What was Cat thinking when she took Tyrion?

[Springwatch]

5 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Only after being threatened with a swift and predicted decision by a child and the moon door after being tortured in sky cells. 

It wasn't even a mockery of justice, just obvious abuse of power.

But that is Lysa's trial for the murder of Jon Arryn, and we're talking about Cat. Don't conflate the two.

Cat hated what Lysa did; what she wanted for Tyrion was something different. It's my belief that she wanted the King involved, and this came out in her speech at the inn when she said Tyrion must 'await the king's justice' - i.e. no immediate local trial; but wait for a decision from the king on the trial's format. Almost certainly they would be recalled to KL; this time with a full armed escort.

This is better for Cat, because she wants the entire Lannister family on trial - Tyrion for the assassin, Cersei and Jaime for Bran's fall, and Cersei (?) for Jon Arryn. As in a mafia trial, Tyrion in the dock would show that Lannister invulnerability was a myth - hopefully witnesses would come forward and the whole pack of cards come tumbling down.

[Mourning Star]

3 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

But that is Lysa's trial for the murder of Jon Arryn, and we're talking about Cat. Don't conflate the two.

Cat hated what Lysa did; what she wanted for Tyrion was something different. It's my belief that she wanted the King involved, and this came out in her speech at the inn when she said Tyrion must 'await the king's justice' - i.e. no immediate local trial; but wait for a decision from the king on the trial's format. Almost certainly they would be recalled to KL; this time with a full armed escort.

This is better for Cat, because she wants the entire Lannister family on trial - Tyrion for the assassin, Cersei and Jaime for Bran's fall, and Cersei (?) for Jon Arryn. As in a mafia trial, Tyrion in the dock would show that Lannister invulnerability was a myth - hopefully witnesses would come forward and the whole pack of cards come tumbling down.

Cat is still partially responsible for what happens to the man she abducted. When she took away Tyrion's autonomy she also became responsible for him.

Had she done what she said, and taken Tyrion to Winterfell to await the king's justice, or better yet brought Tyrion before the king this would be a different conversation.

Cat might think that is what she wants, but, as with so much else, she is wrong here. Tyrion didn't try to kill Bran, and the Lannister's didn't kill Jon Arryn.

Part of what makes this such a good case study is that Cat's motives make sense and her behavior is easy to sympathize with, however she is demonstrably wrong in her accusations, and her actions are not just in method. It should be no surprise it all ends in tears.

[Frey family reunion]

Yea, the legality of all of this is a little suspect.  I would think that when Lords of different realms have this type of conflict, the first step would be taking your case to the King to decide the appropriate punishment.

There is also an issue of jurisdiction.  I.e. what Court would be the proper place to hear and decide on a dispute?

Cat made a big pretense of going to Winterfell, and I understand why she would want to throw people off the trail.  But legally speaking, there were probably only two places where you could have legally tried Tyrion for the crime he was alleged to have committed.  And that would be Winterfell, where the crime was actually committed, or King's Landing which should have ultimate jurisdiction of any crimes committed in Westeros.

Taking Tyrion to the Eyrie to try Tyrion for the crime of attempting to kill Bran in Winterfell seems legally dubious.  Why would The Eyrie have any jurisdiction to decide on that crime?

And then we have to keep in mind the paltry evidence that prompted Cat to arrest Tyrion.  The fact that the knife used by the assassin was one in which at some point earlier, Baelish claimed to have lost to Tyrion?  Let's face it, that's not really a compelling case.  After all knives can pass through many hands.  

 

[Springwatch]

3 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Cat is still partially responsible for what happens to the man she abducted. When she took away Tyrion's autonomy she also became responsible for him.

Mmm. iirc Tyion thinks a couple of times that Cat's sense of honour will protect him from Lysa's worst excesses. Can't remember the details.

3 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Had she done what she said, and taken Tyrion to Winterfell to await the king's justice, or better yet brought Tyrion before the king this would be a different conversation.

The King's road is not an option. Tywin got the news really fast. Tyrion had hopes the Freys would send ravens out. Maybe they did.

3 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Cat might think that is what she wants, but, as with so much else, she is wrong here. Tyrion didn't try to kill Bran, and the Lannister's didn't kill Jon Arryn.

Part of what makes this such a good case study is that Cat's motives make sense and her behavior is easy to sympathize with, however she is demonstrably wrong in her accusations, and her actions are not just in method. It should be no surprise it all ends in tears.

But this is why I like the Starks - their instinct is to drag all treacherous game players out of the shadows, show them what justice looks like, and generally live life as a song.

KL without Starks is a bit of a drag. All that constant intrigue with Cersei - too much.

[Springwatch]

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Yea, the legality of all of this is a little suspect.  I would think that when Lords of different realms have this type of conflict, the first step would be taking your case to the King to decide the appropriate punishment.

There is also an issue of jurisdiction.  I.e. what Court would be the proper place to hear and decide on a dispute?

Cat made a big pretense of going to Winterfell, and I understand why she would want to throw people off the trail.  But legally speaking, there were probably only two places where you could have legally tried Tyrion for the crime he was alleged to have committed.  And that would be Winterfell, where the crime was actually committed, or King's Landing which should have ultimate jurisdiction of any crimes committed in Westeros.

Taking Tyrion to the Eyrie to try Tyrion for the crime of attempting to kill Bran in Winterfell seems legally dubious.  Why would The Eyrie have any jurisdiction to decide on that crime?

And then we have to keep in mind the paltry evidence that prompted Cat to arrest Tyrion.  The fact that the knife used by the assassin was one in which at some point earlier, Baelish claimed to have lost to Tyrion?  Let's face it, that's not really a compelling case.  After all knives can pass through many hands.  

 

That is what we have been talking about this last four pages, in fact.

[Frey family reunion]

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

It's ignorant to claim an arrest is illegal because of things that happened after the arrest, where done by someone else, without consent of the arresting officer, and of which the arresting officer complained.

I think the reason that the arrest is illegal, is that it was made by Cat outside of her jurisdiction which would be the North.  You can't argue that the Riverlanders made the arrest because if they had then Tyrion should have been brought to their Lord for trial.  But they weren't.  So they were acting as Cat's agents and not agents of the Riverlands.

[Frey family reunion]

8 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

That is what we have been talking about this last four pages, in fact.

I'm just resolving it for you.

[kissdbyfire]

13 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

Mmm. iirc Tyion thinks a couple of times that Cat's sense of honour will protect him from Lysa's worst excesses. Can't remember the details.

He does. Here’s one.

AGoT, Tyrion V

Young Robert pointed down, his hand trembling. "You're a liar. Mother, I want to see him fly." Two guardsmen in sky-blue cloaks seized Tyrion by the arms, lifting him off his floor.

The gods only know what might have happened then were it not for Catelyn Stark. "Sister," she called out from where she stood below the thrones, "I beg you to remember, this man is my prisoner. I will not have him harmed."

And here’s another good one, from after Tyrion is found not guilty and released. 

AGoT, Tyrion VI

Bronn grinned. "You're bold as any sellsword, I'll give you that. How did you know I'd take your part?"

"Know?" Tyrion squatted awkwardly on his stunted legs to build the fire. "I tossed the dice. Back at the inn, you and Chiggen helped take me captive. Why? The others saw it as their duty, for the honor of the lords they served, but not you two. You had no lord, no duty, and precious little honor, so why trouble to involve yourselves?" He took out his knife and whittled some thin strips of bark off one of the sticks he'd gathered, to serve as kindling. "Well, why do sellswords do anything? For gold. You were thinking Lady Catelyn would reward you for your help, perhaps even take you into her service. Here, that should do, I hope. Do you have a flint?"

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think the reason that the arrest is illegal, is that it was made by Cat outside of her jurisdiction which would be the North.  You can't argue that the Riverlanders made the arrest because if they had then Tyrion should have been brought to their Lord for trial.  But they weren't.  So they were acting as Cat's agents and not agents of the Riverlands.

What happens if a Dornishman bumps into a deserter from the NW in the Stormlands? 

[Frey family reunion]

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

What happens if a Dornishman bumps into a deserter from the NW in the Stormlands? 

They tag team a blonde prostitute?

[Mourning Star]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

What happens if a Dornishman bumps into a deserter from the NW in the Stormlands? 

They take them to the local lord, not Sunspear.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

They tag team a blonde prostitute?

It’s a valid question for those arguing “jurisdiction”.
My take is, there’s no such thing. Not as we understand it anyways. 

[Mourning Star]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It’s a valid question for those arguing “jurisdiction”.
My take is, there’s no such thing. Not as we understand it anyways. 

I think GRRM disagrees with you, as does historical feudalism.

Lords have the right of pit and gallows on their own lands, subject to the feudal hierarchy.

A Landed knight for instance does not have the right to make arrests independently. Nor does Cat.

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1203/

[kissdbyfire]

Another SSM, but this is exactly about Cat taking Tyrion. So, yeah, “dicey”, open to interpretation. Note that Cat would have had a “much stronger claim” [if they were in the north], which means she did have a claim, just not as strong as it could have been. 

3. Do members of one Great House have a legal right to arrest and judge members of the other? I.e. was Catelyn's abduction of Tyrion, given all the incriminating evidence, legal?

It was a bit dicey. A lord administers justice in his own lands. Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim if she had taken Tyrion in the north. Even in our own world, there are always dangers in taking on the rich and powerful, regardless of the legality of your auction or how much evidence you have... and the high lords of Westeros are a deal more prickly about their honor.

[Mourning Star]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Another SSM, but this is exactly about Cat taking Tyrion. So, yeah, “dicey”, open to interpretation. Note that Cat would have had a “much stronger claim” [if they were in the north], which means she did have a claim, just not as strong as it could have been. 

3. Do members of one Great House have a legal right to arrest and judge members of the other? I.e. was Catelyn's abduction of Tyrion, given all the incriminating evidence, legal?

It was a bit dicey. A lord administers justice in his own lands. Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim if she had taken Tyrion in the north. Even in our own world, there are always dangers in taking on the rich and powerful, regardless of the legality of your auction or how much evidence you have... and the high lords of Westeros are a deal more prickly about their honor.

He literally makes my point... hahahaha

It was a bit dicey. A lord administers justice in his own lands. Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim if she had taken Tyrion in the north. Even in our own world, there are always dangers in taking on the rich and powerful, regardless of the legality of your auction or how much evidence you have... and the high lords of Westeros are a deal more prickly about their honor.

(had to laugh at the auctions of the rich and powerful)

[kissdbyfire]

9 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

He literally makes my point... hahahaha

It was a bit dicey. A lord administers justice in his own lands. Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim if she had taken Tyrion in the north. Even in our own world, there are always dangers in taking on the rich and powerful, regardless of the legality of your auction or how much evidence you have... and the high lords of Westeros are a deal more prickly about their honor.

Did you see that he says “Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim”? 
Do you understand what that means? You can’t cherry pick through what the author has said, that’s not how it works. You said about a gazillion times that Cat had “no right”. You also said that the matter is “not subjective”, meaning your interpretation is the only correct one. Well, the author clearly disagrees with you. He says it’s a “dicey” situation, which means there’s no easy, straightforward answer. He then says Cat’s claim would have been much stronger in the north; again, for the last time: much stronger means she did have a claim. 
But you carry on, dismiss what the author says and stick to your own version. 

[CamiloRP]

33 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think the reason that the arrest is illegal, is that it was made by Cat outside of her jurisdiction which would be the North.  You can't argue that the Riverlanders made the arrest because if they had then Tyrion should have been brought to their Lord for trial.  But they weren't.  So they were acting as Cat's agents and not agents of the Riverlands.

That's a possibility, but I don't think it's the case If Ned would have found a deserter in The Gift would he then not have authority to arest him or execute him? I don't think so. If one of Ned's or Jon Arryn's men committed treason during Robert's rebelion while they where not in their kingdom, wouldn't them have executed them anyway?

 

26 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

What happens if a Dornishman bumps into a deserter from the NW in the Stormlands? 

once again, same argument

 

25 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

They tag team a blonde prostitute?

pfffffffff amazing

 

12 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Another SSM, but this is exactly about Cat taking Tyrion. So, yeah, “dicey”, open to interpretation. Note that Cat would have had a “much stronger claim” [if they were in the north], which means she did have a claim, just not as strong as it could have been. 

3. Do members of one Great House have a legal right to arrest and judge members of the other? I.e. was Catelyn's abduction of Tyrion, given all the incriminating evidence, legal?

It was a bit dicey. A lord administers justice in his own lands. Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim if she had taken Tyrion in the north. Even in our own world, there are always dangers in taking on the rich and powerful, regardless of the legality of your auction or how much evidence you have... and the high lords of Westeros are a deal more prickly about their honor.

Gotta remark the use of the word 'legality' here @Mourning Star

[Mourning Star]

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Did you see that he says “Catelyn would have had a much stronger claim”? 
Do you understand what that means? You can’t cherry pick through what the author has said, that’s not how it works. You said about a gazillion times that Cat had “no right”. You also said that the matter is “not subjective”, meaning your interpretation is the only correct one. Well, the author clearly disagrees with you. He says it’s a “dicey” situation, which means there’s no easy, straightforward answer. He then says Cat’s claim would have been much stronger in the north; again, for the last time: much stronger means she did have a claim. 
But you carry on, dismiss what the author says and stick to your own version. 

Of course, her claim is that Tyrion murdered her son... anyone can abduct someone and bring them in for trial. Cat was just in the wrong, as per the authors own words.

Had she taken him to the local lord, or better the king, this would be a different case, as it is it's very clear Cat didn't have her own authority here.

[Mourning Star]

7 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

That's a possibility, but I don't think it's the case If Ned would have found a deserter in The Gift would he then not have authority to arest him or execute him? I don't think so. If one of Ned's or Jon Arryn's men committed treason during Robert's rebelion while they where not in their kingdom, wouldn't them have executed them anyway?

 

once again, same argument

 

pfffffffff amazing

 

Gotta remark the use of the word 'legality' here @Mourning Star

Are there lawyers in Westeros? he is talking about a comparison to our legal system and his appearance in court. Lol

Quote

Having just given a real life deposition in a court case in which I am a witness, I can tell you that no evidence is "completely unequivocal," either in Westeros or the USA. Lawyers will argue about anything.

What Westeros lacks are codified laws. Which is why the discussion is about justice and not legality.

[Frey family reunion]

29 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

That's a possibility, but I don't think it's the case If Ned would have found a deserter in The Gift would he then not have authority to arest him or execute him? I don't think so. If one of Ned's or Jon Arryn's men committed treason during Robert's rebelion while they where not in their kingdom, wouldn't them have executed them anyway?

 

Your first example is an interesting one.  I don't know for sure, but I think there is some ambiguity as to who's authority the Gift really is.  Is it the Night's Watch?  Technically yes, but it doesn't seem like they ever established a presence there.  It's also smack dab in the middle of the Mountain Clans, so one of the clans may claim jurisdicition of any crimes committed there.  But the Mountain Clans certainly seem to defer to the Lord of Winterfell.  In case of doubt, I would think that a Lord of Winterfell would probably feel safe in claiming jurisdiction of a deserter in the Gift.  

But I doubt a Lord of Winterfell would feel terribly comfortable in trying and executing a deserter if he was say in King's Landing or the Storm Lands.  I think that he would take them to the King or the lord of the territory in which the deserter was residing.

The issue of a soldier's  treason, I think is a different one.  Most armies have a seperate court of justice for the soldiers in the army.  I would think that a military chain of command would take precedence there and it would not matter where the army was presently residing.

An interesting example of a lord outside of his normal jurisdiction is when Randyll Tarly wsa meting out justice in Maidenpool.  Now Taryly had taken the Castle by force, so it seemed that gave him the right to dispense justice for any crimes that occurred in the city.  Taryly would probably have invoked an expressed or implied authority from the King for his actions.

Even then, Taryly has Lord Mooton standing beside him while he dispenses justice.  Now I'm not sure if he thought that was proper or necessary since he was technically in Lord Mooton's lands, or if he just wanted to further emasculate Lord Mooton by having him watch as he dispensed justice, I don't know.