made it?

The thing is, Shane shoots him and spends an awful lot of time wresting the supplies from the now doomed Otis.  Valuable time that had they continued on together could have resulted in them both making it to the truck.  The impression I got was that the shooting was more motivated by self-preservation than a motivation to save the kid.  It's a very real and understandable human emotion, but I didn't feel like Shane was acting out of some sense of honor and 'making the tough call.'  At the end of the day, the original shooting of the kid was also an accident, and I know people want to place blame on someone for everything bad that happens, but the reality is terrible accidents happen, and Otis didn't deserve his fate.

[SirNathanQ]

I will be the odd one out on this one. I believe that is was a completely unchivalrous action, and the wrong this to do. I believe betrayal is wrong, no matter what the circumstances.
I would have not done that. I would rather perish without the stain of a coward and a betrayer than live with those at the expense of those who trust in me.

[Sir James A]

Wow, there is a lot more behind it than just that part. If they really were wrestling over the supplies during the last moments, seems like there would have been no need to sacrifice anyone. I might have to file this in the "you wouldn't know unless you were in the situation" category.

[Sir Edward]

Yeah, the whole thing didn't sit well with me, from a moral standpoint, simply because of how cold-blooded and ruthless it was. The fight over the supplies was an important part of it that I forgot to mention in my quick synopsis of it. It was not a quick shot to the leg, grab the bag, and run. Shane was kicking at Otis, and Otis was hanging on for dear life, holding the packs, and pulling Shane's hair.

I hate to say it, but if I were Otis, in that moment of "oh crap you shot me!", I might have shot Shane right back, and aimed higher.

[Sir William]

Now THAT would've made the show more interesting...because it would've been realistic.

[Sir Brian]

Some great points brought forth and discussed here!

So if Shane’s actions were not honorable to some perspectives here, is it possible that there can be both an idealistic and practical concept of honor? Remember he made a vow to his lifelong friend concerning a child he also loved. I personally would be hard pressed to put a stranger’s tenuous chances of survival over the lives of the ones I loved. Cold-blooded ruthlessness should not always equate to dishonor. 

What will be really interesting to see is how the writers of the show develop the ‘character’ of the Shane character. – Sorry I just had to put that little play on words in there! 

~ Will this experience help him to become a better leader by being more conscientious with planning his actions or will it drive him further down the path of ruthless narcissism? I basically see the Shane character at a major moral intersection. If anything he showed us thus far that he is amoral as opposed to immoral. Amoral meaning apathetic to accepted moral standards and immoral meaning being willfully contrary to accepted moral principles which is a very minuscule but poignant distinction. 

[James Barker]

If Shane was honorable he could have sacrificed himself and let Otis be the hero.

Overall I felt it was dark, gritty, and selfish which is why that show rules.

[Sir Edward]

Yeah, the writing is fantastic. I love that they're exploring these sorts of moral dilemmas.