Jon was rightfully "terminated" by the Watch

[sgtpimenta]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaime could have overpowered him to deliver him to his father or even Robert. Or he could just have told Aerys II some story that Tywin's corpse was lying outside and he intended to show him or something of that sort. All he needed to do was to distract the man for a few minutes then he would not be forced to commit any outright treasonous actions and would still have a very good shot at seeing Aerys II die (by the hand of Tywin or at the command of Robert).

Now that's a rhetorical trick, if I have ever seen one.. Well said, Lord Varys! Spoke like a true master of whispers

If Jaime convinced Aerys to act in such a way that would get his royal ass killed, that would be just as treasonous as kingslaying with his own hands. Sure, maybe the future king would pardon him (as King Bob did, after all). But we must at least concede that Ser Jaime acted himself, and that is more honorable than waiting for daddy to do your dirty work for you.

9 hours ago, SFDanny said:

As long as Aerys lived there was a danger the plot could be carried out. There was a danger even after Aerys death that others in the guild would carry out the order and Jaime hunted them down to prevent this from happening. That doesn't mean Jaime's motivations were pure of heart, but it does mean he acted in a way that prevented the plot from going ahead, and he did so in a way that causes the reader to ask what was honorable, and what was right for the young knight to do? Which is the whole point of why Martin writes the character in this way.  He is a traitor to his king and broke his vows, but he may also be right in doing what he did. You have your answer to that question, all fine and good, but that doesn't make it "true."

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You also have to keep in mind that while Aerys II and perhaps Rossart, too, were somewhat deranged, only the Mad King was willing to die in this whole thing. The alchemists most likely intended to survive the entire thing, which means they must have had exit strategies and the like. It is not all that likely that they would have gone along even with Rossart's orders if the man had commanded them to burn the city while Tywin's men were making it unlikely or impossible for them to get out before the fires consumed the city.

Perhaps. But, so far, this is not-text-based inference - slightly better than fan-fiction. Not my cup of tea, thank you...

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The well-being of Arya thing referred to the whole Mance plan. That was the problem. Ramsay just reacted to that.

And no, Ramsay is in his right in the letter. He does not declare war on the Night's Watch. He makes demands and offers insults but it is quite clear that he will spare the lives of Jon and his men if he meets those demands.

There's nothing clear with that. The text of the letter does not say that. The past actions of Ramsay (some of which will be known by Jon) don't leave much room for assuming that. Ramsay - if he is indeed the author of the pink letter - is coming to attack Castle Black, and there is not safety for the NW if they don't defend themselves.

There is nothing lawful about the mutiny at castle black. Even if we agree about Jon's treasonous intentions, the right thing to do would be peacefully oppose the Lord Commander. To murder the Lord Commander is treason - just like kingslaying.

[The Hoare]

16 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

There's nothing clear with that. The text of the letter does not say that. The past actions of Ramsay (some of which will be known by Jon) don't leave much room for assuming that. Ramsay - if he is indeed the author of the pink letter - is coming to attack Castle Black, and there is not safety for the NW if they don't defend themselves.

Ramsay clearly states that he'll not bother the Watch if Jon accept his demands.

Quote

I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows.

 

19 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

There is nothing lawful about the mutiny at castle black. Even if we agree about Jon's treasonous intentions, the right thing to do would be peacefully oppose the Lord Commander. To murder the Lord Commander is treason - just like kingslaying.

It become lawful after Jon decide to march agains't the Boltons. It's desertion, and desertion is punished by death.

[sgtpimenta]

1 minute ago, The Hoare said:

Ramsay clearly states that he'll not bother the Watch if Jon accept his demands.

Jon can not attend to the letter demands, as he has not "Reek" (whoever this can be) nor "Arya".

3 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

It become lawful after Jon decide to march agains't the Boltons. It's desertion, and desertion is punished by death.

A speech is not desertion. You answer speech with words, not with knives.

[cpg2016]

8 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

Ramsay clearly states that he'll not bother the Watch if Jon accept his demands.

 

It become lawful after Jon decide to march agains't the Boltons. It's desertion, and desertion is punished by death.

Right, but merely making the demand in the first place is unlawful.  Jon is probably legally correct to treat Ramsay as an enemy after the Pink Letter.  After all, if I hold a gun to your head and demand your wallet, you are legally justified in using force to disarm me.  By which I mean, even if you assume that the Night's Watch is forbidden to take part in the affairs of the realm (something we have no evidence of, merely the traditional practice that they don't), Jon isn't doing that.  Ramsay has already involved the North in the affairs of the Night's Watch.  They are sovereign from both Winterfell and Kings Landing.  By making ANY sort of demand, Ramsay turns Jon's reaction from an active attempt to influence political affairs, into a more passive reaction of defending the rights, customs, and military capability of the Night's Watch.  Which is completely reasonable.

Ramsay demands Jon break the most sacred right in the Seven Kingdoms (guest right) just so he can.... what?  He has no legal justification to demand either Val or Mance & Dalla's son, nor "his Reek" who as a human being has the right to go where he will.  He technically has no legal authority to demand Stannis or his court, either, though I'll grant it should be assumed he could easily get it from the Iron Throne.

But as I've said earlier, the key point here is that the mutineers were actively plotting Jon's downfall before the Pink Letter.  So there is no universe in which their actions are morally acceptable.  The entire coup was premeditated, and even if the action that precipitated it was of questionable legitimacy, it doesn't absolve them of the ethical responsibility for their crime.  Also... Jon hadn't technically deserted yet.  

[sgtpimenta]

27 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Right, but merely making the demand in the first place is unlawful.  Jon is probably legally correct to treat Ramsay as an enemy after the Pink Letter.  After all, if I hold a gun to your head and demand your wallet, you are legally justified in using force to disarm me.

Ramsay demands Jon break the most sacred right in the Seven Kingdoms (guest right) just so he can.... what?  He has no legal justification to demand either Val or Mance & Dalla's son, nor "his Reek" who as a human being has the right to go where he will.  He technically has no legal authority to demand Stannis or his court, either, though I'll grant it should be assumed he could easily get it from the Iron Throne.

But as I've said earlier, the key point here is that the mutineers were actively plotting Jon's downfall before the Pink Letter.  So there is no universe in which their actions are morally acceptable.  The entire coup was premeditated, and even if the action that precipitated it was of questionable legitimacy, it doesn't absolve them of the ethical responsibility for their crime.  Also... Jon hadn't technically deserted yet.  

Exactly. It may look like a technicality - after all, he was rallying a mob and quite loudly stating his intentions of foreswearing his vows... but there is quite a difference between a plan and an act of treason.

Not only that, but the murder of Jon Snow is quite different of the execution of Gared (or even Janos Slynt). There was no judgment, no rite, no last words. Bowen Marsh and his gang acted like assassins in the dark because they themselves knew that what they were up to no lawful execution. It was murder, plain and simple.

[The Hoare]

15 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

Jon can not attend to the letter demands, as he has not "Reek" (whoever this can be) nor "Arya".

A speech is not desertion. You answer speech with words, not with knives.

That's why he should've send another letter explaining the situation.

So, he lied about wanting to march agains't Winterfell?

15 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Text.  

They're under guest rights and therefore protected, but the Boltons probably thought(rightly) that Jon is helping Stannis which would violate the neutrality of the Watch. 

A simple letter could've solved it, but declaring war was in no way acceptable. Ramsay could have ignored it, but Roose would not.

[The Hoare]

10 minutes ago, sgtpimenta said:

There was no judgment, no rite, no last words. Bowen Marsh and his gang acted like assassins in the dark because they themselves knew that what they were up to no lawful execution. It was murder, plain and simple.

They were probably afraid of the wildlings and the knights of Stannis that wouldn't support Marsh's actions.

There would be no reason for murder if they thought it wasn't lawful. Especially considering the quantity of enemies they had at the wall.

[sgtpimenta]

3 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

So, he lied about wanting to march agains't Winterfell?

No, I don't think so. I'm not even saying he was correct. I'm just saying that this was not cause to murder your lord commander. As you said, just as Jon should have tried to explain the situation, so should have Marsh.

Not only that, I'll go so far as saying that talking with Jon would be much more productive than talking with the sociopath sadist that is Ramsay Snow.(assuming, as Jon must have, that the letter was written by Ramsay)

[sgtpimenta]

13 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

They were probably afraid of the wildlings and the knights of Stannis that wouldn't support Marsh's actions.

There would be no reason for murder if they thought it wasn't lawful. Especially considering the quantity of enemies they had at the wall.

So they were just as dumb as they were treasonous. Murdering Jon Snow is not a good way to make these enemies go away - quite on the contrary, I'll wager that Jon's death will not sit well with all those wildlings and knights that they were so afraid to begin with. Shit is about to blow out.

They can think their brains out, but if you act like a murderer and kill like a murderer, it is still murder, no matter what you think.

[cpg2016]

26 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

They're under guest rights and therefore protected, but the Boltons probably thought(rightly) that Jon is helping Stannis which would violate the neutrality of the Watch. 

A simple letter could've solved it, but declaring war was in no way acceptable. Ramsay could have ignored it, but Roose would not.

We know as readers that a simple letter would not have sufficed.  Ramsay is very clear; give me what I want, or I will take it by force.  That isn't a negotiation, it is a declaration, so no... no letter would have sufficed.  Especially seeing as even IF you assume that Jon has no right to give shelter to Stannis (and he does), he certainly has the right to give shelter to Mance's child and Val, who have never set foot in the Seven Kingdoms nor threatened anyone.

Quote

 

They were probably afraid of the wildlings and the knights of Stannis that wouldn't support Marsh's actions.

There would be no reason for murder if they thought it wasn't lawful. Especially considering the quantity of enemies they had at the wall.

 

Dude, it's obvious.  The reason is that the assassins are unhappy with Jon's policy of reconciliation with the wildlings.  We know they are conspiring before the Pink Letter, which is how Bowen Marsh knows exactly who to approach when he goes to assassinate Jon.  Which mean their treason is premeditated, and based off something other than the Pink Letter.

And the reason they assassinate Jon then and not later is not because of their outrage at Jon's response to the Pink Letter, but because they know that he'll soon be off with a bunch of wildlings loyal to him personally, and impossible to get to.  This is, in every single respect, an exact parallel to the assassination of Julius Caesar, who was murdered by men who had sworn to him.  Brutus and Cassius acted when they did because it was Caesar's last public appearance before joining his hyper-loyal legions and marching to war, for years, most likely.

[BalerionTheCat]

20 hours ago, HallowedMarcus said:

     You are wrong or you forgot the details about it. He did not ask them to join him, meaning he won't order them to follow him south as an LC of the NW. But he asked,- not ordered - both Wildlings and Night Watchers to join him if they so feel like it is the right thing to do,

Sorry, but I feel you are imagining things. I read the end of the chapter before quoting it. And I read it again, just now. A larger part. And there is nothing suggesting Jon was asking his brothers to break their vows. "No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows". Not "ask", "made' It was not even his intend to suggest it. I even believe he would refuse any of them asking to join him.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You have an interesting understanding of slavery. Would you also say a person joining a religious order (or her own free will, of course) makes herself a slave? Then you have an interesting concept of that, too. Now, you are not necessarily executed when you leave your monastery or religious order but at certain times and in certain societies it came pretty close to that.

I have nothing against religions if you can leave anytime you want, and without intimidation.

Slavey? What do you call a job where you can't leave before your death. And if you want to resign, you'll be beheaded. The NW for life for criminals deserving death, fine. But the others? The penalty is disproportionate. Those who committed minor faults. Because their father wished their death if otherwise. Because they were just too stupid to realize what they were doing. Few come and stay of their true free will. Where is honor in taking advantage of vulnerability and ignorance? Jon had done nothing wrong. He just felt unwelcome at Winterfell after Net left. And right then, he is threatened of death penalty, because he wanted to help his brother. Sorry, but I am revolted, disgusted, by how the NW is recruiting and treating its "brothers". The NW is now a place of shame, not of honor.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Now that's a rhetorical trick, if I have ever seen one.. Well said, Lord Varys! Spoke like a true master of whispers

If Jaime convinced Aerys to act in such a way that would get his royal ass killed, that would be just as treasonous as kingslaying with his own hands. Sure, maybe the future king would pardon him (as King Bob did, after all). But we must at least concede that Ser Jaime acted himself, and that is more honorable than waiting for daddy to do your dirty work for you.

No, killing your king is worse than just standing aside when he is killed by others. That is pretty obvious. He would still have broken his vow to Aerys II, of course, but he wouldn't be the Kingslayer.

For a Kingsguard it is not 'more honorable' to kill the king yourself even if you want him dead. For a Kingsguard killing the king is the greatest crime there is, just as for a black brother deserting or allying yourself with the Others is.

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Perhaps. But, so far, this is not-text-based inference - slightly better than fan-fiction. Not my cup of tea, thank you...

I'd say it is fan fiction to assume those men wanted to die with Aerys II. There is no hint whatsoever that Rossart or the others were madmen or suicidal.

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

There's nothing clear with that. The text of the letter does not say that. The past actions of Ramsay (some of which will be known by Jon) don't leave much room for assuming that. Ramsay - if he is indeed the author of the pink letter - is coming to attack Castle Black, and there is not safety for the NW if they don't defend themselves.

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that Ramsay is the author of the Pink Letter. This is the text:

Quote

Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore.
Your false king’s friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.
I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.
I want my bride back. I want the false king’s queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want his wildling princess.
I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard’s heart and eat it.

The last lines make it pretty clear that Ramsay was making demands here and offering Jon to leave him and the Night's Watch in peace if Jon met his demands.

2 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

There is nothing lawful about the mutiny at castle black. Even if we agree about Jon's treasonous intentions, the right thing to do would be peacefully oppose the Lord Commander. To murder the Lord Commander is treason - just like kingslaying.

I assume the Night's King used the same arguments and convinced his fellow brothers to follow him which such talk. If they had had the guts of Bowen Marsh neither Brandon the Breaker nor Joramun would have been forced to intervene to put the Night's King down.

If a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch breaks his vows - as Jon Snow did - his life is forfeit. Bowen Marsh did not kill the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He killed a deserter and a traitor.

25 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Sorry, but I feel you are imagining things. I read the end of the chapter before quoting it. And I read it again, just now. A larger part. And there is nothing suggesting Jon was asking his brothers to break their vows. "No man can ever say I made my brothers break their vows". Not "ask", "made' It was not even his intend to suggest it. I even believe he would refuse any of them asking to join him.

That is actually nonsensical on Jon's part. You cannot make anyone break his vow. There is always a choice, and Jon offered his men a choice he had no right to offer them - whether they would join him in treason or desertion or not. There is only one possible answer to that kind of offer, and Bowen Marsh gave it to Jon.

25 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I have nothing against religions if you can leave anytime you want, and without intimidation.

Slavey? What do you call a job where you can't leave before your death. And if you want to resign, you'll be beheaded. The NW for life for criminals deserving death, fine. But the others? The penalty is disproportionate. Those who committed minor faults. Because their father wished their death if otherwise. Because they were just too stupid to realize what they were doing. Few come and stay of their true free will. Where is honor in taking advantage of vulnerability and ignorance? Jon had done nothing wrong. He just felt unwelcome at Winterfell after Net left. And right then, he is threatened of death penalty, because he wanted to help his brother. Sorry, but I am revolted, disgusted, by how the NW is recruiting and treating its "brothers". The NW is now a place of shame, not of honor.

I actually agree with you that Lord Eddard dumped his bastard to the Wall to get rid of him. That was an ugly thing to do especially in light of the fact that he kept his true identity from him. But Jon was no moron. He knew what he was doing. Tyrion told him what the Watch was and he saw it himself long before he took his vow. He choose to stay there.

Now, are you right that the rules and the society of this world suck hard? Sure, nobody wants to live in feudal society like Westeros. But you have to accept the rules as they are and those rules are that you get killed if you desert the NW. Those rules are not only enforced by the NW, by the way. It would have been Robb who had executed Jon if the boy had been foolish enough to try to join him in his war. That is what the Starks do. They kill deserters of the Night's Watch no matter who or what they are.

And quite frankly, the NW is a new beginning for many of the criminals. Their crimes are forgiven and they can make a new career there, raise through the ranks, do something of significance. That is more than most of the lot that's sent to the Wall deserves.

[sgtpimenta]

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, killing your king is worse than just standing aside when he is killed by others. That is pretty obvious. He would still have broken his vow to Aerys II, of course, but he wouldn't be the Kingslayer.

For a Kingsguard it is not 'more honorable' to kill the king yourself even if you want him dead. For a Kingsguard killing the king is the greatest crime there is, just as for a black brother deserting or allying yourself with the Others is.

I'd say it is fan fiction to assume those men wanted to die with Aerys II. There is no hint whatsoever that Rossart or the others were madmen or suicidal.

How about we agree to disagree about this? It is off-topic, after all, I hope we can debate our asses out in another thread.

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that Ramsay is the author of the Pink Letter. This is the text:

Last time I checked, lies can be written just as easily as truths. There is plenty of reason to doubt the authorship of pink letter, as I believe you know. The language itself reeks ( see what I did here?) of the king-beyond-the-wall. He is the only one named, for R'hlor's sake!

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The last lines make it pretty clear that Ramsay was making demands here and offering Jon to leave him and the Night's Watch in peace if Jon met his demands.

Boy, if you believe this, I have a nice castle to sell you, just in the hottest site in Valyria...  (see what I did again? I'm on fire!)

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I assume the Night's King used the same arguments and convinced his fellow brothers to follow him which such talk. If they had had the guts of Bowen Marsh neither Brandon the Breaker nor Joramun would have been forced to intervene to put the Night's King down.

If a Lord Commander of the Night's Watch breaks his vows - as Jon Snow did - his life is forfeit. Bowen Marsh did not kill the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He killed a deserter and a traitor.

It may be as you say, but even so, there's a proper way to kill a criminal. There must be a trial, a rite, and the sentence must be carried by whoever has the proper authority. Marsh has done nothing like this. Murder is not justice, and killing someone you don't like is not "rightfull".

[BalerionTheCat]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Now, are you right that the rules and the society of this world suck hard? Sure, nobody wants to live in feudal society like Westeros. But you have to accept the rules as they are and those rules are that you get killed if you desert the NW.

Sure. But that doesn't mean, us readers have to agree with them. In fact, much of what GRRM wrote are despicable things, which should displease us.

[Victor Newman]

5 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We know as readers that a simple letter would not have sufficed.  Ramsay is very clear; give me what I want, or I will take it by force.  That isn't a negotiation, it is a declaration, so no... no letter would have sufficed.  Especially seeing as even IF you assume that Jon has no right to give shelter to Stannis (and he does), he certainly has the right to give shelter to Mance's child and Val, who have never set foot in the Seven Kingdoms nor threatened anyone.

Dude, it's obvious.  The reason is that the assassins are unhappy with Jon's policy of reconciliation with the wildlings.  We know they are conspiring before the Pink Letter, which is how Bowen Marsh knows exactly who to approach when he goes to assassinate Jon.  Which mean their treason is premeditated, and based off something other than the Pink Letter.

And the reason they assassinate Jon then and not later is not because of their outrage at Jon's response to the Pink Letter, but because they know that he'll soon be off with a bunch of wildlings loyal to him personally, and impossible to get to.  This is, in every single respect, an exact parallel to the assassination of Julius Caesar, who was murdered by men who had sworn to him.  Brutus and Cassius acted when they did because it was Caesar's last public appearance before joining his hyper-loyal legions and marching to war, for years, most likely.

This is not true.  Bowen Marsh is a good and loyal man.  It was obvious that he didn't really want to kill his mad lord commander but he had no other way to stop him.  Jon just admitted to giving Mance Rayder a pass.  Jon let Mance get away with his horrible crimes because he wants him to help Arya.  Jon twisted justice to benefit his sister.  Jon admitted to attacking the Boltons.  Sending your criminals to take away a nobleman's wife is an attack and a declaration of war.  Jon announced his intentions to lead a party of wildlings to wage war on a noble house.  Jon deserved to die and Bowen should kill him again if he comes back to life.  His crimes against his NW brothers are all punishable by death.

[Victor Newman]

3 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

It may be as you say, but even so, there's a proper way to kill a criminal. There must be a trial, a rite, and the sentence must be carried by whoever has the proper authority. Marsh has done nothing like this. Murder is not justice, and killing someone you don't like is not "rightfull".

Jon made it impossible for the NW to arrest him.  He made sure to get the wildlings on his side at the same time he confessed his crimes in public.  It was too late then to arrest him. 

[The Hoare]

9 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

We know as readers that a simple letter would not have sufficed.  Ramsay is very clear; give me what I want, or I will take it by force.  That isn't a negotiation, it is a declaration, so no... no letter would have sufficed.  Especially seeing as even IF you assume that Jon has no right to give shelter to Stannis (and he does), he certainly has the right to give shelter to Mance's child and Val, who have never set foot in the Seven Kingdoms nor threatened anyone.

Dude, it's obvious.  The reason is that the assassins are unhappy with Jon's policy of reconciliation with the wildlings.  We know they are conspiring before the Pink Letter, which is how Bowen Marsh knows exactly who to approach when he goes to assassinate Jon.  Which mean their treason is premeditated, and based off something other than the Pink Letter.

But Jon doesn't know it. Either way, he should've send a letter to Roose Bolton, which is the warden of the North and has control over Ramsay. He doesn't even have fArya, he should've explained the situation.

I agree that they were conspiring agains't him before the letter, but Jon's actions after the letter gave legitimacy to his Marsh and company

[Lord Varys]

14 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

How about we agree to disagree about this? It is off-topic, after all, I hope we can debate our asses out in another thread.

Nobody forced you to address this topic. And there certainly enough of a parallel there to compare Jaime to Jon.

14 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Last time I checked, lies can be written just as easily as truths. There is plenty of reason to doubt the authorship of pink letter, as I believe you know. The language itself reeks ( see what I did here?) of the king-beyond-the-wall. He is the only one named, for R'hlor's sake!

There are no such reasons. People doubting that Ramsay is not the author of the Pink Letter have either too much time or too vivid an imagination. We don't even have proof that Mance can write. He is of common birth and never had any administrative duties in the Watch. And even Cotter Pyke, the commander of Eastwatch, cannot write. Why on earth should anybody believe Mance Rayder can write? Hell, historically, even Borros Baratheon, a historical Lord of Storm's End, could neither read nor write.

14 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

Boy, if you believe this, I have a nice castle to sell you, just in the hottest site in Valyria...  (see what I did again? I'm on fire!)

Whether you believe Ramsay's promise in the letter is another matter. I don't. But you claim Ramsay didn't make any such promises and you are wrong on that. You falsely denied that Ramsay offered to leave Jon and his crows in peace if he met his demands and falsely claimed that Ramsay would come to the Wall to attack the NW under any circumstances. This simply has nothing to do with the book you were reading.

14 hours ago, sgtpimenta said:

It may be as you say, but even so, there's a proper way to kill a criminal. There must be a trial, a rite, and the sentence must be carried by whoever has the proper authority. Marsh has done nothing like this. Murder is not justice, and killing someone you don't like is not "rightfull".

There is no legal authority which could conduct a trial against the Lord Commander. Else the Night's King, Runcel Hightower, and other bad Lord Commanders could have been stripped of their office and sentenced to death by the brothers without the involvement of outside forces. But it seems that if you are the Lord Commander you decide what the people in the Watch do, and you can behead them if they refuse an order, can't you? In such a climate all you can to deal with a traitor and deserter like Jon Snow is to kill him before he corrupts more of your sworn brothers.

Just as you can't conduct a trial against a tyrannical king. All you can do is to rebel against him and hope that you win. Or you can murder him quietly - or not so quietly.

[The Commentator]

14 hours ago, Take Me 2 Your Leader said:

Jon made it impossible for the NW to arrest him.  He made sure to get the wildlings on his side at the same time he confessed his crimes in public.  It was too late then to arrest him. 

The wildings will prevent Jon's arrest because he's going to lead them to attack the Boltons.  That's what the wildlings wanted to do as soon as they found out Mance was alive.  They became Jon's friends when he told the crowd that he gave Mance the equivalent of a pardon.  Bowen had limited options and his time was running out to stop Jon. 

[cpg2016]

15 hours ago, Take Me 2 Your Leader said:

This is not true.  Bowen Marsh is a good and loyal man.  It was obvious that he didn't really want to kill his mad lord commander but he had no other way to stop him.  Jon just admitted to giving Mance Rayder a pass.  Jon let Mance get away with his horrible crimes because he wants him to help Arya.  Jon twisted justice to benefit his sister.  Jon admitted to attacking the Boltons.  Sending your criminals to take away a nobleman's wife is an attack and a declaration of war.  Jon announced his intentions to lead a party of wildlings to wage war on a noble house.  Jon deserved to die and Bowen should kill him again if he comes back to life.  His crimes against his NW brothers are all punishable by death.

Bowen Marsh was planning to kill Jon well before the Pink Letter.  In other words, before any of the justifications you cite.

Mance is not a criminal, first off.  He was a threat to the Night's Watch, but he broke no laws, as the laws of the Seven Kingdoms don't apply when not in the Seven Kingdoms.

And Ramsay Bolton had threatened the Night's Watch with physical violence if they didn't turn over certain guests of theirs.  The Boltons have already justified Jon's decision for him.  Any attack he makes on them is perfectly legal; they are holding a proverbial gun to his head.  It is far MORE of a betrayal to surrender the sovereignty of the Watch to the Boltons than it is to assault them for endangering the only mission the NW has, which is protecting the realm from the Others.  Right now, a number of Stannis' men are helping defend the Wall; the demand on the part of the Boltons that he effectively disarm and surrender these men is a direct threat on the primary goal of the Night's Watch.