Walking Dead- Season Two (Probably will be spoilers)

[TheFallenOne]

Hindsight's 20/20. Also, that may only have been because Herschel respected Rick and could consider Shane to be operating independently.

No, it was because Shane had proven how utterly wrong Hershel's stance was.
Come on, I even provided the relevant quote in the post you quoted!

Just because a course of action happened to work out doesn't mean it was the best course of action to take. It's not like Shane knew that Hershel would have come to that realization. Shane was just fixing a problem (in the most vulgar way possible, mind you) without regard to the consequences. They got lucky with how Hershel responded to it.

So Shane gambled on being lucky with Hershel's reaction, fine.
Now, how is that worse than gambling on keeping Walkers in the barn won't go horribly and fataly wrong?

[Reverent-One]

No, it was because Shane had proven how utterly wrong Hershel's stance was.
Come on, I even provided the relevant quote in the post you quoted!

And yet Hershel still hated Shane. So while demonstrating that the walkers were really dead, Shane's way still caused damage to the party-Herschel relationship. Again, his respect for Rick may well be the only reason he didn't kick them all off immediately. It was almost certainly was a factor in Rick being able to get Herschel out of his drunken depression.

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

So Shane gambled on being lucky with Hershel's reaction, fine.
Now, how is that worse than gambling on keeping Walkers in the barn won't go horribly and fataly wrong?

Shane didn't gamble on anything. He didn't care one bit about Herschel. He only cared about his Alpha-male conflict with Rick, and acted like a spoiled, 12-gauge-shooting child to undermine his authority.


And, about the walkers on the barn being "dangerous"; was I the only one who saw Shane struggling and struggling to open the door?
And don't tell me "the walkers outnumbered Shane, they could've broken the door". It's simply not truth.


The point is that the barn walkers were well contained, and were not an inmediate threat.

Shane's psychopathic tendencies were, on the other hand.

He caused the surprise attack by leading the fighters away from the farm to follow a kid he had already killed, just so that he could have some time alone with Rick (And kill him, by the way).

Because of that, when the walkers attacked, the surprise was complete.

The infighting (Not completely caused by Shane, it's only fair to admit it) also prevented the group from taking measures during that INCREDIBLY DULL AND LONG PEACE TIME THEY HAD.
Measures that could have prevented the surprise at some extent, such as getting some lights in the fields during the night, fencing off some entrances, etc.

[Starwulf]

Shane didn't gamble on anything. He didn't care one bit about Herschel. He only cared about his Alpha-male conflict with Rick, and acted like a spoiled, 12-gauge-shooting child to undermine his authority.


And, about the walkers on the barn being "dangerous"; was I the only one who saw Shane struggling and struggling to open the door?
And don't tell me "the walkers outnumbered Shane, they could've broken the door". It's simply not truth.


The point is that the barn walkers were well contained, and were not an inmediate threat.

Shane's psychopathic tendencies were, on the other hand.

He caused the surprise attack by leading the fighters away from the farm to follow a kid he had already killed, just so that he could have some time alone with Rick (And kill him, by the way).

Because of that, when the walkers attacked, the surprise was complete.

The infighting (Not completely caused by Shane, it's only fair to admit it) also prevented the group from taking measures during that INCREDIBLY DULL AND LONG PEACE TIME THEY HAD.
Measures that could have prevented the surprise at some extent, such as getting some lights in the fields during the night, fencing off some entrances, etc.

Actually, if you really think about it, Shane didn't just cause the attack to be a major surprise to everyone, he CAUSED the attack. It was the gunshot from Carl that killed him when he zombified that alerted the other walkers and caused them to turn towards the farm. I've watched the opening scene a few times, and it definitely seems fairly obvious that the walkers were still mindlessly following the direction of the helicopter, up until they heard that gunshot which caused them all to turn towards the farm. So Shane pretty much got 3 people killed, and cost them all a fairly safe and idyllic life on the farm.

Anyone who thinks Shane has done anything right needs to examine the situation a bit more closely, he has been nothing but detrimental since the second season started, and had already started as a trouble-maker by about the 3rd to last episode in Season one. You can not credit anything positive to his actions, even incidentally. His opening of the barn and killing of the walkers could have cost them a safe place to stay, and only through sheer luck did Herschel not throw them all off. Not that I think Shane would have let that happen. He'd have probably gone all insane and shot Herschel and the rest of his family. The guy was a nut-job and a douche-bag, with major strands of stupidity mixed in.

[Ragnar Lodbroke]

Actually, if you really think about it, Shane didn't just cause the attack to be a major surprise to everyone, he CAUSED the attack. It was the gunshot from Carl that killed him when he zombified that alerted the other walkers and caused them to turn towards the farm. I've watched the opening scene a few times, and it definitely seems fairly obvious that the walkers were still mindlessly following the direction of the helicopter, up until they heard that gunshot which caused them all to turn towards the farm. So Shane pretty much got 3 people killed, and cost them all a fairly safe and idyllic life on the farm.

That is probably right, though it could be argued that the walkers were bound to find the farm eventually. They were close enough to hear the gunshot and respond within minutes, and they don't move fast.

And they were too many and too spread to miss it.

But it's still true. Even if the attack was going to happen without the shot, the Shane's trivial chase on the woods transformed it in a complete surprise.

Anyone who thinks Shane has done anything right needs to examine the situation a bit more closely, he has been nothing but detrimental since the second season started, and had already started as a trouble-maker by about the 3rd to last episode in Season one. You can not credit anything positive to his actions, even incidentally. His opening of the barn and killing of the walkers could have cost them a safe place to stay, and only through sheer luck did Herschel not throw them all off. Not that I think Shane would have let that happen. He'd have probably gone all insane and shot Herschel and the rest of his family. The guy was a nut-job and a douche-bag, with major strands of stupidity mixed in.

I agree. A Mayor Douche from Bag Town.

Also, had the barn walkers been a couple more, they could have been overrun (Stated in-series).

Too bad, it would have been hilarious.

[leafman]

If you think Shane's "enlightenment" of Herschel is a good thing, I want you to follow me on this tangent:

Shane shows Herschel that the walkers are no longer living people -> Herschel is stricken with grief and unable to come to terms with reality -> Herschel goes to the saloon and resorts to drinking to comfort himself -> Rick and Glenn go to the saloon to bring Herschel back to the farm -> they encounter a predatorial group of survivors -> walkers attack predator group -> predator group, knowing whats good for them, flees leaving behind a survivor -> Rick decides to save the survivor -> prisoner debacle ensues -> Shane decides to get rid of the prisoner himself -> Shane decides to kill Rick to solidify his group role and ensure no one will question his actions -> Rick kills Shane -> Shane turns -> Carl shoots Shane, alerting a walker herd -> Walkers attack the farm, depleteing the groups ammo cache and causing them to flee.

If Shane had just played along, the walker herd would have probably quietly passed by and the group would still be living happily on the farm. Bad for the show, good for the group.

[TheFallenOne]

Actually, if you really think about it, Shane didn't just cause the attack to be a major surprise to everyone, he CAUSED the attack. It was the gunshot from Carl that killed him when he zombified that alerted the other walkers and caused them to turn towards the farm.

Shane shows Herschel that the walkers are no longer living people -> Herschel is stricken with grief and unable to come to terms with reality -> Herschel goes to the saloon and resorts to drinking to comfort himself -> Rick and Glenn go to the saloon to bring Herschel back to the farm -> they encounter a predatorial group of survivors -> walkers attack predator group -> predator group, knowing whats good for them, flees leaving behind a survivor -> Rick decides to save the survivor -> prisoner debacle ensues -> Shane decides to get rid of the prisoner himself -> Shane decides to kill Rick to solidify his group role and ensure no one will question his actions -> Rick kills Shane -> Shane turns -> Carl shoots Shane, alerting a walker herd -> Walkers attack the farm, depleteing the groups ammo cache and causing them to flee.

If Shane had just played along, the walker herd would have probably quietly passed by and the group would still be living happily on the farm. Bad for the show, good for the group.

That's such a bad demonstration of Hindsight Bias I can't decide whether to laugh or bang my head against the wall. You might as well take it one step further back and say it's all Lori's fault, if she hadn't hooked up with Shane he'd never have lost it like that.

You can not credit anything positive to his actions, even incidentally.

Everything he has done is bad by default, yeah right. But thanks for giving proof you're biased about the character.

'Since the second season started' btw includes when he saved Carl and helped Rick not break apart from stress and grief.

Shane gradually and quite visibly lost his sanity, but that doesn't mean everything he did was wrong. Taking out the Walkers was less wrong than helping Hershel collect more. The barn was a ticking time bomb. So it worked well enough for a while and would've some time longer, but staking their lifes on it so an old man can be content in his denial is asking for too much.

[Silverraptor]

One thing about the Hershal and Shane issue, Hershal did say, "Now Shane, I wanted you off my farm, but Rick talked me out of it." This implies that yes, Hershal was close to kicking them (or atleast Shane) off the farm from the barn stunt Shane pulled.

That is all.

*Goes back to wandering around in the background looking for bloody meat to eat*

[eyeofsaulot]

If you think Shane's "enlightenment" of Herschel is a good thing, I want you to follow me on this tangent:

Shane shows Herschel that the walkers are no longer living people -> Herschel is stricken with grief and unable to come to terms with reality -> Herschel goes to the saloon and resorts to drinking to comfort himself -> Rick and Glenn go to the saloon to bring Herschel back to the farm -> they encounter a predatorial group of survivors -> walkers attack predator group -> predator group, knowing whats good for them, flees leaving behind a survivor -> Rick decides to save the survivor -> prisoner debacle ensues -> Shane decides to get rid of the prisoner himself -> Shane decides to kill Rick to solidify his group role and ensure no one will question his actions -> Rick kills Shane -> Shane turns -> Carl shoots Shane, alerting a walker herd -> Walkers attack the farm, depleteing the groups ammo cache and causing them to flee.

If Shane had just played along, the walker herd would have probably quietly passed by and the group would still be living happily on the farm. Bad for the show, good for the group.

But really, that's just more 'hindsight 20/20' talk I was criticizing TheFallenOne's points for. Shane opening up the barn was a bad idea to begin with. Rick's approach was intelligent and diplomatic, whereas Shane's was reckless.

Everything he has done is bad by default, yeah right. But thanks for giving proof you're biased about the character.

We've strayed from our original discussion, anyway. Back to my main point, Rick really has had only one misstep (the whole Randall deal) and that was because Shane was actively undermining his authority. I think we've made our point well enough about how helping Hershel round up walkers wasn't actually a bad idea. If you can't make that concession, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You said Rick is a weak leader and should step down. I'm curious who you think would be a better leader.

[TheFallenOne]

But really, that's just more 'hindsight 20/20' talk I was criticizing TheFallenOne's points for. Shane opening up the barn was a bad idea to begin with. Rick's approach was intelligent and diplomatic, whereas Shane's was reckless.

Was it reckless and a bad idea? I can concede that. My point was that it's still preferable to Rick's decision to go along with Hershel's denial. What the barn incident DID show was that Hershel's denial wasn't beyond reason, he could be made to change his mind with sufficient proof. Shane's approach to that was like a sledgehammer, a subtler way would have been better.
Hell, if Shane just shot that one Walker couple times in the chest and then NOT opened the barn, letting Hershel stew a while on what he'd just seen it would've been close to ideal. But Shane is too volatile, that's why he'd be a bad leader too.

You said Rick is a weak leader and should step down. I'm curious who you think would be a better leader.

Daryl, in a heartbeat. He's ridiculously competent, keeps in control even in dire situations(the thing with his brother and that time he was delirious with pain as exception) and everyone seems comfortable trusting him with their lifes. And with his brother gone he has no drama and emotional baggage like Rick and Shane do.
He has come a long way from the redneck racist he was at the beginning.

[Mathis]

TheFallenOne, I agree with you in that not everything Shane does or has done is bad, but he made a series of really bad choices towards his end. In this show no one is wholly "good" or "bad". I mean, dealing with absolutes like those is rather naive.

However I still want to adress what you say about them, "staking their lives on it so an old man can be content in his denial is asking for too much."

They really weren't doing what you somewhat dramatically claim, as many people in this thread have already tried to prove. Put simply, Rick was trying to solve the situation diplomatically instead of demanding a chance to take care of everything inside that barn. The group was after all staying on the farm thanks to Hershel's hospitality. They had absolutely no right to do what Shane did, even though the consequences of Shane's decision to open the barn turned out for the better in hindsight.

What I want to say is that it's absolutely not asking for too much. If they were so incredibly uncomfortable with the situation they would have left. The fact that they stayed long enough for that confrontation to arise was problematic yes, but to me it showed that they weren't all that worried about it and that Rick was confident in being able to solve the situation at a later point in time. Perhaps you would have chosen to act differently were you put in that situation, and that's respectable. But of this group, it was not asking too much.

[eyeofsaulot]

Daryl, in a heartbeat. He's ridiculously competent, keeps in control even in dire situations(the thing with his brother and that time he was delirious with pain as exception) and everyone seems comfortable trusting him with their lifes. And with his brother gone he has no drama and emotional baggage like Rick and Shane do.
He has come a long way from the redneck racist he was at the beginning.

The problem is that Daryl's not a leader. Yes, he's heroic, he's competent, he's honorable, and he doesn't have to deal with family members, but he's not a leader. He has absolutely no ambitions to take the leadership role for a good reason. Think about what happened after Sophia turned out to be a zombie. Daryl shut down, tuned everyone out. He wasn't even related to her. He even lashed out at Carol on several occasions because of it. Hell, think about what he was up to during the search for Sophia. He was always going out on his own instead sticking to the buddy system. Daryl is capable of being two things: a loner and a loyal henchman.

[Silverraptor]

The problem is that Daryl's not a leader. Yes, he's heroic, he's competent, he's honorable, and he doesn't have to deal with family members, but he's not a leader. He has absolutely no ambitions to take the leadership role for a good reason. Think about what happened after Sophia turned out to be a zombie. Daryl shut down, tuned everyone out. He wasn't even related to her. He even lashed out at Carol on several occasions because of it. Hell, think about what he was up to during the search for Sophia. He was always going out on his own instead sticking to the buddy system. Daryl is capable of being two things: a loner and a loyal henchman.

Agreed. I do not see Daryl being a leader at all. But as a second-in-command, I can see him doing that well. He won't be the one everyone looks to, but would be able to offer his expertise to Rick and help enforce Rick's rule. Also, he can continue to be a lone-wolf whenever he wants to as long as Rick doesn't need him for anything.

[Saph]

Agreed. I do not see Daryl being a leader at all. But as a second-in-command, I can see him doing that well. He won't be the one everyone looks to, but would be able to offer his expertise to Rick and help enforce Rick's rule. Also, he can continue to be a lone-wolf whenever he wants to as long as Rick doesn't need him for anything.

Yeah, Darryl isn't a leader. I can see him evolving into a very good second-in-command though (and he's already awesome as a lone-wolf). Note that he was one of the only ones at the end to speak up in defence of Rick.

Rick really can't step down as leader - the group would fall apart if he did. That was what that rant was about at the end - he doesn't want to be responsible for everyone, it's just that his sense of honour stops him from saying no.

[TheFallenOne]

TheFallenOne, I agree with you in that not everything Shane does or has done is bad, but he made a series of really bad choices towards his end. In this show no one is wholly "good" or "bad". I mean, dealing with absolutes like those is rather naive.

However I still want to adress what you say about them, "staking their lives on it so an old man can be content in his denial is asking for too much."

They really weren't doing what you somewhat dramatically claim, as many people in this thread have already tried to prove. Put simply, Rick was trying to solve the situation diplomatically instead of demanding a chance to take care of everything inside that barn. The group was after all staying on the farm thanks to Hershel's hospitality. They had absolutely no right to do what Shane did, even though the consequences of Shane's decision to open the barn turned out for the better in hindsight.

What I want to say is that it's absolutely not asking for too much. If they were so incredibly uncomfortable with the situation they would have left. The fact that they stayed long enough for that confrontation to arise was problematic yes, but to me it showed that they weren't all that worried about it and that Rick was confident in being able to solve the situation at a later point in time. Perhaps you would have chosen to act differently were you put in that situation, and that's respectable. But of this group, it was not asking too much.

Sensible enough. It's just, what Rick did didn't look to me like diplomacy, more like surrendering to Hershel's denial because he was so desperate to give his son and unborn child a place to grow up. It's a compromise that should never be made(and if you remember the reactions of the other characters when they came back Walkers in tow most of them seemed to think the same way). Anyone who thinks Walkers are people is a liability. If you are attacked, he would try to keep you from killing them. Easy to imagine how this can go wrong, isn't it?

Really, as above, shoot a Walker in the chest a couple times and leave it at that. Still alive, so no murder in Hershel's eyes. Then give him some time to come to grips with reality. Shane went way too far, but the basic idea was right.

The problem is that Daryl's not a leader. Yes, he's heroic, he's competent, he's honorable, and he doesn't have to deal with family members, but he's not a leader. He has absolutely no ambitions to take the leadership role for a good reason. Think about what happened after Sophia turned out to be a zombie. Daryl shut down, tuned everyone out. He wasn't even related to her. He even lashed out at Carol on several occasions because of it. Hell, think about what he was up to during the search for Sophia. He was always going out on his own instead sticking to the buddy system. Daryl is capable of being two things: a loner and a loyal henchman.

I agree with that. Which just shows how badly I think of Rick's leadership, because despite all that I'd still go with Daryl.
Rick has just too much weighing on him, with his wife, son and unborn child. He's too concerned with what's best for his family to be an adequate leader who does what's best for the group.

In the end, he spared Randal to the detriment of the group's safety because he didn't like how jaded his son has become. Anyone here disagreeing this is a case of very bad leadership ability?

[Mathis]

Sensible enough. It's just, what Rick did didn't look to me like diplomacy, more like surrendering to Hershel's denial because he was so desperate to give his son and unborn child a place to grow up. It's a compromise that should never be made(and if you remember the reactions of the other characters when they came back Walkers in tow most of them seemed to think the same way). Anyone who thinks Walkers are people is a liability. If you are attacked, he would try to keep you from killing them. Easy to imagine how this can go wrong, isn't it?

Well we certainly disagree quite a lot on how much one should compromise in order to stay at the farm. I viewed that farm as a golden opportunity for long-term survival and would have done a lot to stay there.

I also disagree with you on what you say about Hershel being a liability. If we're talking about people who refuse to kill walkers in general, I will agree. But in the case of this show, and the example you use I will disagree with you. Hershel is a very valuable person to keep around.

And yes, it's easy to imagine how things can go wrong once we start making up scenarios and philosophical cunundrums, but that's not what this is about.

[SaintRidley]

Really, as above, shoot a Walker in the chest a couple times and leave it at that. Still alive, so no murder in Hershel's eyes. Then give him some time to come to grips with reality. Shane went way too far, but the basic idea was right.

One thing to note here, on the "basic idea was right" part. The basic idea for Shane had nothing to do with Herschel or showing Herschel that the walkers aren't people. Shane did not give one thought to Herschel or what Herschel would think. Shane's entire thought process with the barn was "Walkers -> kill them."

That's the whole thing. It was complete coincidence that Shane's actions enlightened Herschel -- they weren't intended to do so.

[Reverent-One]

In the end, he spared Randal to the detriment of the group's safety because he didn't like how jaded his son has become. Anyone here disagreeing this is a case of very bad leadership ability?

As I said before, yes. It shows he's not totally without a moral compass, and knows what's important, by which I mean the future of their group/society/whatever you call it. Killing Randal like that would have been bad precedent to set. I would have been disappointed if he had gone through with it.

[TheFallenOne]

Well we certainly disagree quite a lot on how much one should compromise in order to stay at the farm. I viewed that farm as a golden opportunity for long-term survival and would have done a lot to stay there.

I wasn't under the impression Hershel said 'Come with me to pick up two Walkers or you have to leave.' Searching a diplomatic solution doesn't mean you have to give in to this insanity without trying to show him what those things really are.

And yes, it's easy to imagine how things can go wrong once we start making up scenarios and philosophical cunundrums, but that's not what this is about.

I'm sorry, are you calling thinking about what would happen in the case of a zombie attack in a zombie apocalypse 'making up scenarios' and 'philosophical conundrums'?

One thing to note here, on the "basic idea was right" part. The basic idea for Shane had nothing to do with Herschel or showing Herschel that the walkers aren't people. Shane did not give one thought to Herschel or what Herschel would think. Shane's entire thought process with the barn was "Walkers -> kill them."

That's the whole thing. It was complete coincidence that Shane's actions enlightened Herschel -- they weren't intended to do so.

um...

Hey, Hershel, man, let me ask you something. Can a living breathing person, could they walk away from this?
*blam blam blam*
That's three rounds in the chest. Could someone who's alive, can they just take that? Why is it still coming?
*blam blam*
That's its heart, its lungs. Why is it still coming?

[Starwulf]

In the end, he spared Randal to the detriment of the group's safety because he didn't like how jaded his son has become. Anyone here disagreeing this is a case of very bad leadership ability?

*Sticks hand up* Why is it a bad thing that he spared the kid? It only ended up bad because of Shane. They were going to take the kid far far away, at least an hour in a direction entirely opposite of where the kid had previously indicated his camp to be. In a car. It would have been quite a while before the kid could have made it back, IF HE MADE IT BACK, or even if he wanted to go back to that camp. Shane is the one who made the situation as god-awful as it ended up being. I see no issue with Rick sparing his life if Shane hadn't been around. In a post-apocalyptic world filled with zombies, an hour via car is a lifetime on foot, especially when they were only going to give the kid a knife. Realistically, there is a very high probability the kid would have ended up zombie food in short order. It just would have happened off-screen and no-one would have needed to feel bad about it. But nope, Shane stuck his *expletive deleted* neck into it, and screwed it all to hell and back.

[Mathis]

I wasn't under the impression Hershel said 'Come with me to pick up two Walkers or you have to leave.' Searching a diplomatic solution doesn't mean you have to give in to this insanity without trying to show him what those things really are.

No Hershel did not say that. If you are refering to the episode in which Rick and Hershel go to the swamp to wrangle up some walkers, and where they finally find Sophia, Hershel says, and this is an exact quote "I could use your help with something.". Andrea then shoots in, "Count me in." but Hershel replies, "Thank you but I just need Rick" making it clear he wants to talk to him as well.

When they come a cross two walkers Hershel explains to Rick that if they are going to stay on the farm they have to follow his rules, meaning no killing walkers. This is how he phrases it in that wonderful accent of his, "Doesn't matter if you see them as human-beings anymore. But if you and your people are going to stay here, that's how you're going to have to treat them. My farm, my barn, my say."

Not exactly, "Come with me to pick up two Walkers or you have to leave" as you phrased it., but pretty close. He makes it abundantly clear that they will have to leave if they kill the walkers in the barn. Rick will now have to find a way to convince him other wise but Shane does it for him, rather dramatically but successfully.

I'm sorry, are you calling thinking about what would happen in the case of a zombie attack in a zombie apocalypse 'making up scenarios' and 'philosophical conundrums'?

I'm sorry, I thought that was exactly what we were doing? It is something I'd like to avoid though. The very nature of discussing the zombie apocalypse is making up scenarios. That's after all how we have to deal with this. However in the case of this show we can discuss the scenes and problems that arise so that we don't have to resort to making stuff up. I'd call that a luxury, and I'd prefer not to let the discussion drift into what ifs and but ifs.

[TheFallenOne]

*Sticks hand up* Why is it a bad thing that he spared the kid? It only ended up bad because of Shane. They were going to take the kid far far away, at least an hour in a direction entirely opposite of where the kid had previously indicated his camp to be. In a car. It would have been quite a while before the kid could have made it back, IF HE MADE IT BACK, or even if he wanted to go back to that camp. Shane is the one who made the situation as god-awful as it ended up being. I see no issue with Rick sparing his life if Shane hadn't been around. In a post-apocalyptic world filled with zombies, an hour via car is a lifetime on foot, especially when they were only going to give the kid a knife. Realistically, there is a very high probability the kid would have ended up zombie food in short order. It just would have happened off-screen and no-one would have needed to feel bad about it. But nope, Shane stuck his *expletive deleted* neck into it, and screwed it all to hell and back.

If you look closely at the part you quoted you'll notice my main criticism wasn't his ultimate decision. Rather, why he changed his opinion.
Rick considered Randal a security risk if they let him go. Whether you agree with this assessment, even the factual truth or falsehood of it is irrelevant for what I'm saying.
In the end, he let Randal go because his son wanted to watch the execution. To him, his son's outlook on life was more valuable than the security of the group.
=> bad leadership.

if they are going to stay on the farm they have to follow his rules, meaning no killing walkers.

How can you say that and not realize he's a liability, even a danger the moment they are attacked by Walkers?

I'm sorry, I thought that was exactly what we were doing? It is something I'd like to avoid though. The very nature of discussing the zombie apocalypse is making up scenarios. That's after all how we have to deal with this. However in the case of this show we can discuss the scenes and problems that arise so that we don't have to resort to making stuff up. I'd call that a luxury, and I'd prefer not to let the discussion drift into what ifs and but ifs.

If I made up a specific, convoluted scenario you'd have a point. But when I go with 'they get attacked by Walkers', no specifics? That's not making stuff up, everyone bloody well knows it will happen.
And when Hershel still is all 'no killing Walkers' when they are attacked he is a liability and danger to everyone else plus himself.

[Reverent-One]

If you look closely at the part you quoted you'll notice my main criticism wasn't his ultimate decision. Rather, why he changed his opinion.
Rick considered Randal a security risk if they let him go. Whether you agree with this assessment, even the factual truth or falsehood of it is irrelevant for what I'm saying.
In the end, he let Randal go because his son wanted to watch the execution. To him, his son's outlook on life was more valuable than the security of the group.
=> bad leadership.

Because his son's outlook showed him the problems with his "Oh, it might be a threat? Better shoot it just in case." approach, specifically the effect following that approach has on people, for example on his son. It made him question why he's following that approach if it's one he wouldn't want his son to have. It's not the way a society should operate.

[TheFallenOne]

Sorry, that looks like pure conjecture to me. Do you have any quotes to back that claim up?

When he explained it to Lori, he said "He wanted to watch. I couldn't." I'm aware of no indication his change of mind was based on anything whatsoever but that - his son wanting to watch the execution.

[Mathis]

How can you say that and not realize he's a liability, even a danger the moment they are attacked by Walkers?

If I made up a specific, convoluted scenario you'd have a point. But when I go with 'they get attacked by Walkers', no specifics? That's not making stuff up, everyone bloody well knows it will happen. And when Hershel still is all 'no killing Walkers' when they are attacked he is a liability and danger to everyone else plus himself.

Im answering both of these in one.

Because it depends on too many ridiculous variables that we have to make up. You talk about an attack that never happened so we have to start guessing and constructing scenarios that never happened in the show. Sure they were swarmed in the end, but by then Hershel had accepted that killing walkers was inevitable so we can't use that.

About this attack in which Hershel would be a liability. Are we talking about an attack by one walker, two? How many? Are they attacked by day, by night? Where does it attack from? Who does it attack? Is that person alone? Is the person in someone's company? Did they have scouts out that saw the attack coming? Did the attacker kill someone on it's way onto the farm before it reaches the group? Why can't they wrangle them up like they've obviosuly done before and become somewhat adept at?

Do you see where I'm going with this? We have to construct these scenarios that never happen in the show and to me that's completely un-interesting. The show itself is ripe with interesting scenarios and moral problems that we can discuss, I see no reason to, and have no wish to, discuss anything we can make up between ourselves. That would require another thread anyway.

Finally, you say he's a liability. I disagree. He wouldn't be useful as he'd be passive. But that's not being a liability it's simply not being useful. Sure the fact that he has denied them to kill walkers that come onto the farm, but that hasn't stopped the group from defending themselves violently before, why should it in some made up scenario?

[Mathis]

Sorry, that looks like pure conjecture to me. Do you have any quotes to back that claim up?

When he explained it to Lori, he said "He wanted to watch. I couldn't." I'm aware of no indication his change of mind was based on anything whatsoever but that - his son wanting to watch the execution.

Because like what Reverent explained, it's about the why his kid wanted to watch the execution, he's becoming jaded. The kid is walking around the forest armed, playing with killing walkers (but failing). It's an issue where Rick realizes what kind of world he is raising his kid in and wanting to change that or the way he's raising his kid.

It's about how Rick interprets the situation, not just the objective fact that his son wants to watch someone die.

[Reverent-One]

Sorry, that looks like pure conjecture to me. Do you have any quotes to back that claim up?

When he explained it to Lori, he said "He wanted to watch. I couldn't." I'm aware of no indication his change of mind was based on anything whatsoever but that - his son wanting to watch the execution.

That simple statement doesn't explain why it bothered him, nor why he didn't just have Shane take Carl away and then do it. Rick having second thoughts about the moral implications of killing Randal, however, explains both and fits the character.

[TheFallenOne]

Because it depends on too many ridiculous variables that we have to make up. You talk about an attack that never happened so we have to start guessing and constructing scenarios that never happened in the show.

No. No we don't.
Walkers attack. Hershel said don't kill Walkers or you have to leave my farm. The problem is evident.
We'd only need to make up a specific scenario to see how BIG the problem is. Whether it might get someone killed. Whether they can handle it in a nonlethal fashion. Whether they'd be forced to break the rule.
The details of the scenario are irrelevant because with Hershel still being like that they're worse off in an attack no matter what.

Because like what Reverent explained, it's about the why his kid wanted to watch the execution, he's becoming jaded. The kid is walking around the forest armed, playing with killing walkers (but failing). It's an issue where Rick realizes what kind of world he is raising his kid in and wanting to change that or the way he's raising his kid.

It's about how Rick interprets the situation, not just the objective fact that his son wants to watch someone die.

That is confirming what I said. To Rick, Carl's outlook on life > group's security.

[Mathis]

No. No we don't.
Walkers attack. Hershel said don't kill Walkers or you have to leave my farm. The problem is evident.
We'd only need to make up a specific scenario to see how BIG the problem is. Whether it might get someone killed. Whether they can handle it in a nonlethal fashion. Whether they'd be forced to break the rule.
The details of the scenario are irrelevant because with Hershel still being like that they're worse off in an attack no matter what.

They've repeatedly shown that it's possible to deal with an attack in a non-lethal fashion as evidenced by a barn full of walkers. The group has also shown that they give just about zero ****s about what Hershel says when it comes to their own safety. If they feel their life is threatened they will kill a walker. The only variant here is the size of this hypothetical attack and the ease of which they can deal with a walker non-lethally, and like I've said I don't want to discuss what ifs and maybes.

I think we can't bring the discussion regarding Hershel being a liability or not any further unfortunately. Feels like I'm going to have to start repeating myself at this point unless you have new information or topics to bring to the discussion.

That is confirming what I said. To Rick, Carl's outlook on life > group's security.

I don't see how that changes what I just said? I'm not discussing Rick's superiority as a leader with you, I simply wanted to explain something you seemed to be wanting an answer too. That his decision wasn't based solely on the objective fact that his kid wanted to see someone die, but the moral implications this would have for who his son will become as an adult.

But I'll say something about Rick's motives about leadership anyway. I agree with you actually, I also think Rick puts the safety and well-being of his son before the group. However, the two are so connected they might as well be one, so I don't think that makes him a worse leader at all. He's the one with the most to lose if the group falls apart, I think this along with what we've seen so far about his leadership qualities makes him the best option available.

(Ignoring that they are a group of adults and shouldn't need a "leader" at all, the whole concept feels childish.)

[Triscuitable]

Lori: Shane's a menace to everyone in the group. He wants your family for his own. You got to do something about him, Rick.

Rick: I killed Shane.

Lori: OHMIGOD WHY DID YOU DO THAT

I want to imagine this as a teenage cellphone conversation.

"lol i killed Shane"
"omg lol wut"

I think it'd go that way. I never get texts anyways, so I just have commercials to go by.

Also, do motorhomes not come with bloody locks?!

Season 2 premiere: Andrea is attacked by a zombie in the RV.
Season 2 finale: What's-his-face dies in the RV.

People can't freaking have guns on them either, when required.