A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Clash of Kings II / Beauty and the Beast lV

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

haaruk
User ID: 0387824 Nov 12th 1:33 AM
The thread is dead. I am back to discuss my Brother.
The post I attempted to create.

Jeff's input is enlightening. One supposition I do not agree with. Sandor cannot pull himself out alone. No one could. He needs support. If not from Sansa then from some other source. Substance abuse, acute phobia, childhood trauma. He didn't get into these situations alone no matter how you equate the level of personal responsibility. And he can't get out of it alone.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Nov 12th 8:54 AM
"If not from Sansa then from some other source", you said. Who else could help him, if not her?

And Sansa. I believe she has it in her to help him, but I do not believe she is strong enough, patient enough, understanding enough at the moment to do so. Not yet. Is this why he flew from her? Because he knew he needed her, but also knew he would destroy her if he stayed?

Ser Gary
User ID: 8068153 Nov 12th 9:35 AM
A good point, Min. I doubt anybody except Sansa would be willing to invest the time and energy in someone like Sandor. Granted she was a bit of a pampered princess growing up, but Sansa is a very intelligent girl. She's going to figure out a lot of things in the next few years. The most significant of these may be in truly understanding Sandor and determining how she can help him deal with his past and his present.

haaruk
User ID: 0387824 Nov 13th 7:57 AM
I goofed. Beauty and the Beast III is still alive and kicking. Ran, can you please remove this thread but archive Min and Ser Gary's posts? Excuse me for adding to board clutter.

Ser Gary
User ID: 9279843 Nov 13th 10:36 AM
We never would have known, my Brother. Many topics have been peetering out before they reach the 100 spot. When you started this new thread, the natural assumption was that the other one had died. But you knew, and that was enough. Right?

Min
User ID: 9433023 Nov 13th 1:48 PM
we go where you go. Didn't you know? :-)

Min
User ID: 1446254 Nov 18th 4:40 AM
As the last thread filled up quickly, now this one comes to its intended use. Here are the last three posts, to get back into the discussion:

***

haaruk

User ID: 0387824
Nov 17th 6:08 PM
One fact eliminates any pretext that afforded
legitimacy for Catelyn's act. The Hand specifically forbid her to accost Tyrion. If the argument is made that The Hand has jurisdictional priority second only to the King then Catelyn's act was a crime.

haaruk

User ID: 0387824
Nov 18th 3:46 AM
Some believe that Sandor's transgressions can
only be assuaged by death. I am one of them.
Though I would want that death noble and
cleansing. Yet, what if Sandor took the black?
Closing all doors to the South. Why did Martin
create The Night Watch? In the broad terms of
his philosophy is action the ultimate parameter of
redemption? A balance between past and present
with a pledge for the future?

KAH

User ID: 9209903
Nov 18th 4:16 AM
Haaruk; Did Ned _specifically_ forbid Cat to touch Tyrion? AFAICT, he only went with Littlefinger's
assessment, in effect saying; "Well, I suppose we
can't get at the Lannisters, as things are now..."
(this is strictly IIRC)

Of course, this could, with some interpretation, be construed as a forbiddal from Ned's mouth, but
it could also just mean; "As circumstances are
now, it would not seem prudent to move against
the Lannister. If circumstances should change,
though..."

Min
User ID: 1446254 Nov 18th 4:44 AM
Kay, if you are correct (and you might well be, you all know I am the most inaccurate of us all) - well, then there still is no doubt at all the he _explained_ to Cat what a thing like that would do. He _explained_ to her that it would cause war, inevitably. And she did it nevertheless. Perhaps she did not think of the consequences right then. Would you calim that she was not ehrself, that she did not know what she was doing? Would you clame this in front of a jury? Jeff?

Sure you would. I would, would I have to defend her. But what the jury would not know: She was very aware of the situation. She _knew_ what Ned had told her. She very cold-mindedly judged the present people at the inn, judged if they would stand up for her, judged this political background - she had to be able to judge the other consequences as well.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Nov 18th 8:21 AM
Excellent point by haaruk about Ned arguably forbidding Catelyn, though I _think_ Kay-Arne's response is correct. Also, the appearence of Tyrion in that location was something neither Ned nor Catelyn could have predicted, and I don't think Ned's order (if one were given) was broad enough to cover that possibility.

As for defending Catelyn, I think the _tactics_ would be pretty simply. I'd first argue that what she did was correct based on the information she had. She simply arrested someone whom she had probable cause to believe conspired to commit murder. She neither intended to cause harm to him nor did she. In support of this, I would cite her general concern for Tyrion when her sister got out of control and her efforts to maintain control of the situation ("he's my prisoner"). Catelyn did not think it was right for her sister to threaten Tyrion's life. She only wanted justice.

As for the "arrest", I would argue "exigent circumstances" -- she had to seize him there because he might easily have escaped otherwise _or_ might have caused harm to Catelyn himself, at least as far as she knew. I think her attempt to avoid a confrontation with Tyrion would be important support for that.

Finally, I'd argue that even if her act was wrong, she had no malicious intent. Her intent was solely to hold him in a place where she could be sure there would be a truly fair trial. I probably wouldn't argue temporary insanity, Min, but I would argue that she was under tremendous emotional strain in being confronted by the man she reasonably believed had tried to murder her son. That would go to her intent. Under those circumstances, and given a fair jury, I think she'd a fair chance of acquittal. (Of course, this is all academic I doubt any such trial could or would happen in Westeros).

BUT, the main argument I'd make is that the wrong person is on trial. "Sure, what happened to Tyrion was wrong. But the real culprit was that scumbag Littlefinger, who intentionally fed Catelyn bogus information hoping to start a conflict between Starks and Lannisters. Catelyn was simply a grieving mother that he coldly used for his own selfish ends. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if Littlefinger himself was behind the whole thing!" I'd call Ran to explain the GUCT, argue that Catelyn was simply a dupe in his plan, and that it would be fundamentally unjust to imprison a grieving mother whose only crime was being manipulated by a scheming weasel like Littlefinger.

I think she'd get acquitted.

Min
User ID: 1446254 Nov 18th 8:46 AM
Oh, I am sure she'd get acquitted, having a lawyer such as you. But you only said what you would do. We all know lawyers tend to say and defend things they do not really believe in. I suppose this is the hardest part of that job, though I am sure that you perhaps more than other lawyers manage to keep a better balance there.

Were I a lawyer, I would defend Catelyn exactly the way you described. I would not fully believe it, though. Mark me, not fully. I do not think she deserves punishment, at leaast not a harsh one. Martin is more cruel than I am. Catelyn is punished harshly right now. As is Sansa, for that matter. As was Stannis. As will be Sandor. No one involved in this discussion (and I _can_ speak for every one in this, I think) believes that Sandor will go unpunished, that "happily everafter" awaits him.

Redemption it is I believe in.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Nov 18th 9:00 AM
Actually, I believe every word I wrote about how to defend Catelyn. Littlefinger is the real bastard here. I said before that if Tyrion knew the true facts, he would not hold such a grudge against Catelyn. But I think he would be _most_ displeased with Littlefinger.

Personally, I could never be a criminal defense lawyer. The overwhelming majority of your clients are guilty and I could not imagine trying to get an acquital for someone I believed was guilty.

haaruk, I agree with you on Sandor's death. I think he is fated to die but I too would like to see atonement and redemption in his death.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Nov 18th 9:34 AM
Min;

Well, as I recall it (and I might not recall it correctly, mind you), Littlefinger more or less convinced Ned that they had not enough evidence against the Lannisters, and Ned grudgingly accepted that, and started to _gather more evidence_ against the Lannisters.

There's where my argument of circumstances come into play - it is evident that Ned wanted to move against the Lannisters as soon as he had enough to
convince Robert of the Lannisters' guilt.

AFAICT, Cat could easily interpret Ned's words to her as; "There's nothing you can do here, considering the circumstances. Go home, and I will take on the Lannisters."

Which she did. Only, then she met Tyrion, and that could, IMHO, plausibly be called a change of circumstances. She was (wrongly, of course) confident that she could extract a confession from him, thus giving Ned the proper evidence needed.
Thus, I don't think she did go against Ned's specific word.

But, I may have gotten this all wrong. I'd check up on the proper references, if I had aGoT with me...

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Nov 18th 10:20 AM
That's my sense as well, Kay-Arne. Catelyn happened to end up in an unexpected situation and had to make a quick decision. Turns out to have been the wrong one. Littlefinger's advice to Ned was obviously self-serving. The last thing he wanted was for the accusations to come out in the open because then the whole knife story might have come out and pointed to the one person Littlefinger did not want to implicate. I'm becoming more and more of a believer in Ran's GUCT. At least today. I'll probably change my mind again tomorrow. :-)

haaruk
User ID: 0645514 Nov 18th 12:50 PM
Your confusing me Jeff. Again you establish an 'a priori' condition for Catelyn's abducting Tyrion. Littlefinger lied to her, emotional distress (from Bran's situation?). And yet you disregard and negate the same excuse of 'a priori' conditions for Sandor. Sandor kills because of the psychological scars of his burning. Catelyn kidnaps because she believes a lie and is emotionally distressed. Again you apply the double standard. You insist on having it both ways. Which is it? Personal problems are an excuse for capital crimes or not? Or is the excuse of emotional distress reserved only for Catelyn?

Kah, I don't have the book with me but I believe Ned was quite direct in telling her not to accost Tyrion. Also Ned severely miscalculated the Lannister response to Tyrion being arrested. This I remember clearly. When Catelyn asks "will there be war", Ned tells her no, that the lannisters would only act if their opponents were weak. One of his worst assumptions and he has made a few. I have always believed that is one of the reasons that Catelyn acted as she did. Ned had convinced her there would be no war. That of course is conjecture since she, from what I remember, has made no reference to that specific detail in the conversation.

KAH
User ID: 9209903 Nov 18th 12:58 PM
Well, haaruk, I cannot say for sure, but the reason that I doubt Ned said it outright, was that the very possibility that they would meet on the road seemed slim.

Why would Ned expect Cat and Tyrion would meet south of the Neck, in the same inn? Pretty big coincidence, if you ask me...

haaruk
User ID: 0645514 Nov 18th 1:14 PM
Agreed Kah. I wish I had the book with me but Ned did not want Catelyn to deal with Tyrion until
1) moat cailin could be fortified
2) white harbor could be alerted
3) he could gather more evidence to present to Robert

Catelyn then abrogated the advantage of preparation by abducting Tyrion prematurely. By premature I mean that Eddard did not know. The Lannisters knew about the abduction before Eddard. That placed him at a severe tactical disadvantage. The lannisters were moving even before eddard knew the facts. He had severely underestimated Tywin. Jory being killed and Eddard crippled was a direct result of Catelyn acting prematurely. If you are going to surprise your enemy do it in such a way that the advantage is yours. Catelyn surprised her ally and her enemy. Advantage, Tywin.

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Nov 18th 1:37 PM
haaruk, I really think I've been quite clear on this but apparently not. In my opinion, people should be judged on the ethical choices they make. That's the same basic precept underlying most legal systems. Catelyn had a misunderstanding of the relevant facts -- she believed that Tyrion tried to murder her son. So, her actions amounted to arresting a person who was strongly suspected of attempted murder. That was the moral choice she made. The fact that he probably wasn't guilty doesn't change the nature of her choice.

I agree that her "temporary insanity" (a good enough shorthand term for this discussion)is a less compelling argument. However, premeditation is again a relevant consideration when judging the morality of acts. Catelyn was shocked and surprised to discover the person she believed tried to murder her son. She actually tried to avoid notice but was noticed anyway. She had to make a split second decision. Contrast that with Sandor's _years_ or service with the Lannisters and the time he had to dwell on his actions. Sandor simply doesn't have an argument that he was surprised, acted on the spur of the moment, or that he was acting under the additional emotional burden of direct contact with the person who caused him harm.

Additionally, though, your comments to Kay-Arne directly support the argument I've been making. You state that Ned "miscalculated" the Lannisters' possible response, and then state that "I have always believed that is one of the reasons that Catelyn acted as she did. Ned had convinced her there would be no war." So you cannot impute any intent to Catelyn to start a war because you admit she did not think that would happen. She obviously was wrong about that, but that was an error in judgment, not a conscious decision to cause the loss of life.

Contrast this with Sandor. Did he honestly believe that innocents wouldn't die when he swung his sword at their heads? He _intended_ to cause those deaths. That's what distinguishes his actions from Catelyn's.

Again, my above arguments are predicated on the assumption that Sandor has intentionally killed innocent people. But since you conceded as much in a previous post, I think my assumption is valid in the context of our discussion.

labor
User ID: 8479113 Nov 18th 2:50 PM

Mm... Jeff would do you honestly think that there was _strong_ evidence that Tyrion tried to murder Bran? IIRC there was absolutely nothing except Littlefinger's say-so about the ownership of the dagger.
Also, IIRC Catelan didn't protest when Tyrion was put into a sky cell, starved and beaten. Wasn't it esentially torture?

Jeff
User ID: 0227464 Nov 18th 3:39 PM
How strong was the evidence? That's a good question. The assassin had been part of the crew that came up from KL, and Tyrion certainly had the opportunity to retain an assassin as he was with the royal party in Winterfell. So he had opportunity.

Catelyn also believed -- I think very reasonably -- that the attempted murder was likely an attempt to silence Bran so that he wouldn't awaken and tell how he had fallen. She correctly remembered that Jaime and Cersei had not gone hunting with the rest of the royal party on the day Bran fell. Catelyn puts it together and figures Bran saw something incriminating involving Jaime and/or Cersei. She was correct on that count as well. She infers that Jaime and Catelyn would be the ones who wanted to silence Bran. Tyrion was Jaime's brother, so he would seem to be a logical suspect as he would presumably want to protect his brother. There's the motive. BTW, the note from Lysa to Catelyn implicated the Lannisters in Jon Arryn's death. Catelyn now has motive, opportunity, and a finger pointing to the Lannisters.

She knows all this before leaving for King's Landing. Upon her arrival, she is met by Littlefinger, whom she has no reason to distrust. Personally, I think it was stupid for Littlefinger to accuse Tyrion because it easily could have backfired. In fact, it still might. But that just makes Catelyn's belief in Littlefinger's lie even more reasonable. He informs her that the knife found at the scene was Tyrion's knife.

My opinion is that, taken together, its pretty good evidence. Opportunity, motive, weapon all pointed to one individual. I don't think it would be enough to convict, but I think it would be enough for an arrest, which is basically what Catelyn tried to do. Had she summarily executed Tyrion based on that evidence, I think her guilt would be much greater.

As to what happened at the Eyrie, I don't have the book in front of me. IIRC, Catelyn protested to her sister a number of times to no avail. I do remember her saying "he's my prisoner, not yours", or words to that effect. She eventually realized her sister was unbalanced but also recognized that she, Catelyn, was powerless in the Eyrie. You could be right, though.

haaruk
User ID: 0645514 Nov 18th 4:46 PM
You've convinced me Jeff. Not in the sanctity of your moral perspective, but in the failure of judicial process when dispensed in an atmosphere that is fundamentally unequal and prejudiced. In such fertile soil do moderates become radicals.

Let the Beast Live.

Only Death can balance the scroll? No. I was wrong.
Why should he die when men who have committed equally heinous crimes can join the Night Watch and expunge their pasts? Why should he die when men such as Aegon and his ilk can slay and burn thousands and be invested as rulers and as great men? Why should he die when he has exhibited a propensity for honor and mercy? Why should he adhere to the judgements of the narrow and prejudiced?

Let his future actions balance the scales of justice. Let action determine whether the sins of the past can be obliterated and a new spirit breathed into The Soul of The Beast. Redemption isn't some charity to be dispensed by the blind and bigoted. It is won by an individuals spirit and desire for atonement. By a determination to change and the support and compassion of those he will love and that will love him. If the ledger of the past is weighted with crimes then future acts can balance it with honor and glory. If he has taken a hundred lives he can save a hundred thousand. If his will is as sharp as his sword he can overcome the judgements of men and make his own peace. He has the right to grasp the remnants of his humanity and strive for greatness. The Gods and perhaps two young girls may decide the measure of the Beast. And if one stands with him, if he is the man I think he is then that one will be sufficient.
The Beast shall Live and that will be justice.

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

haaruk User ID: 0387824	Nov 12th 1:33 AM The thread is dead. I am back to discuss my Brother. The post I attempted to create. Jeff's input is enlightening. One supposition I do not agree with. Sandor cannot pull himself out alone. No one could. He needs support. If not from Sansa then from some other source. Substance abuse, acute phobia, childhood trauma. He didn't get into these situations alone no matter how you equate the level of personal responsibility. And he can't get out of it alone.
Min User ID: 1446254	Nov 12th 8:54 AM "If not from Sansa then from some other source", you said. Who else could help him, if not her? And Sansa. I believe she has it in her to help him, but I do not believe she is strong enough, patient enough, understanding enough at the moment to do so. Not yet. Is this why he flew from her? Because he knew he needed her, but also knew he would destroy her if he stayed?
Ser Gary User ID: 8068153	Nov 12th 9:35 AM A good point, Min. I doubt anybody except Sansa would be willing to invest the time and energy in someone like Sandor. Granted she was a bit of a pampered princess growing up, but Sansa is a very intelligent girl. She's going to figure out a lot of things in the next few years. The most significant of these may be in truly understanding Sandor and determining how she can help him deal with his past and his present.
haaruk User ID: 0387824	Nov 13th 7:57 AM I goofed. Beauty and the Beast III is still alive and kicking. Ran, can you please remove this thread but archive Min and Ser Gary's posts? Excuse me for adding to board clutter.
Ser Gary User ID: 9279843	Nov 13th 10:36 AM We never would have known, my Brother. Many topics have been peetering out before they reach the 100 spot. When you started this new thread, the natural assumption was that the other one had died. But you knew, and that was enough. Right?
Min User ID: 9433023	Nov 13th 1:48 PM we go where you go. Didn't you know? :-)
Min User ID: 1446254	Nov 18th 4:40 AM As the last thread filled up quickly, now this one comes to its intended use. Here are the last three posts, to get back into the discussion: *** haaruk User ID: 0387824 Nov 17th 6:08 PM One fact eliminates any pretext that afforded legitimacy for Catelyn's act. The Hand specifically forbid her to accost Tyrion. If the argument is made that The Hand has jurisdictional priority second only to the King then Catelyn's act was a crime. haaruk User ID: 0387824 Nov 18th 3:46 AM Some believe that Sandor's transgressions can only be assuaged by death. I am one of them. Though I would want that death noble and cleansing. Yet, what if Sandor took the black? Closing all doors to the South. Why did Martin create The Night Watch? In the broad terms of his philosophy is action the ultimate parameter of redemption? A balance between past and present with a pledge for the future? KAH User ID: 9209903 Nov 18th 4:16 AM Haaruk; Did Ned _specifically_ forbid Cat to touch Tyrion? AFAICT, he only went with Littlefinger's assessment, in effect saying; "Well, I suppose we can't get at the Lannisters, as things are now..." (this is strictly IIRC) Of course, this could, with some interpretation, be construed as a forbiddal from Ned's mouth, but it could also just mean; "As circumstances are now, it would not seem prudent to move against the Lannister. If circumstances should change, though..."
Min User ID: 1446254	Nov 18th 4:44 AM Kay, if you are correct (and you might well be, you all know I am the most inaccurate of us all) - well, then there still is no doubt at all the he _explained_ to Cat what a thing like that would do. He _explained_ to her that it would cause war, inevitably. And she did it nevertheless. Perhaps she did not think of the consequences right then. Would you calim that she was not ehrself, that she did not know what she was doing? Would you clame this in front of a jury? Jeff? Sure you would. I would, would I have to defend her. But what the jury would not know: She was very aware of the situation. She _knew_ what Ned had told her. She very cold-mindedly judged the present people at the inn, judged if they would stand up for her, judged this political background - she had to be able to judge the other consequences as well.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Nov 18th 8:21 AM Excellent point by haaruk about Ned arguably forbidding Catelyn, though I _think_ Kay-Arne's response is correct. Also, the appearence of Tyrion in that location was something neither Ned nor Catelyn could have predicted, and I don't think Ned's order (if one were given) was broad enough to cover that possibility. As for defending Catelyn, I think the _tactics_ would be pretty simply. I'd first argue that what she did was correct based on the information she had. She simply arrested someone whom she had probable cause to believe conspired to commit murder. She neither intended to cause harm to him nor did she. In support of this, I would cite her general concern for Tyrion when her sister got out of control and her efforts to maintain control of the situation ("he's my prisoner"). Catelyn did not think it was right for her sister to threaten Tyrion's life. She only wanted justice. As for the "arrest", I would argue "exigent circumstances" -- she had to seize him there because he might easily have escaped otherwise _or_ might have caused harm to Catelyn himself, at least as far as she knew. I think her attempt to avoid a confrontation with Tyrion would be important support for that. Finally, I'd argue that even if her act was wrong, she had no malicious intent. Her intent was solely to hold him in a place where she could be sure there would be a truly fair trial. I probably wouldn't argue temporary insanity, Min, but I would argue that she was under tremendous emotional strain in being confronted by the man she reasonably believed had tried to murder her son. That would go to her intent. Under those circumstances, and given a fair jury, I think she'd a fair chance of acquittal. (Of course, this is all academic I doubt any such trial could or would happen in Westeros). BUT, the main argument I'd make is that the wrong person is on trial. "Sure, what happened to Tyrion was wrong. But the real culprit was that scumbag Littlefinger, who intentionally fed Catelyn bogus information hoping to start a conflict between Starks and Lannisters. Catelyn was simply a grieving mother that he coldly used for his own selfish ends. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if Littlefinger himself was behind the whole thing!" I'd call Ran to explain the GUCT, argue that Catelyn was simply a dupe in his plan, and that it would be fundamentally unjust to imprison a grieving mother whose only crime was being manipulated by a scheming weasel like Littlefinger. I think she'd get acquitted.
Min User ID: 1446254	Nov 18th 8:46 AM Oh, I am sure she'd get acquitted, having a lawyer such as you. But you only said what you would do. We all know lawyers tend to say and defend things they do not really believe in. I suppose this is the hardest part of that job, though I am sure that you perhaps more than other lawyers manage to keep a better balance there. Were I a lawyer, I would defend Catelyn exactly the way you described. I would not fully believe it, though. Mark me, not fully. I do not think she deserves punishment, at leaast not a harsh one. Martin is more cruel than I am. Catelyn is punished harshly right now. As is Sansa, for that matter. As was Stannis. As will be Sandor. No one involved in this discussion (and I _can_ speak for every one in this, I think) believes that Sandor will go unpunished, that "happily everafter" awaits him. Redemption it is I believe in.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Nov 18th 9:00 AM Actually, I believe every word I wrote about how to defend Catelyn. Littlefinger is the real bastard here. I said before that if Tyrion knew the true facts, he would not hold such a grudge against Catelyn. But I think he would be _most_ displeased with Littlefinger. Personally, I could never be a criminal defense lawyer. The overwhelming majority of your clients are guilty and I could not imagine trying to get an acquital for someone I believed was guilty. haaruk, I agree with you on Sandor's death. I think he is fated to die but I too would like to see atonement and redemption in his death.
KAH User ID: 9209903	Nov 18th 9:34 AM Min; Well, as I recall it (and I might not recall it correctly, mind you), Littlefinger more or less convinced Ned that they had not enough evidence against the Lannisters, and Ned grudgingly accepted that, and started to _gather more evidence_ against the Lannisters. There's where my argument of circumstances come into play - it is evident that Ned wanted to move against the Lannisters as soon as he had enough to convince Robert of the Lannisters' guilt. AFAICT, Cat could easily interpret Ned's words to her as; "There's nothing you can do here, considering the circumstances. Go home, and I will take on the Lannisters." Which she did. Only, then she met Tyrion, and that could, IMHO, plausibly be called a change of circumstances. She was (wrongly, of course) confident that she could extract a confession from him, thus giving Ned the proper evidence needed. Thus, I don't think she did go against Ned's specific word. But, I may have gotten this all wrong. I'd check up on the proper references, if I had aGoT with me...
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Nov 18th 10:20 AM That's my sense as well, Kay-Arne. Catelyn happened to end up in an unexpected situation and had to make a quick decision. Turns out to have been the wrong one. Littlefinger's advice to Ned was obviously self-serving. The last thing he wanted was for the accusations to come out in the open because then the whole knife story might have come out and pointed to the one person Littlefinger did not want to implicate. I'm becoming more and more of a believer in Ran's GUCT. At least today. I'll probably change my mind again tomorrow. :-)
haaruk User ID: 0645514	Nov 18th 12:50 PM Your confusing me Jeff. Again you establish an 'a priori' condition for Catelyn's abducting Tyrion. Littlefinger lied to her, emotional distress (from Bran's situation?). And yet you disregard and negate the same excuse of 'a priori' conditions for Sandor. Sandor kills because of the psychological scars of his burning. Catelyn kidnaps because she believes a lie and is emotionally distressed. Again you apply the double standard. You insist on having it both ways. Which is it? Personal problems are an excuse for capital crimes or not? Or is the excuse of emotional distress reserved only for Catelyn? Kah, I don't have the book with me but I believe Ned was quite direct in telling her not to accost Tyrion. Also Ned severely miscalculated the Lannister response to Tyrion being arrested. This I remember clearly. When Catelyn asks "will there be war", Ned tells her no, that the lannisters would only act if their opponents were weak. One of his worst assumptions and he has made a few. I have always believed that is one of the reasons that Catelyn acted as she did. Ned had convinced her there would be no war. That of course is conjecture since she, from what I remember, has made no reference to that specific detail in the conversation.
KAH User ID: 9209903	Nov 18th 12:58 PM Well, haaruk, I cannot say for sure, but the reason that I doubt Ned said it outright, was that the very possibility that they would meet on the road seemed slim. Why would Ned expect Cat and Tyrion would meet south of the Neck, in the same inn? Pretty big coincidence, if you ask me...
haaruk User ID: 0645514	Nov 18th 1:14 PM Agreed Kah. I wish I had the book with me but Ned did not want Catelyn to deal with Tyrion until 1) moat cailin could be fortified 2) white harbor could be alerted 3) he could gather more evidence to present to Robert Catelyn then abrogated the advantage of preparation by abducting Tyrion prematurely. By premature I mean that Eddard did not know. The Lannisters knew about the abduction before Eddard. That placed him at a severe tactical disadvantage. The lannisters were moving even before eddard knew the facts. He had severely underestimated Tywin. Jory being killed and Eddard crippled was a direct result of Catelyn acting prematurely. If you are going to surprise your enemy do it in such a way that the advantage is yours. Catelyn surprised her ally and her enemy. Advantage, Tywin.
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Nov 18th 1:37 PM haaruk, I really think I've been quite clear on this but apparently not. In my opinion, people should be judged on the ethical choices they make. That's the same basic precept underlying most legal systems. Catelyn had a misunderstanding of the relevant facts -- she believed that Tyrion tried to murder her son. So, her actions amounted to arresting a person who was strongly suspected of attempted murder. That was the moral choice she made. The fact that he probably wasn't guilty doesn't change the nature of her choice. I agree that her "temporary insanity" (a good enough shorthand term for this discussion)is a less compelling argument. However, premeditation is again a relevant consideration when judging the morality of acts. Catelyn was shocked and surprised to discover the person she believed tried to murder her son. She actually tried to avoid notice but was noticed anyway. She had to make a split second decision. Contrast that with Sandor's _years_ or service with the Lannisters and the time he had to dwell on his actions. Sandor simply doesn't have an argument that he was surprised, acted on the spur of the moment, or that he was acting under the additional emotional burden of direct contact with the person who caused him harm. Additionally, though, your comments to Kay-Arne directly support the argument I've been making. You state that Ned "miscalculated" the Lannisters' possible response, and then state that "I have always believed that is one of the reasons that Catelyn acted as she did. Ned had convinced her there would be no war." So you cannot impute any intent to Catelyn to start a war because you admit she did not think that would happen. She obviously was wrong about that, but that was an error in judgment, not a conscious decision to cause the loss of life. Contrast this with Sandor. Did he honestly believe that innocents wouldn't die when he swung his sword at their heads? He _intended_ to cause those deaths. That's what distinguishes his actions from Catelyn's. Again, my above arguments are predicated on the assumption that Sandor has intentionally killed innocent people. But since you conceded as much in a previous post, I think my assumption is valid in the context of our discussion.
labor User ID: 8479113	Nov 18th 2:50 PM Mm... Jeff would do you honestly think that there was _strong_ evidence that Tyrion tried to murder Bran? IIRC there was absolutely nothing except Littlefinger's say-so about the ownership of the dagger. Also, IIRC Catelan didn't protest when Tyrion was put into a sky cell, starved and beaten. Wasn't it esentially torture?
Jeff User ID: 0227464	Nov 18th 3:39 PM How strong was the evidence? That's a good question. The assassin had been part of the crew that came up from KL, and Tyrion certainly had the opportunity to retain an assassin as he was with the royal party in Winterfell. So he had opportunity. Catelyn also believed -- I think very reasonably -- that the attempted murder was likely an attempt to silence Bran so that he wouldn't awaken and tell how he had fallen. She correctly remembered that Jaime and Cersei had not gone hunting with the rest of the royal party on the day Bran fell. Catelyn puts it together and figures Bran saw something incriminating involving Jaime and/or Cersei. She was correct on that count as well. She infers that Jaime and Catelyn would be the ones who wanted to silence Bran. Tyrion was Jaime's brother, so he would seem to be a logical suspect as he would presumably want to protect his brother. There's the motive. BTW, the note from Lysa to Catelyn implicated the Lannisters in Jon Arryn's death. Catelyn now has motive, opportunity, and a finger pointing to the Lannisters. She knows all this before leaving for King's Landing. Upon her arrival, she is met by Littlefinger, whom she has no reason to distrust. Personally, I think it was stupid for Littlefinger to accuse Tyrion because it easily could have backfired. In fact, it still might. But that just makes Catelyn's belief in Littlefinger's lie even more reasonable. He informs her that the knife found at the scene was Tyrion's knife. My opinion is that, taken together, its pretty good evidence. Opportunity, motive, weapon all pointed to one individual. I don't think it would be enough to convict, but I think it would be enough for an arrest, which is basically what Catelyn tried to do. Had she summarily executed Tyrion based on that evidence, I think her guilt would be much greater. As to what happened at the Eyrie, I don't have the book in front of me. IIRC, Catelyn protested to her sister a number of times to no avail. I do remember her saying "he's my prisoner, not yours", or words to that effect. She eventually realized her sister was unbalanced but also recognized that she, Catelyn, was powerless in the Eyrie. You could be right, though.
haaruk User ID: 0645514	Nov 18th 4:46 PM You've convinced me Jeff. Not in the sanctity of your moral perspective, but in the failure of judicial process when dispensed in an atmosphere that is fundamentally unequal and prejudiced. In such fertile soil do moderates become radicals. Let the Beast Live. Only Death can balance the scroll? No. I was wrong. Why should he die when men who have committed equally heinous crimes can join the Night Watch and expunge their pasts? Why should he die when men such as Aegon and his ilk can slay and burn thousands and be invested as rulers and as great men? Why should he die when he has exhibited a propensity for honor and mercy? Why should he adhere to the judgements of the narrow and prejudiced? Let his future actions balance the scales of justice. Let action determine whether the sins of the past can be obliterated and a new spirit breathed into The Soul of The Beast. Redemption isn't some charity to be dispensed by the blind and bigoted. It is won by an individuals spirit and desire for atonement. By a determination to change and the support and compassion of those he will love and that will love him. If the ledger of the past is weighted with crimes then future acts can balance it with honor and glory. If he has taken a hundred lives he can save a hundred thousand. If his will is as sharp as his sword he can overcome the judgements of men and make his own peace. He has the right to grasp the remnants of his humanity and strive for greatness. The Gods and perhaps two young girls may decide the measure of the Beast. And if one stands with him, if he is the man I think he is then that one will be sufficient. The Beast shall Live and that will be justice.