This sounds good on the surface, but then I wondered - how they would know if Rick, or anyone for that matter would be coming down that road? I'm thinking there's a much better chance he's bat-poop crazy than he's the cheese for a RickTrap.

 

My point should have been obvious, if Rick's group is so well armed or as you put it "armed to the teeth with knives and able-bodied fighters", then why pick up the hitchhiker? Just to be humane? On one side, you are saying they need more manpower and muscle and on the other side you act like they should deviate from their plan and pick up a potential threat running down the road. If they are so well armed, why pick up a hitchhiker that is a completely unknown commodity?

And the humanity argument isn't very compelling to me in the context of that specific scene, this is one year into the ZA, it is survival of the fittest and they needed to focus on their mission and get back to the prison. If they want to go on other recruiting missions to add manpower to the prison, they should plan and do that.

You sure like to reference "strawman" (which is actually straw man, if you are going to keep noting it, please spell it correctly and ideally, use it correctly). Furthermore, there is no Straw Man in my comments in post #58 as I never misrepresented anyone's position nor did I assert the other side's position incorrectly.

Sure, there are plenty of trust issues they are working out presently, I saw no reason to add another unknown like a hitchhiker.

Same goes to you, what have you provided that proves picking up the hitchhiker would have been so benign? You haven't.

It baffles me that you keep portraying that picking up the hitchhiker is an easy decision and one that makes sense, "Dude's outnumbered and outgeared 3:1, (other than fear of ambush), this perception of threat is irrational, far fetched and most likely just trauma narrative."

You have done nothing to prove that the hitchhiker is more beneficial than dangerous, because you can't. I will close with this, there is no proof that the hitchhiker would have provided any benefit to the group, he certainly may have. But, in the absence of knowing he would have been a benefit and could have just as easily been a detriment, I don't believe it was worth the risk in the current context of their mission.

You are on your own, good luck.

 

The hitchhiker

Firstly, just wanted to comment on this episode really being the top class jewel of the season. So now to
the hitchhiker I probably would of picked him up,the guy seemed well supplied even if it turned out that he didn't they could of continued to drive past him, but at the end of the day its really believable that people would make the same decision Rick did if they were in his position and experienced the same trauma, remember this is the same guy who had to kill his own best friend and was left behind in the hospital by his BEST friend, could go on but they are just some points to consider , plus they had low food supply's and already struggling camp relations with Merle so why rock the boat more ? in a sense.I don't believe how ever the thought of an ambush would of been on the top of his mind at that moment even though while I was watching it play out , it was as clear as day it seemed like an ambush. To back up why I would regard the hickhiker being beneficial rather than a threat would be clearly seen in his desperate shouts and lack knowledge of where the hell he is, but if I was in that car looking at the man while driving down the road the reasons would be little different in respect to how the man looked , we all heard of first impressions right? well the man had a backpack , a pot and pretty worn out sleeping bag which indicates hes struggling and no weapon because he would of used it as they drove away dont you think ? if it was a gun. Plus this may not be connected but have you not noticed that the bad guys in the series look after themselves a lot more than the good guys ? they look better and look like they have good clothes almost like a sales man.... , example the governor, Shane just a thought. Another reason why I think hes not a threat would be seen in the fact that he continued to run at the car in the open shouting for help from rick in the second encounter after they already made it clear they had no intention in stopping for him. The hitchhicker could of done a number of other things that could of been a threat, like sneaking up on them putting a road block of glass to burst the tires but he was just obviously a poor fellow that was unlucky.
So in regards to what benefit he could bring to the group, extra manpower in fixing things around the prison. An extra soldier he could help defend the camp , be a spy for the group against the governor and possibly if we are going to look above and beyond first impression skills / qualities that he might have, and in my view the actual humanity in doing it for the sake mankind not just yur short term goals , but future planning.
So as you may see its a complicated situation that has occurred it could be seen as a win or a loss depending on your own ethics and moral attitude beyond the black and white judgement that so many people seem to take as the average safe child like option that's thought in primary school.

I found it hilarious that the guy is shouting desperately
"woah woah slow down I am begging you! please stop"
then later on down the road after they stopped to fix the car.....
" HEYYYYYY please!!! I am begging you""
from the same guy lol and Rick just sighing before going back into the car.

I think this for the first time in the series shows humanity is really starting to fade away from the walking dead world, it doesn't seem that, there is any hope left for humanity just survival and the "weak" being left behind to suffer what they must.

The series has just hit a new level and become that more interesting.............
( Hits walking dead theme music fading out )

:zombies_shocked:

 

They were on a mission, they are at warm, and he had his son with him. Hard to disagree with the guy.

 

Just a meek attempt to add some levity into this back n forth.

Sure they can lock him into a cell. I'm making time an issue in response to idea that they can integrate him immediately into the group and have him fight in the impending war. It is unknown when they will get attacked again, maybe they are getting attacked this very moment. How long do you think they have before they have secured his trust?

I didn't say you did but that's the reality of the situation. (Also, others have suggested a conversation as a way to determine if he is good or not)

The "getting to know you" period begins the moment they start talking, maybe even beforehand as appearances also give some insight as to who this guy is.

Give me the benefit of context I am responding to different people who have different arguments against my opinion

One point I was trying to respond to was the "humanity" issue. Was it inhumane for them to ignore him. I was posing the potential dilemma of finding out more information about him..he becomes a person.. something more than just anonymous hitchhiker..then having to abandon him. Some suggested to just shoot him in head if he doesn't comply..is that any more humane?

the idea of him becoming the perfect little soldier to Rick's group is the nirvana fallacy.

its absolutely relevant! I am basing my response by placing myself in Rick's shoes, in that moment, without the luxury of having the viewpoint of the audience. When making this decision, you cannot ignore the war, you cannot ignore the seeds of mistrust within the group. The very reason Michonne is in the car with Rick is because she and another group member cannot be trusted together at the point.

Give me different parameters and I might give you a different decision. As a decision maker, you don't have the luxury of ignoring certain details because they're not convenient to doing the "nice" thing. Rick's decision was based on doing what's best for those people in the prison, period. The mission to secure more weapons comes first.

i try to weigh all possible outcomes from that decision. Are there some positive to the group? Absolutely. But when measured vs all the negative outcomes, it's not worth the risk, imo.

As I pointed out earlier, that was another poster suggesting the risk is minimal because they could always shoot him if he tries something funny. My response was again citing the humanity dilemma another poster suggested. I was pointing out the conflict of interests, regardless of where you stand on the pick him up or leave him issue.

You are using information that Rick and Co didn't have when making the hitchhiker decision. There were many unknowns they were dealing with, including whether or not Michonne could be trusted. Using hindsight as a basis for your argument on decision making...c'mon, you know better than that.

The weapons Glenn and Maggie were transporting was a known quantity. The weapons Rick and Co were searching for was an unknown quantity. With the hitchhiker and his backpack, you have limited the maximum potential for supplies by that much.

there is no absolute right or wrong answer. I try to use a weighted decision making process to obtain my goal myself. People that would pick up the hitchhiker in Rick's shoes would also have to assume all responsibility of the impact on the prison group, positive or negative.
Commenting on another's decision is so much easier than having to make and take the responsibility of one.

i could say Andrew, who's actions led to the death of T-dog and Lori (sort of)

but the group hasn't really come into another character in this situation, it new and therefore, unknown.

Yes! exactly. Because you don't have the time, food, or space (for safety precautions around the more vulnerable members of your group) to deal with it right now.

i never said I wouldn't consider new people. Just keep in mind, that all those people you mentioned, traveled to the prison. That changes the dynamic completely from picking up a random hitchhiker. The prison group was forced to deal with each person directly, it wasn't necessarily a choice that was given to them (which is what we are discussing here)

i won't say straw man but you are entirely missing my point. Imagine a cost benefit analysis on this hitchhiker situation. Do you realize how much is involved before you get a trustworthy watchtower person out of the hitchhiker?

again, some context please

that was part of a discussion between the merits of the gov vs Rick. Morgotha and I were just talking about how the govenor's been more successful because he takes in people. I just added to take a look at whole picture of the gov's method of ruling.

This has little to do with the hitchhiker dilemma.

Hey stop calling me names! (and if I was only responding to one person, one topic, sure feel free to use kettle logic here but there are a slew of arguments I am defending my position from and you are using information from all of them! lol)

i used humans going feral as some information why I would not have picked up a human hitchhiker, in this instance. Not as commentary of humans as a whole.

plus, in both situations you mentioned, both parties were in immediate danger, which definitely changes things. If the hitchhiker was under zombie attack, that would almost eliminate the possibility of an ambush, IMO, and might change my decision.


**i like this discussion but I don't want to litter the board with a huge post again, mind if we go one topic per post?

 

Rick was looking for his wife and son and no interest in building a Woodbury.

In your hypothetical, why look for a town when you have the next best thing already? The farm.

they should have fortified the farm like Rick was suggesting but Hershel wasn't on board yet.

 

Misspelled, but still a straw man. #58 suggests those who understood Rick's standpoint, but would go about otherwise "cracks you up" meaning they make you laugh — butt of the joke is on them, yes? From that statement alone, you conflate the narrative by assuming everyone agrees that the hitchhiker is an obvious threat, yet are foolish enough to do otherwise. What I am saying is, this assumption is wrong and thus a misrepresentation of other people's position. How is that not a straw man? Especially since you are selectively responding and didn't even address my respond to you about empathy? Empathizing =/= agreeing with Rick =/= self-contracdiction.

So you're not interested in discussing the episode's theme? Got it.

So you disagree that burden on proof ("the hitchhiker is potentially a very serious problem") is on whoever makes the claim? Got it.

Armed with resources against one lone hiker — to allay fear of risk.

Nah, I entered with the statement saying what Rick's reaction towards the hitchhiker was trauma narrative period. Even somewhat inhumane and immoral (but that's another thread). Could careless about venturing deeper into cost-benefit analysis or truth on this one. But now that we're here...

Why it's trauma narrative and irrational
The hitchhiker was part of the elements in that episode, consistently filmed against the landscape of the woods, objectively (and deliberately) shown from a neutral standpoint. There is no way to really prove the level of risk he posed without some form of communication taking place.

That said a few observations can be made: from his frantic desperation (probably been on foot for enough time to actually overreact at the sight of potential help), fairly clean ruck sack (probably left another community not long ago), clean jangling pots and pans (definitely not a stealthy survivor) and overall disposition (complete opposite of scruffy Michonne or Daryl); it is reasonable to infer that he appears to be harmless, definitely not a skilled survivor, probably used to be well-protected. Whether he's an outlier of Woodbury, came from Stone Mountain or someplace else is unknown.

Since he died at the very end of the episode, it further illustrates the fact that he wasn't a sentry placed by the governor or part of a larger clan capable of lethal ambush.

Someone mentioned he did not shoot at Rick and Co. the way Randell did — another point down on threat. #227 and #233 noted as well.

Why humanity angle should be considered
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that instinct can be one's best defense mechanism. I am saying that Rick was seeing bad vibes everywhere, even when they were premature to begin with, and deviated from the golden rule (something he was prepared to go head to head with Shane about in season two). This episode was trying to highlight how far down the rabbit hole Rick has gone. If the hitchhiker had been alive on their way back to the prison and post-convo with Morgan, I'm guessing he would've pulled over for him. Not necessarily to pile in the hitchhiker immediately and without question (he's not that careless), but to apprehend the legitimacy of such a plea. Decide whether and how he would help. He doesn't even need to bring dude back to the prison, just pick a sweeter spot and drop him off. Or one swift blow to the head, knock him out and silence him the way it was done with old pal Merle. But nope, not even a glimmer of that was seen.

There is no cure-all solution to risk and threat, such situations will always be present in zombie apocalypse. Some people consistently fall back on justifying themselves with thought-terminating cliches such as "survival of the fittest" (Shane and Allen ate that darwinian theory right up without question), but why? Because desperate and frightened survivors need something to cling to? Because every man for himself? Given that ZA situation still exists, if Rick fails to see anything unreasonable with his actions in dealing with the hitchhiker encounter, one needs to ask, what is there to prevent him from doing the same thing again and again to the point of regression? That's all I really care about. :-/

 

I understand exactly what you're saying

 

All told, excellent summary.

 

thanks

 

Why stop, Hitchhiker has made it this far, must know how to survive, dont blame him for wanting to communicate with another living person, but Rick and gang dont have the only car left, and zombies didnt take all the keys.

 

All I can say is I am really glad I don't have to make that call. I kept thinking what if that was one of my sons and no one stopped to help them. During the show I even voiced that opinion, and my husband told me if it was us, there is no way in hell he would have pulled over. In the end they didn't help him. They killed him. Whether or not he was just somebody's son begging for help, or if he was a serial killer rapist that had been kicked out of someone else's car weaponless when those people figured him out, they killed him. I don't think we are going to find out if it was a good thing, or a bad thing. Only that perhaps in the world they are living in now, it was a necessary thing. Like I said, really glad I don't have to make that call.

 

I agree they didn't hinder his ability to survive at all. He remained in the same situation before he drove past him (unless of course, you think Rick's gun attracted an unreasonable amount of zombies in the area, then I think that's true, too)

 

I know. It's not an easy decision. I would rephrase what you said though. Instead of "killing him" they let him die. Semantics maybe, but its the ZA that really killed him.

I just put myself in the position of Rick, where I was the one responsible for protecting my family and friends, what would I do?

i would avoid the problematics of picking him up like stated before but not without a guilty conscience...

 

Probably not. I wouldn't pick up a hitchhiker now so I doubt I'd pick one up when the world is full of zombies.

EDIT: I feel that I should elaborate a little. I'm certainly not the most trusting person, but in that situation I would have a lot to consider. At the end of the day, I don't think I'd risk the safety of my own people to save one person who might turn around and knife me in the back. I'd feel about leaving him, but it's worth the risk.

 

I would have at least spoken with him, given him a tip of where to hide out until we were done with the mission.

Human decency is what makes us human.

 

The trouble is that in the ZA the rules change. If you stop for the wrong person you might not have to worry about being human anymore, because you might be dead, or worse. At this stage people have a responsiblity to those in their group. Rick had his son to worry about and Michonne. Also, if they don't return with those weapons everyone else at the prison is in jeopardy.

They really didn't have a choice after all they've experienced, and the danger all around.

 

Do you think they may have stopped if Carl wasn't in the car?

 

They'd be more likely to stop without Carl, but I still don't think so. They were on a mission to find weapons to help fight the Governor so they couldn't be delayed until they did so. Also, there are too many potential dangers in picking up a stranger. They don't know if the guy is completely unhinged so you have to keep your eye on him for hours of driving.

 

Good question. I don't think so though. Both Rick and Michonne barely flinched when passing that guy. Only Carl had any reaction to him.

Having Carl in the car just further cemented the reasoning in passing him up