Quote:
Originally Posted by *SP*
I take what you're saying on board. I just don't agree with a lot of it. But one other thing I'd point out is that in the scene where Locke threw the knife, he arrived on the edge of the people gathered at the radio tower, evidently in pain, limping with very limited mobility. Naomi was literally about to be connected to the freighter (was the phone ringing?) and Locke was to stop her at all costs. At. All. Costs. There was not a chance in hell he would have been able to make it over to Naomi and disable the satellite phone. a) because his physical impediments at that time made it impossible, and b) because Jack, Kate, Claire, and numerous other people would have stepped in his way. It's my belief that Locke wasn't instructed to KILL Naomi, merely to stop her contacting the ship. Locke (imo) didn't go out intent on murdering her, it just became necessary. Now, I know Rose and Bernard don't know all this but they've known, and I think respected, Locke long enough to warrant finding out why the heck he did it rather than single out one person as a murderer that they want nothing to do with. Like someone said, why not cut all ties with Sayid or Jack (they saw Jack hold a gun at Locke's head and pull the trigger) if you're just making a moral judgement about not hanging out with killers.
|
Locke's an expert with that knife. He could've hit any part of Naomi's body he chose at that distance. What's wrong with an arm? If it comes to that, yelling out would at least have stopped her in her tracks, and a proper explanation could've got more people on his side - as would decent behaviour over the past few months. Basically, I feel none of this renders Rose's decision not to condone Locke's behaviour unreasonable. Also, as a method for preventing contact 'at all cost', it was lousy. If Locke was to stop contact with the freighter at all costs, why did he walk away and allow Jack to use the phone? As it stands, Naomi's death was entirely meaningless. It made no difference to anything. Locke killed her and it didn't work - ergo the consequences certainly don't justify his behaviour. Why exactly did he think they would?
I agree about the last part though - why not cut ties with all of them? Well, Sayid's fun to be around
. I mean, I've offered several potential explanations as to why Rose and Bernard didn't do so, but yes - I would've liked to see a group of the survivors cut loose both Locke and Jack on grounds of conscience.
(I disagree, however, that they had any reason whatsoever to respect Locke. He'd done nothing to earn their respect and everything to cause them to distrust him, just as Ben had done. That's why it took the much more trusted Hurley's word to win over all those people.)
EDIT. Additionally - we're seemingly saying that if you kill a woman you've never spoken to because a supernatural entity told you to do so (and Locke clearly doesn't know the whys and wherefores), that's okay. I really don't buy that. What, after all, do we know of the supernatural forces on this island? We know that Jacob's not a forgiving man ... that he divides the world into good and bad and doesn't care a jot for the 'bad' ... that Cerberus killed Eko because Eko wouldn't bend to its will ... and that the island doles out and takes away cures according to its own designs. So why is killing people on its say so inherently excusable? How is it better than killing people on the say so of Sawyer, for example, or Ben, or Sayid? Now, whatever force instructed Locke might, as it happens, be right about the potential harm that the freighter could bring ... but does that make it right to unquestioningly kill total strangers on its say so? I don't think it does. Sayid was right about Henry Gale, but I think most people here agree that his treatment of Ben was abhorrent, and I'd have thought more of him had he been incapable of contemplating torture even if it meant missing out on the 'greater good'.
That's Bernards philosophy of idealism in action.