Conviction: Was Angel Justified?

[T.I.P]

At the end of Conviction, when Angel takes it upon himself to killed that murderous SWAT guy, essentially *murdering a human*. On the one hand SWAT guy was scum, and about to kill a class full of children, so deserved all he got.
But, then again, Angel has the speed, skill and strength to simply kick the gun from the guys hand, knock him out and take him to the cops, and some would say life in prison is a more fitting punishment than instant death.
So, was Angel right to take a persons life if he thinks they deserve it, or was he in the wrong and should not have went above the law. What do you think?

 

[Aleris]

It's the Batman clause. Always vowing never to kill a single person, no matter how much the world would be better off for it.

Personally I think that Angel didn't see it as being "above the law" but that it was the most viable option in that situation. He felt justified and he felt that it was RIGHT. SWAT basically IS the law, so his trust and faith in the law bringing him to justice wasn't great enough to take that risk. However, Angel has always walked a fine line of balance between right and wrong and his eternal struggle with his soul and this time was a great example of how this works within him. Sometimes he does the right thing, and sometimes he does the wrong thing THINKING it's the right thing.

I don't really think about the "oh, really he should have just given the guy over to the cops" but more about the internal struggle Angel faces in making these sorts of decisions in practically his every day life.

Good and bad aren't so black and white. And this is one of those areas of grey. 😀

 

[T.I.P]

Grey? Not for me. I think Angel was 100% justified in what he done.
Some people may not like to admit it, but some people dont deserve to live, like Mr SWAT.
I dont really care Angel went *above the law*, i mean, if some judge has the right to judge Mr SWAT, then so too is the guy who is standing right infront of this psycho thats about to shoot him.
I think if the situations called for, then someone like Angel does have the right to kill.

 

[Aleris]

But there's a legal system and all that for a reason.

Some people feel very justified in their wishes to kill other people, if Angel has the right, does anyone in a tough situation have that right, too?

Angel's pretty much just a vigilante. For the most part he's killing demons and crap that the general populus don't know about and don't have a system like the law to deal with them. But when he enters the realm of killing PEOPLE there's already a system in place for those people.

Bottom line is, if he's allowed to do it in a justified situation, then so should everyone else be.
If it ever went to court - he'd probably get off on self-defense, but not all situations are so clear cut, which is why it's illegal.

 

[T.I.P]

Some people feel very justified in their wishes to kill other people, if Angel has the right, does anyone in a tough situation have that right, too?

Hmm, dont know. Some people would end up killing someone for reasons that dont deserve death, so as a general rule, No, not everyone has the right.
But, if i was in Angels situation, with his vamp skills, i wouldnt have hesitated to do the same. Id be thinking

'i cant let this guy live, if i hand him over to the cops, he might get let off(as i dont think he actually killed anyone?) or let out in a few years, and this guy just said he worships evil so, if he killed again, id feel responsible'.

 

[Lou]

::Note to self....never go to visit Willy::
[br][/br]
Edit:
[br][/br]

Some people may not like to admit it, but some people dont deserve to live,

That's enough to keep me safely planted here and NOT in your guest room!

 

[Joyce Summers]

Okay the land of the Gray Area. Now we know Angel is always walking that fine line of what's right, what's wrong, what's acceptable, what isn't and considering how they live by the rule constantly spouted out by Buffy in the companion show that 'We don't kill humans' this situation could be considered the ultimate gray area. Even more gray than the time he let Dru and Darla feast on the Wolfram and Hart lawyers.

BUT, all the same in this instance, I am 100% behind Angel's decision. This SWAT guy lived in a shade of the world where the odds of him being brought to actual justice were slim to none. We know where Wolfram and Hart is involved the bad guys have a high chance of getting away. And he was going to kill a class full of children. And I known the writers made it that so he seemed just that little bit worse and by Angel killing SWAT guy he was shown to be as passionate about that horrifying fact as the audience was. Or should be.

I mean in a straight non-consequestial hypothetical question of being in the same situation as Angel: A guy is going to kill a classroom of children, you don't really have time to think? What do you do? Angel thought in the moment and killing him was only viable option I believe.

 

[palabravampiress]

Everyone seems to pretty much agree that if Angel were a typical citizen acting in defense of his life and the lives/well-being of a classroom full of children, an unrigged court would have found his actions justifiable by reason of the necessary defense of self or others and not thrown the proverbial book at him. That being the case, I think Angel it's pretty clear that by the current standards of the current human society, Angel's actions were not wrong, but right. The real question is whether or not the fact that he is a vampire should render it necessary to hold him to a higher/different standard. I say no. Equality is equality is equality. If it's okay for a human, then it's okay for Angel. If it's not okay for a human, then it's not okay for Angel.

I still think the absolute worst thing he ever did was to serve as an accomplice to Darla and Dru while they slaughtered all those lawyers. I mean, he didn't just let them do it by refusing to save the lawyers. He assisted them by locking the lawyers in! Don't get me wrong; I absolutely love that scene! I think it captures perfectly the sense of conflict that Angel feels daily. I love that he felt so strongly toward Darla and Dru, his blood kin, that he couldn't bring himself to kill them even when his moral code and his quest for redemption demanded it.

 

[T.I.P]

He wasnt THAT wrong in Reunion. Holland and the evil lawyers brought that on themselves. And also, if Dru and Darla didnt kill them they would have almost certainly caused deaths or got killers let off in court.
And who knows, maybe if he tried to stop it Dru and Darla at the same time might beat him! Angel wasnt obliged to save anyone that time.

 

[Lou]

He wasnt THAT wrong in Reunion. Holland and the evil lawyers brought that on themselves. And also, if Dru and Darla didnt kill them they would have almost certainly caused deaths or got killers let off in court.
And who knows, maybe if he tried to stop it Dru and Darla at the same time might beat him! Angel wasnt obliged to save anyone that time.

I think he had that one RIGHT!
I mean, if those idiots want to bring Darla back and then move heaven and earth to get Dru there and turn Darla back into a vampire....I say, "YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO LIVE!"

Why should Angel step into help them? Why would he fight all Dru and Darla away and save them? Granted, it DOES go against his all "helping the helpless" theme, but would we call people who can pull off all WR&H did HELPLESS?

 

[Joyce Summers]

I think my problem is not with letting the laywers die, because well they did bring it upon themselves, but he LOCKED them in. If he had just left without locking them in it would have been leaving things up to...fate I suppose. Forcing the lawyers to reap what they'd sewn, whether they manage to survive or not. But by locking them in he was dooming them, making sure Darla and Dru could kill them, and so was in a way an accomplice to the slaughter. He was killing them on purpose and I think that's what makes Angel's decision wrong there. Plus it was leading him down that dark and broody path that always leads to almost as much badness as the Big...erm, Happy.

 

[LorneyTunes]

I think he did the right thing. I know if it was me i couldn't do it but Angels a champion and that guy was SCUM and he deserved it . It was probably Karma coming his way , hes one of the bad guys, Angel takes care of them.

So yeh 100% right to do what he did .

I know it makes him a murder but if it was me I would have done the same thing , epsecially when it comes to kids x

 

[Kana]

I think my problem is not with letting the laywers die, because well they did bring it upon themselves, but he LOCKED them in. If he had just left without locking them in it would have been leaving things up to...fate I suppose. Forcing the lawyers to reap what they'd sewn, whether they manage to survive or not. But by locking them in he was dooming them, making sure Darla and Dru could kill them, and so was in a way an accomplice to the slaughter. He was killing them on purpose and I think that's what makes Angel's decision wrong there. Plus it was leading him down that dark and broody path that always leads to almost as much badness as the Big...erm, Happy.

Agreed. Angel was playing into W&H hands. His focus was on Darla and W&H rather than the helpless people who really need him. As long as Angel was corrupted, distracted etc then W&H generally were happy. As Nathan Reed said, lawyers are expendable but Angel wasn't.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The purpose of his personally killing the human in the episode (the first at W&H) was to show that even then it was beginning to affect him. It was to illustrate that he was no longer the 'hero' he once was by taking- even in what seemed justifiable circumstances- a human life.

It was not about right or wrong; it was more a case of you lie down with dogs you are gonna get fleas.