I don't know. I think the situation could be salvaged with some judicious talking and mature behavior on the part of the characters. Instead each character is going around eachothers back spreading rumors. Lori is the worst of it, but Dale too. This last episode she tries extremely hard to ingnite Rick to rage against Shane and to kill/drive him out. What needst o happen is those 3 need to sit down and have an adult chat with someone moderating the whole business. Honesty all around. Those who can't accept group living must leave. No one neesd to die. Just go solo.

But they also need to realize they are on H's farm. Even if Shane did kill Otis- there isn't anything that can be done about it now. How will the farmers react when they find out. So... Do they really want more bloodshed?

I honestly think that Shane could still be reasoned with or at the very least medication might help him and some time away from the group. I'm sure that he'd not be the last survivor on anti-depressants and there is many lying around.

I think the writers amp up the tension by writing it this way, but I'm honestly not convinced that 'Shane must die,' for everyone's safety.

I'd honestly rather he remain alive and Lori be exposed for trying to be manipulative.

 

Everything you said I agree with. However with how fast paced things are going with situations and characters. Just not enough time to fix everyone and their problems. And go and correct everything wrong. It is what it is.And What's done is done.

 

Zambi, if the pregnant woman is a person that is reasonable an attempt to restrain her should be made. But, given the complexities of the situation- she is Rick's wife, Carl's mother, and Shane's former lover- and her propensity to reckless behavior, self and group endangerment, and slothful and manipulative attitude (visibile to all on the farm and destined to breed resentment, depress morale, and lead to group incohesion) the decision would have to be death. It is not done out of anger, but objectively (think Arianna when she'd gone to the feds). The risk of harm to other, more necessary and productive group members would supercede the lives of a woman such as Lori and her unborn child. She might agree to change, and would sincerely try, but a leopard cannot change it's spots. It is who she is. By the same token, if there were a man with a drinking or drug problem, whose addicition led to dangerous behavior, he too would have to be killed. Basically, anyone who's way of being was incompatible with group discipline and security would be offered the chance to make it on their own (perhaps find a more welcoming and/or patient group of survivors) or be put down. Humanely. Quick shot to the back of the head. (I don't hate Lori and don't believe she should suffer.)

 

But Greyone,

I'm not the one objecting with you on, how she might have to be dealt with. I think she sux and has been nothing but trouble for the group. Her pregnancy is yet another sham involved and doesn't change how I feel about her.

 

Here is the thing, Shane likely wouldn't be perceived by the audience is as bad, if it weren't for the whole Lori thing. Like even the barnyard thing that took place that there are mixed reviews about. He reacted right then and there because Lori got him all worked up again. That's when he said "Okay....fine.." and stormed off and the shit hit the fan. Before that, he had been cooler and calmer and probably much more responsive to any ideas about dispatching the zombies as a safer time when no one was around.

 

Exactly. Shane just doesn't think before he does. He just is like a bull in China shop. Moves like his are more likely to get someone killed over what Rick does.

 

I'm not convinced any of the characters think that much really. If they did, they'd thnk more of 'bigger picture' and react less.

If Dale was thinking, instead of antagonizing Shane, maybe, just maybe he might try to help Shane, once he identified Shane was a loose cannon. Afterall, he claims to have 'seen it before.' So instead of shaking his head and going bug eyed and looking disapproving. Do something.

If Lori was thinking instead of trying to get Shane killed because she felt guilty for Shagging him, she might have let him go, or encourage Andrea a bit to date him, or simply treated him better. If she had, I would dislike her a lot less.

If Rick was thinking he wouldn't listen to Lori.

 

There you go again! LOL! If you're gonna put down every body who screws up now and then you're not gonna have any body left.

I think you're right that Hershel may have been trying to commit suicide by zombie. He was clearly despondent. He didn't even bring a weapon. Even the news that his daughter had collapsed didn't pull him out of it. But make no mistake, they NEED Hershel. The only danger he presented was his potential loss to the group. So killing him for that would seem counter productive.

Rick screwed up here by not having Glenn act as a look out. Even though they weren't worried about people getting the drop on them because they hadn't run across that problem before he should have been watching for walkers. (If he has another lapse should they "put him down"?)

edit: You keep talking group morale, what kind of morale is the group going to have knowing that any mistake could result in their execution? What about the other wives or husbands when they see you put a bullet in the head of a defenseless pregnant woman who has a son and is married to one of the most respected of the group? So far you've advocated murdering the only person in the group with any medical training, Shane, who while he has a few problems is one of the go to guys in a crisis situation, and a pregnant wife and mother. I think you would have been perceived as a threat to the group long before any of these people. Even if you hadn't actually done it the fact that you suggested it would be enough for the majority of the group to realize they had a psychopath amongst them.

 

My apologies, Zambi; that post was for Boute.

 

Boute, you might consider Tony Soprano a psychopath. Marlo Stanfield. Perhaps they are. But, in the worlds they inhabit every death they precipitate is borne of necessity. These are fictional characters based on very real life examples. Everyday in the world we live in someone is given up. Someone's mother, brother, father, sister, daugher, son... Given up for survival (staying out of prison). Given up because their lives are not deemed worth the trouble it would take to save them. Given up out of expedience.

Given up by individuals involved in criminal enterprise. By institutions. By governments.

These sacrifices are lost in the aggregate. In the tiny world that is the post ZA community, yes- the losses would be felt acutely. And they might precipitate more deaths, until the group that remained understood and respected certain death and chose life.

You are still thinking as one would in days gone by. During the ZA a group that tolerated Lori and her behavior (and she cannot change) doesn't have long anyway. They might lose Lori alone, or they might lose many others due to her. Ditto for Herschel and Shane- if he does not move beyond the killing of Lori.

If Herschel reverts, and runs to town again for a drink after the next traumatic episode, he might get himself killed and anyone foolish enough to go after him. If Lori is allowed to continue to alienate others by walking around with her arms folded while the others pull KP duty or perform other work there will be resentment and it is Rick who will suffer.

Killing is not done for it's own sake, but out of necessity. Otherwise, as Marlo told Prop Joe, "you'd be back in here up to mischief in no time."

 

This may seem trite but maybe the "First Lady" comment went to Loris head lol.

 

Killing Lori would be inexcusable at this point because you'd also be killing an innocent baby. There's no justification for such a thing. And you'd have go through Rick first. There's good chance that he'd take out a few people before he went down.

If a 3 year old managed to wander onto the farm would you kill it? Obviously it offers nothing to the well being of the group. Quit being abstract for a moment. Can you really see yourself executing a three old?

And if Hershel goes into town again you have to go get him. He's just too important to the survival of the group.

 

It is being presented that way, isn't it? This may be unintentional but I did wonder, after they all re-grouped following their respective adventures and Rick held his dinner table pow-wow why he and Lori retired to their tent to undress. Hell, wasn't it early morning? Did they just expect the others to go about doing what needed to be done while they enjoyed each other's company?

Rick is responsible for the new man with the injured leg but leaves it up to Herschel alone to prepare for the necessary surgery? Lori just ran out into the wild because it was so imperative that they get Herschel back for the comatose girl but she doesn't go check on the kid? And, as they're getting naked, they've obviously, again, left the care of their son to others. At what point does Carl realize his mom and dad really ain't acting like they care a whole helluva lot for him? Rick takes every opportunity to leave him and possibly never return (unlike the father in The Road) and Shane has been more of father in every way necessary beyond giving blood.

Again, I'm not sure if these are writing errors, but they're what we're given to consider.

 

I suspect Lori always had that attitude or way about her. Rick seems to have always treated her right.Like a princess maybe. A mistake on his part. Because when he tells Shane " She is always pissed off at me and I don't know why"? Rick could do so much better.

 

Yes and if they were all putting their thinking heads together, it might occur to all of them that it would be a good idea to figure out if there is a gun shop in town, or where the police station is, and scavenger it for more ammo. A grocery store would also be a great place to scavenge as well as the pharmacy, beyond just temporary needed antibiotics, magazines and morning after pills.

 

Yep if they started thinking about an offense as well as defence if they expect to live they better get it together.. If Daryl was making some homemade arrows in the last episode he is the only one thinking ahead.

 

Boute, you said to stop being abstract but then threw out an abstract so impossible as to be miraculous. If a three years old managed to wander out of the ether of the ZA and onto the farm then not only would I not kill it, I would worship it for it would surely be the Christ child.

Now, if, more likely, we were to wander upon a young child, bitten but not yet zombied, I would kill it. If we came across a chlld whose mother had only recently been slain, still hiding in the spot she last placed it, I would face a very difficult decision. Does the child eat solid food? If it needs formula and/or milk, it's fate with me would in fact be a cruelty, for I have none to offer and no easy way to procure it. So I would do it a kindness. If the child were three years old, it would probably eat solids, be toilet trained, and strong- or it would not have survived to this point. So, that child represents the future of the human race. It would not be anymore difficult to care for that child then it would be for the one Lori is carrying, in fact, it should be easier. Would that the child would show up- it will make killing Lori all the more easier...

Herschel, if he continues to go to town every time he gets thirsty is definitely not TOO important to the group. If he wanted to rape all the women once every day and twice on Sunday's as compensation for his continued service is he still so important? His action would represent clear and present danger- the next time he goes in there might be 2000 zombies and/or a gang of bandits on the road. Stop thinking in television logic and imagine the situation is real. The zombies won't always show in groups of two or three and the bandidos either. If Herschel goes to town again he is on his own. If he returns, good; if he doesn't it is the path he chose.

Lori is right now plotting the death of one of the groups members. From the POV of the 12 other group members, this isn't going to just go over easy-peasy. Carl love's Shane. T-Dawg supports Shane. Andrea's firmly in his corner. Daryl hasn't seen Shane do anything that bothered him and Lori's done plenty. So, the loss of Shane, even for a "valid" reason, would fracture the group and a group so small cannot stand division. As it is, they might all- but Rick, not be overly troubled by Lori's passing and it could be done in such a way (by whoever did the deed) that Rick not know it was intentional. I truly don't see any character on the show being depressed over the loss of Lori for Lori's sake. There would be the general sadness of loss, particularly with numbers so small, but even this would possibly serve to bond the remaining survivors.

 

I do not think anyone in the group except Lori and Dale see Shane is a "threat", they may not agree everything he did, but I don't think they want him "go"

 

Too bad the group is all so scattered. If they were to have a discussion about this I could see Hershel telling them to grow up and stop acting like spoiled children, which Dale, Lori, and Shane are all doing to some degree, though Lori more than any other if you ask me. Their reactions to the others action are proving as stupid and dangerous to the group as anything.

 

How about just telling her to STF up?