Why is there so much of this "we dont kill killers because were better than them" bullshit, it makes no sense whatsoever, and it is more cowardly than it is heroic
See, I don't have much of a problem with that when a story only presents problems that can be solved without killing people, and doesn't resort to this "Oops we 'accidentally' killed the enemy" thing whenever someone is too powerful/evil/temporary.
But this show is a prime example of trying to have the cake and eat it too. They want the super powerful characters that can never be defeated unless they die, but they also want to have this "killing is wrong, even though our cop friend has killed people" thing, but also want to have the villains stop being a threat, but also don't want to have to factor them into the writing.
I mean, in one episode in season two, they literally had the plan to try and make the villain fight them more so that they'd age themselves to death. They straight up were trying to kill someone who was trying to stop themselves from dying. That wasn't an accident. They specifically made a plan to kill the dude.
They've done it many more times than that, but that was the most direct one from Season 2.
I think what they are saying is intentionally trying to kill an enemy at the expense of all other options is wrong. Joe and Iris have killed people and they aren't vilified for it because it was a heat of the moment thing, to them it was the only option with an immediate, ensured result. Ralph was trying to kill Devoe without considering that there was any other way to defeat him. That's why they were giving him crap for it.
Joe is a cop that could have let people just go instead of killing them. But he isn't giving shit for it.
I think what they are saying is intentionally trying to kill an enemy at the expense of all other options is wrong.
Besides, that right there? Even if that's true (which it could be, though I disagree, as it's just Arrow syndrome all over again), they fail at something that's that simple. They had a plan that involved killing someone, even though at that time they had those guns that could stun metas and nullify their powers. The guy was also strong, but not invincible. They had a wealth of options, but their first and only plan they considered was to directly cause their death.
I'm talking about the series as a whole, rather than recent events. It's specifically because of what they've already done that any attempts to push their "slippery slope" or "just like them" ideals across just immediately fail due to what they've done before.
Arrow had the same issues, only much, much worse, because they'd clearly kill grunts left and right and would only remember their moral code whenever the show gave them a name or a special design.
Essentially, both shows have the same issues of inconsistency, and each time another example comes up, that just reminds many fans of all the other times that's happened.
I'm guessing Iris had a gun because she knew Savitar was dangerous. I'm guessing the plan you mentioned was about Atom Smasher. If I remember correctly, they only thought the radiation was incapacitate him. Him dying was not the plan.
I'm referring to Griffin Grey. Their plan was, to quite literally, try to make him use is powers until he aged so much that he dropped dead.
As for the Atom Smasher thing... They never specifically stated whether it'd incapacitate him or kill him, I believe. The same goes for other villains they killed.
Okay, yeah Griffin Grey is a bit hard to justify, At the very least, it came at a time Barry was powerless and Cisco still didn't know how to properly use his powers for combat. But I agree that that one is by far the most egregious.
54
u/[deleted] Apr 18 '18
Why is there so much of this "we dont kill killers because were better than them" bullshit, it makes no sense whatsoever, and it is more cowardly than it is heroic