5x22 Just action, being a hero. Was Angel justified...

W

WyrdDemonHunter

Say you're happy now..
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
275
Location
Missouri
Was Angel justifed in having Lorne shoot Lindsey?

In one scene in Not Fade Away, Lindsey says to Eve, "As long as I'm fightin' on [Angel's] side, he'll play me fair." We know that Lindsey actually meant what he was saying because he was talking to his SO.

So. Lorne shoots Lindsey. This means Angel, in effect, used both Lindsey and Lorne like pawns. He used Lindsey to kill off the demons, then he had Lorne kill off Lindsey. Rather despicable one might say, certainly not a heroic, championish thing to do. Oh and let's not forget when Angel drank Drogan.

Let's go ahead and argue like hell over this because, well, what else are we going to do?

------
Follow up:
To increase the number of things to argue about: the episode seems to leave it slightly ambiguous as to whether Angel really sent Lorne to specifically kill Lindsey. I think Angel did and I have some lines/quotes to support that. However, I'm open to debate on this point as well if anyone wants to.
 
I don't know..I don't really like the way Angel handled things..espeicially drinking Drogan. He didn't really act heroic at some points, like when he had Lorne shoot Lindsey. I think he should have atleast taken care of Lindsey himself..but I guess he did what he needed to do to save the world..
 
Lindsey was a liability, he would've betrayed them further down the line. He couldn't do it himself as he was fighting Hamilton. Plus, he had to kill Drogyn or he wouldn't be allowed into the circle.
 
XAngelusX said:
Lindsey was a liability, he would've betrayed them further down the line. He couldn't do it himself as he was fighting Hamilton. Plus, he had to kill Drogyn or he wouldn't be allowed into the circle.
Click to expand...
What is there to separate the good guys from the bad? IMO, at the end of the day, there is only that the good guys always have moral qualms about taking life, especially human life. IMO, when we start saying things like "was a liability" or "[Angel] did what he needed to do to save the world..", we have entered the world of moral compramise. Perhaps you should learn about the philosophy of Machiavelli in the book "The Prince".

Look at it this way--those same phrases "was a liability" and "[Angel] did what he needed to do to save the world.." are the sorts of lines the bad guy usually says. Isn't that how Angel was talking when he was trying to convince his friends he'd been corrupted?

Please respond if you want so we can continue, but no flamies (please)--I'm just debating 'cause it's something to do. 🙂
 
He did what he had to do to execute his plan. Were some of the things he did heroic? Certainly not. I'd agree that the way Angel was talking seemed like he was trying to convince and justify himself, rather than his friends. I think, by the end of it, they were all corrupted. Spike perhaps wasn't corrupted since he didn't make the 'deal with the devil', so to speak, but you could also argue that he was since he stayed with Angel til the end.

I think the answer to the question would be no, Angel wasn't justified in having Lindsey shot by Lorne. He had a human life taken away, a human that was beginning to traverse the path of good.
 
I think the price was too high.

Too many people had to die for what the outcome became.
Angel to paid a high price - signing away his destiny when he signed in blood.

Not a great ending.
Didn't leave me feeling all warm and fuzzy about the hero.

Was the world really ending? I thought they whole idea behind doing all those things was to just prove a point to Wolfram and Hart..........
He said it himself - they can't actually stop it, but the can prove that they can slightly effect it.
 
No, the world wasn't ending at that moment, they were in the middle of the process of The Apocalypse but it would have taken another 1000 years for it to finish as far as I'm aware...he did it to slow down The Apocalypse and to prove to the Senior Partners that evil doesn't own good.

As for whether Angel sent Lorne to shoot Lindsay, yes, I'm quite certain he did.
 
I'll admit that what Angel did wasn't a great way of doing it. However, getting rid of Lindsay meant that they had one less problem to worry about. Lindsay was helpful to a point, but in the end he'd be more trouble than he worth. He shouldn't of had Lorne do it and I suppose as he knew that Arch-Duke Sabassis was going to die anyway he could have done it but having Lorne do it caught Lindsay off guard and meant that Angel could fight Hamilton instead of having to deal with Lindsay as well as Hamilton.
However, sending Lorne to kill Lindsay was a lever Tactical manouver as Lindsay would never expect it. It may have meant that Lorne got a bit mopey but he managed to eliminate one problem that the Fang Gang had to face. Sacrificing the few to save the many is perfectly acceptable IMO.
 
XAngelusX said:
Sacrificing the few to save the many is perfectly acceptable IMO.
Click to expand...
The simplicity with which you justify Angel's actions amuses and alarms me. I'm sure Angel was sure that Lindsey was eventually going to betray him. But, from what we saw in the episode, Lindsey really wasn't planning on betraying Angel, at least not anytime soon.

Your argument is very similar to the one that goes "the ends justifies the means", but as people discover over, and over and over again, this argument is always a recipie for abuse. Ex: the Iraqi prisionor scandal. I'm sure all those soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisionors were also thinking something along the lines of "the ends justfies the means".

If human corruption weren't such a problem, then perhaps this mentality would actually be a good one--that way we would never have problems with moral paradoxes and gray areas. But, unfortunately, corruption is a part of human nature. So we have to try to guard against it with moral codes and the like. It's an imperfect solution, but it's better than just blindly trusting that the people in power are always doing things with our best interests in mind.
 
There is no simple answer to any of the questions asked here. But ill give as man "simple" answers as I can.

Angel was in a war and in order to win that war he had to do some things that were questionable and in many ways he wished he wouldnt have to *his conversation with nina at the beginning of 5x21*. He hated killing drogyn but if he had not done so they would of killed both him and Angel. The choice was taken from him by the Black Thorn.

As far as Lorne killing Lindsey. This is a grey area in which both sides will always be right. Was he fighting for good? yes. Was he a liability/ a wild card that could play for eigther side? yes. This was shown time and again throughout the series. He did the right thing then got sucked back into the dark side almost instantly. The history of an individual often repeats itself. Could he of become good and stayed there? yes. Was it likely? not on your life. Angel knew lorne would kill lindsey, if he gave lorne the order or not isnt important but angel knew it would happen.

The problem with the word hero is it improperly defined. The "hero" is always the person who "did the right thing" but this isnt always the moral thing. Ill give you an example. During WW2 the allies had finally broken the encryption of the German army. The message decoded told the allies where the next bombing run was going to take place. There was enough warning to evacuate the town before the bombing occured and save hundreds if not thousands of lives. Unfortunately this would of alerted the Germans that there code had indeed been cracked and a new one would of been made so Churchill had to "do the right thing". He ordered that the town be left uninformed and the bombing was allowed to occur even with the advanced warning they had. The ends justified the means even if it wasnt the moral choice to make.

The line between right and wrong is always as simple as black and white. Sometimes to win the good fight you have to do things deemed questionable if not even wrong. But Angels actions were justified, he was fighting a war and he did what he had to do to fight his part of the war and win it.
 
M
Mulder22
excellent points. I agree.
Ex: the Iraqi prisionor scandal. I'm sure all those soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisionors were also thinking something along the lines of "the ends justfies the means".
Click to expand...
I actualy agreed with the torture of Iraqi prisoners but what the hey

You said that Lindsay wasn't going to be trouble any time soon. There is such a saying as "Prevention is better than cure" which I think is the mentality Angel had when dealing with Lindsay.
 
i'm just gonna post my oppinion, when i think this show is more about grey than straith black and white? when was the last time we saw a caracter doing something perfectly good without any bad consequencies and strictly in the good point of view? Angel always made grey decisions that could be caracterizated as dubious..but are they right just because they end up serving and ultamite gooD? Angel once said (about faith i guess) that they were in the bissness of saving souls and not juging randomly who's worth to be saved...Lindsley death was a contradiction to this thought.. i know he needed to be focus and they didn't trust faith, but noone really can affirm that he would always be evil and couln't be possibly be redeeemed...Spike, faith, and even Angel himself is a proof that someone can change..i personally thought that was a bad decision on the moral point of view, coz for me the ends doen't justify the means...
 
What's the difference between good and evil? Evil people/beings can kill and torture indiscriminately and don't care who they hurt. Good people/beings don't/can't do that.

However, the path from good to evil is traversed by anyone that says things like "the ends justifies the means", "they had it coming", "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out", etc. It starts whenever we begin rationalizing our actions to make them seem ok when they're not.

It's true that moral compromise is often necessary in war, and this is why war is always bad. War is always bad because it's senseless and lots of innocent (well not exactly innocent, but at least innocent in the sense that they probably didn't deserve their gruesome fate) people die.

I may not have been speaking really clearly just there. But don't worry, I'll make sense eventually. 🙂
 
Angel

Carrying on with Mire's point that moral murkiness is consistent with Angel's character; Angel's problem distinguishing the line between good and evil, with black and white clarity is not specific to Season 5.

Angel drank from Buffy. He drank from the dead waiter in Orpheus. He left the lawyers in the wine cellar with Darla and Drusilla in Reunion.

It is true Angel crosses a line where his actions are harder to justify when he kills Drogyn. This is consistent with the corruption theme of Season 5 though. The point being, the line becomes murkier once you decide to deal with the Devil. Compromises create a blurrier line.

This was not the first such compromise Angel made in S-5. He sacrificed the life of Fred to save the lives of the many when he decided not to save Fred at the Deeper Well in A Hole in the World. I see this as being similar to the decision he made to kill Drogyn. He sacrifices the one with the larger intention of stalling the Apocalypse and saving the many.

*

Lorne

There's no doubt Angel was behind the decision to kill Lindsey.

Lorne says so in Not Fade Away when he says, "It's not about what I think. This was Angel's plan."

The question becomes how exactly did Lorne get that idea. We never actually see Angel order Lorne to kill Lindsey. We're left to our own devices to decide exactly how or when.

Here's a perhaps:

In A Hole in the World, Angel, Spike and Lorne confront Eve concerning whether or not she and Lindsey had anything to do with Fred's possesion. Eve denies it. I believed her, but this doesn't prove Lindsey was innocent.

Remember this confrontation between Eve and Lorne...

LORNE
(punches Eve in the face, knocking her down)
Ooh. Oh, I'm sorry. That was a knuckle-buster. I'm Jake LaMotta over here. It's pathetic. Oh.
(leans in close to Eve)
Here's the thing, Eve: You're going to sing for me, and I'm going to read you right now. And here's one more thing: Winifred Burkle once told me after a sinful amount of Chinese food, and in lieu of absolutely nothing, "I think a lot of people would choose to be green. Your shade, if they had the choice." If I hear one note"”one quarter-note"”that tells me you had any involvement, these two won't even have time to kill you.
Click to expand...

This seems to suggest Lorne was prepared to kill Eve if it turned out she had anything to do with the attack on Fred. I'm going to assume the same would be true of Lindsey.

Ok, now fast forward to Not Fade Away where Lindsey offers to sing for Lorne.

Lorne pulls out a gun, fires, and says "I've heard you sing."

We've been assuming Lorne is talking about the times he heard Lindsey sing at Caritas in S-3, but consider Lindsey has been in Angel's custody for some time in S-5, and he has for the most part been co-operating.

I'm going to suggest the possibility Lindsey has sung for Lorne during that period, and he discovered Lindsey had something to do with Fred's death. Also Lorne would know Lindsey's future. Lorne would have discussed all this with Angel. When Angel has Lorne accompany Lindsey to assasinate the Fell brethern, they both know without saying what is required of Lorne.

Again the line has become murky, and this is consistent with the corruption theme of Season 5.

I don't think any of this suggests Angel has become an evil being, I think it only says the line between good and evil has become murkier still for Angel as a result of the events of Season 5.
 
nerd4hire said:
Angel

Carrying on with Mire's point that moral murkiness is consistent with Angel's character; Angel's problem distinguishing the line between good and evil, with black and white clarity is not specific to Season 5.

Angel drank from Buffy. He drank from the dead waiter in Orpheus. He left the lawyers in the wine cellar with Darla and Drusilla in Reunion.

It is true Angel crosses a line where his actions are harder to justify when he kills Drogyn. This is consistent with the corruption theme of Season 5 though. The point being, the line becomes murkier once you decide to deal with the Devil. Compromises create a blurrier line.

This was not the first such compromise Angel made in S-5. He sacrificed the life of Fred to save the lives of the many when he decided not to save Fred at the Deeper Well in A Hole in the World. I see this as being similar to the decision he made to kill Drogyn. He sacrifices the one with the larger intention of stalling the Apocalypse and saving the many.
Click to expand...

These are good points, and now that I think about it, I can agree with them. Part of what was annoying me about what some other posters said was, instead of simply saying "this is in keeping with Angel's character and the corruption theme," they tried to rationalize his actions and say that what he did wasn't all that bad. That really irks me because these posters are real people. And if they can so easily rationalize a fictional character's actions, I have to wonder how readily they'll rationalize the actions of real-world people, themselves included, when the situation appears to warrant it.


nerd4hire said:
Lorne

There's no doubt Angel was behind the decision to kill Lindsey.

Lorne says so in Not Fade Away when he says, "It's not about what I think. This was Angel's plan."

The question becomes how exactly did Lorne get that idea. We never actually see Angel order Lorne to kill Lindsey. We're left to our own devices to decide exactly how or when.

Here's a perhaps:

In A Hole in the World, Angel, Spike and Lorne confront Eve concerning whether or not she and Lindsey had anything to do with Fred's possesion. Eve denies it. I believed her, but this doesn't prove Lindsey was innocent.

Remember this confrontation between Eve and Lorne...

This seems to suggest Lorne was prepared to kill Eve if it turned out she had anything to do with the attack on Fred. I'm going to assume the same would be true of Lindsey.

Ok, now fast forward to Not Fade Away where Lindsey offers to sing for Lorne.

Lorne pulls out a gun, fires, and says "I've heard you sing."

We've been assuming Lorne is talking about the times he heard Lindsey sing at Caritas in S-3, but consider Lindsey has been in Angel's custody for some time in S-5, and he has for the most part been co-operating.

I'm going to suggest the possibility Lindsey has sung for Lorne during that period, and he discovered Lindsey had something to do with Fred's death. Also Lorne would know Lindsey's future. Lorne would have discussed all this with Angel. When Angel has Lorne accompany Lindsey to assasinate the Fell brethern, they both know without saying what is required of Lorne.

Again the line has become murky, and this is consistent with the corruption theme of Season 5.

I don't think any of this suggests Angel has become an evil being, I think it only says the line between good and evil has become murkier still for Angel as a result of the events of Season 5.
Click to expand...

I like your theory. It makes everything work out neatly, so I'll go with it. 🙂
 
Angel was justified in killing/ having Lorne kill Lindsey. We've seen enough behavior from Lindsey to show that he wasn't looking for redemption, just revenge. Angel gave him multiple chances to actively improve himself, or failing that, just to walk away. But he rejected every chance given to him. Angel couldn't turn him over to human authorities, what could they do with a brilliant lawyer who also happened to be an incredible fighter and magical dabbler, and he couldn't risk Lindsey running free if all of Team Angel went down in the final fight, so he made an executive decision.
 
WatcherWes said:
Angel was justified in killing/ having Lorne kill Lindsey. We've seen enough behavior from Lindsey to show that he wasn't looking for redemption, just revenge. Angel gave him multiple chances to actively improve himself, or failing that, just to walk away. But he rejected every chance given to him. Angel couldn't turn him over to human authorities, what could they do with a brilliant lawyer who also happened to be an incredible fighter and magical dabbler, and he couldn't risk Lindsey running free if all of Team Angel went down in the final fight, so he made an executive decision.
Click to expand...

Again, I must ask: is it really very heroic of Angel to betray Lindsey and have Lorne kill Lindsey gangster style? Did you notice how Angel used Lindsey and then had him killed? Doesn't this seem like something that a sterotypical bad guy would do, not the good guy?

It's really alarming how readily people jump to Angel's defence here. Please scroll up through the thread and read all the other posts if you haven't already. Thanks.
 
It's heroic in that he's saved a few more people from Lindsay. As WatcherWes said, he was a brilliant Lawyer and fighter, so he could hurt people legally as well as physically.
 
::devil:: Big Bad ::devil:: speaking. Interesting thread you got going Wyrddemonhunter. It really made me go over the scene and question whether or not Angel was justified in killing Lindsay. After thinking bout it for a while and reading everyone else's responses, here's my take on the whole thing.

Yes, in my heart I believe that Angel was justified (at least in terms of his thinking of how things would have turned out if he had left Lindsey in charge). I admit, seeing the see it did make me flinch a bit when it happened, but I can understand why it was done. Kunzya post had a passage that I think will help me explain my position:

Kuznya said:
The problem with the word hero is it improperly defined. The "hero" is always the person who "did the right thing" but this isnt always the moral thing. Ill give you an example. During WW2 the allies had finally broken the encryption of the German army. The message decoded told the allies where the next bombing run was going to take place. There was enough warning to evacuate the town before the bombing occured and save hundreds if not thousands of lives. Unfortunately this would of alerted the Germans that there code had indeed been cracked and a new one would of been made so Churchill had to "do the right thing". He ordered that the town be left uninformed and the bombing was allowed to occur even with the advanced warning they had. The ends justified the means even if it wasnt the moral choice to make.

The line between right and wrong is always as simple as black and white. Sometimes to win the good fight you have to do things deemed questionable if not even wrong. But Angels actions were justified, he was fighting a war and he did what he had to do to fight his part of the war and win it.
Click to expand...

Now with Kuznya's passage in mind I would like to say that in a perfect world we would always be able to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys because:

Good Guys will always do good things/deeds
Bad Guys will always do bad things/deeds

....sadly we don't live in a perfect world, where this model would alway be right. Good people can in fact do bad things while Bad people can seemingly do good things. As I and the rest of us Joss fans have all learned from his stories, sometimes there's not a straight answer. But rather a grey area. And that's what the scene of Lorne killing Angel was.

Yes, having Lindsey killed because he might have been a possible threat down the road does seem wrong considering that fate and prophesies sometimes get thrown to the wind by free will, and like Kunznya said(weird that I seem to be using Kunznya's post as my refernece tool-lol):

Kuznya said:
As far as Lorne killing Lindsey. This is a grey area in which both sides will always be right. Was he fighting for good? yes. Was he a liability/ a wild card that could play for eigther side? yes. This was shown time and again throughout the series. He did the right thing then got sucked back into the dark side almost instantly. The history of an individual often repeats itself. Could he of become good and stayed there? yes. Was it likely? not on your life.
Click to expand...

Lindsey was given chances in the past to redeem himself, but always stayed close to the dark path. IMO Angel decided to kill two birds with one stone. Remember back to the scene from Not Fade Away when Angel asked Lindsey to help:

ANGEL
There's always going to be power, and there's always going to be corruption.

LINDSEY
So again I ask you"”

ANGEL
'Cause it's not what I'm expected to do. 'Cause you're good in a fight. And let's say we come up rolling 7s and this does go our way. We tear up this firm, someone's going to have to step in. I know that's what you want. Now, I'm a lot more comfortable with the thought of you in that position than anyone else.

LINDSEY
The devil you know.

ANGEL
That'd be you.
Click to expand...

The way I look at it Angel's decision to let Lindsey take whatever was left over after their battle wasn't because he's a good/neutral guy in this whole situation or even capable of becoming a good guy, but rather, that out of all the other evil people that would/could possibly take over WR&H....Lindsey wouldn't be that bad. But it is in no way to assume that Angel wanted it to be like that. It was either Lindsey or someone/something(and I mean something as in demon) else. And at least with Lindsey he had an idea of how bad it could get with him in charge. But with Lorne being paired with Lindsey Angel probably saw the opportunity to take out Lindsey, thus elminating someone who honestly wouldn't have been Angels' first/second/third/etc; choice to take over WR&H under normal circumstances (IMO his first choice probably would have been Wesley if he thought they all would have survived).

So that's my final thoughts on Lindsey execution and the reasons behind it. Hopefully I was able to form my weird thoughts and ideas into something everyone can at least understand or get a jest of what I was trying to convey.
 
Wyrd, I'd say offing Lindsey may not have been noble and chivalrous, but it was heroic. Being a hero is about looking at the greater good. Angel didn't want to kill a person, but he saw the inherent danger of Lindsey surviving the fight and assuming control of W&H. It's about making a hard decision, which Angel ended up doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom