Buffy killing Faith - Right/Wrong?

I'm with Buffy on this one.

Angel didn't deserve to die and the person responsible for placing him on his death bed was indeed Faith. She was able to cure him, so of course I think it's "justice" that she should be the one to fix what she broke. I most certainly don't think it's fair to let Angel die all because people are squeamish about Buffy killing a human and I don't think it's justified to expect Buffy to risk her life to save him instead.

The way I always viewed Buffy's policy on not killing humans is that she didn't see them within her jurisdiction. Humans can be dealt with by human laws, "the world has rules for dealing with people like him (Warren)" and therefore, slayage is not required. However, some humans such as Faith can't be bound by human law. We saw how easily Faith broke out of jail in 'Salvage' when she wanted to and how easily Buffy broke Jonathon and Andrew out of jail in 'Two to Go.' We saw Buffy evade the police in "˜Becoming' and both Buffy and Faith escape from them in "˜Bad Girls.' As Buffy states in "˜This Years Girl' the police wouldn't know what to do with a slayer even if they knew they existed. So Faith can't be dealt with by human laws, she's therefore under Buffy's jurisdiction.

Buffy's job description entails "to stop the vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness." Now if vampires and demons aren't "forces of darkness" humans and other creatures must fall under that category. Witches, slayers, half human/half cyborg creatures.. All Buffy's area of expertise. Faith may have been human but she had supernatural powers.

Even ignoring what Faith did to Angel in "˜Graduation Day' it had to end up that way anyway. Buffy had given Faith plenty of chances and Faith "spat on her." The very next day she was planning to join the Mayor at his Ascension and kill all the innocent people of Sunnydale. It was Buffy's responsibility to act.

I don't believe this was simply a vengeance gig for Buffy, though obviously that plays a part in it to. Buffy doesn't even think about going after Faith until Willow reveals Angel's cure is the blood of a slayer. If it was really all about Buffy wanting payback and nothing more, she'd have searched for Faith long before that.
 
I agree that Buffy was totally justified in doing this.

1. It's simple math. Faith hurt Angel. Angel hurt Faith. Buffy saw that Faith should have to be fed to Angel to keep him alive because she was the one that hurt him in the first place. if she hadn't gone out of her way to hurt him, Buffy wouldn't have had to go out of her way to try and kill her.

2. Buffy loves Angel. She needed to do everything she could to keep her love alive. What would you do? Worry about whats right and wrong or be totally rash and do everything you could in your power to save them?

3. I think Human and Slayer are totally different things. Faith couldn't have been punished by law as we have seen before with the Watchers; the only way she would have had justice slap her over the head is if Buffy did it for her.

4. Me or Her? Oh hell no.
 
I was glad that Buffy finally decided to stop being a wuss and kill Faith already. I unerstand that Buffy wanted to hold to a higher standard and not take a human life, but that wasn't going to work here. As long as Faith was playing by one set of rules and Buffy was playing by another, Faith always held the advantage. This was the moment that they both came to be fighting on equal ground.

Also, I was sick of Buffy being willing to look the other way while Faith attacked her and everyone around her. I say "Go Buffy".
 
I say... kill on! It wasn't really a "buffy" thing to do, but i still felt like, Faith was a deranged bitca. Any ill she brought on herself. I love to hate her by that point in the season lol so I'm all "yeah buffy! stab stab stab!"
 
I keep thinking about a conversation between Buffy and Faith,

Buffy: Faith, you don't understand. You...killed...a...MAN!

Faith: No, B, you don't understand. I don't care.

Sure, the circumstances of the Vice Mayor's death was different than what Buffy intended to do to Faith, but the end result was exactly the same. If what Faith had done could not be forgiven, despite the fact that it was an accident, despite the fact that the number of lives that Faith had saved far outweighed the that single death, then the argument that Buffy killing Faith in order to save Angel has no validity whatsoever.

If she had succeeded in killing Faith, Buffy would have been more in the wrong than Faith ever was. Killing the Assistant Mayor was an accident. Killing Faith, or at least trying to, was cold blooded and fully premeditated. Understandable, possibly, but wrong, nonetheless,
 
I
InsaneMystic
[No message]
But the big difference between the two cases is that killing for defense purposes, even intentionally, is not considered a legal crime and is, in many people's opinions, not an ethical one either. Killing by accident is a legal crime, called "manslaughter", and considered an ethical one also because not enough care/caution was used to prevent it, even if it was an accident. Driving a car in such a way that it causes an accident that ends someone's life is ethically wrong and legally criminal, even if only one life ends up taken, and even if the person who did it has saved many more lives than that (e.g., a firefighter or surgeon). Whereas someone who intentionally kills someone who has put their life or the life of a loved on in danger, in order to save said loved one, has not committed a legal crime, nor an ethical one. The fact that in Buffy's case the defense was pre-meditated happens to be possible because of the mystical disease in the show, but in real life, it is the defense part that makes killing non-criminal, not the situation of not being pre-meditated. A difference between pre-meditated and in-the-moment killing only applies when neither is for self-defense or defense of a loved one.
 
clemsgirlfriend said:
But the big difference between the two cases is that killing for defense purposes, even intentionally, is not considered a legal crime and is, in many people's opinions, not an ethical one either. Killing by accident is a legal crime, called "manslaughter", and considered an ethical one also because not enough care/caution was used to prevent it, even if it was an accident.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how we got this into court, but if both cases WERE to come to trial. Faith would have had a much better chance of walking away free than Buffy would. Faith killed the Wilkins' assistant by accident, not by being irresponsible. It occurred in the heat of combat. Accidental deaths like that, sadly, happen, especially when non combatants are in the wrong place at the wrong time.( I know that pre-meditated murder is a legal term, but it is also simply the description of the act, which is the way that I intended to use it.)

Buffy, on the other hand, intentionally confronted Faith and provoked a fight when there was no immediate threat, with the intention of killing her or bringing her to Angel so that he could do it. Legally, the excuse that Angel's life was in danger would have no standing whatsoever.

That's what a court would see if either case had gone to trial, which obviously wasn't going to happen on the show.

What I was trying to point out was that what Faith did could be considered an accident in the heat of combat. She did not plan to do it in advance. There was no negligence or malice involved on Faith's part, and, sadly, in war, civilians die that way much more often than you might imagine.

Buffy went to Faith's home with the intent of either killing her or incapacitating her or delivering her to Angel so that he could do it. Her act was understandable under the circumstances, but no less wrong. Alan Finch was a human. If killing him was wrong simply because of his humanity, then killing Faith would be just as wrong.
 
Don't get me wrong I'm a massive faith fan, but if it was me in buffys affordable but stylish shoes then I would have made the same decision...
 
white avenger
white avenger
Almost certainly, so would I. Buffy's actions are completely understandable. But still wrong.
I'm pretty certain no court would rate Buffy's action as legitimated by defense. If you try to construct a non-mystical parallel situation, you'd have Faith infecting Angel with some kind of disease, and then Buffy killing her to force an organ donation as she and her are the only compatible donors. According to any legislation I kow, that's murder, not self-defense or "in protection".
 
Buffy killing at all is wrong, but if we put the situation into context, surely it is right, or so we [should believe because the bad guys are always thwarted by the good guys, and for most of s3 Faith was pretty bad.
 
Perny said:
When is killing a good thing ???
Click to expand...

haha, good point. and fair enough that you should ask that, It's never a good thing, as highlighted by many characters and themes through out the show, I am just merely observing how it can be alright for a 'good' guy kill the 'bad' guy in order to save others or for some other reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom