The (attempted) murder of Jon was legally justifiable.

[MyLittleFinger]

Then whose place is it? You're putting adherence to an oath above protecting an innocent person from an awful fate. Doesn't that just piss all over the entire purpose of swearing the oath in the first place?

Jon absolved the Watch of having to take any part in the fight against the Boltons. He did not force a single one of them to go with him.

And on that note, isn't Bowen an absolute fucking moron for not just letting Jon march off to certain death, and then turning over Ramsay's hostages to curry favor? If Jon took a bunch of wildlings with him, Bowen would've been rid of them, too. Even you must admit that stabbing the guy in public, surrounded by people of uncertain loyalties, before he's even left, when the wildlings outnumber the Watch brothers, is probably the single dumbest way Marsh could have gone about it. But hey, it makes his inevitable and no doubt imminent messy end that much more satisfying when it happens. And it will happen.

And again, I am still waiting for you to criticize Bowen and the Lannisters for trying to politicize the Watch. Where's your indignant outrage against Cersei for wanting Jon assassinated? For Tywin and Bowen and Co. for trying to swing the election? Why is Jon the only one you're holding to this standard?

He's the Lord Commander, that's breaking his vows plus inviting others to do so en mass.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

He's the Lord Commander, that's breaking his vows plus inviting others to do so en mass.

Except that he didn't. He didn't make anyone follow him, he didn't order anyone to go with him, not even the wildlings.

It never fails to make me laugh that people somehow twist this situation such that Bowen and the Boltons are the victims here. "Poor Ramsay had his wife stolen away by that oathbreaking Jon Snow."

Any oath that requires abiding someone like Ramsay Bolton isn't fit for purpose.

[Bedwyck]

Then whose place is it? You're putting adherence to an oath above protecting an innocent person from an awful fate. Doesn't that just piss all over the entire purpose of swearing the oath in the first place?

Jon absolved the Watch of having to take any part in the fight against the Boltons. He did not force a single one of them to go with him.

And on that note, isn't Bowen an absolute fucking moron for not just letting Jon march off to certain death, and then turning over Ramsay's hostages to curry favor? If Jon took a bunch of wildlings with him, Bowen would've been rid of them, too. Even you must admit that stabbing the guy in public, surrounded by people of uncertain loyalties, before he's even left, when the wildlings outnumber the Watch brothers, is probably the single dumbest way Marsh could have gone about it. But hey, it makes his inevitable and no doubt imminent messy end that much more satisfying when it happens. And it will happen.

And again, I am still waiting for you to criticize Bowen and the Lannisters for trying to politicize the Watch. Where's your indignant outrage against Cersei for wanting Jon assassinated? For Tywin and Bowen and Co. for trying to swing the election? Why is Jon the only one you're holding to this standard?

The oath is a small part of it. If he wanted to help Arya then he should have left the Watch and not done it as the LC. As LC his actions reflect the watch as a whole (and everyone in it) since he was their chosen lord commander. The neutrality of the Watch was already being questioned under Jon's command and now he goes and pulls this stunt. He simply wasnt thinking of his brothers and how this could effect them.

This thread isnt about Tywin, or Cersei, or Bowen other than his act of killing Jon and no, I said on the first page of this thread that the thing with the Wildlings made it so killing Jon was a dumb move. I was just saying that some of Jon's actions did give Marsh and co.. solid reason for doing it, if you ignore the fact that the wildling tension is going to now blow up on them.

[MyLittleFinger]

Except that he didn't. He didn't make anyone follow him, he didn't order anyone to go with him, not even the wildlings.

It never fails to make me laugh that people somehow twist this situation such that Bowen and the Boltons are the victims here. "Poor Ramsay had his wife stolen away by that oathbreaking Jon Snow."

Any oath that requires abiding someone like Ramsay Bolton isn't fit for purpose.

It doesn't matter that he didn't order people to go with him..HE WAS LEAVING that is against the freaking vows taking an army (even if just wildlings) to attack a member of the realm.

Nobody is twisting anything but you.

We the readers know everything he is doing is rational and smart and for the greater good of humanity and in the case of Jeyne simply the right thing to do since Ramsay is a monster.

The Watch however does not. I'm sorry your favourite character got shanked for breaking his vows with the best intentions.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

He's the Lord Commander, that's breaking his vows plus inviting others to do so en mass.

If he hadn't done anything, and Ramsey had come to attack Castle Black everyone would be bitching that he failed as Lord Commander in his duty to protect the NW.

It's a matter of opinion whether he broke his vows in doing what would protect the Watch, but whether or not he broke his vows doesn't really matter to the original question, which was whether or not the attempted murder was legally justifiable. The answer to that question is: no.

Does anyone really think that after Night's King (if not before) the Watch didn't come up with removal procedures for LC's who got out of hand? I'll be happy to take back everything I've said in this thread if in TWoW someone reads from a book that says the proper procedure is to stab the guy repeatedly without warning, authority, making him aware of the sentence, etc.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The oath is a small part of it. If he wanted to help Arya then he should have left the Watch and not done it as the LC. As LC his actions reflect the watch as a whole (and everyone in it) since he was their chosen lord commander. The neutrality of the Watch was already being questioned under Jon's command and now he goes and pulls this stunt. He simply wasnt thinking of his brothers and how this could effect them.

This thread isnt about Tywin, or Cersei, or Bowen other than his act of killing Jon and no, I said on the first page of this thread that the thing with the Wildlings made it so killing Jon was a dumb move. I was just saying that some of Jon's actions did give Marsh and co.. solid reason for doing it, if you ignore the fact that the wildling tension is going to now blow up on them.

That's kind of a hard thing to ignore, isn't it?

If Jon had ordered members of the Night's Watch to go to Winterfell in that capacity, under his command, to free Arya, then you might have a point. But he didn't. He actually makes a conscious effort to avoid getting the Watch as a whole involved.

You're right, this thread isn't about Tywin or Cersei or Bowen. Which is precisely my point: Plenty of other people besides Jon have attempted to politicize the Watch for their own personal gain. Jon at least was repaying Stannis for his aid and using the wildlings to strengthen the Wall's defenses; his politicization was a matter of pragmatism, not furthering his own power. Yet Jon regularly gets screeched at for breaking his oath, while nary a soul, certainly not you, says anything about other people attempting to throw their weight around.

As I insinuated before, if your takeaway from the oaths in this story, whether it's the Watch oath or the Kingsguard oath or any other, is that they must be followed to the letter at all times, regardless of circumstances, I dare say you may have missed the point entirely. Instead of clutching at your pearls and pointing with a trembling finger at the scandal of Jon's actions, maybe you should instead be pondering the value of these oaths at all. Just a thought.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

It doesn't matter that he didn't order people to go with him..HE WAS LEAVING that is against the freaking vows taking an army (even if just wildlings) to attack a member of the realm.

Nobody is twisting anything but you.

We the readers know everything he is doing is rational and smart and for the greater good of humanity and in the case of Jeyne simply the right thing to do since Ramsay is a monster.

The Watch however does not. I'm sorry your favourite character got shanked for breaking his vows with the best intentions.

And does Bowen and the handful of guys he was with constitute the entire Watch? Do they speak for the entire Watch? Is Bowen invested with the authority necessary to pass summary sentencing on anyone? Yeah, everyone else in the Watch was so down with executing Jon that it had to be done hastily while everyone was distracted by a dismembering giant. Nothing says "lawful execution" like, "OK guys now, while the giant is ripping that dude apart and no one's watching!"

As you said, he's the lord commander. He represents the Watch. Ramsay personally threatened the life of the lord commander. If Jon, as lord commander, represents the Watch, then a threat against the lord commander is a threat against the Watch itself, and Jon was within his right to meet that threat. The Wall is, by design, indefensible from the south. So if Jon intended to meet this threat, the only way to do so would have been to move away from the indefensible Wall.

It seems some of you won't be happy unless Jon pisses Stannis off and dies, or pisses off Ramsay and dies, or pisses off XXX and dies. Literally ANYTHING he did, from the time Stannis showed up, was acting in some political fashion.

[Jasta11]

It doesn't matter that he didn't order people to go with him..HE WAS LEAVING that is against the freaking vows taking an army (even if just wildlings) to attack a member of the realm.

Nobody is twisting anything but you.

We the readers know everything he is doing is rational and smart and for the greater good of humanity and in the case of Jeyne simply the right thing to do since Ramsay is a monster.

The Watch however does not. I'm sorry your favourite character got shanked for breaking his vows with the best intentions.

Yet no one has still explained how exactly it's then lawful to shiv the hell out of the Lord Commander in broad daylight. I somehow doubt that's standard operating procedure.

Because, you know, that's the point of the thread. Not that Jon broke his vows, but that Bowen was right in shanking him. A stance in favor of which which I have seen no concrete evidence so far.

And anyhow, it's still pure hypocrisy from Bowen to lament Jon involving the NW in Realm politics when he wants to do the exact same in favor of another side.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

And anyhow, it's still pure hypocrisy from Bowen to lament Jon involving the NW in Realm politics when he wants to do the exact same in favor of another side.

If Bowen Marsh had his way, the Lannisters would have a puppet LC in place and the Watch would shortly be overrun with wildling wights. But I guess that's all fine and dandy so long as no oaths were broken, yessiree. You can't disobey the Watch if it's been obliterated by the walking dead, do you see?

[MyLittleFinger]

Can we at least all agree that having him out of commission by this kind of Coup D'Etat causing likely a civil war on the Wall where the Wildlings, Rangers and Stewards all go berserk is pivotal to the development of the plot and how the Wall must fall so the Others can wreak havoc on Westeros, with the delightful irony that they stabbed one of the only people actively trying to stop this inevitability while preserving his status as a hero?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Can we at least all agree that having him out of commission by this kind of Coup D'Etat causing likely a civil war on the Wall where the Wildlings, Rangers and Stewards all go berserk is pivotal to the development of the plot and how the Wall must fall so the Others can wreak havoc on Westeros, with the delightful irony that they stabbed one of the only people actively trying to stop this inevitability while preserving his status as a hero?

Sure.

Bowen Marsh is a still a freaking idiot though.

[Dicer]

Yet no one has still explained how exactly it's then lawful to shiv the hell out of the Lord Commander in broad daylight. I somehow doubt that's standard operating procedure.

Because, you know, that's the point of the thread. Not that Jon broke his vows, but that Bowen was right in shanking him. A stance in favor of which which I have seen no concrete evidence so far.

Have to agree. The shanking makes no sense. Arrest Jon and put him in an ice cell. I am not sure what Marsh meant to accomplish by shanking Jon except for total chaos.

I do think Jon at the end there was breaking the rules and his oaths. By taking a wildling army south of the wall he was involving the watch in matters of the realm. By sending Mance to get Arya. By hosting Stannis' Queen and her men and helping Stannis with some strategical planning, he had already involved the watch in the politics of Westeros.

But I don't think Marsh and four others suddenly stabbing Jon out of nowhere was the solution. They should have confronted Jon about it and if he still persisted in going to WF (Jon has been known to change his mind) they should have removed him and replaced him as per law. What they did was not a legal execution. It was a murder attempt.

[MyLittleFinger]

Sure.

Bowen Marsh is a still a freaking idiot though.

Lord Pomegranate is better at sums than Jon I'll have you know. Sure Robb is better with a lance and Jon with a sword, but sums? That's Marsh country.

[Nictarion]

What Marsh did was mutiny, illegal in any military force, and in time of war it's punishable by death. So is attacking your commanding officer. If you want to get all legalistic about it.

Which Jon himself was guilty of when he attacked Thorne. Mormont probably should have set a better precedent of what happens to people who attack superior officers.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Lord Pomegranate is better at sums than Jon I'll have you know. Sure Robb is better with a lance and Jon with a sword, but sums? That's Marsh country.

He'll easily be able to count the pieces of his body when it's ripped apart. Sums!

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Have to agree. The shanking makes no sense. Arrest Jon and put him in an ice cell. I am not sure what Marsh meant to accomplish by shanking Jon except for total chaos.

I do think Jon at the end there was breaking the rules and his oaths. By taking a wildling army south of the wall he was involving the watch in matters of the realm. By sending Mance to get Arya. By hosting Stannis' Queen and her men and helping Stannis with some strategical planning, he had already involved the watch in the politics of Westeros.

But I don't think Marsh and four others suddenly stabbing Jon out of nowhere was the solution. They should have confronted Jon about it and if he still persisted in going to WF (Jon has been known to change his mind) they should have removed him and replaced him as per law. What they did was not a legal execution. It was a murder attempt.

You may be right, but what's the alternative at that point? Ignoring Ramsay's letter brings an attack on the Watch, as far as they know. An attack from the south that they can't defend against. Giving into the demands and sending Selyse, Shireen, Val, the baby and Melisandre to Ramsay is just as political an act, only in the opposite direction. Turning Stannis and Selyse away invites a retaliatory attack that, again, they can't defend against. If Jon lets Stannis march to the Dreadfort with just his dick in his hand, Stannis gets slaughtered and Ramsay probably comes for the Watch next with Stannis's skin waving in the breeze behind him. That's what I mean when I say that Jon was fucked no matter what he did.

[Dicer]

You may be right, but what's the alternative at that point? Ignoring Ramsay's letter brings an attack on the Watch, as far as they know. An attack from the south that they can't defend against. Giving into the demands and sending Selyse, Shireen, Val, the baby and Melisandre to Ramsay is just as political an act, only in the opposite direction. Turning Stannis and Selyse away invites a retaliatory attack that, again, they can't defend against. If Jon lets Stannis march to the Dreadfort with just his dick in his hand, Stannis gets slaughtered and Ramsay probably comes for the Watch next with Stannis's skin waving in the breeze behind him. That's what I mean when I say that Jon was fucked no matter what he did.

It's true that Jon did not have a lot of choice especially where Stannis was concerned. He could not turn Stannis away. But I do think that Jon also helped Stannis out for personal reasons. He wanted Stannis to win over the Boltons and that's why he gave him the suggestion about the mountain clans and some strategy solutions.

It's the same with his sending Mance, a known deserter of the watch, to get Arya. He did that for personal reasons.

I feel the same way about his planned attack on WF. I think it was personal. That it was mainly about Arya, as his last thoughts before making that decision indicate. It was about his family and especially about Arya.

Would Ramsay be able to attack the Wall in worsening weather conditions? Would it be easier for Jon to defend the wall from Ramsay rather than march all the way to WF in those worsening weather conditions?

I do think Jon's emotions played a part in that final decision to march a wildling army south of the wall when he should have been focusing north.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

It's true that Jon did not have a lot of choice especially where Stannis was concerned. He could not turn Stannis away. But I do think that Jon also helped Stannis out for personal reasons. He wanted Stannis to win over the Boltons and that's why he gave him the suggestion about the mountain clans and some strategy solutions.

From the perspective of the Watch, is it better for Stannis or the Boltons to win? Which faction would be more reliable when it came down to brass tacks to band together and fight the Others? Or does it not matter?

[Dicer]

From the perspective of the Watch, is it better for Stannis or the Boltons to win? Which faction would be more reliable when it came down to brass tacks to band together and fight the Others? Or does it not matter?

Does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Hardhome is gone. Most of the ships that Jon send from eastwatch were lost. Cotter Pyke was in desperate need of reinforcements. The scouts that Jon send were dead. The Others are here.

I don't think the internal fighting between Bolton and Stannis is going to help at this point. If factions have to band together, the time is now. But that's not happening. And I doubt it happens even if Stannis wins the North. He is going to focus further south. How is that going to help the watch tackle the impending attack of the Others?

Or does Jon think that the Others will get past the wall and it's upto the people south of the wall to defeat/face them?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

And I doubt it happens even if Stannis wins the North. He is going to focus further south. How is that going to help the watch tackle the impending attack of the Others?

Or does Jon think that the Others will get past the wall and it's upto the people south of the wall to defeat/face them?

Nope, stannis is realising that the real danger is beyond the Wall. Mel will get sure he does. He just needs help, he needs the North, and to get the North, he needs to give something to the North.