The (Attempted) Muder of Jon was Legally Justifiable (Part II)

[NOT A TARG I SWEAR]

Just as it was unthinkable, in modern times, for the Watch to regard the Others as the true enemy, and the Wildlings as allies, prior till the battle on the Fist of the First Men, so it was unthinkable for the Watch to "take a part." Now, the Watch has to take a part, if the fundamental part of their obligation, to defend the Realms of Men, is to be fulfilled.

Pretty much this. It's also one of those instances where they have to choose which rule is more important in a story filled with systems where rules and oaths contradict one and other. .

As has been stated, the NW PRIOR to Jon was actually the one who had strayed from the initial purpose, which was according to legend to protect people from the Others. Either through boredom of waiting for them to re-appear or perhaps some action done by somebody on either side of the wall or whatever, the NW has almost exclusively fought the Wildlings for thousands of years. At the present time the NW has neither the resources or man power to protect anybody against anything, because the realm has partially broken it's side of the arrangement for the most part in ignoring the NW. Now the NW is potentially being threatened by the realm.

[Mourneblade]

Are we still on this? Jon's reasons for wanting to leave are sympathetic, but he broke his oath and betrayed his brothers. Bowen Marsh heroically executed him for his desertion. The man who passes the sentence and all that.

And when did "heroic" Marsh charge and sentence Jon.... Oh wait he was too busy stabbing him in the back to formally charge him.

[Lee-Sensei]

If Bowen Marsh carries out his oaths to the very letter he's heroic but if Eddard Stark does you're bothered by it (at least initially)?

Ned killed the deserter near the beginning of the series. I was also incredibly disturbed by how casual Jaime was about murdering a child. I'm desensitized to it.

[Formerly Tetrarch42]

Ned killed the deserter near the beginning of the series. I was also incredibly disturbed by how casual Jaime was about murdering a child. I'm desensitized to it.

So whether a characters actions are deemed heroic or not depends on your level of emotional sensitivity? That doesn't seem like a good metric to me.

[butterbumps!]

He had to do it. Jon gave him no choice. He was crying.

Based on your previous comment, it looked like you were saying Bowen did this because he felt Jon had compromised the ideals of the Watch, and were trying to cast this with a "Bowen is right, Jon was wrong" conclusion. That's why I asked if it was a joke, just to clarify.

I agree that Bowen felt Jon gave him no choice, but I think Bowen's rationale for this act is a bit less "clean" and idealistic than you might. Bowen doesn't do this for oathbreaking or a specific crime; he does it because Stannis lost, Jon refuses to send the hostages to pacify the Boltons, and announces he's going to continue fighting against the victors. Bowen made it clear, previously, that he didn't want to be on the "losing side," so when news that they're on the losing side arrives and that Jon intends to keep being on "the losing side," Bowen responds with a pragmatic-- not idealistic-- reaction. It's about preventing Jon from drawing further wrath on the Watch. Which has its merits, and explains why Bowen did this as an assassination at the Wall, rather than just letting Jon go off to fight Ramsay and die.

[marsyao]

The Boltons have already kicked apart every line of defence on which the North depends. They've sacked Winterfell, massacred its reserve army, murdered Robb Stark, massacred thousands of his men, imprisoned the Greatjon, and alienated the vast majority of surviving Northern lords. Complaining that Jon tries to save Arya from being raped by Ramsay is frankly trivial in that context.

None of these could be excuse for Night's Watch to intervene the internal affair of the westero

[Lee-Sensei]

And when did "heroic" Marsh charge and sentence Jon.... Oh wait he was too busy stabbing him in the back to formally charge him.

He was crying. Jon was well aware of his complaints and new the penalty for desertion.

[The Wolves]

He was crying. Jon was well aware of his complaints and new the penalty for desertion.

Jon wasn't deserting, he was coming back.

Jon was also going to answer a threat against HIMSELF, it would be different if Ramsey never threatened him but Ramsey specifically called Jon out and threatened him.

[Mourneblade]

He was crying. Jon was well aware of his complaints and new the penalty for desertion.

Crying has nothing to do with charging or sentencing, your statement is false.

Marsh or any of the assassins have no authority to conspire to kill, or assassinate a Lord Commander. They must formally charge him, and hear testimony. This action is mutiny, nothing more, nothing less.

[Lee-Sensei]

So whether a characters actions are deemed heroic or not depends on your level of emotional sensitivity? That doesn't seem like a good metric to me.

My feelings changed. I didn't know how dark this series was when I started.

Based on your previous comment, it looked like you were saying Bowen did this because he felt Jon had compromised the ideals of the Watch, and were trying to cast this with a "Bowen is right, Jon was wrong" conclusion. That's why I asked if it was a joke, just to clarify.

I agree that Bowen felt Jon gave him no choice, but I think Bowen's rationale for this act is a bit less "clean" and idealistic than you might. Bowen doesn't do this for oathbreaking or a specific crime; he does it because Stannis lost, Jon refuses to send the hostages to pacify the Boltons, and announces he's going to continue fighting against the victors. Bowen made it clear, previously, that he didn't want to be on the "losing side," so when news that they're on the losing side arrives and that Jon intends to keep being on "the losing side," Bowen responds with a pragmatic-- not idealistic-- reaction. It's about preventing Jon from drawing further wrath on the Watch. Which has its merits, and explains why Bowen did this as an assassination at the Wall, rather than just letting Jon go off to fight Ramsay and die.

I admit... I was only half serious about how heroic they were, but I do think that he wasn't morally right or wrong in killing Jon. There's ambiguity there and a strong argument can be made for either side IMO.

[Lee-Sensei]

Jon wasn't deserting, he was coming back.

Jon was also going to answer a threat against HIMSELF, it would be different if Ramsey never threatened him but Ramsey specifically called Jon out and threatened him.

That's not how I remember it. From what I remember, Jon was gathering men to go fight the Boltons when his place is on the Wall with his brothers.

Crying has nothing to do with charging or sentencing, your statement is false.

Marsh or any of the assassins have no authority to conspire to kill, or assassinate a Lord Commander. They must formally charge him, and hear testimony. This action is mutiny, nothing more, nothing less.

He was endangering the Watch. He was in a tight spot.

[Mourneblade]

That's not how I remember it. From what I remember, Jon was gathering men to go fight the Boltons when his place is on the Wall with his brothers.

He was endangering the Watch. He was in a tight spot.

That gives reason to his motive, but does not excuse his actions. He conspired to assassinate The Lord Commander of the Nights Watch and the carried it out without a formal charge, testimony, verdict, or sentence. Marsh nor any of the assassins have that authority, it is a mutiny, a coup d'etat, and those that have conspired will suffer the same fate as the ides of March Perpetrators.

[butterbumps!]

I admit... I was only half serious about how heroic they were, but I do think that he wasn't morally right or wrong in killing Jon. There's ambiguity there and a strong argument can be made for either side IMO.

ah, ok, I think "hero" might be going a little too far, but yes, the crying makes it clear this isn't something he wants to do but feels he needs to do.

@ everyone

In addition to Bowen's quotes about not being on the "losing side," the mere fact that this was carried out at the Wall tells us that Bowen is operating from a political, rather than idealistic perspective.

Bowen believes that Jon's mission against Ramsay will fail, right? If this was merely about oathbreaking or desertion, then he'd have let Jon go off to die and elect a new LC. Gets rid of the wildlings at the Wall as well.

Instead, Bowen prevents Jon from further action immediately. By killing Jon at the Wall, it prevents Jon from provoking the victors further. The issue is that even if the Boltons defeat Jon in the field, they might lash out at the Watch afterward. Ergo, Jon needs to be prevented from this-- Bowen's main goal here is about preventing a message to the Boltons that the Watch is with Stannis and against them. He's prioritizing this above anything that might fall apart at the Wall after the assassination.

[The Wolves]

That's not how I remember it. From what I remember, Jon was gathering men to go fight the Boltons when his place is on the Wall with his brothers.

Yeah he was but desertion is planning on not coming back, Jon was gonna come back. And like I said Jon was answering an attack to himself personally not just fighting the Boltons because he felt like it.

[Arya Targaryen]

Do you agree that Jon was breaking his oath?

Read my previous post

He chose to do what is right, and he has seen some benefit for the Watch in it, however, that was not the main reason. Therefore he thought he broke his vow or at least he is really close to it, or can be interpreted as such.

However, up until his last line in his last chapter he did not desert. Not yet. I argue even if he left to meet Ramsey, as LC he certainly is within his rights to do so, a good lawyer could defend him at any time. The only thing he actively did and can be viewed as "taking part" (though that is not part of the vow), is sending Mance. As I pointed out earlier, Bowen had no way of knowing HOW exactly Jon managed to do this. STANNIS had Mance, not Jon. And we know, it was Mel who sent Mance, and Jon only agreed to go out and pick up Arya on his way to CB - not to go to WF.

And even if he clearly IS oathbreaking, like, crowning himself, marrying and such, the Lord Steward has no right to stab him in the back along with a few other guys. The only thing he can do is to inform the Lord of Winterfell that the LC is an oathbreaker and let him deal with it. Officially.

But all this is irrelevant, because, as it is stated multiple times, Bowen did not kill Jon for oathbreaking. He killed him because he didn't want the Watch on the loosing side, and he has just learnt Stannis is dead.

[SeanF]

Yeah, well, heroic in a way that he did something he believed in and is very unlikely to survive :dunno: :P

I anticipate that Mel's first chapter in TWOW will involve Bowen being placed on a bonfire (assuming he's survived that long).

[Mourneblade]

ah, ok, I think "hero" might be going a little too far, but yes, the crying makes it clear this isn't something he wants to do but feels he needs to do.

@ everyone

In addition to Bowen's quotes about not being on the "losing side," the mere fact that this was carried out at the Wall tells us that Bowen is operating from a political, rather than idealistic perspective.

Bowen believes that Jon's mission against Ramsay will fail, right? If this was merely about oathbreaking or desertion, then he'd have let Jon go off to die and elect a new LC. Gets rid of the wildlings at the Wall as well.

Instead, Bowen prevents Jon from further action immediately. By killing Jon at the Wall, it prevents Jon from provoking the victors further. The issue is that even if the Boltons defeat Jon in the field, they might lash out at the Watch afterward. Ergo, Jon needs to be prevented from this-- Bowen's main goal here is about preventing a message to the Boltons that the Watch is with Stannis and against them. He's prioritizing this above anything that might fall apart at the Wall after the assassination.

His motives are clear, but there is a process that he skips. If he wished to stop Jon from leaving he could have arrested Jon and publicly charged him. If they had enough men to surround and apparently stab him to death they had enough men to bludgeon him unconscious and take him into custody, and then formally charge him. This also would have served the purpose of preventing Jon from going to Winterfell.

Alas though the conspirators are not sure that Jon would be found guilty, and sought to take justice into their own hands, and remove the Lord Commander illegally through force of violence.

[butterbumps!]

His motives are clear, but there is a process that he skips. If he wished to stop Jon from leaving he could have arrested Jon and publicly charged him. If they had enough men to surround and apparently stab him to death they had enough men to bludgeon him unconscious and take him into custody, and then formally charge him. This also would have served the purpose of preventing Jon from going to Winterfell.

Alas though the conspirators are not sure that Jon would be found guilty, and sought to take justice into their own hands, and remove the Lord Commander illegally through force of violence.

I'm not making a justice argument. I was laying out Bowen's motive as pragmatics and trying to show what he sought to accomplish (there's a lot of sentiment that Bowen was being incredibly stupid from the perspective this was about punishing Jon, so I was showing there's actually some practical logic behind his actions in the way it played out).

In general, I think arguing about due process is absolutely pointless in this instance, and in Westeros more broadly during the Wot5K at all. What "law?"

Precedent would dictate Bowen to detain him as much as possible, for delivery to the Stark of Winterfell for judgment. Never been a case where someone other than a Stark was lord of Winterfell, but arguably, that authority might be vested in "the Lord of Winterfell" rather than Stark explicitly, in which case that would be Ramsay.

From there, one could argue that Bowen was being both pragmatic and merciful in not delivering Jon to that lunatic, so, um, I kind of think the fact Bowen wasn't thinking about due process, precedent or justice in this is to his credit.

[Mourneblade]

I'm not making a justice argument. I was laying out Bowen's motive as pragmatics and trying to show what he sought to accomplish (there's a lot of sentiment that Bowen was being incredibly stupid from the perspective this was about punishing Jon, so I was showing there's actually some practical logic behind his actions in the way it played out).

In general, I think arguing about due process is absolutely pointless in this instance, and in Westeros more broadly during the Wot5K at all. What "law?"

Precedent would dictate Bowen to detain him as much as possible, for delivery to the Stark of Winterfell for judgment. Never been a case where someone other than a Stark was lord of Winterfell, but arguably, that authority might be vested in "the Lord of Winterfell" rather than Stark explicitly, in which case that would be Ramsay.

From there, one could argue that Bowen was being both pragmatic and merciful in not delivering Jon to that lunatic, so, um, I kind of think the fact Bowen wasn't thinking about due process, precedent or justice in this is to his credit.

I agree with your insight on motive and how he felt. It is spot on.

As to due process, we as readers, have not directly seen the Nights Watch by laws. However it is implied they have a process, for example they have a hearing over Jon breaking his vows when he killed the Half Hand, etc. Just because we can understand Marsh's motives does not, nor will ever, excuse his actions. This is a very Julius Caesar type killing, and history has shown us the hell that the aftermath of that created.

Marsh should have detained Jon and formally charged him.

[butterbumps!]

I agree with your insight on motive and how he felt. It is spot on.

As to due process, we as readers, have not directly seen the Nights Watch by laws. However it is implied they have a process, for example they have a hearing over Jon breaking his vows when he killed the Half Hand, etc. Just because we can understand Marsh's motives does not, nor will ever, excuse his actions. This is a very Julius Caesar type killing, and history has shown us the hell that the aftermath of that created.

Marsh should have detained Jon and formally charged him.

But I'm not "excusing" Bowen. We don't have access to the Watch Book of Rules and Procedures, but we do have precedent stating that when the LC of the Watch misbehaves, it's the Stark of Winterfell who polices it (Jon wasn't the LC when Aemon appealed to Eastwatch to have Jon tried rather than executed instead).

If "the law" or custom is that the Watch is supposed to deliver/ detain/ whatever a "misbehaving" LC for the Lord of Winterfell to sort out, in this case, Ramsay, then I'd hardly throw hate stones at Bowen's method by pointing out "but he didn't follow procedure or justice!" Because "following procedure," based on the precedent we do know, would have been to deliver Jon to Ramsay.

In general, I don't really think judging characters against "the law" is remotely productive, since "the law" is not invested with any sort of authority, cobbles together contradictory precedents, and ultimately comes down to the decision of a lord or king.

Since you bring up the mess of the aftermath as a negative in this, why not advocate for the hearing/ trial/ detaining as a way of preventing an even worse result in a pragmatic sense (since Bowen was operating out of pragmatics) rather than appeal to these as "legal" measures.