Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Arcadia]

I'm sorry. To me, all this means is that Mary should be punished for shooting someone who is still alive -- because that person was a friend, and she doesn't have a scene where she shows remorse. But, Sherlock - who also did not have a scene where he shows remorse -- shouldn't be punished for murdering someone because that person was an enemy.

 

I respect your conclusions, but I just can't see the justice of it. That's okay, we're all entitled to our opinion, thank goodness. I think I'm going to stop pursuing the subject, though. I like to try to understand different points of view but the whole "Mary should be gone" reaction is just too foreign to my personality, I guess. Oh well, it was a good discussion, I did enjoy it. Thanks everyone for participating!

[Zain]

I am really sorry for this, and I already feel guilty for once again fueling this discussion, especially after you put it to a closure. I just feel like you completely misunderstood me, and I'd like to once again rationally explain myself. The way you described me, it seems like you completely think me as only Mary-hating and without any other reason than being a "sore loser", because HLV did not end the way I would have liked.

So, it is completely fine if you do not agree with my reasoning. But I hope that you will not think me this shallow as you described me after reading this post.

 

 

And this is weird, too. Quoting myself...

 

 

Punished. Yes. Of course. He committed murder. While his reasons are less abominable than Mary's, it is still an act of violence. Sherlock deserves to feel the consequences. I can like or dislike a character and still wish them to be brought to justice. In a way, especially because I like Sherlock, I think he should feel some sort of consequences. What kind of screwed being will be become if he gets off that lightly? Someone like Mary, maybe. Someone that does no longer think his/her actions are wrong.

 [...]

It is not about disliking Mary. Sure, that is an important factor for me, but not the reason why I want her punished. It is, however, the reason why I want to see her gone. These two attitudes are not the same.

 

 

As I stated before, Sherlock should be punished, too. And he would have been, unlike Mary, if that vidoe hat not given Mycroft the opportunity to call him back. I did not mean that because Sherlock showed remorse, he should not be punished.Like you said, we do not know if he truly feels remorseful. However, he does not hide his crimes, which is very disrespectful to one's victims. Mary does. Sherlock does not. It is the reason why I am able to accept him back, and why I cannot accept Mary back. That, however, does not mean that I agree with the writers that Sherlock should get off unscathed. These are two different things, not completely independent of each other, yes, but not dependent of each other either.

Mary and Sherlock both should be punished, they hurt defenseless people for their own gain. (even if one reasons that he did it for Mary and John, it was not self-defense, thus it is to his own gain, too, because he wants to see them happy)

But Sherlock accepted his punishment, while Mary did not. That is why I for now can see Sherlock as a flawed character with a conscience, while Mary is, from what HLV tells us, flawed beyond having any sort of conscience. I cannot connect with her at all, and her cowardice disgusts me. That is why I want to see her gone, not only punished. Sherlock, on the other hand, I am quite content with being punished.

 

 

I agree absolutely - if Sherlock shot Mary under those circumstances, it would be a wicked and unforgivable deed and I don't think John could, or should, forgive him. It isn't about personalities and whether or not you like Mary or Sherlock or whatever....It is simply the fact that anyone - anyone at all - shooting an unarmed innocent witness is totally in the wrong. As wrong as Moriarty killing all those people in TGG. The difference is that we are not expected to see him as anything other than a thoroughly bad man, regardless of how entertaining he might be.
 

 

In slithytove's words, because she got a better way to express herself in fewer words. Essentially the same as I meant to say.

 

 

If she had any respect in herself for the victims of her actions, be it loved ones of the ones she killed or the ones she killed, then she would face the consequences of her actions.

Sherlock has many faults, too, but at least he faced those consequences. One may debate that he could not run from it, because he had too many witnesses - I cannot dispute that. On the other hand, we do not get any scene in which he complains about the punishment he received. He got off rather lightly at the end of HLV, but it did not happen because he took any action in that regard. To our knowledge. If it turns out that he was involved with the message at the end, he'd be rather despicable, too. Like Mary. But I cannot see that happening. He has a lot of flaws, but he is more in touch with his conscience than Mary. He knows he was in the wrong.

 

 

Last but not least. Why I think Sherlock less despicable than Mary, even though both hurt other people. If you do not think grievous bodily harm is enough to judge Mary, then let's think of the poor people she killed in her past, and how disrespectful she is towards them and their loved ones, when she decides to hide from her crimes and leave even more victims in her wake. I would argue the same way if Sherlock had run as soon as he had shot Magnussen. This is about the matter itself, not the person who commits the crime. There's the matter of commiting the crime in question, and the attitude one has towards that crime.

1. Do I commit the crime, or do I find another solution?

2. Do I run, or do I face the consequences?

What it boils down to: It is not about hating Mary per sé. This is a moral debate, and once one starts to make exceptions to the rules, be it to judge someone less or more than another person, exceptions will become the rule. I judge Mary the way I would judge Sherlock. The thing is: From what HLV implies, Mary and Sherlock are to be treated the same according to 1 (punished), but treated differently according to 2.

That's my own "formula", so if you do not agree, that is only to be expected. I just hope that it makes more sense to you now. I was rather horrified when I read your post, and I felt completely misunderstood. Maybe I only expressed myself unclearly.

[Redbeard]

 

Well, it will be interesting in Series 4 to see if they incorporate any of his MI6 training. Not that I want him to be some sort of super spy. (you have to guess that Hollywood is eyeing BC as a potential future James Bond).

 

I would love to see him do something with swords as SH was an expert swordsman. And I would like to see him have to pick up a foreign language in a few hours.

Ok. Cumberbatch is cute/good looking as Sherlock, but to play James Bond... There has to be a sort of gruffness & swagger & just a whole other level of hotness that Cumberbatch has not yet attained. Probably won't ever have that kind of finesse.

 

Now... Hugh Jackman on the hand... He's Bond material.

 

 

Wait, what?  Gruffness..swagger...hotness...finesse..and you think Benedict Cumberbatch does NOT have these qualities?  I am flummoxed.  Gruffness, swagger, and finesse can be acted, so even if you think he doesn't have those qualities does not mean he cannot act them.  And as an actor I believe our Benedict can act anything....and do it better than anyone else out there to boot.  Hotness is more subjective, of course, but he would be such a cool bond that the hotness would follow lol.  And I can't see Hugh Jackman as Bond, at all!  Goes to show certain things are in the eye of the beholder.  I would not necessarily want Benedict to be James Bond, but I have no doubt that if he was, he would bring to the table the greatest Bond of all time. 

[jesskayding]

 

 

 

Well, it will be interesting in Series 4 to see if they incorporate any of his MI6 training. Not that I want him to be some sort of super spy. (you have to guess that Hollywood is eyeing BC as a potential future James Bond).

 

I would love to see him do something with swords as SH was an expert swordsman. And I would like to see him have to pick up a foreign language in a few hours.

Ok. Cumberbatch is cute/good looking as Sherlock, but to play James Bond... There has to be a sort of gruffness & swagger & just a whole other level of hotness that Cumberbatch has not yet attained. Probably won't ever have that kind of finesse.

 

Now... Hugh Jackman on the hand... He's Bond material.

Wait, what? Gruffness..swagger...hotness...finesse..and you think Benedict Cumberbatch does NOT have these qualities? I am flummoxed. Gruffness, swagger, and finesse can be acted, so even if you think he doesn't have those qualities does not mean he cannot act them. And as an actor I believe our Benedict can act anything....and do it better than anyone else out there to boot. Hotness is more subjective, of course, but he would be such a cool bond that the hotness would follow lol. And I can't see Hugh Jackman as Bond, at all! Goes to show certain things are in the eye of the beholder. I would not necessarily want Benedict to be James Bond, but I have no doubt that if he was, he would bring to the table the greatest Bond of all time.

 

Well ex-cuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

[sfmpco]

 

 

 

Well, it will be interesting in Series 4 to see if they incorporate any of his MI6 training. Not that I want him to be some sort of super spy. (you have to guess that Hollywood is eyeing BC as a potential future James Bond).

 

I would love to see him do something with swords as SH was an expert swordsman. And I would like to see him have to pick up a foreign language in a few hours.

Ok. Cumberbatch is cute/good looking as Sherlock, but to play James Bond... There has to be a sort of gruffness & swagger & just a whole other level of hotness that Cumberbatch has not yet attained. Probably won't ever have that kind of finesse.

 

Now... Hugh Jackman on the hand... He's Bond material.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I may be about to repeat myself somewhat, but since the question of why Sherlock appears to have forgiven Mary has arisen again, I hope you'll all forgive me.

 

I'm not sure it's precisely "forgiveness" on Sherlock's part, since that kind of implies that he had previously been angry with her, and if he ever was, I don't believe we saw it.  But he does not seem to be holding a grudge, and I guess that's close enough.  It certainly raises the same question: why?

 

I think one reason may be that Sherlock partly blames himself for what happened, because he misjudged Mary.  She warned him not to take another step or she'd shoot.  He chose to assume this was one of those stereotypical cop-drama moments where all he had to do was move slowly and speak soothingly, and she'd hand over the gun.  But Mary wasn't the stereotypical distraught housewife that he may have taken her for when he said, "No you won't, Mrs. Watson."  She was a professional, intent on finishing her job (whatever that may have been).   So when he attempted to call her bluff, he actually forced her hand.

 

It just now occurs to me that Mary may have misjudged Sherlock as well.  She may have assumed that if she made her intentions perfectly clear, he'd have no alternative but to back off.  But he didn't back off.  So she could see no alternative but to carry out her threat.  (Having once dropped a brick on a Big Kid's stomach under vaguely similar circumstances, I can sympathize -- just a bit.)

 

[jesskayding]

While we are on the subject of punishment, forgiveness & grudges....

 

There aren't going to be consequences for either Sherlock or Mary.. What's been done has been done. On to more mischief, rebellion, arrogance, ridiculousness & mayhem. John got to wash the powder burns from his hands. This is TV fantasy. As long as its intelligent,witty, thought provoking, exciting, dramatic & entertaining enjoy it.

[T.o.b.y]

 

... murder is unforgivable...

 

Just curious: So did you think it wrong that John got away with killing the cabbie at the end of the first episode?

 

 

[Arcadia]

I am really sorry for this, and I already feel guilty for once again fueling this discussion, especially after you put it to a closure. I just feel like you completely misunderstood me, and I'd like to once again rationally explain myself. The way you described me, it seems like you completely think me as only Mary-hating and without any other reason than being a "sore loser", because HLV did not end the way I would have liked.

So, it is completely fine if you do not agree with my reasoning. But I hope that you will not think me this shallow as you described me after reading this post.

.....

 

That's my own "formula", so if you do not agree, that is only to be expected. I just hope that it makes more sense to you now. I was rather horrified when I read your post, and I felt completely misunderstood. Maybe I only expressed myself unclearly.

Oh, Zain, I'm sorry, I think I was the one who expressed myself poorly. I didn't mean to insult you, in fact I was trying not to. Obviously I didn't do that very well.

 

I actually don't think we are very far apart in the moral debate, I think I just draw different conclusions from certain scenes in HLV than you do. But I didn't want to rehash my previous remarks concerning those scenes, and decided to just drop it. Unfortunately, I chose a poor way to do it; I tried to have a parting shot, and that was unfair of me in so many different ways. So I humbly apologize, to you, and to anyone else who might have felt stung by my last remarks. I retract them, and will say what I should have said instead: I'm perpetually awed by the intelligence and knowledge displayed on these pages. So thanks everyone for the debate, I enjoy reading all your comments!

 

Now I'll go and brew up some more trouble somewhere ....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I second the emotion that John didn't know that Sherlock had relieved him of his firearm. His reaction was one of deep and profound shock. He looked stricken to the core.

 

  I also just want to state that I do think that Sherlock was not getting off easy. He was being forced into exile....on a mission that was..... by all accounts, going to end in his own death. Can't  get much more justice then a death sentence. Yes, it only lasted for four minutes....but there was still a time that he had to be in mental and emotional torment....that too is a punishment....and as someone posted above....it may put him under Mycroft's thumb.....and I agree. A black ops assignment might be far easier pill to swallow then that.

[Caya]

 

 

... murder is unforgivable...

 

Just curious: So did you think it wrong that John got away with killing the cabbie at the end of the first episode?

 

For all intents and purposes, that would've been defense of others, not murder (by any degree). Yeah, we know that there was nothing forcing Sherlock to swallow that pill but his own stupidity. John, however, didn't. All he knew was that those pills had claimed three lives so far and Sherlock was about to be forced to swallow one, so he shot to save his life. How'd Sherlock say? Something about avoiding the hassle of the court case, since John would not be doing time for this anyway.

[Arcadia]

 

 

 

 

Well, it will be interesting in Series 4 to see if they incorporate any of his MI6 training. Not that I want him to be some sort of super spy. (you have to guess that Hollywood is eyeing BC as a potential future James Bond).

 

I would love to see him do something with swords as SH was an expert swordsman. And I would like to see him have to pick up a foreign language in a few hours.

Ok. Cumberbatch is cute/good looking as Sherlock, but to play James Bond... There has to be a sort of gruffness & swagger & just a whole other level of hotness that Cumberbatch has not yet attained. Probably won't ever have that kind of finesse.

 

Now... Hugh Jackman on the hand... He's Bond material.

[Zain]

 

 

 

... murder is unforgivable...

 

Just curious: So did you think it wrong that John got away with killing the cabbie at the end of the first episode?

 

For all intents and purposes, that would've been defense of others, not murder (by any degree). Yeah, we know that there was nothing forcing Sherlock to swallow that pill but his own stupidity. John, however, didn't. All he knew was that those pills had claimed three lives so far and Sherlock was about to be forced to swallow one, so he shot to save his life. How'd Sherlock say? Something about avoiding the hassle of the court case, since John would not be doing time for this anyway.

 

 

Basically, I am with Caya.

 

When I wrote murder, that is what I was referring to, and only that. It's a very European take on it, I know. But basically, I am referring to what you surely know as the difference between murder (GE: Mord), killing (GE: Totschlag), and self-defense (GE: Notwehr), with the latter being a very narrow field, because it is always a matter of appropriate reaction vs. excessive reaction.

 

Of course, it is always debatable if John acted in complete self-defense (which extends to other people), or if John could have shot to injure instead of to kill. But I believe he was doing it to save Sherlock, who at that time, was truly in danger of getting killed. It was a direct danger, not indirect like with Magnussen, that is why I think there is some ground to call it killing in self-defense. If a police officer had been in his place, that officer would have shot, too, most likely. Whether to kill or not, that, however, is debatable. John may have reacted excessively, or he may not even have hit the cabby the way he intended to, but it is possible to argue in favor of self-defense due to the imminent danger to Sherlock.

 

I do, however, think that he should have admitted to it, and not have avoided the court case. I can accept that, because the action itself was out of self-defense, thus he is not running from the consequences of a morally wrong action. But it would have been better if he had admitted to it, and it would have been the right thing to do.

 

And Arcadia, no offense taken. I just feared I had completely chosen the wrong words to express myself. I did not want you to think that badly of me.

[Carol the Dabbler]

There aren't going to be consequences for either Sherlock or Mary.. What's been done has been done. On to more mischief, rebellion, arrogance, ridiculousness & mayhem. John got to wash the powder burns from his hands. This is TV fantasy.

I suspect that's Moftiss's opinion.

 

Or not. Things do sometimes have a way of resurfacing in this show.

 

Of course, it is always debatable <snip> if John could have shot to injure instead of to kill. <snip> If a police officer had been in his place, that officer would have shot, too, most likely. Whether to kill or not, that, however, is debatable.

Do real-life soldiers or police intentionally shoot to merely disable a person? I believe I've heard that they don't, simply because it's hard enough to just hit the person you're intending to hit (who is often a moving target). If you aim at a knee, for example, you're likely to miss altogether. So my impression is that they simply don't shoot unless they feel justified in probably killing the person. This may be different in the other countries, of course, or I may be misremembering.

[Zain]

 

Do real-life soldiers or police intentionally shoot to merely disable a person? I believe I've heard that they don't, simply because it's hard enough to just hit the person you're intending to hit (who is often a moving target). If you aim at a knee, for example, you're likely to miss altogether. So my impression is that they simply don't shoot unless they feel justified in probably killing the person. This may be different in the other countries, of course, or I may be misremembering.

 

 

From what I know about Germany, it's like this (maybe Toby knows better, because my information may be outdated):

 

Not all police men carry weapons, because we are rather strict with gun control (There's a difference between police men and, for example, members of the Federal armed forces, I am strictly speaking of police men). I think those that carry weapons also have to keep them covered so that nobody is able to directly see them (only their outline). It's one of the things that rather disturbed me when I went to France, suddenly there were police men (not soldiers, police men!) patrolling in the metro, and they were carrying rifles. It made me very, very nervous and uncomfortable, even though I was doing nothing but travelling. I felt threatened, truly. Apart from TV, or if someone in your family has got a licence, you are not likely to encounter weapons here. Though there are a lot of illegal weapons still lying around in some dark corner and totally forgotten about it, especially from WWII. My aunt, for example, once found one in the cellar from my grandfather and brought it to the state council straight away. It's a very frightening thought to have something like that near one...

 

Okay.. back to the topic. Usually, police officers only shoot to warn, and that only happens if all other methods would not work efficiently. I believe they have to fill out forms if they use their weapons while working. Even for shots that deliberately miss.

Then, if it is a very dangerous situation, to either their own lives or a civilian's life, they are allowed to shoot a person. As far as I know, they are - depending on the circumstances - allowed to shoot to kill. Only in that scenario. But they have to proof that merely shooting to stop would not have helped, and that someone's life was acutely threatened. For example: If someone holds a knife to a person's throat, they are allowed to shoot. But if the person with the knife is at the other side of the room, and would still have to charge at the person, they are not allowed to shoot them dead. Because that person might still change their mind and let go of the weapon.

 

I once read that since about 1950, there were altogether about 490 gun-related killings by police men. It is much more common that police men do not make use of their weapons, and the number of warning shoots exceeds that number by far. Which still is rather high and sad...

I just looked it up, and according to the statistics, 2012 there were 8 people shot by police men, and 36 warning shots in Germany. Thus, the above number seems to be about right.

 

So, I'd say that here, they do not shoot unless the situation seems to be dire, and when they do, they mostly give off warning shots. 

[T.o.b.y]

All this really calls for the power of multiquote...

 

 

 

There aren't going to be consequences for either Sherlock or Mary.. What's been done has been done. On to more mischief, rebellion, arrogance, ridiculousness & mayhem. John got to wash the powder burns from his hands. This is TV fantasy.

I suspect that's Moftiss's opinion.

 

Me too. And as long as he doesn't go overboard with it (which I think he hasn't, so far - just compare Sherlock shooting Magnussen and the aftermath of that to the standard "hero kills villain" scenario in action films!), I am perfectly happy with that. Now, before anybody thinks I go through life happily assassinating anybody who gets in my way, I should probably say once again that for me, characters like Magnussen don't have much to do with real people. They're like the monsters in fantasy films. I never thought twice about cheering for Sam in Lord of the Rings when he killed that giant spider, for example (Sam my hero - you cannot imagine what that moment meant to me if you're not an arachnophobe yourself).

 

It says a lot about the quality of my favorite show, though, that so many people react to it on such a realistic level. That is fabulous. I do feel the same way about most of the characters (especially Molly - come on, she must exist somehow! Part of me firmly believes that if I could find my way into a morgue in London, I'd find her there in her white coat, quietly working along. And I would so like to sit down and chat with her and hand her her instruments or something. Molly, Molly... sometimes I think I'm in love with you ). But Magnussen and Moriarty - nope.

 

In general, I often like it when (certain) characters get away with stuff you could never pull off in real life. Sherlock especially. I like my fiction to be "not so much a picture of life as a living alternative to it". (I read that expression in an introduction to a Dickens novel and I do wish I remember the guy's name who wrote it).

 

 

 

Of course, it is always debatable if John acted in complete self-defense (which extends to other people), or if John could have shot to injure instead of to kill. But I believe he was doing it to save Sherlock, who at that time, was truly in danger of getting killed. It was a direct danger, not indirect like with Magnussen, that is why I think there is some ground to call it killing in self-defense.

 

Ah! I think I understand. Thank you!

 

 

 

 

 I have no doubt he could gruff, swagger and seduce along with the best of them; he's that good. But his acting is very nuanced, I think it'd be wasted on the bomb blast that is Bond.

 

You know, I was just thinking something similar, he probably couldn't help making Bond a real person, and that would kind of ruin the essence of what Bond is, I guess. Bond is only fun because you don't have to take him seriously. And I have yet to see Mr. C. work like that. I'm not sure I want to, though...

 

  I also just want to state that I do think that Sherlock was not getting off easy. He was being forced into exile....on a mission that was..... by all accounts, going to end in his own death. Can't  get much more justice then a death sentence. Yes, it only lasted for four minutes....but there was still a time that he had to be in mental and emotional torment....that too is a punishment....and as someone posted above....it may put him under Mycroft's thumb.....and I agree. A black ops assignment might be far easier pill to swallow then that.

 

Mhm, I think it's amazing how well the writers handled all of that. Very unusual to give a dragon slayer so much trouble for his valiant deed, and to allow the audience so many qualms about it. Really, maybe I have watched far too little television, but I so often think when I see Sherlock, wow, I've never seen a story told this way before.

 

Now I'll go and brew up some more trouble somewhere ....

 

Oh yes, please do!

 

[jesskayding]

 

 

 

 

... murder is unforgivable...

Just curious: So did you think it wrong that John got away with killing the cabbie at the end of the first episode?

For all intents and purposes, that would've been defense of others, not murder (by any degree). Yeah, we know that there was nothing forcing Sherlock to swallow that pill but his own stupidity. John, however, didn't. All he knew was that those pills had claimed three lives so far and Sherlock was about to be forced to swallow one, so he shot to save his life. How'd Sherlock say? Something about avoiding the hassle of the court case, since John would not be doing time for this anyway.

 

 

Ok... So when Sherlock shot CAM. He was doing the same thing that John did for him. He literally saved Mary's life. CAM was guaranteeing to call up people & expose her whereabouts, so that she could be killed.

[Caya]

 

Ok... So when Sherlock shot CAM. He was doing the same thing that John did for him. He literally saved Mary's life. CAM was guaranteeing to call up people & expose her whereabouts, so that she could be killed.

 

Afaik, England abolished the death penalty a good while back. She wouldn't have been killed. She would've been brought to justice. And personally, I'd have applauded that.

 

[sfmpco]

 

 

Ok... So when Sherlock shot CAM. He was doing the same thing that John did for him. He literally saved Mary's life. CAM was guaranteeing to call up people & expose her whereabouts, so that she could be killed.

 

Afaik, England abolished the death penalty a good while back. She wouldn't have been killed. She would've been brought to justice. And personally, I'd have applauded that.

 

 

 

She wouldn't have been killed by the British justice system, but she likely would have been killed by another assassin, and CAM held the information to people who wanted her dead. 

[jesskayding]

 

There aren't going to be consequences for either Sherlock or Mary.. What's been done has been done. On to more mischief, rebellion, arrogance, ridiculousness & mayhem. John got to wash the powder burns from his hands. This is TV fantasy.

I suspect that's Moftiss's opinion.

 

Or not. Things do sometimes have a way of resurfacing in this show.

Of course, it is always debatable <snip> if John could have shot to injure instead of to kill. <snip> If a police officer had been in his place, that officer would have shot, too, most likely. Whether to kill or not, that, however, is debatable.

Do real-life soldiers or police intentionally shoot to merely disable a person? I believe I've heard that they don't, simply because it's hard enough to just hit the person you're intending to hit (who is often a moving target). If you aim at a knee, for example, you're likely to miss altogether. So my impression is that they simply don't shoot unless they feel justified in probably killing the person. This may be different in the other countries, of course, or I may be misremembering.

I know an excop & here in the US they are trained to shoot @ 1 target... The heart... They are to shoot to kill. I don't like that all since police have been known to be corrupt.

[Caya]

 

She wouldn't have been killed by the British justice system, but she likely would have been killed by another assassin, and CAM held the information to people who wanted her dead. 

 

 

Well then, giving herself up to the British justice system would've been a good idea, wouldn't it? Or at least to the British Government. I'm sure Mycroft would've been able to arrange for some way to keep her safe while doing something to make up for it and her crimes.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Absolutely because the assassins that CAM would have sicced onto her wouldn't have cared if she was pregnant or not...might have even taken out John as well or who ever else was with her.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

Ok... So when Sherlock shot CAM. He was doing the same thing that John did for him. He literally saved Mary's life. CAM was guaranteeing to call up people & expose her whereabouts, so that she could be killed.

 

Afaik, England abolished the death penalty a good while back. She wouldn't have been killed. She would've been brought to justice. And personally, I'd have applauded that.

 

Hmmm, that depends very much on who got to her first! I do assume that Mary has enemies who might not care two straws for the laws of the land and who might want to take revenge on not only her, but her family as well. I think that was what the Moriarty voice in Sherlock's mind was getting at when he said "John Watson is in danger".

 

I so want to find out Mary's back story. We don't know who she's on the run from, do we? Sherlock only said she must be, but it was never specified. Not Magnussen, I don't think. Magnussen found out her secret after she had to changer her identity and so on, he's not the reason she did so.

 

I really hope they use the "The Valley of Fear" for Mary's past, specifically the character Birdy Edwards. For all who have never read the novel:

 

 

 

 

Birdy Edwars is a Pinkerton detective. Pinkteron's was a detective agency in the USA during the 1800s. Apparently, it really existed. Edwards infiltrates an illegal organization that terrorizes a whole district and whose members commit countless barbaric murders. To fulfill his job, he has to go along with their crimes to a certain degree. Finally, he manages to get the majority of the villains arrested, but in doing so, he has to reveal himself to them, and since some escape and seek revenge on him, he has to change his identity and go to England. There he is finally found out by one of his old enemies from that "Valley of Fear". He manages to kill the assassin in self-defense and disappears, and Holmes is called in to investigate what looks like the killing of Edwards (now called Douglas and yes, married under that false name to a woman who knows almost nothing about his past). Finally, though, Edwards / Douglas dies on a passage to another country, where he is trying to flee to once again. Holmes suspects that this was Moriarty's doing, but is never able to prove it.

 

 

 

[jesskayding]

 

 

Ok... So when Sherlock shot CAM. He was doing the same thing that John did for him. He literally saved Mary's life. CAM was guaranteeing to call up people & expose her whereabouts, so that she could be killed.

Afaik, England abolished the death penalty a good while back. She wouldn't have been killed. She would've been brought to justice. And personally, I'd have applauded that.

 

What? I'm confused... CAM wasn't threatening to bring Mary to justice? He was threatening to have her killed by killers.

[Caya]

And that would've stopped her from going to the authorities / Mycroft and giving herself so that the killers couldn't get at her how? Oh, I forgot, that would've involved atoning for her crimes and giving up her blissful suburban existence.