User Avatar Image

TWD TV - That Season 3 ending...

posted by Phil_TWD on - last edited - Viewed by 1.3K users

I honestly was expecting the governor (Philip) to be killed but nope, Andrea, that kid, the crew who was with him pretty much were all dead because of him or his actions.

It was unsatisfying and this is Andrea's fault mainly, because if she had slit his throat while he was asleep only he would have died.

Oh yeah, since they were awaiting them at the prison they could've locked them down and shot them all like a bunch of walkers, and/or throw grenades to blow them up if they had any left.

100 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @thestalkinghead said: are you serious? the kid was running away then was basically ambushed by carl and hershel, he wasn't trying to find people to surrender to like in the picture, he was running away and then all of a sudden he had 2 guns pointed at his head, if he had time he probably would have made a white flag and not been holding a gun, but he didn't know they were there he was just sprinting away from the ambush in the prison when he gets ambushed by more people, that picture is the most ridiculous argument ever

    And? The fact that you're actually arguing he had no intention of surrendering until he just happened to run into Carl and Hershel doesn't exactly help your case regarding the kid's intentions. :p

    Even giving the kid a chance to surrender rather than just shooting him dead the instant he came into view (again, in what is essentially a battlefield) was generous - from Carl and Hershel's position, they wouldn't even necessarily know the assault on the prison was already over or that the kid was actually alone.

    He's told to drop his weapon and he had more than enough time to comply. Instead, he uses that time to inch forward and doesn't even move his finger away from the trigger.

    Even from a "moral" standpoint, frankly, shooting the kid was the right call. If the people you're with are trusting you to keep them alive and safe, it's extremely immoral to jeopardize their lives just for the sake of your "clear" conscience. Selfishly placing your beliefs above their safety is a damn big breach of that trust.

  • Are they fuckin' kidding me? All they did was set up more cannon fodder by bringing Woodbury citizens into the prison.

    Where's the Governor's corpse?!

  • @Rommel49 said:
    He's told to drop his weapon and he had more than enough time to comply. Instead, he uses that time to inch forward and doesn't even move his finger away from the trigger.

    That's the whole point, frankly I think the kid was overwhelmed by the situation itself, because he didn't expect them to jump him, he isn't attacking, nor is he really surrendering, I think he tried to keep the gun until he decided, he could have shot at least one of them without a problem if he just made one quick move. This whole discussion makes me want to have some insight into what he really had in mind. If he'd been serious about surrendering, he would have dropped that piece, but he didn't so even if I don't like how it ended Carl did right.

  • @Rommel49 said: And? The fact that you're actually arguing he had no intention of surrendering until he just happened to run into Carl and Hershel doesn't exactly help your case regarding the kid's intentions. :p

    Even giving the kid a chance to surrender rather than just shooting him dead the instant he came into view (again, in what is essentially a battlefield) was generous - from Carl and Hershel's position, they wouldn't even necessarily know the assault on the prison was already over or that the kid was actually alone.

    He's told to drop his weapon and he had more than enough time to comply. Instead, he uses that time to inch forward and doesn't even move his finger away from the trigger.

    Even from a "moral" standpoint, frankly, shooting the kid was the right call. If the people you're with are trusting you to keep them alive and safe, it's extremely immoral to jeopardize their lives just for the sake of your "clear" conscience. Selfishly placing your beliefs above their safety is a damn big breach of that trust.

    it is immoral to kill without conscience, if the kid was the governor you may have a point but this kid was drafted into a fight and he ran away from it, from your "moral" standpoint they should have killed everybody on woodbury because how could you know for sure you can trust them

  • @thestalkinghead said: it is immoral to kill without conscience, if the kid was the governor you may have a point but this kid was drafted into a fight and he ran away from it, from your "moral" standpoint they should have killed everybody on woodbury because how could you know for sure you can trust them

    Again, and? Carl and company wouldn't know that. People who underestimate enemies tend to be called casualties. For all they knew, that kid could have been a scout, a distraction, etc. he could've been killing guys for the past year.

    Ultimately, it's irrelevant.

    And among the old farts and kids from woodbury that joined the prison group, I didn't see a single weapon among them either, nor did they participate in the attack.

    It doesn't answer the point either; if you're willing to gamble with the lives of people that trusting you to keep them safe in the face of a threat for no other reason than your person beliefs, you are betraying those people. Plain and simple. It's the height of selfishness. In that situation, my ultimate responsibility is to the people I'm with, not to shotgun kid.

  • @Rommel49 said: Again, and? Carl and company wouldn't know that. People who underestimate enemies tend to be called casualties. For all they knew, that kid could have been a scout, a distraction, etc. he could've been killing guys for the past year.

    Ultimately, it's irrelevant.

    And among the old farts and kids from woodbury that joined the prison group, I didn't see a single weapon among them either, nor did they participate in the attack.

    It doesn't answer the point either; if you're willing to gamble with the lives of people that trusting you to keep them safe in the face of a threat for no other reason than your person beliefs, you are betraying those people. Plain and simple. It's the height of selfishness. In that situation, my ultimate responsibility is to the people I'm with, not to shotgun kid.

    what makes your group so special? why not save everybody you can? maybe they will become your greatest ally, you can't know if you just kill them, it is selfish to only care about you and your friends and disregard others.

  • They are in a war. thats why.

  • @Corcline27 said: They are in a war. thats why.

    he surrendered, carl killed him just in case, that was wrong, end of

  • @thestalkinghead said: ok then the kid ran away from the fight, he had 2 guns pointed at his head, he said he was surrendering but he slightly hesitated because he was terrified, i would say moving quickly would be just as bad idea as moving slowly but he was surrendering, carl killed him when he demonstrated no threatening behaviour (excluding not quite getting the gun to the floor fast enough) and did nothing except do what carl said, that is why is is murder

    Instead of moving either quickly or slowly, how about actually obeying instructions to DROP the gun? How about doing the universal sign of surrendering by putting up your hands in the air?

    You are either not remembering the scene correctly or being disingenuous by claiming shotgun kid "did nothing except do what carl said."

    Instead, he kept walking towards Carl with a weapon in hand. He was told to drop the weapon. Why do you keep ignoring this? By refusing to comply with instructions to surrender is to demonstrate threatening behaviour.

    @thestalkinghead said: are you serious? the kid was running away then was basically ambushed by carl and hershel, he wasn't trying to find people to surrender to like in the picture, he was running away and then all of a sudden he had 2 guns pointed at his head, if he had time he probably would have made a white flag and not been holding a gun, but he didn't know they were there he was just sprinting away from the ambush in the prison when he gets ambushed by more people, that picture is the most ridiculous argument ever

    Stop twisting the purpose of the photograph Rommel used. The point of it is show that people who want to surrender do whatever they can to prove they are not a threat. It's both the smart and natural thing to do for people who clearly want to surrender.

    No one is asking shotgun kid to make a white flag. The point a lot of us have stressed is that he should have dropped the gun right away. That was what he was told to do and was given enough time to comply, but he ignored those instructions. You keep ignoring this fact.

    @thestalkinghead said: it is immoral to kill without conscience, if the kid was the governor you may have a point but this kid was drafted into a fight and he ran away from it, from your "moral" standpoint they should have killed everybody on woodbury because how could you know for sure you can trust them

    Based on your logic, should Allied soldiers not shoot anyone except Hitler during the war? After all, a lot of German soldiers were conscripted.

    Also, he was part of an army that was routed, and in the scramble to the trucks, he was left behind. He was not some deserter, which you seem to be implying. I don't see how that gives him a special pass to live.

    @thestalkinghead said: what makes your group so special? why not save everybody you can? maybe they will become your greatest ally, you can't know if you just kill them, it is selfish to only care about you and your friends and disregard others.

    This isn't two groups who just casually bumped into each other. This was two groups AT WAR. So yes, Carl's responsibilities is to his group first not an armed stranger who just took part in an attempt to wipe out his family, friends, and home. He had every reason not to trust his enemies, who killed Oscar, Axel, Merle, tortured Glenn and Maggie, and released a pack of walkers into his home. Shotgun kid may not have had a hand in those, but he was part of a group that did. That makes them enemies that you couldn't trust.

    @thestalkinghead said: he surrendered, carl killed him just in case, that was wrong, end of

    At the end of the day, you keep ignoring all the valid suspicions other posters have raised.

  • @thestalkinghead said: what makes your group so special? why not save everybody you can? maybe they will become your greatest ally, you can't know if you just kill them, it is selfish to only care about you and your friends and disregard others.

    First, double u covered a good portion of this. The responsibility I have to my own group far outweighs the responsibility I have to anyone else, nevermind someone that had just taken part in an attack on friends and family.

    This shouldn't even require explanation. It's the social contract at its most basic, you know, the thing that ensures that little things called "soceities" actually function. When it comes to the people who are responsible for your continued survival and who are depending on you for theirs, there's a moral imperative to do whatever needs to be done for their sake... My personal beliefs or squeamishness be damned if there's even a possibility they'll interfere with that.

    That doesn't hold true for another group or its members (particularly if they just attacked friends and family). I don't have the same responsibility to them; morally or otherwise.

    And this has been understood in functioning soceities for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It's been widely held by scholars and philosophers (as well as people with common sense) that the biggest moral imperative a nation has is to ensure the safety of its own citizens.

Add Comment