Your New Job: Defense Attorney

[Blackfish Tully]

 

Where are you getting this from? Cersei is the Queen of the freaking Seven Kingdoms. She absolutely has the right to order the death of a commoner, the same way she orders the Goldcloaks around to intimidate people. In a monarchy, the monarch's word is law. That isn't restricted to just the single ruler; it extends to anyone who can be understood to speak for him. Sandor isn't a lawyer (clearly); he has every reason in the world to believe that Cersei can order the death of a butcher's boy. It's not his job to question the Queen's orders; his job is to follow them. He would likely get in seriously trouble for questioning anything Cersei told him.

 

As to the second argument, you're arguing modern morality in a medieval setting. The cases I cited on page 3 (notably, Calley) would suggest that, in today's world (or at least, today's USA), you can hold the acting party responsible for atrocities committed during war. But there's an enormous difference between a military chain of command, and a despotic one. Cersei literally has the power of life and death over Sandor. She also literally has the power of life and death over Mycah, and/or anyone else who isn't a noble (think: did Gared have a trial?) Sandor doesn't have any right to question whether Cersei is crazy, or just, or anything else. His job is to do what Cersei tells him, and failing to follow her order can clearly have dire consequences (pun semi-intended). 

 

Lastly, where is everyone getting this idea that it's so hard to get away with killing children because a superior ordered you to in Westeros? Robert's bastards? Lommy Greenhands? I mean, seems to be Amory was pretty intent on killing Arya on Tywin and/or Cersei's orders, for for Syrio to get in the way. The whole concept of "human rights" just didn't exist in the time in which Westeros is set like it does today. If it were, Sandor might actually be concerned about facing retribution for his act; but he doesn't, because highborns killing commonfolk is a regular occurrence in Westeros that is certainly never prosecuted, and may not even be a crime. So it's not reasonable for Sandor to get his panties all in a bunch over this specific instance, when this kind of stuff happens all the time in this setting.

 

I think you are confusing Cersei as Queen and Cersei as Queen Regent , those are two completely separate entities . Th Queen Regent has much more power than a Queen would. The Queen would absolutely not have the power to order the death of a commoner unless she had the authority given to her by the King.  Death sentences can only be given out by the King and Lords or persons who have been given specific authority by him.  

As for nobles killing commoners not being a crime that is just not true . they get away with it because the Kingdom is in chaos not because it's not a crime . Jorah's head was forfeit for selling commoners into slavery so I'm sure his head would have been forfeit if he killed them instead. Roose Bolton kept his murders secret because of fear of Stark justice. Stannis would not stand for nobles murdering commoners . 

[Blackfish Tully]

 

Lastly, where is everyone getting this idea that it's so hard to get away with killing children because a superior ordered you to in Westeros? Robert's bastards? Lommy Greenhands?

 

Those were still murders , just because you get away with something does not make it any less of a crime. 

[Blackfish Tully]

 

No. See, once again, you are making facts up to make your point. Cersei was Sandor's liege lady. She was very much his direct superior. This shouldn't even be an issue.

 

 

Actually iif I remember correctly Sandor was Joffrey's sworn sword , Sandor only followed her orders because she was a Lannister and he's always followed the orders of Lannisters  but really she has no direct supervision of him and really no authority to give him or anybody else orders . If he told her to go to hell what could she do to him? The problem is you are trying to fit this situation into a soldier following orders in the chain of command situation when it's much more nuanced then that . Sandor was not a normal soldier (more of a bodyguard/mercenary) and Cersei is not really in the chain of command and he has zero obligation to follow her orders , the worst she could do to him would be to get Joffrey to fire him. 

[OldGimletEye]

Actually iif I remember correctly Sandor was Joffrey's sworn sword , Sandor only followed her orders because she was a Lannister and he's always followed the orders of Lannisters  but really she has no direct supervision of him and really no authority to give him or anybody else orders . If he told her to go to hell what could she do to him? The problem is you are trying to fit this situation into a soldier following orders in the chain of command situation when it's much more nuanced then that . Sandor was not a normal soldier (more of a bodyguard/mercenary) and Cersei is not really in the chain of command and he has zero obligation to follow her orders , the worst she could do to him would be to get Joffrey to fire him. 

No the essential problem is that you're not remembering facts correctly. Let's just say your "creative facts" are not making your case very persuasive. Joffrey specifically tells Sansa that Sandor "is his mother's dog in truth" and that "she put Sandor to watch over him." or words to that effect. I think we can infer from this that yes, Cersei was Sandor's direct superior.

 

And there is zero, absolutely zero, proof that Sandor operated as a sell sword or a hedge knight. He'd served the Lannisters since he was 12 and had never served anyone else. Plus the fact that House Clegane had always been liege men to the Lannisters.

 

See, the problem, isn't really me arguing that Cersei was in Sandor's chain of command, it's some of your factual assertions that are the problem.

[Codename: Nymeria]

 

 

I think you are confusing Cersei as Queen and Cersei as Queen Regent , those are two completely separate entities . Th Queen Regent has much more power than a Queen would. The Queen would absolutely not have the power to order the death of a commoner unless she had the authority given to her by the King.  Death sentences can only be given out by the King and Lords or persons who have been given specific authority by him.  

As for nobles killing commoners not being a crime that is just not true . they get away with it because the Kingdom is in chaos not because it's not a crime . Jorah's head was forfeit for selling commoners into slavery so I'm sure his head would have been forfeit if he killed them instead. Roose Bolton kept his murders secret because of fear of Stark justice. Stannis would not stand for nobles murdering commoners . 

 

As to the bold part...based on what? Do you have some sort of textual evidence that Robert indicated Cersei didn't have this power? Was Ned given specific authority by Robert to execute Gared? If GRRM wrote a "Constitution of Westeros" somewhere that I'm not familiar, please do provide the link. Otherwise, contending Cersei "absolutely wouldn't have the power" is pure conjecture on your part, which does not stand scrutiny given the context of the situation in which it occurred. 

 

Again - Roose didn't keep his murders secret (although I don't honestly know what murders you're referring to...) because of the law - he did it because he was being pragmatic, and was afraid of military backlash from the Starks. And regardless of whether Cersei was part of the theoretical "chain of command", it's fairly (and by "fairly", I mean "clearly") obvious she wields an immense amount of power of the key players, primarily her husband, son and father. If you're Sandor, do you really want to be crossing Cersei, or indicating to her that you don't trust her? The realistic consequences of Sandor refusing to obey Cersei's orders are significant. 

 

 

 

Those were still murders , just because you get away with something does not make it any less of a crime. 

 

Define "crime", then. A crime against humanity? Where, or how, are you arguing it's a crime against the laws of Westeros, such as they are? Violation of guest right, that's a crime, sure. We've been told that. Sandor performed this "crime" in front of, and with the implicit knowledge of, the literal lawmaker of Westeros, who said and did nothing about it. Just because you feel it's a crime doesn't make it so. 

 

I still love your icon pic, though.

 

 

[Blackfish Tully]

 

As to the bold part...based on what? Do you have some sort of textual evidence that Robert indicated Cersei didn't have this power? Was Ned given specific authority by Robert to execute Gared? If GRRM wrote a "Constitution of Westeros" somewhere that I'm not familiar, please do provide the link. Otherwise, contending Cersei "absolutely wouldn't have the power" is pure conjecture on your part, which does not stand scrutiny given the context of the situation in which it occurred. 

 

 

Ned was confirmed as Lord of the North by Robert thereby giving him specific authority to administer  the King's Justice in the North. Cersei as  Robert's wife has no authority unless it is given to her by the King. The power to execute someone is one of the highest points of a King's authority and you just can't assume that person X has that authority unless it's stated. 

 

 

Again - Roose didn't keep his murders secret (although I don't honestly know what murders you're referring to...) because of the law - he did it because he was being pragmatic, and was afraid of military backlash from the Starks. And regardless of whether Cersei was part of the theoretical "chain of command", it's fairly (and by "fairly", I mean "clearly") obvious she wields an immense amount of power of the key players, primarily her husband, son and father. If you're Sandor, do you really want to be crossing Cersei, or indicating to her that you don't trust her? The realistic consequences of Sandor refusing to obey Cersei's orders are significant. 

 

. 

 

If Sandor killed Mycah because of fear of retribution from Cersei then it's not really a case of following orders more then a case of coercion and Sandor may have a defense along those grounds . I have a hard time believing that Sandor Clegane had to worry about Cersei causing harm to him , he was much to valuable to the Lannisters. 

As for Roose , Ned Stark was the law in the North and if he found out about any crimes from Roose (which i'm sure there were many) he would have taken Roose's head just like he tried to take Jorahs. 

[Blackfish Tully]

No the essential problem is that you're not remembering facts correctly. Let's just say your "creative facts" are not making your case very persuasive. Joffrey specifically tells Sansa that Sandor "is his mother's dog in truth" and that "she put Sandor to watch over him." or words to that effect. I think we can infer from this that yes, Cersei was Sandor's direct superior.

 

And there is zero, absolutely zero, proof that Sandor operated as a sell sword or a hedge knight. He'd served the Lannisters since he was 12 and had never served anyone else. Plus the fact that House Clegane had always been liege men to the Lannisters.

 

See, the problem, isn't really me arguing that Cersei was in Sandor's chain of command, it's some of your factual assertions that are the problem.

 

Sandor was Joffrey's sworn sword not Cersei so how are my facts "creative" what's creative about saying Sandor is Joffrey's sworn sword? 

Sandor clearly left House Clegane when he was 12 (with good reason) and at that point he could have gone anywhere and served any lord , he choose to serve House Lannister and eventually swore his sword to Joffrey . Sounds pretty close to being a  sell sword to me . What's the difference between him and Bronn? After he left Joffrey he was looking to "sell" his sword to Robb. 

[OldGimletEye]

 

Sandor was Joffrey's sworn sword not Cersei so how are my facts "creative" what's creative about saying Sandor is Joffrey's sworn sword? 

Sandor clearly left House Clegane when he was 12 (with good reason) and at that point he could have gone anywhere and served any lord , he choose to serve House Lannister and eventually swore his sword to Joffrey . Sounds pretty close to being a  sell sword to me . After he left Joffrey he was looking to "sell" his sword to Robb. 

At the time he killed Mycah he did not swear his sword to Joffrey. At the Trident, Joffrey specifically said that Sandor was Cersie's dog. What on Earth are you talking about?

 

And let's see. Sandor has served the Lannisters his entire adult life, but that sounds like a sell sword to you? Seriously?

 

Your interpretations of facts are interesting, to say the least.

 

ETA:

The only thing that even remotely comes close to Sandor swearing his sword to Joff is when Sandor is appointed to the KG, after the killing of Mycah.

[Blackfish Tully]

At the time he killed Mycah he did not swear his sword to Joffrey. At the Trident, Joffrey specifically said that Sandor was Cersie's dog. What on Earth are you talking about?

 

And let's see. Sandor has served the Lannisters his entire adult life, but that sounds like a sell sword to you? Seriously?

 

Your interpretations of facts are interesting, to say the least.

 

ETA:

The only thing that even remotely comes close to Sandor swearing his sword to Joff is when Sandor is appointed to the KG, after the killing of Mycah.

 

I would make sure my facts were correct before i start accusing somebody else of having their facts screwed up.

 

"I know a little of this man Sandor Clegane. He was Prince Joffrey's sworn shield for many a year, and even here we would hear tell of his deeds, both good and ill."

 

" I was Joffrey's sworn shield. The boy attacked the prince. "

[JonSnow4President]

 

I would make sure my facts were correct before i start accusing somebody else of having their facts screwed up.

 

"I know a little of this man Sandor Clegane. He was Prince Joffrey's sworn shield for many a year, and even here we would hear tell of his deeds, both good and ill."

 

" I was Joffrey's sworn shield. The boy attacked the prince. "

 

 

 

Sansa hesitated. "If you like," she said uncertainly. "I suppose I could tie Lady up." She did not quite understand, though. "I didn't know you had a dog …"

Joffrey laughed. "He's my mother's dog, in truth. She has set him to guard me, and so he does."

"You mean the Hound," she said. She wanted to hit herself for being so slow. Her prince would never love her if she seemed stupid. "Is it safe to leave him behind?"

 

 

Hearsay vs straight from the bastard's mouth.  It's like holding onto Mortensen's deflate-gate report that 11 of 12 balls were seriously under-inflated, vs the actual data showing that only one was substantially different.

[OldGimletEye]

 

I would make sure my facts were correct before i start accusing somebody else of having their facts screwed up.

 

"I know a little of this man Sandor Clegane. He was Prince Joffrey's sworn shield for many a year, and even here we would hear tell of his deeds, both good and ill."

 

" I was Joffrey's sworn shield. The boy attacked the prince. "

But you know, just before the whole Trident incident happened, you have:

 

Joffrey laughed.  "He's my mother's dog in truth. She has set him to guard me, and so he does."    

 

So your point of Sandor having no obligation to follow Cersei is what exactly?

[Woman of War]

Frankly, this thread is getting disgusting.
Martin clearly wants us to see Sandor's deed as horribly evil and repugnant. The author wants us to perceive Sandor as someone who relishes shocking people with his cruelty. And at the same time we get a demonstration that in this world commoners are worthless and have no rights at all. Sandor did not expect anyone of importance to care about that killing, order or not. Ned's disgust was an unexpected extra spice in Sandor's bloody dish.

So seriously building a defense not only on a rather academic in-story level but on a meta level with applying our present day moralities is appalling. Enjoy, I wonder who needs to find preemptive excuses just in case he or she might ever get an order to chop a child to pieces.

But that sensitivity against calling a horrible deed horrible goes directly against Martin's intention as writer. There is no mitigation meant to be found for Sandor, we are supposed to see the murder of Mycah as especially cruel murder, plain and simple. Otherwise Sandor's story to come would simply be no story at all, pointless. Sandor would be reduced to a minor extra character. He followed orders, where is the conflict? Boring. The banality of evil.

[Blackfish Tully]

 

But you know, just before the whole Trident incident happened, you have:

 

Joffrey laughed.  "He's my mother's dog in truth. She has set him to guard me, and so he does."    

 

So your point of Sandor having no obligation to follow Cersei is what exactly?

 

 

He followed her order because he wanted to get brownie points with her and he wanted to kill the Mycah for attacking the prince but that is a long ways from having to follow her orders. 

He did it because he wanted to not because he had to . If he would have said no she might have been pissed but she would have not done anything bad to him. 

[OldGimletEye]

 

He followed her order because he wanted to get brownie points with her and he wanted to kill the Mycah for attacking the prince but that is a long ways from having to follow her orders. 

He did it because he wanted to not because he had to . If he would have said no she might have been pissed but she would have not done anything bad to him. 

Oh bull crap. Joffrey's statements are pretty clear here. Nice try though.

[Blackfish Tully]

 

 

 

 

Hearsay vs straight from the bastard's mouth.  It's like holding onto Mortensen's deflate-gate report that 11 of 12 balls were seriously under-inflated, vs the actual data showing that only one was substantially different.

 

Who are you saying is hearsay? my quote was from Sandor himself

[JonSnow4President]

Frankly, this thread is getting disgusting.
Martin clearly wants us to see Sandor's deed as horribly evil and repugnant. The author wants us to perceive Sandor as someone who relishes shocking people with his cruelty. And at the same time we get a demonstration that in this world commoners are worthless and have no rights at all. Sandor did not expect anyone of importance to care about that killing, order or not. Ned's disgust was an unexpected extra spice in Sandor's bloody dish.

So seriously building a defense not only on a rather academic in-story level but on a meta level with applying our present day moralities is appalling. Enjoy, I wonder who needs to find preemptive excuses just in case he or she might ever get an order to chop a child to pieces.

But that sensitivity against calling a horrible deed horrible goes directly against Martin's intention as writer. There is no mitigation meant to be found for Sandor, we are supposed to see the murder of Mycah as especially cruel murder, plain and simple. Otherwise Sandor's story to come would simply be no story at all, pointless. Sandor would be reduced to a minor extra character. He followed orders, where is the conflict? Boring. The banality of evil.

Except we have a borderline man (1 year younger than Jon Snow), who has run away after attacking the prince.  Upon running, the already violent offender, whose life is probably forfeit anyway, is subdued with lethal force by Sandor Clegane.  

 

We know the real facts, so we know that he is not only not confirmed to be guilty, like the standard we require in our justice system to prevent exact things like this, but Sandor Clegane does not.  If we're applying our own justice standards, Sandor is clearly guilty of a crime (whether that's voluntary manslaughter or something more, I don't know, I'm only an accountant.  My limited law training is contract and securities based).  If terms of Westerosi standards, he's fulfilling his duty.

[OldGimletEye]

Frankly, this thread is getting disgusting.
Martin clearly wants us to see Sandor's deed as horribly evil and repugnant. The author wants us to perceive Sandor as someone who relishes shocking people with his cruelty. And at the same time we get a demonstration that in this world commoners are worthless and have no rights at all. Sandor did not expect anyone of importance to care about that killing, order or not. Ned's disgust was an unexpected extra spice in Sandor's bloody dish.

So seriously building a defense not only on a rather academic in-story level but on a meta level with applying our present day moralities is appalling. Enjoy, I wonder who needs to find preemptive excuses just in case he or she might ever get an order to chop a child to pieces.

But that sensitivity against calling a horrible deed horrible goes directly against Martin's intention as writer. There is no mitigation meant to be found for Sandor, we are supposed to see the murder of Mycah as especially cruel murder, plain and simple. Otherwise Sandor's story to come would simply be no story at all, pointless. Sandor would be reduced to a minor extra character. He followed orders, where is the conflict? Boring. The banality of evil.

I tell you what's disgusting here is your often blatant hypocrisy when it comes to Sandor and your favorite character.

 

And I think it's interesting that you describe this whole argument as being "academic" when you've compared his actions to Eichmann many times. But, now that I've blown that comparison right out of the water, the debate is "academic". Interesting.

 

As to Martin's intentions I cannot exactly say, as I don't have him on speed dial. Apparently you do though. Can I get his phone number to ask him about it?

[Blackfish Tully]

Oh bull crap. Joffrey's statements are pretty clear here. Nice try though.

 

what the hell are you talking about ? If Sandor disobeyed or ignored Cersei's order would anything negative happen to him? what could Cersei possibly have done. She's not going to Robert and admit that she secretly gave Sandor and order to kill a child. Sandor is one of the most valuable assets the Lannister's have and Joffrey loves having him as his sworn shield . He has zero concern for his safety so the only reason he kills Mycah is because he wanted to , not because of any order . I know that interfers with some people romantic belief that Sandor is some kind of hero but that's the way it is. 

[OldGimletEye]

 

what the hell are you talking about ? If Sandor disobeyed or ignored Cersei's order would anything negative happen to him? what could Cersei possibly have done. She's not going to Robert and admit that she secretly gave Sandor and order to kill a child. Sandor is one of the most valuable assets the Lannister's have and Joffrey loves having him as his sworn shield . He has zero concern for his safety so the only reason he kills Mycah is because he wanted to , not because of any order . I know that interfers with some people romantic belief that Sandor is some kind of hero but that's the way it is. 

You think Cersei is really going to take flat out insubordination from one of her underlings lightly? And what of Tywin, if he heard about it? These are not nice people. They expect obedience. And do you really think Robert would have protected Sandor? Seriously? There is all sorts of little nasty things Cersei could have done. Lords have great power over their underlings. To deny that, is to be blind to the nature of feudal societies.

 

And, again, your assertion that Sandor killed Mycah "because he wanted to" has little factual basis.

[Blackfish Tully]

You think Cersei is really going to take flat out insubordination from one of her underlings lightly? And what of Tywin, if he heard about it? These are not nice people. They expect obedience. And do you really think Robert would have protected Sandor? Seriously? There is all sorts of little nasty things Cersei could have done. Lords have great power over their underlings. To deny that, is to be blind to the nature of feudal societies.

 

Robert would have no need to protect Sandor , Cersei would never go to him about this .  Sandor is not a nice person either , in fact he's a pretty scary guy and probably the most dangerous swordsman in the Kingdom , do you think that Cersei is going to do anything and take a chance on losing one of their best assets and her son's sworn shield for something that any other soldier would be able to do . 

Tywin would be pissed at Cersei for even ordering Sandor to do it , he would think that it was beneath Sandor's skills . 

What happens if Robert suddenly finds his backbone and decides to punish Sandor for killing Mycah then the Lannister have lost their best fighter for something their worst fighter could have done. 

If Cersei does anything to Sandor he could quit their service and join any of the other Lords , do you think Renly would not love to have the Hound's sword?