Perhaps he could have removed all their teeth before putting them into the barn, then they would have been rendered helpless. lol

 

Hershel didn't know Sophia was in the barn. Otis is the one who put her in there and Shane killed Otis before any of the group had a chance to ask about her.

 

Like what? If you're talking about wanting to call off some of the searches, that's just being realistic. The only thing he did that I found blatantly wrong was pointing his gun at his best friend, that was some pretty psycho shit.

It's a harsh world they're in now. That's what I love about zombie apocalypse movies.... those situations where you're really challenged to find the clear line between right & wrong.

But yeah, maybe he shouldn't be the official leader, he's a little too volatile at times and there's a place for the soft touch. In a straight up fight for survival though, I want him in my camp. And I just don't see him as the villain that many people do.

 

Lying to your supposed best friends wife that her husband is dead just so he could hook up with her, murdering a fellow compatriot (Otis), threatening others in your group (Dale) that are on to his twisted ways, and then yet another veiled threat to your best friends wife that her husband isn't cut out for this new world and something could easily happen to him = Scum sucking bottom feeder low life that hopefully meets his brutal demise in February!!

 

When Rick hesitated, I expected the killshot to come from Carol.

 

I disagree. Hershel has shown over and over that nothing happens on his farm without him knowing about it. "My farm. My Rules." That's why he wants the others gone. They threaten his control. They question his authority.

You think for a minute that even if Otis was the one who captured the zombie little girl that he didn't tell Hershel about it?

 

I'm not sure Shane lied about Rick being dead. He's a cold blooded bastard, but I don't think he'd go that far..... unless Shane and Lori had a thing BEFORE Rick was shot. However, her behavior by cutting Shane off once Rick returned would imply that Lori did not cheat on Rick when they were married. I dunno.. Shane is an intense character who seems to be embracing the idea that there really aren't any consequences outside of the reactions of the group. And once he doesn't care what they think... all bets are off. His comment about how Rick isn't cut out for this world highlights the fact that Shane recognizes that Rick still holds to a moral code that Shane does not. Right now, Lori and Karl are the only ones holding his character in check.

As for Dale, he's a busy body putz. A waste of space. I don't like his character. I mean REALLY??? Hiding the guns? What... are they at summer camp??? What would have happened if zombies had attacked the farm.... would Dale have run off into the woods to find them? Incredibly irresponsible!! Not to mention the BS of trying to be a father figure to Andrea. Good for her that she's finding a way to survive in this world and decided she won't be a victim ever again. His character is incredibly self righteous and arrogant. I hope he gets eaten....

 

I would have hid them underneath the camper. That dumb ass Shane would have never looked there

 

That is what Robert Kirkman said on Talking Dead after this episode, was that Otis put her in there (probably the same day he shot Carl) and Hershel didn't know!! And Otis trusted Hershel, he doesn't trust anyone in Rick's group, that makes a big difference. And if Otis did put Sophia in the barn the same day he shot Carl he really didn't have any time to tell Hershel, now did he? Not that he or Hershel at that point even knew they were looking for a little girl.

 

Shane was telling the truth about Rick. The flashback showed that Shane actually saved him by blocking his door. (Somehow, you'd think the military would have checked since they cleared out the hallway. We won't even go into dehydration issues.) Yes, Shane was initially jealous that Rick came back and took Lori away, but Lori hasn't helped things by turning all her guilt onto him. Women have been treating Men like this for ages and more than a few have snapped because of this. Carl being hurt made him snap into reality and he realized what he had to do to live in this world. He is just sliding into ruthlessness, not full out psychotic behavior.

Dale, on the other hand, is looking out for the group more than Rick has. He confronted Hershel about the Walkers in the barn, talked to Lori about her baby and is the person people talk to when they need advice. The gun hiding was to keep Shane from doing exactly what he did, load up and clear out the barn until Rick could talk him down. It was not going to be a permanent thing, just a delay tactic. Sadly it will probably get him killed.

 

I don't think Shane knew that Rick wasn't dead either as he listened to his chest when they were at the hospital and at that point wanted him to live - though I think he knew he could still be alive otherwise why barricade the hospital door? Unless he wanted the body left in peace I suppose.

 

Don't forget Shane trying to rape Lori at the CDC.
Also Shane is a crappy XO (second in command) he thinks everyone else is incompetent to survive in the world withoput him and wants to TAKE command.

 

We must be watching two different versions of the series.

Shane didn't lie about Rick. Do you remember the flashback scene where Shane was at the hospital trying to wake Rick up? And he was even trying to pick him up and take him until the military came in and started spraying everyone down with bullets.

He didn't "murder" Otis. He did the only thing that made sense. He had already tried to tell Otis to go ahead without him but he wouldn't do it. They would have both died - and therefore Carl would have died - if he hadn't done what he did.

Dale's a nosy little bastard, and he's the one who stuck a gun in Shane's chest last episode.

Losing Shane would be a bad thing for the series. Love him or hate him, he gives you something to think about. He's involved in a lot of the gray areas we would all face in that world.

 

I don't mean to open a can of worms here, but from my perspective, Shane and Otis would have made it to the car together easily. The zombies chasing them appeared to be a great distance away, more than enough room to reach the car, even at their limping pace. I always assumed Shane killed Otis to ensure that there would be no chance whatsoever of a walker reaching him, not when an alive and pleading Otis was lying on the ground feet away. So i can understand what his motivations were, but it didn't seem necessary, it seemed like an extreme, self-serving choice to make. Hell, i remember the first time i watched the episode thinking "at least shoot him in the head! Put him out of his misery!"
and try as he might to rationalize his actions, I think Shane's decision is a factor in his growing instability.
I wasn't on here during the first few episodes of WD season 2, i can imagine some heated debates that must have gone on regarding shane and otis.

 

Had he shot Otis in the head he wouldn't have attracted the zombies' attention

 

My thoughts exactly.

It's a fictional show so we can never say for sure if NOT shooting Otis would have resulted in both of them successfully escaping. But that's not the point of the story. That entire scene was designed to make us think, and to second-guess the rationale, to realize the struggle between human empathy and the practicality of survival in the post-apocalyptic new zombie world. This formula is why zombie shows are a universal attraction, and why the show is doing so well.

If everyone was the altruistic, self-sacrificing White Knight, and the good guys always won without having to make the best decision from among a menu of horrible options & outcomes, then it would be a Disney show and none of us would be talking about it.

Shane's character is intended to be a love/hate and conflicted character. Jon Bernthal is pulling it off masterfully.

To this day, in a far more stable and safe world, people are committing acts far more cruel than anything Shane has done. Human nature is really something, isn't it?

 

Shane didn't really 'lie' about Rick, or at least he didn't KNOW he was lying. However, that does not mean it is 100% cool to bang your buddy's widow a couple of weeks after he died. If Shane had told Lori that Rick was dead exclusively to get her and Carl to safety, and if he never banged her, it would be hard to criticize him. That means the lie wasn't the main issue - the banging was.

Here is another way to look at it: You and your girlfriend of several years (or maybe your wife) break up. Less than a month later, your buddy begins dating her (without getting your OK ahead of time). Now, your relationship with this woman was already over, so there isn't any 'cheating' going on; however, most guys would tend to say your 'buddy' is actually a scumbag, and was circling the dying relationship like a vulture, waiting to swoop in at the first opportunity.

Now lets change it a little bit - You have been in a relationship for several years when a car accident leaves you in a coma for 2 months. When you wake up, your girlfriend informs you she dumped you and started dating your buddy while you were asleep. Granted, no one knew if you'd recover or not, but you still have a legitimate reason to be pissed at both of them.

I am partially inclined to agree, but only partially. We are assuming that they couldn't have escaped any other way, but we can't know that with any certainty. And in any case, most people (in theory at least) don't like the idea of killing innocent people, even to save multiple lives.

Imagine a healthy young person with healthy young organs getting into an accident and being put on life support. There is no prospect of recovery, and this person will never regain consciousness or be able to live without life support. This person has a heart, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys, a liver, etc, all of which are useless to him but desperately needed by people waiting for organ transplants. Some of these transplant-recipients-to-be are children, and all of them will die soon without new organs.

We might admire the comatose person/his next-of-kin if they donated his organs willingly, and we would understand if the doctors tried to talk the family into donating them. However, most of us would be horrified if a doctor forcibly removed organs without the patients consent, even IF those organs are saving children's lives.

There is a famous theoretical moral dilemma I mentioned in another thread, and I'll repeat it here to illustrate my point: You are standing next to a fat man on a bridge over trolley tracks. An empty runaway trolley is speeding down the tracks, about to hit a group of 5 track workers. You have no way to alert the workers, and unless you intervene, the trolley will kill all of them. You know for a fact that the fat man is fat enough to stop the trolley, and you know for a fact that this is the only way to stop the trolley; you also know that the fat man will be killed in the process. Do you push the fat man onto the tracks? When people are asked this question, they overwhelmingly say "No, I wouldn't push him", despite the fact that they would be saving 5 lives at the price of 1.

A slight variation on the same problem is "You are standing next to a switch at a fork in a set of trolley tracks, and an empty, out-of-control trolley is speeding down the tracks. If you do nothing, the trolley will take the right-hand fork, and kill 5 workers; If you pull the switch, it will take the left-hand fork and kill 1 worker. You have no way to alert the workers (same as before), and the switch is the only way you can affect the situation. Do you pull the switch?". Even in this situation, where you aren't dragging uninvolved bystanders into the mix (only track workers who presumably knew the risks involved when they took the job) most people say "No, I wouldn't pull the switch".

My point is, most people respect/admire 'Person A' when he sacrifices himself to save 'Person B'. But we don't admire 'Person A' when he sacrifices 'Person B' to save himself ('Person A') and 'Person C'. This is the difference between the guy who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies, and the guy who throws someone he doesn't like on a grenade to save his buddies.

Another illustration: Four friends are in the woods when a grizzly bear starts chasing them. In situation #1, one of the friends stops running, and faces off with the bear so his buddies can get away, though he will probably be killed and eaten in the process. In situation #2, one of the friends picks the guy he likes least and trips him so he and the other 2 can escape. Do I need to mention which of these actions is more likely to be seen as admirable?

It all boils down to Immanuel Kant's philosophical maxim that it is immoral to treat people as a means to an end (like the end of getting away and saving Carl's life); people are ends in and of themselves, not tools to be utilized and discarded at will. Otis existed to be Otis, not to be zombie bait in a quest to save Carl.

 

He is definitely a compelling character (and a talented actor), but the grey areas will still be there, whether or not Shane is around. Without going into spoiler-ish details, it can safely be said that the theme of TWD is how the ordeal of living through the apocalypse turns everyone from normal, morally upstanding Rick/Dale types into something more like Shane.

 

Now let's change it a little bit more. You go into a coma. While in the coma, a zombie apocalypse occurs. Your buddy tries to save your ass but while in the process, the U.S. military storms in and starts shooting everyone in sight.

Fast forward a week or so and your buddy is your wife's only connection to their old life. He's protecting your son and your wife.

It's a perspective changer....