11-16-2017, 04:09 AM
(11-15-2017, 05:14 PM)Robyn Wrote: Regardless of who Adalind conspired with to kidnap Juliette, her motive and objective were the same. She intended to do whatever was necessary to get her daughter back, which she had every right to do. However, Juliette had a right to use her knew powers to kick Adalind out of her house and stop being a victim.
Everyone would have been better off had Juliette come clean as soon as she realized what was happening to her, but if anyone knows how difficult it is to tell the person you love your bizarre secret, it’s Nick. Both women withheld information from Nick because both women had objectives that conflicted with Nick’s.
I don’t understand all this talk about the legalities of murder and Juliette standing trial. In the human justice system Nick would be charged with murder, and Hank & Wu as coconspirators for the murder of Kenneth, not to mention planting evidence and issuing false police reports. Revenge isn’t a defense to murder. From a legal perspective, Kenneth was taken against his will under the color of law and murdered.
Motives hold weight when analyzing a characters’ reasons for doing something, but once the legal system is brought into the discussion, revenge murder and kidnapping aren’t viable defenses, whether the character is a desperate Hexenbiest trying to find her kidnapped child, a vengeful Hexenbiest trying to kidnap the child a second time, or a Grimm committing murder for revenge.
If we’re going to forgo Grimm law and use human law instead, Adalind’s biggest mistake was not going to the FBI with a list of police officers and citizens who kidnapped her child months earlier and let them stake out Nick’s house to arrest Kelly when she arrived with Diana before arresting the rest of the kidnapping ring. After her big lawsuit settlement, she wouldn’t have any financial worries, at least for a long while.
But that’s not what the argument is all about. No one made any remarks stating that Nick or anyone in the gang was innocent in some of the actions they took. The argument is made THAT, Juliette is the innocent one. That she had no clue on what was about to happen and in turn was not responsible for her action. I just compared what she did to the rest as an example. I allways said, what the gang did with Kenneth was unlawfull but Justice was served. Was what Juliette did to Kelly and her neighbors the same justice served?
I, myself and a few others never made any claim that the Scobies were innocent. Me and some other contributors used the comparison to show how much more aggrieves of her betrayal to her friends and lover she committed. Whom did Nick and the rest of the gang betray of each other. They even helped out that scumbag Sean and Juliette multiple times.
This is a classic example of a contributor losing an argument and then re-directing it or skew the subject to avoid admitting their opinion is baseless or just plain idiotic. Your question is better directed, or maybe it is, to your Juliette accomplices
You know you are OLD, when you see the Slide Ruler you used in college selling in an ANTIQUE SHOP!!