Jedi are not supposed to kill defenseless people. But Obi-Wan tried to kill Anakin.

i dont know about this one, i mean obi wan was just defending himself but when anakin lost his lightsaber, obi wan used the force to grab his and he tried to stike him with it though anakin did defend it because he used the force right in time. but i dont know about it, he leaves him to burn, but he tries to kill him earlier on.

 

I'm not sure I would qualify Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, as a defenseless person . . .

 

I brought this up in the very first Mace vs. Sidious thread when people kept saying that Mace was wrong for attempting to kill Sidious, but Obi-Wan attempted to do the EXACT SAME THING and it seemed to be OK.

Go figure.

 

I disagree. i think Kenobi knew Anakin would block.

Its a kind of...attacking defenive move.

Also, Kenobi takes his time...almost as if he deliberately misses the chance to kill Anakin.

 

I disagree. i think Kenobi knew Anakin would block.


Yeah and that was your response when I said it the last time too.



EDIT:

By the way....M_S, are you following me?

 

By the way....M_S, are you following me?

As I said - best form of defence is attack....yes im following you

 

I figured that.

I recognized your foul stench as soon as I logged on board.

 

I think if you're in a life or death struggle and you have an opening, you need to take it.

I think this idea some people have of always having to fight fair comes from years of being influenced by unrealistic entertainment.

 

The jedi are not allowed to kill defenseless beings, but I don't think that goes for other Jedi, they can still defend themselves without a weapon like a lightsaber, in fact, they can use the force as defence/a weapon. He could've force choked Obi-wan amongst things. So Anakin losing his lightsaber doesn't make him any less of a threat.

 

There's no such thing as a defenseless Jedi or Sith. Not unless you take both their arms off at least.

 

Obi-wan had to stop Anakin if he did not Anakin would have caused more damage to the galaxy and Obi-wan did not want to kill him, he could have killed him in the beggening of the duel on that part where Obi-wan was about to hit him ,I see him pause on that part a little bit and that gave Anakin time to get his lightsaber to continue the duel.

 

People confuse temporarily unarmed w/ helpless. The Jedi are not supposed to kill helpless opponents.

They are not the same thing. Ask Obi-wan - he was unarmed in that pit in TPM but he was by no means helpless. Maul died because he confused the two. Obi lived because he did not.

 

ANAKIN: Mom! Obi-Wan tried to hit me when my lightsaber wasn't on.

OBI-WAN: Anakin, your mother is dead.

ANAKIN: Oh yeah...

 

Anakin was knocked down in battle and prime for a good strike.
When Qui-Gon punched Darth Maul off the platform, Qui-Gon jumped down and was going to strike Darth only he got a lucky kick in time. Even when laying on the floor, no-one is totally helpless

 

Anakin was Obi-Wan's *****. Palpatine is nobody's *****.
That's the difference.



Palpatine - he's the man
/LM




EDIT: Last time I checked, we still couldn't use that term.

 

Anakin was knocked down in battle and prime for a good strike.


No, Anakin made a dumb, stupid, arrogant jump. Probably a youngling in training may have been able to cut him down like Obi-Wan did.

 

This is another kill or be killed scenario. Just like Mace and Sidious, Anakin/Obi/and Dooku, Maul/Qui Gon/and Obi, Yoda and Sidious, and pretty much all the duels in the saga, minus the OT in certain areas. Anakin was Vader by this point, twisted and evil, and hellbent on his way. He wasn't going to reason with Obi Wan, they weren't going to talk things over. Anakin was going to kill him, any way possible, and Obi knew this. " I will do what I must!"

 

i agree.had kenobi killed vader right there i doubt it would count as "killing a defenseless man"

 

The Jedi are the guardians of peace and justice, which Darth Vader is the enemy of. I don't think it's morally reprehinsible to exact justice on Vader. They obviously can't bring him before the courts for his crimes against the Jedi, because they are now under the control of Palpatine and Vader. Most of the Senate has turned on the Jedi, as have the Clones. They have no allies. Killing the Sith is the only way to restore peace.

 

Last time I used it, it was left unedited.
I know that it might be viewed as offensive, though. I won't use it again.

Anyway. Yes, Anakin was temporarily unarmed, but, as many others have pointed out, he was not defenseless(obviously, since he defended himself).
There's a difference between an unarmed prisoner and an unarmed foe.



Foes - they are dangerous
/LM

 

exactly.we cant compare that moment with anakin's beheading of dooku(only an example)

 

Killing an unarmed man in cold blood is wrong.


Though if your opponent attacks you and some how you knock it out of his hand, it is perfectly correct to kill him. I don't really see anything wrong with that. A little cheap though who wants to take chances.

 

This one's pretty straightforward. Anakin wasn't a Jedi. He was evil and a Sith. Once Obi-Wan made the declaration about Sith and absolutes, he became justified in killing Vader.

 

It amazes me some of the perceptions people can come up with.

Darth Vader had just wiped out Obi-Wan's entire way of life, strangled his own wife, and then tried to kill Obi-Wan for 10 minutes, yet Obi-Wan attacks a defenseless man??

Anakin execution styled Dooku. Dooku was prone and vulnerable and Anakin snatched the fight right out of him prior to executing him.

Obi-Wan ceased hostilities.

There is a big FAT difference there.

Obi-Wan could have cleanly taken Vaders head off at the neck instead of rendering him virtually harmless, but out of compassion he spared Anakin's life. Vader telegraphed his jump enabling Obi-Wan the oppurtunity to choose what to do. He chose to spare Anakin and let fate decide the outcome. Obi-Wan wanted the fight to end right then and there so he ended it.