Jump to content

Daenerys & Mirri Maaz Duur


Lyanna<3Rhaegar

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yep, I was wrong that she said do it before she said bring me his horse, but she says she would die for him if she must. So it was incorrect to say Dany didn't agree until she said it wouldn't be her.  

Yes, and no.. You make it sound as if Dany says this with conviction.

Quote

"Death?" Dany wrapped her arms around herself protectively, rocked back and forth on her heels. "My death?" She told herself she would die for him, if she must. She was the blood of the dragon, she would not be afraid. Her brother Rhaegar had died for the woman he loved.

"No," Mirri Maz Duur promised. "Not your death, Khaleesi."
Dany trembled with relief. "Do it."

This sounds more like someone trying to convince themselves of something they prefer not to. 

The phrase "She would die for him, if she must," is not the same as "She told herself she would die for him, if she must." Read both versions and you will read the first one in a voice of conviction. With the latter you know she lacks that conviction but is trying to work up to it, and the "if she must" will be read as a trailing afterthought.

The tremble with relief confirms the impression you get from, "She told herself ...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, and no.. You make it sound as if Dany says this with conviction.

This sounds more like someone trying to convince themselves of something they prefer not to. 

The phrase "She would die for him, if she must," is not the same as "She told herself she would die for him, if she must." Read both versions and you will read the first one in a voice of conviction. With the latter you know she lacks that conviction but is trying to work up to it, and the "if she must" will be read as a trailing afterthought.

The tremble with relief confirms the impression you get from, "She told herself ...."

Well, I mean I think anyone would prefer not to, right? I dont think she can be expected to go to her death with excitement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

To me it's very simple. Daenerys did not order the attack on the Lhazareen, she did not participate in attacking the Lhazareen, she did what was within her power to lessen the suffering. There is not a jury in this world (other than on this forum) that would convict someone in that situation. Furthermore I think you would be hard-pressed to find a prosecutor to even take the case.

Now, the jury comment was not related to Dany being complicit, but about people arguing Mirri is guilty because she did not deny the absurd accusations and because she had motive, while all the evidence points to anyone but Mirri.

But let's apply the "jury comment" on Dany. Dany did not order the attack, did not participate in it, but she was ok with it until at some point she did what she could to lessen the suffering, and it has a causal tie with Dany successfully persuading Drogo to invade Westeros. I agree that it's unlikely a prosecutor would take Dany before court for the attack on the Lhazareen, because they would underestimate her agency with Drogon. Furhtermore, even if the prosecutor could read Dany's mind, the jury cannot read Dany's thoughts and POV at the time. Without any evidence (voice recordings, film footage, witness reports), I would hope a jury would assume innocence.

If however, they had recordings of Dany persuading Drogo to invade Westeros, asking Jorah for help and recordings of how Drogo was manipulated into promising what Dany wanted, and have her on film walking by the boy being killed without her acting against it, as well as footage of her having agency to intervene when she wants to, then a prosecutor may have a case to have her charged with being complicit with war crimes. Of course Drogo and his riders would get the heaviest convictions and carry the biggest responsibility. She might be convicted, but getting a very lenient sentence, such as 'time served', making a conviction more symbolic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well, I mean I think anyone would prefer not to, right? I dont think she can be expected to go to her death with excitement. 

And so you sidestep my criticism of misrepresenting Dany's willingness to sacrifice her life for Drogo's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

George never showed us the conversation that Dany had with Drogo, before Jorah made his helpful comment. I don't think you cannot say that Dany did not gave the assist to the soccer ball to Jorah, before he kicked it in

We can speculate any number of things happened or were said but what I said was Dany doesn't chime in there (in the conversation where Jorah tells Drogo this attempt on Dany's life is the first but won't be the last) and she didn't. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

The point is that her thoughts are supportive of what is happening, even though she already sees atrocities happening

Except her thoughts aren't supportive of what is happening. She doesn't have one thought that is "supportive" of what is happening that I recall, if I've missed it please quote it. So far though you have presented the lack of any comment on her emotion to indicate she is supportive or doesn't take issue with what she is witnessing. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

does, because she can emote fairly well in later passages

I'm not suggesting she was incapable of emoting, just that she doesn't. She gives us the facts of the situation without her opinion on the matter. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, we do, because she knows what will happen next, before it happens. She already knows that while people are cutting off heads that little girls will come to take out the arrows

We have Dany's POV & there is never so much as a hint or suggestion that she has witnessed this before, so the fact that she says the little girls will take the arrows out is much more likely because she is watching it happening. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Exactly my point: she's seeing things like a Dothraki, and in her eyes, people with the same fenotype than Dothraki but short hair (symbol of defeat) are alien to her. And no I don't think that's necessary normal

I don't think she sees them as alien. She notes the differences between the two people & remarks that she once wouldn't have been able to tell them apart - that's what I was saying is normal, being able to see the differences between people she used to think looked the same, because she has spent some time with them. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

She speaks her mind to Drogo plenty, before and when she wants to make the raped women her personal slaves, and wants Dothraki men to wed the slaves they want to bed. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that Dany can speak her mind and with passion, privately and publically, and that in fact Drogo listens to her

Are you serious? She speaks bluntly to him ONE time. That's not plenty & even then she doesn't know if he will side with her until he does. 

Why do you keep ignoring that Dany has no power there? It all depends on if Drogo agrees with her. He doesn't agree with her when she wants to go to Westeros. 

This is literally the first & only time she goes against any custom within the Dothraki & Drogo backs her because he thinks his son is making her fierce. 

Dany is certainly capable of speaking with passion & in this one instance she does it publically but it's been very well established that women hold zero power there. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

You misunderstood my whole point - Dany was fine with it (hence she did not speak up), until she was not (and then she spoke up). But pity is not the same as the empathy she comes to feel later on

Ok I disagree that her not speaking up = her being fine with it but for the sake of argument let's say she was just A-Ok with all the atrocities she is witnessing for the few minutes/half hour until she speaks up & clearly isn't fine with it - so what? What is the point? 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Actually that's not true. Plenty of people with empathy can witness things without emotions or empathy. We all have the ability to turn off our empathy when empathy inconveniences us. Or do you feel empathy for every person you pass by with a cup and a cardboard asking for money? No, most people do not, especially when they cannot or do not have the intent to give that person money

Sure you can witness some things & not feel empathy but this is an extreme example. Yeah, actually I do feel empathy every time I pass a person asking for money, I don't always have the money to give, but I always feel for them. I don't think not being able to give money necessitates that you don't feel empathy. 

Either way though we aren't talking about a person asking for money here, we are talking about witnessing a child being tortured to death. I think anyone who doesn't feel any empathy seeing that is a sociopath. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

So, people see the person, walk by and feel nothing. And I don't consider people selfish or unempathic or a sociopath for that. They're sociopaths when they kick such a person or kick the cup with change

Well no, neither do I but that isn't what we are talking about here. This is a much, much worse situation than someone asking for money. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

She's already complicit by persuading Drogo to invade Westeros, and it shows that she was okay for a third party being sacked to fund the invasion

It doesn't matter if she was ok with it. If you are ok with the man begging for change are you complicit in the man being poor?

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

does if that person told you his plans and you were indifferent to it when he told you and when he executed his plan

No it doesn't. My feelings toward someone else's actions do not dictate in the slightest whether or not I'm complicit in those actions. IRL, if someone told me this, I could call the police & make them aware without any fear to my own life or person. Dany can't call the cops. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Blame is not the same as being complicit. I use the latter term, not the first. It sure as hell does not make her innocent

If you are complicit you hold blame. She isn't innocent in many things but this isn't one of them. She may be guilty of seeing things through the eyes of the people she was sold to & forced to marry into, but that doesn't make her guilty of the massacre of the Lhazareen. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

You don't think "cowards" and "fools" are words of judgment on people

Sure, but I was talking about when she is contrasting the two peoples. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

didn't say it was wrong for her to feel empathy for a girl being raped

No, you didn't. I assumed that was why you were noting that she didn't "harden her heart" toward the boy but did the girl. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

And so you sidestep my criticism of misrepresenting Dany's willingness to sacrifice her life for Drogo's.

I'm not sidestepping anything. She said she would be willing if she must. You are criticizing her for the "if she must" because she isn't saying it with conviction or is wary. & I'm saying why would she be? Who would be? That's an odd thing to criticize IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Now, the jury comment was not related to Dany being complicit, but about people arguing Mirri is guilty because she did not deny the absurd accusations and because she had motive, while all the evidence points to anyone but Mirri

For what it's worth I haven't made up my mind in regards to whether or not Mirri is guilty for the things she allows Dany to believe she is guilty of, I can see both sides of that argument. 

29 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

however, they had recordings of Dany persuading Drogo to invade Westeros, asking Jorah for help and recordings of how Drogo was manipulated into promising what Dany wanted, and have her on film walking by the boy being killed without her acting against it, as well as footage of her having agency to intervene when she wants to, then a prosecutor may have a case to have her charged with being complicit with war crimes. Of course Drogo and his riders would get the heaviest convictions and carry the biggest responsibility. She might be convicted, but getting a very lenient sentence, such as 'time served', making a conviction more symbolic

She can't be held responsible for Drogo & his khalasars actions. There are some places that have "good Samaritan" laws that require someone to report a crime they are witnessing but they are only required to do so if it will not put them in danger. So, even in today's world Daenerys is not considered complicit or guilty of anything. She had no means to report it & used what agency she had (she didn't actually have any that she was aware of, Drogo just happened to side with her) to stop the rapes. 

Talking Drogo into going to Westeros doesn't not make her complicit in the Lhazareen. She wants to go to Westeros, she doesn't want to, suggest to, command to, or have any say in the attack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

For what it's worth I haven't made up my mind in regards to whether or not Mirri is guilty for the things she allows Dany to believe she is guilty of, I can see both sides of that argument. 

She can't be held responsible for Drogo & his khalasars actions. There are some places that have "good Samaritan" laws that require someone to report a crime they are witnessing but they are only required to do so if it will not put them in danger. So, even in today's world Daenerys is not considered complicit or guilty of anything. She had no means to report it & used what agency she had (she didn't actually have any that she was aware of, Drogo just happened to side with her) to stop the rapes. 

Talking Drogo into going to Westeros doesn't not make her complicit in the Lhazareen. She wants to go to Westeros, she doesn't want to, suggest to, command to, or have any say in the attack. 

And I'd add again.  Waging war is no crime per se.  Supporting a war is no crime per se.  War is quite lawful, provided the rules are observed.  There would be nothing illegal about urging Drogo to invade Westeros, any more than it would be illegal to urge George Bush to send soldiers to Afghanistan.  King Robert provided Drogo with his casus belli.  It would be as if a foreign power attempted to assassinate the wife of  the US President.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible that Mirri acted in good faith throughout, before deciding (for some reason) to start trolling Daenerys, and leading her to believe she was responsible for Drogo's condition and the child's death.

But, not likely, IMHO.  When someone shows you her arse, believe her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

“Most of Ogo’s riders fled,” Ser Jorah was saying. “Still, there may be as many as ten thousand captives.”
Slaves, Dany thought. Khal Drogo would drive them downriver to one of the towns on Slaver’s Bay. She wanted to cry, but she told herself that she must be strong. This is war, this is what it looks like, this is the price of the Iron Throne.
“I’ve told the khal he ought to make for Meereen,” Ser Jorah said. “They’ll pay a better price than he’d get from a slaving caravan. Illyrio writes that they had a plague last year, so the brothels are paying double for healthy young girls, and triple for boys under ten. If enough children survive the journey, the gold will buy us all the ships we need, and hire men to sail them.”
Behind them, the girl being raped made a heartrending sound, a long sobbing wail that went on and on and on. Dany’s hand clenched hard around the reins, and she turned the silver’s head. “Make them stop,” she commanded Ser Jorah.

Why doesn't she respond to Jorah's disgusting suggestion that they sell child sex slaves? And, when she realizes that there are slaves being sold, why is that the moment when she convinces herself that she has to be strong, that slavery is the price of the IT?

((((Maybe because that's what she's willing to pay for it))))

This was what she wanted and what she knew:

Quote

 

“My princess. How may I serve you?”
You must talk to my lord husband,” Dany said. “Drogo says the stallion who mounts the world will have all the lands of the earth to rule, and no need to cross the poison water. He talks of leading his khalasar east after Rhaego is born, to plunder the lands around the Jade Sea.”

“The knight looked thoughtful. “The khal has never seen the Seven Kingdoms,” he said. “They are nothing to him. If he thinks of them at all, no doubt he thinks of islands, a few small cities clinging to rocks in the manner of Lorath or Lys, surrounded by stormy seas. The riches of the east must seem a more tempting prospect.”

“But he must ride west,” Dany said, despairing. “Please, help me make him understand.” 

 

It's only a matter of which way she wants to direct the pillaging. She knows what he would do in the East, he would also do in the West. She also knows that the Dothraki burn cities:

Quote

 

“As her litter passed beneath the stolen monuments, she went from sunlight to shadow and back again. Dany swayed along, studying the faces of dead heroes and forgotten kings. She wondered if the gods of burned cities could still answer prayers.”

 

And most importantly of all, Drogo says exactly what he will do before they plan the attack. Nothing is a surprise to Dany; this is what she wants.

Quote

 

“I will kill the men in the iron suits and tear down their stone houses. I will rape their women, take their children as slaves, and bring their broken gods back to Vaes Dothrak to bow down beneath the Mother of Mountains. This I vow, I, Drogo son of Bharbo. This I swear before the Mother of Mountains, as the stars look down in witness.”

 

Dany is totally fine with this. Then they go on a nice little jaunt together to torture the wineseller. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

We can speculate any number of things happened or were said but what I said was Dany doesn't chime in there (in the conversation where Jorah tells Drogo this attempt on Dany's life is the first but won't be the last) and she didn't. 

No, because Jorah's was the closing comment. And his comment shows that Dany informed Drogo on everything else: the wine seller, the poison, who wants her and their son assassinated.

Quote

When Dany told him what had happened at the market, all laughter stopped, and Khal Drogo grew very quiet.

"This poisoner was the first," Ser Jorah Mormont warned him, "but he will not be the last. Men will risk much for a lordship."

And George did not write the whole conversation, because that's bad writing - too repetitive in one and the same chapter.

Quote

Except her thoughts aren't supportive of what is happening. She doesn't have one thought that is "supportive" of what is happening that I recall, if I've missed it please quote it. So far though you have presented the lack of any comment on her emotion to indicate she is supportive or doesn't take issue with what she is witnessing. 

Her supportive thoughts are how she sees any Dothraki as someone she respects, even Ogo's captured "women and men", how the Lhazareen are cowards (or are you now so agreeing with Dany's POV that you truly believe those are factually cowards?) and aliens to her. George wrote a POV who starts of curious, wants to see for herself, fascinated, non-sceptic, non-critical except the "enemy". The only half-sympathetic thoughts for the Lhazareen that she has initially is that she "pities" the newly captured Lhazareen survivors being rounded up, and she pities them because they are fearful. She doesn't pity them for the families they lost, their crop, sheep and home destroyed, or even their loss of freedom. She equates these people's fears with the fear of her wedding night. Those are supportive thoughts and feelings on what happened and is happening.

Her support starts to waver when she sees a girl near her age being gang-raped. That was her worst fear when she was to wed Khal Drogo, and so for the very first time she starts to truly identify with one of the victims there. And when Jorah tells her that the supposed bravest of Dothraki men (the fighters, the riders) fled from battle (Ogo's riders), she gives into this surge of empathy she felt, an empathy that she isn't shown to feel before, except for pitying the rounded Lhazareen captives for being fearful.

Quote

I'm not suggesting she was incapable of emoting, just that she doesn't. She gives us the facts of the situation without her opinion on the matter.

Which is the point: she doesn't emote for the first two pages.

Quote

We have Dany's POV & there is never so much as a hint or suggestion that she has witnessed this before, so the fact that she says the little girls will take the arrows out is much more likely because she is watching it happening. 

I never claimed "she has witnessed this before". I claimed, quite logically, that her retinue (handmaidens and khas) and Drogo informed her on that long way between Vaes Dothrak and the village of the Lhazareen what the Dothraki way of warfare is. Her handmaidens and khas and Drogo have been educating her about what to expect and what will come since before her arrival at Vaes Dothrak: what life is like at Vaes Dothrak, the laws, later the eating of the heart. There's just no reason to believe they haven't done so off-page in between Vaes Dothrak and the village of the Lhazareen, unless in your mind you cling to Dany being a complete blank slate, an accidental bystander who reports to the reader.

You called this "baseless speculation," because it's not on page. It is on page, but it's not written as a chapter, because it's bad writing if George would have written a chapter of conversation and "it is knowns" where Dany learns that Drogo is not directly riding for Meereen or Volantis to board ships; that it requires a lot of gold to pay for ships for 10000 men and women and as much horses; that they will have to raise money by capturing slaves and thus attack settlements; where Dany thinks "oops, didn't realize that earlier on, but makes sense. Well, I guess that's the price for the Iron Throne"; where she inquires with her khas and her handmaids how Dothrakis tend to attack, etc... 

Writing such a chapter would completely spoil the surprise for the reader. No, instead he writes the event itself, meanwhile informing the reader through use of future past tense that Dany knows what will happen next (little girls will retrieve the arrows) and through Dany remembering what Drogo told her about the Lhazareen and through Dany remembering donning his armor in preparation of the attack,  being called a coward for it by a Dothraki and Jorah killing the Dothraki over it. This is all the evidence we need as readers to have confirmation that Dany is an informed khaleesi striding through the destruction that is still happening.

Really, Lyanna<3Rhaegar, does it truly require George to become a bad writer who has to write every conversation out line per line at any moment of her voyage for you to come to terms with the fact that Dany is being informed by her retinue and Drogo on things to come? Do you truly believe that George would use the wrong tense to describe what is happening at the time that Dany sees it? And you're the one criticising my reading abilities?

Quote

I don't think she sees them as alien.

Your opinion is wrong.

Quote

Once Dany might have taken them for Dothraki, for they had the same copper skin and almond-shaped eyes. Now they looked alien to her, squat and flat-faced, their black hair cropped unnaturally short. (aGoT, Dany VII)

Quote

She notes the differences between the two people & remarks that she once wouldn't have been able to tell them apart - that's what I was saying is normal, being able to see the differences between people she used to think looked the same, because she has spent some time with them. 

She does more than "note the differences". They look "alien" to her. And no, I don't think that's normal. I have backpacked central and south America for years on my own, often months on end, stayed and lived in remote villages with their own dress and particular local identifiers. I've revisited those villages over the years and noticed the differences: going from cultural native attire to everyday modern hairdos and attire. Not ever did people look "alien" when I noticed the differences. Instead it always feels as "familiar" to me (a second home), despite the differences over time or between this region and that region. 

The word "alien" is not a choice of word to be waved off or dismissed lightly. It's an incredible strong word-choice.

You accuse me of bias, but you're the one who says "I don't think she sees them as alien", despite the quote I quoted twice now explicitly saying "they looked alien to her", and "George uses future past tense to describe what Dany is seeing in her present." I get that you cling to "what is not explicitly written I can call baseless speculation," but well turns out that even if George explicitly writes something, you deny it too.

Quote

Are you serious? She speaks bluntly to him ONE time. That's not plenty & even then she doesn't know if he will side with her until he does. 

Do you truly want me to also quote 2 pages of Dany ordering her khas and Jorah and Dothraki riders that she can take the women for her own spoils, and the whole conversation with Drogo over it, including the several mentions that she's the blood of the dragon and nobody tells her what she can and cannot do? And not solely on the matter of the Lhazareen women she claims, but on Drogo being seen to immediately.

Quote

Why do you keep ignoring that Dany has no power there? It all depends on if Drogo agrees with her. He doesn't agree with her when she wants to go to Westeros.

But he did agree with her to go to Westeros, eventually. If Drogo doesn't agree with her one moment, she either nags him over it repeatedly, uses whatever opportunity that presents itself to her advantage, orders her khas and Jorah to kill any of Drogo's riders if they resist her command, and threatens Drogo's bloodrider in front of Drogo with "dragons eating horses and sheep alike". 

Sure, Drogo has the ultimate say over it, but Dany certainly is not powerless, not in any way that you argument.

Quote

This is literally the first & only time she goes against any custom within the Dothraki & Drogo backs her because he thinks his son is making her fierce.

No, the first time she makes Drogo go against custom is when she manages to have him agree to cross the poisoned waters. Nor is it the only time. Immediately after she presses Drogo into being treated for his wound immediately.

The point is that if Dany feels it strongly and deems it necessary, she will speak out and depending on the circumstances act as if she has the power and authority. If she can do this when she does, Dany is fully capable of doing it at other times too.

Yes, Drogo rationalizes it. He boasts that his son is making her fierce. The reason he agrees in that instant is because she's fierce, like a Dothraki. And that makes Dothraki respond positively.

But no, you keep arguing that Dany is powerless "in theory", but half an hour before that, and "powerless" a day before that, etc. Practically, she's not, and she has learned to use the power she has to make Drogo agree and make others do what she wants to happen, when she deems it necessary for a long while already. 

Quote

Dany is certainly capable of speaking with passion & in this one instance she does it publically but it's been very well established that women hold zero power there.

In theory they hold zero power. In practice, women can exert power within a khalasar.

Quote

Ok I disagree that her not speaking up = her being fine with it but for the sake of argument let's say she was just A-Ok with all the atrocities she is witnessing for the few minutes/half hour until she speaks up & clearly isn't fine with it - so what? What is the point? 

You argued as if Dany's a complete innocent bystander, who's powerless and could never dissuade Drogo from attacking, killing and raping the Lhazareen, and only matter-of-factly reporting what she sees. You argue as if she was dragged to and dropped in unaware and utterly powerless out of thin air.

My point is that this picture of Dany you paint is a myth. Dany doesn't live in a bubble in the khalasar. She's not completely innocent, she's not powerless, doesn't act powerless, came prepared and informed, and isn't utterly naive either. She isn't the khal either, didn't actively participate in the killing and eventually does act and speak against some of the atrocities done. Dany's complicity is somewhere in the middle of this. She's more complicit than her handmaidens, she proves herself to have more power than Drogo's bloodriders, and she wasn't against the attack until well after it was done. She only acts against what happens to some of the "spoils".

My point of Dany's choice of timing of speaking up is that this does make her complicit. And to go back to the op, that if this was a modern day robbery, she'd be the girlfriend of the leader of the gangsters who on the one hand convinced her boyfriend to give her something, that requires him to commit the robbery and that she's basically the look-out with her own bodyguard on the scene who berates her boyfriend's gangsters for getting people killed and has her bodyguard kill a fellow gangster for raping one of the hostages. When the police arrives at such a scene and arrests people, she'd be arrested and risks being charged as a complicitory of murder (including murder of the robberers).

You were the one who started this anology of the robbery and what the legal consequences would be in the other thread of the Starks, arguing how Dany in such a case could never be convicted of a crime, and I pointed out you are wrong to believe so. I think you should read up on the legal term of "an accomplice", "conspiring" AND most especially the "fellony murder ruler"

Some links:

Even when a fellow robberer or bystander gets shot by a policeman, both a conspiritor or an accomplice of the robbery can be charged with "first degree murder" under the felony murder rule, even if they're not actually present at the crime scene. And for conspiracy the actual crime agreed to (let's say invading Westeros) doesn't need to have been acted out yet. Crimes and actions done in preparation of it can cause a conspiritor to end up being charged with first degree murder under the felony murder rule.

The wiki page on it lists several examples. Legally, Dany becomes a main conspiritor when she gets Drogo to agree to invade Westeros. She, Jorah and Drogo are conspiritors. The attack on the Lhazareen is not a separate crime. It's a concrete step taken to further "invading Westeros". The felony murder rule holds that when one person intends one wrongful act they also intend the consequences of it, even if they did not foresee it. Hence, it's enough for just Drogo to decide and execute it, for Dany to be convicted of conspiracy. She could get up to 5 years imprisonment for it and fines, even though Drogo never got to invade Westeros.

The question then becomes whether she can be regarded a legel accomplice.

Quote

Complicity is the act of helping or encouraging another individual to commit a crime. It is also commonly referred to as aiding and abetting. One who is complicit is said to be an accomplice. But, even though an accomplice does not actually commit the crime, his or her actions helped someone in the commission of the crime.

Dany did not actively help Drogo in attacking the Lhazareen, and I doubt she encouraged him to attack the Lhazareen. But she did very much encourage him to invade Westeros and the attack on the Lhazareen was a crime committed to further the invasion of Westeros. So, here it gets shady. A hard-line prosecutor may indeed try to get het convicted of first degree murder under the felony murder rule as an accomplice. A reasonable one would go for conspiracy. A smart prosecutor would threaten Dany with the charge of aiding and abetting in a crime that led to first degree mass murder in order to get her to agree to a plea-deal of conspiracy. But let's go with a hard-line prosecutor.

Quote

The key consideration is whether the individual intentionally and voluntarily encouraged or assisted in the commission of the crime, or (in some cases) failed to prevent it.

That's the hard-line prosecutor's loophole in either charging or threatening Dany with the charge of aiding and abetting. That's where the arguments come in whether Dany had that power. Defence would argue - she was a child bride to this violent khal and women have no authority or power. The prosecution only has to show that Dany commanded warriors and enforced her will. Since she did that, trying to stop further rape, then the prosecution can indeed argue that Dany was in some capacity to prevent the attack altogether, and that she failed to do it, despite being able to use many other tactics to persuade Drogo from doing what she wants, despite having been informed of what will happen in the village of the Lhazareen. She's now charged with being an accomplice, with aiding and abetting.

Under the felony murder rule she could then be charged with 1st degree murder, a capital offence. However, the prosecution has to prove certain things in order to demand the death penalty for it. The eight ammendment puts limitations when imposing death penalty on someone charged with 1st degree murder under the felony murder rule.

Quote

Under Enmund v. Florida,[1] the death penalty may not be imposed on someone who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place. However, under Tison v. Arizona,[2] the death penalty may be imposed on someone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_and_the_death_penalty_in_the_United_States)

Dany did not kill Lhazareen. Dany did not attempt to kill Lhazareen. That leaves "did she intend that killing took place?". Well she knew killing would take place and failed to prevent it, and while she is not a major participant in the planning of the attack of the Lhazareen, she's a major conspiritor in the planning of the Westeros invasion of which the attack on the Lhazareen village is a direct consequence.  So, that leaves the last straw to cling to: did she act with reckless indifference to human life.

Indifference is a peculiar term. Someone witnessing a crime being committed, reporting it, and failing to act to stop it, is acting "indifferent", though it is not necessarily "reckless indifference". She acts with reckles indifference to Drogo's promise of raping and pillaging Westerosi and the unforeseen deadly consequences for others along the way to it. She acts indifferent to the life of a human boy. She is not indifferent to rape, but in the process orders men killed if they refuse to obey her command. 

The prosecution and defence would then further argue over her "mental state" during the crime, with Dany acting to stop any further rape as a positive and her initial indifference as a negative. In the end, I'd say defence would manage to show that Dany erred on the reckless side rather than the intent side, especially with the presumption of innocense over that of guilt, that she acted to stop further rape, that she is ultimately not indifferent to human life, that she was but a minor participant in the attack of the Lhazareen, and that there is a distinction between Dany's culpability and that of Drogo's, his warriors and bloodriders, and that the death penalty in her case would not work as a deterrent (not to mention her young age). And in the end it will all boil down to a likely conviction with a punishment comparable to conspiracy: maximum of 5 years, a minium of "time served". 

And this is where I end up with what we know and learn from both the assassin chapter and this one. For me, Dany conspired to something with unforeseen consequences, but that does not make her entirely innocent of those consequences, even if Drogo decided it and she did not actively participate in it. She proves that if she is convinced something should not happen, she will act as if she's the second-in-command. She proves that when Drogo is opposed to her ideas, arguments or desires, that she successfully can use events and other people to convince him. Since the attack happened and she was informed over it at some point, given the knowledge she already has, this means Dany either came to agree or never objected to the attack of the Lhazareen. Much of the carnage leaves her indifferent, initially. At best she pities the captives for being fearful. This "mental state" furthers the impression that Dany was indifferent to the fate of the Lhazareen from the time she learned of the plans to attack and enslave these people until she thinks she must harden her heart. By the time she cannot harden her heart and acts against it, it is much too late: the whole town has been burned down, sheep slaughtered, crops destroyed, many dead, wounded and raped. Not one Lhazareen was saved from the violence. Dany only stopped the continuation of further violence on surviving women. It is commendable, but it is not something to rave about either. However, apart from having one of Drogo's raping warriors killed, she was also not an active participant, nor could she have aided Drogo and his warriors in any significant manner. This makes her share of responsibility all in all very minor. I just utterly disagree that she has no share of responsibility in it whatsoever.

Quote

It doesn't matter if she was ok with it. If you are ok with the man begging for change are you complicit in the man being poor?

Euhm what? Being ok with your husband massacring a town is entirely different with being ok with a man begging for change.

Quote

No it doesn't. My feelings toward someone else's actions do not dictate in the slightest whether or not I'm complicit in those actions. IRL, if someone told me this, I could call the police & make them aware without any fear to my own life or person. Dany can't call the cops.

Dany becomes the cops at some point, telling her khas to shoot any rider not following her command, and them actually doing that.

And as I have shown above, at least in the US, your mental state, your feelings towards someone else's murders when you are either at the scene, a participant or influencer of that murderer do dtermine whether you are complicit of their actions or not in the eyes of criminal law or not. So, your claim that your feelings, your mental state do not dictate in the slightest whether you're complicit or not is completely WRONG. This mental state, these feelings, have in the past determined whether someone ended up on death row or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Why doesn't she respond to Jorah's disgusting suggestion that they sell child sex slaves? And, when she realizes that there are slaves being sold, why is that the moment when she convinces herself that she has to be strong, that slavery is the price of the IT?

((((Maybe because that's what she's willing to pay for it))))

This was what she wanted and what she knew:

It's only a matter of which way she wants to direct the pillaging. She knows what he would do in the East, he would also do in the West. She also knows that the Dothraki burn cities:

And most importantly of all, Drogo says exactly what he will do before they plan the attack. Nothing is a surprise to Dany; this is what she wants.

Dany is totally fine with this. Then they go on a nice little jaunt together to torture the wineseller. 

Yeah she is totally fine with it that's why she feels like crying, why she stops the rape, why she tries to harden her heart against it. 

I don't understand what the posters arguing she is "totally fine with it" hope to gain? She isn't totally fine with it, she expresses that more than once. She is trying to convince herself that this is the price for the IT, that this is war (which it is) in an attempt to feel better about the situation but even that doesn't work as she still cannot stop from speaking up. 

You are right about the pillaging though, it was going to happen regardless if Daenerys wants the IT or not. The pillaging went a different direction depending on Drogo's decisions but it was going to happen whether Daenerys was there or no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not sidestepping anything. She said she would be willing if she must. You are criticizing her for the "if she must" because she isn't saying it with conviction or is wary. & I'm saying why would she be? Who would be? That's an odd thing to criticize IMO. 

I'm not criticising her for the "if she must". I'm not even criticising her for not being eager to sacrifice her life. I'm criticising her for her "Do it" the moment she is reassured it won't be her life being sacrificed, but that of others. And there's nothing odd about criticising someone who decides immediately and with conviction that others will have to pay with their lives so Drogo at death's door may live a life that is unkinder than death.

You find it normal that people have no qualm at someone else dying just so their husband can live?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

She can't be held responsible for Drogo & his khalasars actions. There are some places that have "good Samaritan" laws that require someone to report a crime they are witnessing but they are only required to do so if it will not put them in danger. So, even in today's world Daenerys is not considered complicit or guilty of anything. She had no means to report it & used what agency she had (she didn't actually have any that she was aware of, Drogo just happened to side with her) to stop the rapes. 

Talking Drogo into going to Westeros doesn't not make her complicit in the Lhazareen. She wants to go to Westeros, she doesn't want to, suggest to, command to, or have any say in the attack. 

This has nothing to do with "good Samaritan" laws, but the "felony murder rule". See my prior post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

And I'd add again.  Waging war is no crime per se.  Supporting a war is no crime per se.  War is quite lawful, provided the rules are observed.  There would be nothing illegal about urging Drogo to invade Westeros, any more than it would be illegal to urge George Bush to send soldiers to Afghanistan.  King Robert provided Drogo with his casus belli.  It would be as if a foreign power attempted to assassinate the wife of  the US President.

Drogo announced he would rape, kill every man and woman in Westeros and drag the remainders of their castles back to Vaes Dothrak.

I'm pretty sure that genocide is a war crime, and using rape as a war tactic is also a war crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

This has nothing to do with "good Samaritan" laws, but the "felony murder rule". See my prior post.

There is no law under which Daenerys would be convicted.  Going to war against the government of Westeros is no crime.  Especially not, after the government of Westeros attempted to murder the Khal's wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

There is no law under which Daenerys would be convicted.  Going to war against the government of Westeros is no crime.  Especially not, after the government of Westeros attempted to murder the Khal's wife.

Conspiring to genocide and using rape as war method is crime. That was what Drogo promised and what Dany agreed to at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Drogo announced he would rape, kill every man and woman in Westeros and drag the remainders of their castles back to Vaes Dothrak.

I'm pretty sure that genocide is a war crime, and using rape as a war tactic is also a war crime.

Which would indeed be a crime - on the part of Drogo.  Drogo gives those orders, not Daenerys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...