Was Impactor Wrong?

[bumblemusprime]

Spinning out of the IDW thread, let's be even downer and dirtier about this, because we can say [composite word including 'f*ck'] in this board. Granted, it's automatically censored, but we can say [composite word including 'f*ck']. [composite word including 'f*ck']!

Was Impactor wrong when he killed Squadron X?

"They deserved to die, but that didn't give you the right to kill them!" Who has that right to kill? The state? The soldier only in a situation of war? Prowl when he thinks the Povans aren't worth the trouble?

If somebody attacked my daughter with an intent to harm or abuse her, I would kill them if I had the means. The only thing that would stop me would be the repercussions of my actions--being taken away from my daughter.

However, I believe I would feel regret for the premeditated murder of the person who hypothetically attacked my kid. If I got into their house and shoot them in the brains and got away with it, it would haunt me.

If the state punished them, though, would I feel any better?

My father was a therapist in a prison. Every week he came home with more horror stories about the rapists and murderers he had talked to. His views can be summed up like this: "About five percent of them might change. For the rest, society would be better off if they were lined up against a wall and shot."

This is a very peaceful man who was quite involved in protesting the Vietnam War. He had never, before this job, advocated the execution of anyone. And now he was very critical of a prison system that simply kept these psychos under guard rather than disposing of them.

I had a conversation about guns recently on Facebook with a friend who is super right-wing. Weirdly enough, we're really good friends. I don't know how it happens. His whole argument hinged on the hypothetical situation of "You wife's crazy ex-boyfriend gets out of prison [possibly insert other people with a grudge against me here ] and heads out to kill you. You have twenty-four hours to get a gun and defend yourself."

(Besty, this conversation will look familiar.)

Naturally, someone pointed out that the smart thing to do would be to call the police and get someone to hang out at your house with a police radio, a car and a good rifle. My friend's response basically said "you don't know very much about the cops, do you?"

So little faith in the state have we? Yet in Impactor's case, the state (Prowl) was utterly unheedful of possible innocent lives that Squadron X would take.

I believe Impactor did the right thing, but that there was no way not to punish him.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Heavy topic.

My personal take on this, a real life view is that no one, nor state can give the right to take a life, as punishment fir a crime.

In comic book terms, my view is slightly different. Squadron X were all ***** so get rid of them!

[Sunyavadin]

He was right.

In order to do the right thing, he accepted the responsibility for an action not sanctioned by his government. They had to deal with him to maintain the show of his actions disagreeing with their policy.

[Jack Cade]

He was wrong. I'm with Springer.

Not that I think Impactor was acting like an eejit. I can completely understand his reasoning. But at the end of the day, it was cold-blooded murder. We're led to feel more ambiguous about it because Squadron X are portrayed as the worst of the worst, but as soon as you start saying, "Hey, it's OK to do terrible things to really, really bad people if you think it'll stop them doing more bad things", that's where waterboarding of suspected terrorists starts to creep in.

I suppose it's a bit like the TV series Dexter, where he stalks and murders other serial killers. It's hard for the viewer to feel that Dexter doesn't make the world a better place, but what would be the repercussions of a society ever sanctioning such action?

Yet in Impactor's case, the state (Prowl) was utterly unheedful of possible innocent lives that Squadron X would take.

I would think with someone like Prowl it's more the case that he calculated more calamity would come out of taking them in than letting them go. If the Povians ally with the Decepticons, that could mean a change in the tide of the war that results in more death and destruction.

[Sunyavadin]

That's why I believe Impactor took the noblest course of action. He sacrificed himself for all those people who would have died at their hands had they let them go free.

Prowl saw one course of action of least harm.

Impactor saw one with LESS harm.

[Jack Cade]

Did he though? We don't really get to see inside his head. He might have been equally or more motivated by the sentiment that they were their enemies, the Wreckers had won, and he'd be damned if he's going to give that victory away.

[bumblemusprime]

that's where waterboarding of suspected terrorists starts to creep in.

Oh **** I am Cheneydick.

I dunno. If you had a terrorist on the table who you knew, without a doubt, was wiring up little kids and sending them to ask GIs for candy then blowing them up, would you not give him the ******* thumbscrews?

But that's not how society works. And I guess that is my point--Impactor did a fundamentally right thing for the good of society that society could not fail to punish.

[Sunyavadin]

Impactor did a fundamentally right thing for the good of society that society could not fail to punish.

EXACTLY.

From an objective perspective he did the right thing.

From a societal perspective he did the wrong thing.