2 observations about Jedi standard of not killing an unarmed person

-When Yoda and the Council discussing who will go to Utapau, Yoda states
"The capture of Grievous will end this war."

So they were planning to capture him? Why then does Obi-Wan not get the same flack for killing him that Mace gets for trying to kill Sidious? Did Grievous "choose death" by resisting arrest, if Obi-Wan even tried to arrest him that is?

-Small observation on the same subject - I just noticed in the scene where Obi-Wan drops that metal thing on the magna-droids, he waits for it to activate his weapon before he decapitates it. Watch carefully, he just stands there twirling his sabre while it picks up its weapon, then the instant it is activated; off with its head. I thought this was a nice little detail showing Obi-Wan fights honourably even with droids.

 

ObiWan was hanging over a Ledge and Grievous was coming at him. what should he do then?

 

Geez... the Jedi aren't pacifists.
Grevious wasn't unarmed, so it's not really a fair comparison.
Also, Grevious was a general in a war. Kenobi was a general in a war.
It's a war.
See, it's the same thing with Mace and Sids.
Sidious is the 5 star general in the war, he just happens to
also be chancellor. Mace realizes that the war did not end with Grevious.

 

Again, just for the record - the prohibition is not against killing an "unarmed person or being." It is against killing a "helpless person or being." Unarmed does not necessarily (or even often in the GFFA) = helpless.

 

I think he just did that to kinda be cool,he was being cocky

 

This is an interesting topic. One aspect of ROTS that has intrigued me recently is the idea that Anakin was within his right to kill Dooku following their duel on the bridge of the Invisible Hand. Although both of Dooku's hands had been severed, the possibility exists that he could have summoned Force lightning and shot it from his cauterized stumps. In fact, there is an AU story currently in progress in the Fan Fiction forum in which such a scenario is played out, with Dooku attempting to attack Sidious as he sits bound to command chair.

 

Says who? When do the Jedi say "you can't kill a helpless person". More importantly, when do the Jedi say you can't kill an unarmed would-be emperor and/or sith lord?

 

Capturing Grievous is the main objective, if it's fessible. As we see it wasn't fessible, since Obi-wan was in no position to arrest the General. Hence killing him was his only option. Obi-wan doesn't flak because it wasn't done in cold blood. Anakin doesn't exactly get flak for killing Dooku, because he didn't tell the full truth. That he killed him in cold blood, execution style.

A Jedi does not kill an unarmed or helpless person. Dooku was both unarmed and helpless. The compassionate thing to do would be to show mercy. And the right thing to do was to arrest him. Palpatine was not helpless at all, even without his Lightsaber. But Palpatine tricked Anakin into thinking that he was too weak to continue resisting arrest, so he 'surrendered'. Mace wasn't going for it and chose to kill Palpatine since there would never be a fair trial. Anakin thought that was crap and because he felt that Mace was corrupt, along with the fact that Anakin wanted Sidious alive for his own personal reasons, that is why he did what he did. When he realized that Palpatine was faking and killed Mace anyway, Anakin realized that he was screwed. So he plegeded himself to Palpatine and then deluded himself into believing that he did the right thing.

It's okay to kill if your life is in danger and your opponet will not surrender. It's not right if he/she is incapable of fighting and has surrendered. And if a Jedi does it in cold blood, using their anger and hate as justification.

 

Do you think they actually cared to capture Grevious? It seems Dooku would have been the one they wanted to capture. I think they just wanted Grevious dead. I feel some members of the Jedi may have still believed Dooku could be turned back (Just a gut feeling). Grevious is a monster for all they care.

Carnage

 

well, he doesn't offer grievous an arrest in the first place.

 

You wanna peice of me?

Well given Grievous' Track record would it really matter if he did. he had to kill the Thing. ObiWan was seconds away from being whacked.

 

well, he should have done it for the record, i guess, to make this look less like a mission to kill. i don't think grievous would have given in to it, but just for us people, for me, it would be nice to know obi-wan offered it BEFORE he started the fight.

 

My goodness, since ROTS come out all the "Jedi's are wrong for killing!" threads came out. What was Obi Wan to do? Honestly? Was Grievous going to say:

"Ya know Obi Wan, I've been wrong this whole time.... guards, leave us... I'm going home with Obi Wan to get a spankin from the council"


Grievous could have surrendered along with the entire army, he didn't and so he had to be eliminated. Love and war baby.

 

Grievous could have surrendered along with the entire army, he didn't and so he had to be eliminated. Love and war baby.

i know i'm in the minority for saying killing is not an option for me, but nevermind.

regardless of the way i feel about it ... he hasn't offered. he neither offers it to anakin. so, why the insistance he did everything he could to settle this peacefully? he didn't.

 

Okay, I never said Obi-Wan shouldn't have killed him at the end. I agree that Grievous left him no choice.
I just found it odd that the Jedi Council was discussing "capturing" him when it appeared that they never really had that in mind.
As Darth_Frared pointed out; he never made arrest an option.

Well isn't that the point I was making?
If its the same thing, then why is Mace's action considered so much worse?


Let me put forward another comparison - Nute Gunray.
If you watch TPM after ROTS you'll notice Gunray's orders from Sidious are really similar to Grievous's. Yet when Anakin kills him, it comes across as uber-evil because Gunray was a defenseless coward. BUT, from "a certain point of view" Obi-Wan killing Grievous is an equivalent to Anakin killing Gunray, we just don't think about it like that because of the moods of each scene.

 

1- kenobi was hanging of a cliff while grievous was coming to kill him.killing grievous was his only choice

2- palpatine was unarmed (even if it is BS created to delude anakin) mace was going for the kill when arrest was still an option

 

Again, I wasn't disputing this.

Was arrest still an option though? Mace went for the kill after about 2 mins of constant lightning.
Lets move away from the Mace/ Sidious example anyway, we can discuss this without repeatedly going back to the same scene.

 

if you dont want opinions then dont make a thread asking for them

 

I never implied I didn't want your opinion, I was pointing out that this thread is not about Mace and Sidious. Of course the "unarmed" issue will relate to them, but I'm just a little sick of discussing that scene.

 

then forgive me for my misunderstanding

 

No problem

I had thought this before, but watching it yesterday it came across slightly different. It does look kinda relaxed, but there just seems to be this extended pause I hadn't noticed before the magna-droid activates his weapon.
Whether he waited for it or not, Obi-Wan was gonna own, so I wouldn't be surprised if his Jedi instincts led him to give the droid that extra couple of seconds.
Either way, Obi-Wan was still showing off

 

Obi-wan jumped down, alone, to face Grievous. His weapon was not out at that point. Grevious was free to offer any peaceful solution or even to try to arrest Kenobi but what did he say?

Kenobi: Hello there! (Pretty non-threatening)

Grievous: General Kenobi, you are a bold one. I find your behavior bewildering . . . Kill him!

I'd say at that point - it was on.

 

surrender to the republic was not part of grievous plans thats for sure.no way he would have accepted a peaceful solution from kenobi.

 

I think to make an assertion regarding what is right and wrong for the Jedi, you need to back it up with some textual support. YOU think a Jedi does not kill an unarmed or helpless person, but only GL and the movies can affirm or deny that. Since we don't have GL here to contribute to the discussion, we must rely on the movies for textual support.

 

Did you see when Grievous was taking off his cloak and boasting about being trained by Count Dooku, Obi Wan's saber was activated and in his hand while grievous was still shruugin his cloak form his shoulders. If he wanted to kill him in cold blood he would have done so then.