*SPOILERS* The shot that killed My Love for Anime

[MangaFanGuy]

Lelouch did not think "Wow! How can Suzaku fight so bravely? He should be a coward for the rest of his life." This shows that Lelouch's experiments had shown that a geass command to do something vague with no specified duration would would last for minutes or hours and thus Suazku's behavior was what would be expected.

Suzaku's and Euphemia's geass commands both had vague instructions and were without specified durations, and so Lelouch and the audience should have expected that Euphemia's geass command would control her for about as long as Suzaku's controlled him.

Wrong.
Suzaku's command and Euphies command were different.
Sure both had no particular time duration and few specifics however they had fundamental differences.
Suzakus was very simple "Live"
As long as Suzaku was living or in no danger of dying (Through his own actions not through something beyond his control as even Geass cannot command that like Shirly showed) then the Geass had no reason to activate to make him live.
However Euphemias was alot more specific "Kill all Japanese" and like all geass commands this wil be carried out until it is no longer required (Like a command to yodel every monday stopping six days a week) or the task is done fully. The Japanese were still alive and so as long as euphemia knew there were japanese she would be bound to the command to kill them all.

It is said that CC undid Charles's geass of false memory on Lelouch at the start of season two and could do so because Charles got his geass power from VV, not CC. Thus VV should have been able to undo Lelouch's geass command to Euphemia since Lelouch got his geas power from CC. Lelouch could have asked CC if there was anyway to undo a geass command before ordering Euphemia killed, and CC could have told him if she had been asked.

At that point IIRC Lelouch did not even know of the existence of V.V or the fact that the Geass could be reversed in any way.
Having been told that the Geass effects are permanent lelouch had no reason to question this nor any reason to believe otherwise.
To assume he should is folly and going beyond character expecations.

If Euphemia had been captured and confined for just a year it would have been possible for Jeremiah to use his geass canceler on her. If Lelouch had any hope that something unexpected might turn up he could have captured Euphemia and she would have been cured in just one lousy stinking year!

This is pitiful
lelouch capturing her on the off chance that in the future a guy he probably forgot about completely would join his side with a piece of equiptment built in complete secrecy to reverse the effects of supposedly irreversable ability.
Not practical or would figure in anyones calculation.

lelouch made his decision on what he knew not what he may know 1 year from then.

So much for your idea that Euphemia would have been controlled by the geass for the rest of her life.

At the time he would have had no reason to think otherwise

You think that the Britannians would have launched a massive invasion to release Euphemia if she was held captive?

maybe
maybe not.
However it seems they were planning something anyway.
So euphemia could have been used as the excuse for an attack on the SAZ

If they valued her life that much, Lelouch should have ordered his men not to kill her but to capture her to use as a hostage to stop the Fuji massacre as soon as possible. Some people would say that not doing so made Lelouch guilty of murdering all the Japanese people he could have saved by using her as a hostage but didn't save.

Your assuming the brittanian forces would simply stop and allow this to happen and not simply attack Zero and his men like ......oh ......say Suzaku?
Capturing her would merely have seen a counterattack.

The Britannians were going to launch a massive invasion of Japan anyway to recapture it from the rebels.

So either way people would die

If the Britannians got hold of Euphemia Emperor Charles could have had VV undo her geass command.

hardly likely.
Charles was a cold SOB
Remember his first reaction to news of the massacre was he throws his head back and LAUGHS.
I really think he could care less about Euphie

I say that Lelouch didn't her Euphemia seaming in agony and begging to be killed before he shot her.

I believe her last words to lelouch were
Euphemis: Damned Japanese (Her Mecha falls down in pieces)
cut to Lelouch
Com:What shall we do, Zero? Do you want her alive?
Lelouch:That would be useless, I'm afraid
Cut to euphie climbing up and looking around
Euphie: Massacre! I have to kill all of the Japanese!
Picks up a gun and shoots Lelouchs mecha before clip runs out
Eupie: Why? hurry!Hurry!
Lelouch exits mecha and euphie picks up a full clip and starts reloading
Euphie: Um, I think.......
Finishes reloading and look at Lelouch
Euphie: Oh! I thought you were Japanese!
I was thinking, why don't we announce the dedication of the SAZ of Japan together?
Looks confused
Euphie: Hmm! Japan?
Lelouch:Yes.......I would like to have done so.....together!
Raises gun and Shoots Euphie.

As you can see Euphemia was not playing with a full deck of cards at the time so the fact she wasn't begging is not a good reason. In fact it shows at the time she was barely able to control her own thoughts and was for the most part completely bonkers.

I say that no matter what happened to Euphemia if Lelouch did not shoot her, no matter how much or how little she suffered, she would still be able to think and feel and enjoy some of the pleasures of life.

Enjoy the pleasures of life?
She barely seemed to even remember what had happened 2 minutes ago.
At the end of her life
euphie in the bed with Suzaku sitting next to her
Suzaku: I want you to tell me......Why did you give that order?
Euphie: Order? what do you mean?......anyway, Suzaku you are Japanese aren't you?
Euphies eyes attain the geass glow
Suzaku:Yes.....Euphie!
Euphie: No! No! I can't! I can't think that way!
Suzaku..........
Suzaku: What is it?
Euphie: The ceremony......What happened to Japan?
Suzaku: Euphie? Don't you remember?
Cut to Lelouchs speech
cut back to Euphie
Euphie: Were the Japanese people happy?
cut to Japanese crowd
cut to Suzaku
Suzaku:Euphie. The SAZ ........It was a huge success. they were all so happy with the new Japan
Euphie: (Closing eyes) I'm so glad...
the rest is basically just euphie giving a speech about staying in school etc.

However this part backs up the first bit that Euphie had lost about half her marbles at that point and so letting her live would not have been the best thing to do.
I don't know about you but a life of agony and insanity is no life at all.

I say that no matter how much Euphemia suffered she would have been happier alive than dead.

prove it?
prove the goody two shoes non-violence pacifist hippy called euphemia would have relished even a moment living as a deranged serial killer under a compulsion to kill and kill and kill

[blackrosetwilight]

Technically, the date that would live in "infamy" (get a grip) would be March 27, 2007, as that was the Japanese airing (and therefore the first one) of that episode. It is kinda pointless to simply mourn the date that you found out about her death, rather than the date when she died. But I digress...

Oh and lets have Euphemia's death (and just HER death) live in infamy, and have HER death be "one of the most evil and senseless murders ever shown on television", rather than the day she ran around committing genocide, slaughtering Japanese like a bully to an anthill. Yeah, that never happened, so let's ignore that, as that is obviously not nearly as sad and evil as the death of the crazed pseudo-pacifistic girl who killed them.

In fact, let's ignore the fact that we are putting the death of a cartoon character into the same category as some of the worst tragedies to hit humanity.

As you see (if you haven't figured it out), Euphemia's death didn't really bother me and still doesn't. I have watched Bandai long enough to figure that the sweet ones either:
1. Become the girlfriend of the main character; arranges peace
2. Die (whether they accomplish the above or not)

Euphemia did both, as would be expected of Bandai. Hell, Euphemia's NAME alone told me that she was going to die, so I was really not surprised when she did (as I have told you, Bandai is really good at coming up with meaningful names for characters).

STORY TIME!!:

For those who do not know, in the Catholic Church, Euphemia ("Saint Euphemia" or "Great-martyr Euphemia" or "All-praised") was found in a secret house worshiping the Christian God against the orders of the governor that all inhabitants worship Ares. She was tortured (severely) and (its believed) died after being attacked and mauled by a bear (or lion) in the arena.

For her martyrdom, was later made into a saint. She even has her own feast on September 16.

Wow did not know that

[proEuphie]

Depends on the situation
Depends on her and me and all the events leading up to me wanting to kill her.
In this case if i was in Lelouchs place I would probably kill her too.
Why?
Cos I see the necessity in such an act.
Does that mean I enjoyed it? No
Does that mean I won't regret it? No

You would kill someone who is only doing evil because you had put a spell on them or driven them insane, someone who was less responsible than you were?
You would kill someone who would be just as harmless if confined securely as if she was dead?
You would prefer to kill someone you could capture alive even sooner than you killed her, someone you could capture alive even safer for you than killing her?
You would prefer to kill someone who loves and trusts you instead of capturing them alive?

Do you realize what you are admitting?

And because you see the necessity in an action which is totally unnecessary? You see something which is not there?

Ok I have said this in other threads on this subject.
It isn't black and white "oh he could have captured her"
There were personal, political, strategic factors at work in the whole thing.
Strategically and politically capturing the most popular member of the royal family would have been a huge PR bonus for the Brittanians and given them something to make Lelouch look bad.
Now it also begs the question.
He captures her and does what with her?
Lock her up for the rest of her life?
Sit her in a prison cell to think about the massacre she perpetrated?
Have her try to kill her guards at every turn (As she would most likely be guarded by Japanese)?

Killing someone whose death is not necessary to save other lives but for other, personal, political, or strategic, reasons is called murder. I couldn't begin to count all the fictional characters and historic persons who have been hated for hundreds or thousands of years because they killed people not because their deaths were necessary to save other lives, but for personal, political, or strategic reasons.

I say that the videos of the Fuji Massacre undeservedly made Euphemia look bad and deservedly made the Britannian army look bad. Euphemia undeservedly looked so bad that the Britannians decided to put all the blame on her instead of trying to rehabilitate her reputation.

I'm sure that countless millions of persons cheered Zero for killing Euphemia. Ad they would have cheered Zero even more if he captured Euphemia and told the world that Euphemia was a wonderfully good and innocent child who had gone crazy due to the stress of doing good when all her fellow Britannians wanted her to be as evil as they were, or perhaps had been secretly brainwashed by Britannians and/or Japanese who wanted to sabotage the SAZ plan.

And if Zero accurately made Euphie seem like another victim and put the blame for the massacre on all the Britannian soldiers who had obeyed the massacre order and on the government which had turned them evil, he would have been saying what was true -- obviously true except for Euphie's innocence. I think that capturing Euphemia when killing her seemed the obvious thing to do would have enhanced Zero's reputation for justice and fairness, not tarnished it.

And locking up Euphemia for the rest of her life would be better than killing her. To say otherwise is to question the intelligence and judgment of countless thousands and millions of accused and convicted persons and their lawyers who have tried to get life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

You say Euphie would have been guarded by Japanese people in Japan. Even if it was certain that she would be locked up in Japan instead of Britannia or some neutral country, it would be easy to get non-Japanese to guard her. Euphie herself had a Japanese boyfriend. Later in the show the Japanese Oghri married the Britannian Viletta. And Kallen had a Japanese mother and a Britannian father. So in the world of Code Geass as well as in our world, there will be plenty of people who don't look Japanese and won't be in danger from Euphemia but would love someone Japanese and don't want to let Euphie escape -- if the Japanese government couldn't just hire Russians or Africans or Hindus or Britannians to guard her.

Not for something like this.
They are often tried and executed for doing things that are heinous and disgusting (Like shooting a surrendered soldier).
Not simply shooting an enemy soldier.

Lelouch did something heinous and disgusting like shooting someone who loved and trusted him and didn't suspect any danger, when there was no need to kill her. Lleouch did not simply shoot an enemy soldier. he shot an enemy princess who was not guilty by reason of insanity and who would have made a great hostage to stop the massacre sooner and save Japanese lives and who had millions of adoring fans who might seek to get revenge on Zero, the Black Knights, and Japan.

Euphemia ignored chances to shoot Lelouch for second after second because she didn't want to shoot him. If Lelouch had asked her to surrender to him so he could protect her from the angry mobs who wanted to kill her and maybe some time in the future she could continue what she was doing she would probably have surrendered. Lelouch could have captured her as soon as she left the wreckage of her nightmare. She was like a ripe fruit waiting to be captured and taken prisoner. Killing her was extremely close to killing a captured or surrendered prisoner.

Many men have felt intense guilt for killing enemy soldiers or criminals even though they felt they had no choice. Many have wished that some how it had been different and it had been safe and easy for them to capture instead of kill. Lelouch had a wonderful rare chance to capture someone who had no power to force him to kill her instead, and who also loved and trusted him so much that he was confident that she would not take the chance to kill him that he offered her. Lelouch threw away what many others wished that they could have had.

At the battle of Narita was she not the commander of the brittanian reserve forces?
At the Battle of Fuji was she not the commanding officer of the Brittanian forces?
Regardless of the fact that she was a member of the Royal family it stands that she was the commander of the Brittanian forces (And even took an active combatant role in the fighting0

Euphemia was not the Britannian commander at the battle of Fuji. The Britannians were not planning a battle there. Euphemia was presiding over the opening of the SAZ and beginning her administration of it. The Britannian soldiers were there to keep order and to protect Euphemia from any possible trouble and were under the command of General Darlton who even sat on a throne beside Euphemia's throne. After Darlton vanished they would have been commanded by his second in command under Euhemia's overall political leadership. And Euphemia only took a personal part in the fighting because the geass command made her do it, as Lelouch knew.

it is a war crime.
However beginning hostilities with the massacre of a stadium full of civilians would make her the criminal would it not?
leading them to the stadium under the guise of peace before killing them would moot any claim to not knowing about a state of war that she perpetrated.

It made her a criminal in the eyes of the world for a year until the "Evil Emperor Lleouch" admitted that he had given her the order to kill the Japanese. Lelouch already knew that she was innocent in episode 23 so the massacre was no justification for killing her. And Euphemia did not know that Lleouch/Zero was going to attack her. Otherwise she would have done something about it, like shooting him in the back, begging for mercy, running away, or at least asking what his intentions were.

I believe that between apologizing to Lleouch and asking him to help administer the SAZ Euphemia's subconscious mind defeated her geass command and Euphemia was mostly freed from it's control. And thus she had no clear memory of the massacre and no suspicion that Lleouch had any motive to attack her.

You could simply cos of lack of any real evidence to convict.

[MangaFanGuy]

You would kill someone who is only doing evil because you had put a spell on them or driven them insane, someone who was less responsible than you were?

Then if I was the cause I would be responsible for stopping it.
If that meant killing the person then that is what I would do.

You would kill someone who would be just as harmless if confined securely as if she was dead?

If that was the best choice I could make in the end.
If that lead to the best outcome then I most certainly would.

You would prefer to kill someone you could capture alive even sooner than you killed her, someone you could capture alive even safer for you than killing her?

In that case I would capture that person.
However you would have to show that capture was the best possible outcome.
With Euphemia you can't do that.

You would prefer to kill someone who loves and trusts you instead of capturing them alive?

Them loving and trusting you is moot.
IF I had to then I would.

Do you realize what you are admitting?

That I would do what I believe is right even if it means killing someone I loved and who loved me.
I don't believe love is an excuse for not stopping a person massacring people around me even it means killing them.

And because you see the necessity in an action which is totally unnecessary? You see something which is not there?

You would need to convince me there is no necessity.
In Euphies case I would have not only my personal feelings but the political and personal feelings of everyone I commanded to worry about.
I can't simply go with my feelings and jeopardize the millions of people under my authority.
THAT would be worse IMO

Killing someone whose death is not necessary to save other lives but for other, personal, political, or strategic, reasons is called murder.

Again you have to prove the death is not necessary.
Here we have alot of factors both personal and politcal which make it necessary

I couldn't begin to count all the fictional characters and historic persons who have been hated for hundreds or thousands of years because they killed people not because their deaths were necessary to save other lives, but for personal, political, or strategic reasons.

and what of others?
How many have killed throughout history and been hailed as heroes?
and if it is for a strategic reason especially in a time of war and that strategy would save countless other lives you cannot justify it as unnecessary.

Again you face the problem of proving her death was unnecessary in the grand scheme of things

I say that the videos of the Fuji Massacre undeservedly made Euphemia look bad and deservedly made the Britannian army look bad. Euphemia undeservedly looked so bad that the Britannians decided to put all the blame on her instead of trying to rehabilitate her reputation.

There is no way the brittanians could have spun it the other way with Euphemia dead.
With her alive and on their side they would have testimony to prove it wasn't her fault. (Gaining more public support against Lelouch)
Captured she they could claim Zero forced her and are using her in captivity (Gaining sympathy for her plight)
Dead they had no choice but to accept thee facts they saw themselves.

So here her death suited Lelouch's plans the best

I'm sure that countless millions of persons cheered Zero for killing Euphemia.

They did

Ad they would have cheered Zero even more if he captured Euphemia and told the world that Euphemia was a wonderfully good and innocent child who had gone crazy due to the stress of doing good when all her fellow Britannians wanted her to be as evil as they were, or perhaps had been secretly brainwashed by Britannians and/or Japanese who wanted to sabotage the SAZ plan.

or they simply would have demanded her execution.
Nothing Lelouch could do then would save her and if anything it would hurt lelouch even more. (Personally and politically/strategically so again favoring the necessity of euphies death)

And if Zero accurately made Euphie seem like another victim and put the blame for the massacre on all the Britannian soldiers who had obeyed the massacre order and on the government which had turned them evil, he would have been saying what was true -- obviously true except for Euphie's innocence.

If you think that then you are being blind and foolish.
You don't believe the innocence of the person who on National television gave the orders and fired the first shot.
There is no innocence there not without revealing Lelouchs Geass and bringing the whole Black knights order down with him.

This would have not only been futile but played into the hands of Brittanians.
Why?
Cos the only way he could prove her innocence was to reveal the one secret that eventually led to his downfall.

I think that capturing Euphemia when killing her seemed the obvious thing to do would have enhanced Zero's reputation for justice and fairness, not tarnished it.

Killing her gave the reputation of Zero being the savior.
Killing the person who had so betrayed the Japanese with a false peace

And locking up Euphemia for the rest of her life would be better than killing her.

Why?
Cos then she can live her insanity out to the max?

To say otherwise is to question the intelligence and judgment of countless thousands and millions of accused and convicted persons and their lawyers who have tried to get life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

Seriously?
of course DEATH ROW INMATES aren't gonna appreciate the fact they are on death row.
What (if any) relevance doe this have?

You say Euphie would have been guarded by Japanese people in Japan.

Uh Yeah
Who would think a prisoner of the Japanese wouldn't be guarded by Japanese?

Even if it was certain that she would be locked up in Japan instead of Britannia or some neutral country, it would be easy to get non-Japanese to guard her.

Whats the point?
In a time of war with resources strained already this is simply one more hassle.
A strait Jacket is much more cost effective

Euphie herself had a Japanese boyfriend.

Irrelevant as he wouldn't have been there

Later in the show the Japanese Oghri married the Britannian Viletta.

Again Irrelevant.
So one character marries a brittanian
Yay for him but how does this affect her guards?

And Kallen had a Japanese mother and a Britannian father.

Still technically Japanese IIRC

So in the world of Code Geass as well as in our world, there will be plenty of people who don't look Japanese and won't be in danger from Euphemia but would love someone Japanese and don't want to let Euphie escape -- if the Japanese government couldn't just hire Russians or Africans or Hindus or Britannians to guard her.

Again a strait jacket would be more economical.
And I seriously doubt many of the Japanese cared overwhelmingly for her safe prison sentence in the lap of Luxury.

Lelouch did something heinous and disgusting like shooting someone who loved and trusted him and didn't suspect any danger, when there was no need to kill her.

Again the benefits for everyone involved was greater with her death.
The fact she loved him and was crazy means little to that fact.

Lelouch did not simply shoot an enemy soldier. he shot an enemy princess who was not guilty by reason of insanity and who would have made a great hostage to stop the massacre sooner and save Japanese lives and who had millions of adoring fans who might seek to get revenge on Zero, the Black Knights, and Japan.

Again I already addressed the capture point earlier.

Euphemia ignored chances to shoot Lelouch for second after second because she didn't want to shoot him.

Because he wasn't Japanese.
Therefore the Geass couldn't care less about killing him.

If Lelouch had asked her to surrender to him so he could protect her from the angry mobs who wanted to kill her and maybe some time in the future she could continue what she was doing she would probably have surrendered.

Or she would have searched for more Japanese to kill.
She was clearly searching for more Japanese to kill as she left the mecha and while Lelouch approached.

Lelouch could have captured her as soon as she left the wreckage of her nightmare.

Again the necessity weihed more on killing her then capturing her
Remember that Lelouch had to do what was best for tthe entirety of the Japanese people not just himself

She was like a ripe fruit waiting to be captured and taken prisoner.

Only to find it is in fact a rotten apple which needs to be disposed of

Killing her was extremely close to killing a captured or surrendered prisoner.

Not even close but nice try

Many men have felt intense guilt for killing enemy soldiers or criminals even though they felt they had no choice.

Does this mean they made the wrong choice? NO

Many have wished that some how it had been different and it had been safe and easy for them to capture instead of kill.

Still no relevance here.
Wanting something is not the same as needing to DO something.

Lelouch had a wonderful rare chance to capture someone who had no power to force him to kill her instead, and who also loved and trusted him so much that he was confident that she would not take the chance to kill him that he offered her.

What chance to kill him?
He knew she knew he wasn't Japanese and so would not shoot.
Besides even if it was the easiest capturing her was not the best choice for him.

Lelouch threw away what many others wished that they could have had.

Threw it away because he needed to what was best for those under his command.
He took a terrible burden on himself to do so but necessity won out over personal feelings.

Euphemia was not the Britannian commander at the battle of Fuji.

Heres a quote from the show from lelouch
"When I think about, you were Euphie long before you were Deputy Vicerine or the Third Princess" (And a couple of Miinutes later Dalton refers to her as Deputy Vicerine as well)
Deputy Vicerine is one of their highest ranks is it not?
Even higher then General?
Which means she outranked Dalton did she not?

The Britannians were not planning a battle there.

Irrelevant.
A battle occured and Euphie as both Princess and Deputy Vicerine was the Highest Ranking there and could outrank any of the others.

Euphemia was presiding over the opening of the SAZ and beginning her administration of it. The Britannian soldiers were there to keep order and to protect Euphemia from any possible trouble and were under the command of General Darlton who even sat on a throne beside Euphemia's throne. After Darlton vanished they would have been commanded by his second in command under Euhemia's overall political leadership. And Euphemia only took a personal part in the fighting because the geass command made her do it, as Lelouch knew.

All of this is irrelevant to the fact the Euphemia held the Highest rank.
She commanded the troops at Fuji.
Not Dalton or one of his Subordinates.... EUPHEMIA!
Euphemia gave an order and no other oficer tried to countermand it or question it (Besides Dalton) who as second in command could question but lacked the authority to countermand her orders.
So to Say she wasn't the leader begs the Question.
Why didn't Dalton or or of the subordinatres countermand the massacre order?
A.Because they couldn't!!!!!!!

It made her a criminal in the eyes of the world for a year until the "Evil Emperor Lleouch" admitted that he had given her the order to kill the Japanese.

Lelouch would have no knowledge this would occur and so not factor into his thinking and juticication for the killing.

Lelouch already knew that she was innocent in episode 23 so the massacre was no justification for killing her.

He knew she was innocent only for a reason he could not tell for risk losing all that he had worked for to bring Japan as far as he did.

And Euphemia did not know that Lleouch/Zero was going to attack her.

Irrelevant.

Otherwise she would have done something about it, like shooting him in the back, begging for mercy, running away, or at least asking what his intentions were.

Maybe but then we will never know will we.
Anything more is simply conjecture

I believe that between apologizing to Lleouch and asking him to help administer the SAZ Euphemia's subconscious mind defeated her geass command and Euphemia was mostly freed from it's control.

At the time she was shot she was still muttering about killignJapanese and it was still active when with Suzaku before becomming delerious and finally dying.

And thus she had no clear memory of the massacre and no suspicion that Lleouch had any motive to attack her.

Irrelevant.
In the end it is not the way of war to tell people you are about to shoot them.
You don't see snipers standing around telling their targets they are about to get shot so they can shoot the sniper first.

[spleeee!]

on the discussion of euphemia's justified and necessary death (doing it for the lulz): it was a very powerful episode and, as much as my emotional side would like to go back in time and force the writer to save her from everything, i can't. the show wouldn't have been as high quality for one, the message would have been dulled (because the show wasn't about witnessing her death and then taking it, overwhelmingly, from your emotions and starting useless threads on a forum where you'll never accept anybody else's opinion but your own, defeating the point of discussion btw), also it's my emotional side and that's highly irrational, but mainly because it's just a cartoon with a message and i've got better things to do than focus on how something i never had control of went the way i didn't want it to. i believe you, proEuphie, have got to be doing this thread starting for the lulz, either that or you need to grow up. now would you kindly stop making threads where you repeat yourself to no end? it's annoying to see this over and over again.

[B Gundam]

How come this is still going on?

[kimi no kioku]

Jesus Christ, her death was freaking necessary! Get over it!

Sorry.

[proEuphie]

You are so very wrong.

Lelouch even agreed to the establishment of the Special Administrative Zone, and it would've ended there if his Geass didn't attach itself permanently to his eye. His saying that he could order Euphie to murder tens of thousands of Japanese was merely a hypothetical illustration of his power and Euphie's inability to act against it. He didn't mean to take it LITERALLY.

Please, rewatch the series.

The first thing that Lelouch did at the meeting was to pull out a gun. He told Euphemia he was going to make her shoot him with it. She said that would would start a riot. (And everyone who died in it would have died because Lelouch tricked the Japanese into thinking that Euphie had deliberately and treacherously shot him.)

Lelouch said that when he came back from the dead (I started a thread to discuss what he meant by that) the Japanese would see that he was a the true messiah and Eupheie was a false messiah.

Eventually Euphie persuaded him to give up his plan and make peace with him. Then he carelessly said that he could make her kill the Japanese, thus giving her the geass command.

please rewatch the series.

[proEuphie]

on the discussion of euphemia's justified and necessary death (doing it for the lulz): it was a very powerful episode and, as much as my emotional side would like to go back in time and force the writer to save her from everything, i can't. the show wouldn't have been as high quality for one, the message would have been dulled (because the show wasn't about witnessing her death and then taking it, overwhelmingly, from your emotions and starting useless threads on a forum where you'll never accept anybody else's opinion but your own, defeating the point of discussion btw), also it's my emotional side and that's highly irrational, but mainly because it's just a cartoon with a message and i've got better things to do than focus on how something i never had control of went the way i didn't want it to. i believe you, proEuphie, have got to be doing this thread starting for the lulz, either that or you need to grow up. now would you kindly stop making threads where you repeat yourself to no end? it's annoying to see this over and over again.

Euphemia's death was unnecessary and unjustified.. Nothing bad would have happened as an inevitable or highly likely result of her living. Capturing her would have been just as safe for Lelouch and the Japanese as killing her. Capturing her would have been just as fast and as easy as killing her.

It is true that Euphemia had to be killed or captured. But since capturing her would have been just as good as killing her capturing her was the preferred method of stopping her. Therefore anyone who chose to kill her instead of capturing her was was guilty of murder.

Without Euphemia the series was just groups of evil people fighting each other. Killing her destroyed the series for the sake of one or two exciting episodes.

[spleeee!]

hold on let me get my lollerskates on. i can't believe you actually got provoked by my blatant attempt to do so. i even said doing it for the lulz! no denial? no ignoring me like any normal poster would? why not blow us all off and just believe what you want to believe (freedom to think what you want?) because we sure will, the world goes 'round without euphemia just like the world will go 'round without you, btw she wasn't real, sorry to shatter your world there, oh wait, i can't! you won't listen to anybody much less logic or reason. i can't believe i'm almost annoyed that i haven't been treated like i normally do, you're one piece of work buddy. i'm out from here on, it used to be hilarious to see you flail your inability to grow up and start to understand the world, but don't expect me to further any conversation with you if you're gonna tell me a fantastic show filled with intense emotional episodes was somehow less of a fantastic show because the character who you dream about died. in the immortal words of gene wilder's version of willie wonka: good day to you sir!

[B Gundam]

Euphemia's death was unnecessary and unjustified.. Nothing bad would have happened as an inevitable or highly likely result of her living. Capturing her would have been just as safe for Lelouch and the Japanese as killing her. Capturing her would have beeen just as fast and as seay as kllling her.

Yeah, in your head you can create all those theories about how Lelouch could have otherwise acted and dominated the World and whatever (with the secret geassing chambers and stuff)...

But they're all a whole patch of woulds, ifs and buts. In Trigun Maximum, Raidei the Blade admits defeat, then takes his weapon and attacks Vash from behind anyways, but he was otherwise an honourable man and could have stopped, but Wolfwood shot him and Vash notes that he has just eliminated both possibilities, namely that Raidei could have either continued to attempt backstab Vash who may or may not get hit from it or he could have stopped, repented, became friends with them and whatnot.

Lelouch just did it like Wolfwood, screw the buts and ifs, yeah there are possibilities of it turning out better or worse, screw them all, annihilate the possibilities, positive and negative alike and thats that. It solved the immediate problem.

The author could have written that Euphemia overcomes the Geass in captivity, or she becomes insane after realising what she did, or that aliens abduct her and she returns as a pink elefant, but thats completely up to the author, you only make theories with buts and ifs with what you know from watching the show, but you're not the author so all this "highly likely" to work out well if euphemia was kept alive if Lelouch just captured her if he thinks of something that time if if if if if is complete moot and you're rewriting the story.

Go and make a doujin or fanfic like any other normal obsessed fangirl would with Euphemia surviving and taking over the world and whatever, make her black hole sue for all I care with all other characters agreeing to whatever she says, it would be a more legit way of expressing yourself rather than trying to convince the whole dam world to agree with Euphemia having to live just because you like her. You even have to go press your opinion on splee although he openly declares himself almost trolling for it and you have the opinion that Euphemia dying "destroyed the series". Well tough luck for you.

Putting a nice and innocent character of a series through the worst up to the point of killing him/her (usually her) happens.

[kimi no kioku]

Let me put it plain and simple for you. Lelouch had used Geass many times. He made Shirley forget him, and she was in love with him! He made that Carve chick well.. Carve. And she never stopped. In Lelouch's mind, even if he captured her, she would have still been under the effect of Geass. It might have stopped for a while, but as soon as she saw a Japanese person, she would have tried to kill them. He had no way of knowing of a Geass Canceler at this point.
He did the only thing he thought he could to stop her.

[blackrosetwilight]

Fine I'll I be the first to say this. Eupy is alive and well in the wonderful word of C where she is worship as the goddess of peace, love, and justice!!!

[proEuphie]

Oooooookay, however, YOUR definition of murder is not the definition used in a court of law. Therefore, it pretty much means nothing as far as the law is concerned.

.

Wow, you think you know what you talking about, don't you? As I have pointed out, using real-world applications on a fictional universe does not really work and doesn't prove anything (other than the fact that you really have no life). While the intention of war most be stated (I'll play your game for a moment), it only has to be stated to the nation in question. Whether or not the people actually KNOW about the war is a different story. Commanding officers are advised to notify civilians of the conflict, but not truly required. Don't you think that I, as a member of military, would already know this and certainly know it better than you?

Remember Pearl Harbor? I say there is no reason to get angry about the Japanese sneak attack before the declaration of war. The Japanese were trying to deliver their declaration of war right before the attack so they would be technically in the right but the US government would not have time to alert their forces in Hawaii and the Philiipines before the attacks. But for various reasons the declaration was received just after the attack on Pearl Harbor began.

I say that anger at the Japanese attack should be anger at what they tried to pull off by launching a surprise attack just minutes after the declaration of war. I say that American anger that was used to kill thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and eventually civilians should also have been used to close that legal loophole by changing international law to say that every declaration of war could only come into effect after there was sufficient time time to warn all the military forces and civilians of the country to expect attack at any time, and that any attacks before the specified warning period expired were not acts of war but criminal acts.

I say that the United States should have used its anger at Pearl Harbor to change international law for the better by requiring all declarations of war to be to be followed b a warning period to warn all the people of the nation war was declared on of their danger before the first military actions were carried out, and that despite the decline in declarations of war international law should be changed in the future to require adequate time to warn every person with access to modern communications that his life is now in danger.

I say that international law and the law of war as it now exists is not perfect and that people should continue to try to change it for the better in the future. I say that if killing Euphemia under the circumstances she was killed is not a war crime in our world or the world of Code Geass it should be.

I say that it should be relevant that Euphemia did not know that she was in danger. And no, I don't mean that Lelouch should have risked his life by telling her that he was going to shoot her and that she had ten seconds to try to shoot him before he shot. He should have not intended to kill her and thus she would not have been ignorant of the threat, because there wouldn't have been any threat to be ignorant of.

In the case of Euphemia, since Japan and Britannia were in the conflict, they were the only parties that needed to know anything. It doesn't matter whether or not Euphemia actually KNEW that Lelouch was a threat.

You're wrong. The conflict between Japan and Britannia ended when the Japanese surrendered seven years earlier. Japan was now ruled by Britannia. Japanese rebels were legally guilty of treason against the government in control of their land. There was no war between Britannia and Japan. The Fuji massacre was not planned or intended by the Britannian government or anyone in it.

Even Euphemia who ordered it had no desire for a conflict at that time and place but was obeying her geass command. I say it was a (one-sided) conflict between the Japanese civilians being slaughtered on one side, and the Britannians at Fuji under Euphemia on the other side, which the Black Knights suddenly entered as a third side. Since Euphemia was the highest ranking Britannian official involved in the conflict with the Japanese civilians she had to be informed that the Black Knights were getting involved for there to be a legal state of war between her forces and the Black Knights.

Of course, since she was armed at the time and a member of a belligerent force, her death was not a war crime; she needs to either be unarmed or have surrendered for that to happen (her not knowing that Lelouch was a threat is actually irrelevant). Tragic, yes, but (in our world) not a war crime.

Euphemia was unarmed at the time she got out of the wreckage of her nightmare. At that time it was Lelouch's duty to capture her instead of killing her, since at that moment she was unarmed. It would have been a war crime for Lelouch to kill her at that moment. But Lelouch did not immediately capture her (and thus did not do his duty) but waited around until she picked up a machine gun lying on the ground for unexplained reasons. It is like lelouch wanted to Kill Euphemia and was waiting and hoping for the situation to change so that it would not be a war crime to kill her. I say that anyone who does that is breaking the spirit of the law.

After Euphie picked up the machine gun Lelouch got out of the safety of his armored vehicle and walked toward the now armed Euphemia and past her and away from her with his back to her and wasn't shot, then turned around and shot her suddenly. Under the circumstances saying that Euphemia was armed and therefore fair game is really stretching the letter of the law to violate the spirit. It is clear that Lelouch was not the least bit worried about any violence that Euphemia might have done with the weapon that he let her pick up and keep when it would have been so easy for him to stop her from getting it or to take it way from her.

Euphemia did not surrender because she didn't know there was a conflict between her and Lelouch. Either the geass command could not put two and two together and realize that there was an ongoing conflict between Lelouch and the body it was controlling, or Euphemia had just freed herself from the control of the geass command and thus did not remember the massacre or her nightmare being destroyed and had no idea that there was conflict going on.

Lelouch could have asked her to surrender to him to save herself from her enemies and maybe continue with her task at some future time. And Euphemia and/or the geass command might have agreed and surrendered. I say that claiming that Euphemia was fair game is using the letter of the law to break the spirit of the law.

Well, like I have said, the real laws of war do not (and CAN NOT) be applied to the fictional world of Code Geass. In YOUR example, Shinji Ikari was being tried for the "murder" of an enemy officer, however, that is only because killing an enemy officer is punishable by in YOUR world. In the REAL world, that is not true (and as I pointed out in that thread, he would be guilty of insubordination, not murder).

You say that killing an enemy officer is not punishable in our world. But there are circumstances in which you say it is punishable in our world to kill enemies (which must include officers) such as when they are unarmed or have already surrendered.

And you say that Shinji in my example was only guilty of insubordination in his world, not murder. Wow! I really want you for my defense attorney if I am ever tried for anything serious! Your outrageous claims will make the court waste a lot of time refuting them and will drag things out.

At the Battle of Copenhagen on 2 April 1802 Admiral Nelson turned a blind eye to Admiral Parker's signal to withdraw, and said that if he was hanged for it so be it. Since Nelson was already a famous war hero, and Copenhagen was a great British victory, Nelson was in little danger of being tried for his actions. But suppose that some strange force suddenly made the British many times more humane and/or legalistic. Then Nelson might have been tried for murder at Copenhagen.

The prosecution would have had legal grounds to argue that since Nelson was ordered to discontinue his fight all the tens and hundreds of British and Danish sailors who may have been killed and maimed after the time when the engagement would have ceased if Nelson had obeyed his orders were murdered or criminally assaulted by Nelson. They may have argued that since Nelson had no legal authority to continue the fight the ensuing deaths were not acts of war but acts of murder on his part. Thus the deaths of those sailors were murder under civilian law and were not acts of war under military law.

And courts martial do try soldiers for civilian offenses such as rape, murder, theft, arson, etc. etc., sometimes in the absence of civilian courts, and whenever soldiers do such things on their own initiative without obeying orders and not because of military necessity, when their actions are not justified by the war that they occur during.

So Shinji Ikari may have been charged with the civil crime of murder because killing Rei Ikari was not justified by or part of the war effort. In my account It is mentioned that standing orders require the capture (when possible) of enemy generals to use as hostages to stop the battle in question. Apparently the Azurian society and military are so caste-ridden that Azurian armies are required to surrender to save the lives of their generals when used as hostages (what a great army to be a general in).

Clearly it was possible for Shinji Ikari to capture an enemy general who had been prepared to surrender before recognizing him, had hugged him when she did recognize him, and had previously promised to surrender to him instead of fighting to the death. If Colonel Ikari had obviously disobeyed standing orders when killing General Ikari he was not protected from murder charges by taking part in a war and a battle, since his action was clearly not justified by obedience to rules and regulations but was in direct disobedience to them. Thus he could have been tried for murder just as easily as a civilian who shot someone in a time of peace could have been tried for murder.

In Code Geass, Lelouch killing Euphemia may or may not be a war crime; like I said, laws of war in the real world can't truly be applied to the series (the laws are not even stated). In our world, it wouldn't be (and I have already given the reasons as to why). In the world of Code Geass....its anyone's guess.

I say that killing someone as easy to capture alive as Euphemia should be a war crime under ideal laws of war. Therefore it should be a war crime in the fictional world of Code Geass and it would be made a war crime in our world. I say that ideally ever real and fictional warrior should be judged by the ideal laws of war.

Of course, we can't "acquit" Lelouch since, well, he's dead (and not real...something that you seem to be forgetting). No point in even bringing that up.

[proEuphie]

Let me put it plain and simple for you. Lelouch had used Geass many times. He made Shirley forget him, and she was in love with him! He made that Carve chick well.. Carve. And she never stopped. In Lelouch's mind, even if he captured her, she would have still been under the effect of Geass. It might have stopped for a while, but as soon as she saw a Japanese person, she would have tried to kill them. He had no way of knowing of a Geass Canceler at this point.
He did the only thing he thought he could to stop her.

Lelouch did not bother to ask CC if there was anyway to undo a gess command -- she might have told him that VV could.

Lelouch had only been giving geass commands for weeks or months. The longest period of obedience he could possibly have observed in any of his subjects was thus just weeks or months. CC was never seen to give him information about geass.

Lelouch gave Suzaku a command to live and it make Suzaku cowardly. A few days later Lelouch saw Suzaku fighting bravely and was not surprised. Thus Lelouch seemed to have expected that Suzaku's geass command was going to wear off soon.

Lelouch's geass command to Euphemia was similar in many ways to his geass command to Suzaku. Thus it is qiuite likely that Lelouch should have expected her geass command to wear off soon.

If Lelouch spared Euphemia in the hope that something would come up sometime to cure her, it would have taken only one year.

Anyway, it would be just as much murder to kill Euphemia if it was absolutely certain that she would be controlled by the geass forever, as it would be if it was absolutely certain that she would recover from it tomorrow.

If Lelouch expected Euphemai to be controlled by the geass command for the rest of her life he would expect she would have been harmless if kept confined securely. If she never saw a Japanese person again she would never try to attack a Japanese person again.

And don't say that because her life as a prisoner or patient would not be as good as she would have wanted it to be she would have been better off dead. I tell you that your life will not be as good as you want it to be. You will have unknown and unpredictable problems, worries, and sorrows. Does that mean that you would be better of dying now that facing your future life which will not be as good as you want it to be?

NO!

And Euphemia would not be better off dead than facing a future life that would not be as good as she wanted it to be.

[B Gundam]

Euphemia was unarmed at the time she got out of the wreckage of her nightmare. At that time it was Lelouch's duty to capture her instead of killing her, since at that moment she was unarmed. It would have been a war crime for Lelouch to kill her at that moment. But Lelouch did not immediately capture her (and thus did not do his duty) but waited around until she picked up a machine gun lying on the ground for unexplained reasons. It is like lelouch wanted to Kill Euphemia and was waiting and hoping for the situation to change so that it would not be a war crime to kill her. I say that anyone who does that is breaking the spirit of the law.

Under the assumption that you dictate if lelouch dashed and grabbed her with Mecha hands while she thought the frame was an enemy it would have totally worked.

I say that killing someone as easy to capture alive as Euphemia should be a war crime under ideal laws of war. Therefore it should be a war crime in the fictional world of Code Geass and it would be made a war crime in our world. I say that ideally ever real and fictional warrior should be judged by the ideal laws of war.

Which you've just dictated for everyone in existence or fictional.

And don't say that because her life as a prisoner or patient would not be as good as she would have wanted it to be she would have been better off dead. I tell you that your life will not be as good as you want it to be. You will have unknown and unpredictable problems, worries, and sorrows. Does that mean that you would be better of dying now that facing your future life wihich will not be as good as you want it to be?

NO!

And Euphemia woudl not be better off dead than facing a future life that woud not be as good as she wanted it to be.

Again, this is because you are dictating it to be so, also making all these Assumptions of how long it'd take to research a way to get rid of geass and all, you totally act like this universe is likely to bend in the favour of Euphemia because in your head it can only be that way. It could have ranged anywhere from 1st case of breaking Geass to her killing Suzaku and turning insane. A good deal of of outcomes can be excruciatingly aweful and unless you're the author you can't exclude them.

[kimi no kioku]

Lelouch did not bother to ask CC if there was anyway to undo a gess command -- she might have told him that VV could.

Lelouch had only been giving geass commands for weeks or months. The longest period of obedience he could possibly have observed in any of his subjects was thus just weeks or months. CC was never seen to give him information about geass.

Lelouch gave Suzaku a command to live and it make Suzaku cowardly. A few days later Lelouch saw Suzaku fighting bravely and was not surprised. Thus Lelouch seemed to have expected that Suzaku's geass command was going to wear off soon.

Lelouch's geass command to Euphemia was similar in many ways to his geass command to Suzaku. Thus it is qiuite likely that Lelouch should have expected her geass command to wear off soon.

If Lelouch spared Euphemia in the hope that something would come up sometime to cure her, it would have taken only one year.

Anyway, it would be just as much murder to kill Euphemia if it was absolutely certain that she would be controlled by the geass forever, as it would be if it was absolutely certain that she would recover from it tomorrow.

If Lelouch expected Euphemai to be controlled by the geass command for the rest of her life he would expect she would have been harmless if kept confined securely. If she never saw a Japanese person again she would never try to attack a Japanese person again.

And don't say that because her life as a prisoner or patient would not be as good as she would have wanted it to be she would have been better off dead. I tell you that your life will not be as good as you want it to be. You will have unknown and unpredictable problems, worries, and sorrows. Does that mean that you would be better of dying now that facing your future life which will not be as good as you want it to be?

NO!

And Euphemia would not be better off dead than facing a future life that would not be as good as she wanted it to be.

VV can't break Geass. The Geass canceler can, but that was new in R2, thus, C.C wouldn't know about it yet.

Suzaku's geass command only worked when he believed his life was in danger, not every time he fought. The geass only works if it is possible to be active, so if suzaku didn't think he was in any danger, he would not have the Geass effect on him. Also if you notice, they didn't really use that as a plot point until R2.

If you really loved someone, would you want them to never be them self again, to be some insane murderer? To be locked away from everything without any awareness? Millions of people make that choice everyday. If Euphy would have been in a coma without almost any chance of waking up, and Lelouch had them pull the plug, it's the same.

I would rather be dead than locked up or under mind control for the rest of my life. She was better off in my opinion. Not to mention, Lelouch felt terrible about killing Euphy he cries twice and does that candle thing in R2 episode 8.

[proEuphie]

VV can't break Geass. The Geass canceler can, but that was new in R2, thus, C.C wouldn't know about it yet.

1) You say that VV can't break geass. But in the first episode of R2 CC supposedly broke Charles's geass of fake memory on Lelouch. That would imply that VV could undo Lelouch's geass command on Euphemia.

Someone wrote that CC did not break Charles's fake memory geass but merely reached into Lelouch's mind and brought his true memories to the surface. Since Charles's geass was to surpress true memories and put fake memories in their place, what cc did seems a lot like undoing or breaking his geass. And why would geass givers have a power to reach into people's minds and activate their true memories, a power which just happens to have the same effect as undoing some rare types of gesss and just happened to come in handy for CC in that situation?

Isn't it much more likely and logical that geass givers would have power to undo all geasses done by geass users who got their powers from different geass givers?

And even if VV could only uncover people's true memories, CC might have recommended that VV should try that on Euphemia since that might partially or even totally restore her to her usual self. Even if it only partially restored her to her normal self that would make it a lot easier for any other technique which might later be used in an attempt to fully cure her.

Suzaku's geass command only worked when he believed his life was in danger, not every time he fought. The geass only works if it is possible to be active, so if suzaku didn't think he was in any danger, he would not have the Geass effect on him. Also if you notice, they didn't really use that as a plot point until R2.

2) How can anyone believe that his life is not in danger every time he goes into battle? No matter how brave, or foolish, or confident, or overconfident he may be, he has to know that going into battle dramatically increases his chances of dying and thus puts him into danger.

Assume that everyone has an equal chance of dying every day for eighty years in civilian life. Thus on an average day someone's chance of dying might be about one in 80 x 365.25, or one in 29,220, or 0.0000342.

But every time a person goes into battle his chance of dying that day might be 0.01, or 0.001, depending of the circumstances. That would be about three hundred to three thousand times his chance of being killed on a average day. I say that is a dramatic increase in probability of dying and thus danger.

If Suzaku went into battle once a week for fifty weeks between the two seasons of Code Geass, and had a 99.9 percent probability of surviving each battle, his chances of surviving two battles would be 0.988, of surviving three battles would be 0.997, four battles 0.996, five battles 0.995, six battles 0.994, seven battles 0.993, eight battles 0.992, nine battles 0.991, and ten battles exactly 0.9900442. Which seems pretty good.

Suzaku's odds of surviving twenty battles would be 0.98, of surviving thirty battles would be 0.97, of surviving forty battles would be 0.96, and of surviving all fifty battles would be 0.9512022. If his odds of surviving a year in civilian life were about 0.9875, the odds of surviving fifty battles at 0.999 each would be significantly lower.

But if Suzaku only had a 0.99 chance of surviving each of fifty battles his odds of surviving ten would be 0.9043818, of surviving twenty would be 0.8179064, of surviving thirty would be 0.7396996, of surviving forty battles would be 0.6698708, and of surviving fifty battles would be 0.605005. That would be less than a two thirds chance of surviving that year. A 99 percent chance of surviving each battle does not seem very dangerous, but the cumulative danger would seem to be quite impressive.

Of course in modern warfare a person may go into battle very day for weeks or months on end. So Suzaku might have gone into battle for more than a hundred days during the year between the two seasons. If he had a 0.999 chance of surviving each day's battle he would have a 0.9047856 chance of surviving 100 days of battle, an 0.860634 chance of surviving 150 days of battle, and an 0.8186369 chance of surviving 200 days of battle. If Suzaku had a 0.99 chance of surviving each day's battle, he would have an 0.366031 chance of surviving 100 days of battle, a 0.2214504 chance of surviving 150 days of battle, and a 0.1339786 chance of surviving 200 days of battle.

Of course it seemed to me that in episodes 23, 24, and 25 Suzaku was in a few situations where his chances of survival were a lot less than 0.999 or even 0.99 without his survival geass activating.

I say that it is more logical to believe that Suzaku's geass to survive faded away quickly, as Lelouch expected it to from his experiments, and was totally gone during episodes 20 to 25 of the first season. And it may have revived from time to time to weakly influence his actions in the second season due to some weird effect of geass connected with Suzaku's interactions with CC, for lack of a better explanation. But expecting a geass to survive to ignore all dangers that are less than extreme and immanent life threatening danger is making a big assumption.

I say that if the geass command to survive let Suzaku decide when he was in danger, and if Suzaku did not think or feel he was in danger every time he went into battle the geass command and Suzaku were both fools.

If you really loved someone, would you want them to never be them self again, to be some insane murderer? To be locked away from everything without any awareness? Millions of people make that choice everyday. If Euphy would have been in a coma without almost any chance of waking up, and Lelouch had them pull the plug, it's the same.

I would rather be dead than locked up or under mind control for the rest of my life. She was better off in my opinion. Not to mention, Lelouch felt terrible about killing Euphy he cries twice and does that candle thing in R2 episode 8.

3) I would rather someone I loved be an insane murderer locked away than dead. There are many insane murderers in the world who will never be their old selves again until and unless they are cured in some hypothetical future time. And many of them have many friends and relatives who are glad that they are alive and not dead, even though they are not their old selves and are locked away.

And Euphemia would not be without awareness if she lived. She and everyone else seemed to be aware when controlled by the geass, and everyone who completed their geass command seemed aware when they returned to normal. Euphemia seemed aware in the Avalon Sickbay when she was not controlled by the geass.

If you assume that the population of the world is 7,000,000,000 and that the average lifespan is between 50 and 100 then between 70,000,000 and 140,000,000 people die each year, or about 191,649 to 383,299 people die every day. Since only a tiny fraction of them are coma patients whose families "pull the plug", it is not true that millions of people make that decision every day.

Even if shooting a comatose Euphemia was no worse than pulling the plug on a comatose Euphemia, and even if pulling the plug on a comatose Euphemia was not an evil deed but a good one, shooting Euphemia in episode 23 was not the same as shooting a comatose Euphemia and thus not the same as pulling the plug on a comatose Euphemia. Everyone who claims that Lelouch had to shoot Euphemia in order to stop her from killing more people admits that Euphemia was not comatose when Lelouch shot her and was not very likely to ever be comatose in the future.

You would rather be dead than locked up for the rest of your life? I believe the proportion of persons facing a possible death sentence who tell their lawyers to try for life imprisonment instead of the death penalty is about 99 percent or even 99.9 percent. So the majority of people do not share your views when deciding their futures.

So Lelouch felt a little regret about killing Euphemia. I have written over and over that almost everyone who kills someone for any reason feels at least some regret. Lelouch seems to feel very little regret for killing Euphemia. In Oliver Twist Bill Sykes feels much more regret over killing Nancy than Lelouch seems to feel over killing Euphemia. But all of Bill Sykes's guilt and sorrow does not make him innocent of murdering Nancy.

[div]

You say that VV can't break geass. But in the first episode of R2 CC supposedly broke Charles's geass of fake memory on Lelouch. That would imply that VV could undo Lelouch's geass command on Euphemia.

What? No. It does not imply that at all.

Someone wrote that CC did not break Charles's fake memory geass but merely reached into Lelouch's mind and brought his true memories to the surface. Since Chareles's geass was tos surpress true memories a d put fake memoresin their place, what cc did seems a lot like undoing or breaking his geass. And why would geass gives have a power to reach iinto people's minds and activate their true memories, a power which just happens to have the same effect as undoing some rare types of gesss and just happened to come in handy for CC in that situation?

<sarcasm>Damn. Your sophisticated analysis of the rules for imaginary powers in a work of fiction clearly proves that you are correct here.</sarcasm>

Isn't it much more likely and logical that geass givers would have power to undo all gesses done by geass users who got their powers from different geass givers?

That was never explicitly stated. Even if it did just intuitively make sense (which it does not) you can't really say that it's conclusive proof.

And even if VV could only uncover people's true memories, CC might have recommended that VV should try that on Euphemia since that might partially or even wholely restore her to her usual self. Even if it only partially restored her to her normal self that would make it a lot easier for any other technique which might later be used in an attempt to fully cure her.

I'm not sure that there was time for a lengthy discussion between Lelouch and CC before Lelouch kills Euphemia where CC reveals to Lelouch information which you are assuming to be true. Also, you are assuming that CC completely understands Lelouch's Geass and the entire nature of the universe, which is not a particularly strong assumption.

Assume that everyone has an equal chance of dying every day for eighty years in civilian life. Thus on an average day someone's chance of dying might be about one in 80 x 365.25, or one in 29,220, or 0.0000342.

But every time a person goes into battle his chance of dying that day might be 0.01, or 0.001, depending of the circumstances. That would be about three hundred to three thousand times his chance of being killed on a average day. I say that is a dramatic increase in probability of dying and thus danger.

If Suzaku went into battle once a week for fifty weeks between the two seasons of Code Geass, and had a 99.9 percent probability of surviving each battle, his chances of surviving two battles would be 0.988, of surviving three battles would be 0.997, four battles 0.996, five battles 0.995, six battles 0.994, seven battles 0.993, eight battles 0.992, nine battles 0.991, and ten battles exactly 0.9900442. Which seems pretty good.

Suzaku's odds of surviving twenty battles would be 0.98, of surviving thirty battles would be 0.97, of surviving forty battles would be 0.96, and of surviving all fifty battles would be 0.9512022. If his odds of surviving a year in civilian life were about 0.9875, the odds of surviving fifty battles at 0.999 each would be significantly lower.

But if Suzaku only had a 0.99 chance of surviving each of fifty battles his odds of surviving ten would be 0.9043818, of surviving twenty would be 0.8179064, of surviving thirty would be 0.7396996, of surviving forty battles would be 0.6698708, and of surviving fifty battles would be 0.605005. That would be less than a two thirds chance of surviving that year. A 99 percent chance of surviving each battle does not seem very dangerous, but the cumulative danger would seem to be quite impressive.

Of course in modern warfare a person may go into battle very day for weeks or months on end. So Suzaku might have gone into battle for more than a hundred days during the year between the two seasons. If he had a 0.999 chance of surviving each day's battle he would have a 0.9047856 chance of surviving 100 days of battle, an 0.860634 chance of surviving 150 days of battle, and an 0.8186369 chance of surviving 200 days of battle. If Suzaku had a 0.99 chance of surviving each day's battle, he would have an 0.366031 chance of surviving 100 days of battle, a 0.2214504 chance of surviving 150 days of battle, and a 0.1339786 chance of surviving 200 days of battle.

Of course it seemed to me that in episodes 23, 24, and 25 Suzaku was in a few situations where his chances of survival were a lot less than 0.999 or even 0.99 without his survival geass activating.

I say that it is more logical to believe that Suzaku's geass to survive faded away quickly, as Lelouch expected it to from his experiments, and was totally gone during episodes 20 to 25 of the first season. And it may have revived from time to time to weakly influence his actions in the second season due to some weird effect of geass connected with Suzaku's interactions with CC, for lack of a better explanation. But expecting a geass to survive to ignore all dangers that are less than extreme and immanent life threatening danger is making a big assumption.

I say that if the geass command to survive let Suzaku decide when he was in danger, and if Suzaku did not think or feel he was in danger every time he went into batttle the geass command and Suzaku were both fools.

Did... you really just make up a bunch of statistics and try to apply them to a work of fiction? Do you honestly think that any of this even approaches being logically sound?

The "live" geass only seems to kick in when Suzaku is about to give up on life, or is in some critical situation. You cannot assume that his "live" geass reacts to magical statistics that you arbitrarily made up. Therefore, you cannot determine that the effect of a geass fades. Also, how would this deduction have even helped Lelouch decide not to kill Euphemia? The live geass becomes much more prominent in the second season, after which Euphemia's already dead.

This is all so incredibly hypothetical, and always based on assumptions that you make in your favor. ProEuphie, I think it's time to move on. You're made your point (quite poorly) and everyone now clearly understands that Lelouch is a RLY RLY EVIL AND LIEK OMG BAD TERRIBLE PERSON. Please go find something else to be irrationally upset about.

[kimi no kioku]

What? No. It does not imply that at all.



<sarcasm>Damn. Your sophisticated analysis of the rules for imaginary powers in a work of fiction clearly proves that you are correct here.</sarcasm>



That was never explicitly stated. Even if it did just intuitively make sense (which it does not) you can't really say that it's conclusive proof.



I'm not sure that there was time for a lengthy discussion between Lelouch and CC before Lelouch kills Euphemia where CC reveals to Lelouch information which you are assuming to be true. Also, you are assuming that CC completely understands Lelouch's Geass and the entire nature of the universe, which is not a particularly strong assumption.



Did... you really just make up a bunch of statistics and try to apply them to a work of fiction? Do you honestly think that any of this even approaches being logically sound?

The "live" geass only seems to kick in when Suzaku is about to give up on life, or is in some critical situation. You cannot assume that his "live" geass reacts to magical statistics that you arbitrarily made up. Therefore, you cannot determine that the effect of a geass fades. Also, how would this deduction have even helped Lelouch decide not to kill Euphemia? The live geass becomes much more prominent in the second season, after which Euphemia's already dead.

This is all so incredibly hypothetical, and always based on assumptions that you make in your favor. ProEuphie, I think it's time to move on. You're made your point (quite poorly) and everyone now clearly understands that Lelouch is a RLY RLY EVIL AND LIEK OMG BAD TERRIBLE PERSON. Please go find something else to be irrationally upset about.

Thank you very much. You took the words right out of my mouth. Now I don't have to reply.

[wolfgirl90]

.

Okay, but you know that I am right on that, yes? Using YOUR definition of murder doesn't matter; the LAW is what matters. YOUR definition of murder means nothing on that regard. YOUR standards of murder do not matter.

Remember Pearl Harbor? I say there is no reason to get angry about the Japanese sneak attack before the declaration of war. The Japanese were trying to deliver their declaration of war right before the attack so they would be technically in the right but the US government would not have time to alert their forces in Hawaii and the Philiipines before the attacks. But for various reasons the declaration was received just after the attack on Pearl Harbor began.

I say that anger at the Japanese attack should be anger at what they tried to pull off by launching a surprise attack just minutes after the declaration of war. I say that American anger that was used to kill thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and eventually civilians should also have been used to close that legal loophole by changing international law to say that every declaration of war could only come into effect after there was sufficient time time to warn all the military forces and civilians of the country to expect attack at any time, and that any attacks before the specified warning period expired were not acts of war but criminal acts.

Who the hell said anything about anger? See, you went on a moot tangent. You need to read quotes better (if at all).

Again, what YOU say has no baring on what happened and on the law. A declaration of war ONLY has to be made to the state. NO ONE ELSE. If the declaree wants to let their citizens know about it, it is really up to them. It is STRONGLY recommended and encouraged that both parties let their citizens know about the declaration, but it is not required under international law. This is because the conflict is between the two states, the leaders and their forces. The civilians (technically) are not involved and since they are protected by various laws to begin with, warning them is not required under international law. It is up to the state to do that.

I say that international law and the law of war as it now exists is not perfect and that people should continue to try to change it for the better in the future. I say that if killing Euphemia under the circumstances she was killed is not a war crime in our world or the world of Code Geass it should be.

I have already explained exactly why killing Euphemia wouldn't be a war crime in real life: she was armed, hadn't surrendered and was part of a belligerent force (she was shooting at him moments before); I am more than sure that your opinion is based SOLELY on your love for Euphemia. If the shoe was on the other foot and Lelouch was in Euphemia's position, you would be more than happy to see him dead.

I say that it should be relevant that Euphemia did not know that she was in danger. And no, I don't mean that Lelouch should have risked his life by telling her that he was going to shoot her and that she had ten seconds to try to shoot him before he shot. He should have not intended to kill her and thus she would not have been ignorant of the threat, because there wouldn't have been any threat to be ignorant of.

AGAIN, what YOU say has NO baring on what happened or the law. You need to give something to back up what you say. YOU say that it should be relevant. WHY? Tell me WHY? Simply saying that Euphemia wouldn't be ignorant of the threat if Lelouch wasn't a threat to begin with does not tell me WHY her being aware of the threat should be relevant under international law. If you can't tell me that, then what YOU say doesn't matter.

You're wrong. The conflict between Japan and Britannia ended when the Japanese surrendered seven years earlier. Japan was now ruled by Britannia. Japanese rebels were legally guilty of treason against the government in control of their land. There was no war between Britannia and Japan. The Fuji massacre was not planned or intended by the Britannian government or anyone in it.

Even Euphemia who ordered it had no desire for a conflict at that time and place but was obeying her geass command. I say it was a (one-sided) conflict between the Japanese civilians being slaughtered on one side, and the Britannians at Fuji under Euphemia on the other side, which the Black Knights suddenly entered as a third side. Since Euphemia was the highest ranking Britannian official involved in the conflict with the Japanese civilians she had to be informed that the Black Knights were getting involved for there to be a legal state of war between her forces and the Black Knights.

First off, as I have told you before, I am merely using real world applications because you are using them (inaccurately) as a counter. Using them is a moot point. Saying that Euphemia needed to be warned under real-world laws doesn't prove your point (or anything). Second read the bold. There needs to be a LEGAL declaration of war between STATES in order for the laws to truly apply. If there is no war, then it doesn't matter. Anything goes (well, civilian law certainly applies, but international laws do not). Also, only the declaration itself needs to be stated to the country; information about other parties doesn't need to be stated. So Euphemia did not have to be told about the Black Knights.

Euphemia was unarmed at the time she got out of the wreckage of her nightmare. At that time it was Lelouch's duty to capture her instead of killing her, since at that moment she was unarmed. It would have been a war crime for Lelouch to kill her at that moment. But Lelouch did not immediately capture her (and thus did not do his duty) but waited around until she picked up a machine gun lying on the ground for unexplained reasons. It is like lelouch wanted to Kill Euphemia and was waiting and hoping for the situation to change so that it would not be a war crime to kill her. I say that anyone who does that is breaking the spirit of the law.

First, Lelouch wasn't out of his Knightmare when Euphemia was shooting at him and when the gun jammed. Under your logic, Lelouch would have had to capture her between the time the first gun jammed and the time Euphemia picked up a new one (unless he captured her with his Knightmare, which I have debunked) for in order for Euphemia to be treated as a defenseless belligerent. Second, the Hague Convention states that a soldier can not kill an enemy that has laid down their arms OR having lost their defenses, surrendered. Euphemia merely not having a gun does not mean that Lelouch couldn't kill her. She needed to have been unarmed AND have surrendered in order for it to be a war crime (and, again, ONLY under real world laws; whether it would be a crime in the Code Geass universe is not known and is anyone's guess).

Euphemia did not surrender because she didn't know there was a conflict between her and Lelouch. Either the geass command could not put two and two together and realize that there was an ongoing conflict between Lelouch and the body it was controlling, or Euphemia had just freed herself from the control of the geass command and thus did not remember the massacre or her nightmare being destroyed and had no idea that there was conflict going on.

Once again, the Hague Convention only concerns STATES. Aside from the fact this is not real and that the HC wouldn't have any effect anyway, whether Euphemia knew about the "conflict" between her and Lelouch is irrelevant as the HC doesn't apply to such things. Her not surrendering doesn't even truly matter (again, it was a matter I added because you applied this law first and did it wrong).

And you say that Shinji in my example was only guilty of insubordination in his world, not murder. Wow! I really want you for my defense attorney if I am ever tried for anything serious! Your outrageous claims will make the court waste a lot of time refuting them and will drag things out.

At the Battle of Copenhagen on 2 April 1802 Admiral Nelson turned a blind eye to Admiral Parker's signal to withdraw, and said that if he was hanged for it so be it. Since Nelson was already a famous war hero, and Copenhagen was a great British victory, Nelson was in little danger of being tried for his actions. But suppose that some strange force suddenly made the British many times more humane and/or legalistic. Then Nelson might have been tried for murder at Copenhagen.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Shinji Ikari would be guilty of insubordination for not carrying his gun and for killing Rei (but not for murdering her, since he, technically, didn't). Him not carrying his gun did not lead to the death of Rei, nor did it lead to the deaths of other people (whether or not he actually participated in any other action other than killing Rei is not said).

Plus, the Battle of Copenhagen occurred in 1801 (if you are going to use the year, use the right year), some 98 YEARS before the first Hague Convention and 106 years before the second one and the creation of Section IV of the Hague Convention ("The Laws and Customs of War on Land"), which I have been referencing most of the time.

Vice-Admiral Nelson (if you going to use his rank, use it properly) MIGHT have been charged of war crimes, but since the Battle of Copenhagen happened at a time where international war laws were not in existence, it doesn't even matter. So there is no comparison and no point in bringing it up.

And courts martial do try soldiers for civilian offenses such as rape, murder, theft, arson, etc. etc., sometimes in the absence of civilian courts, and whenever soldiers do such things on their own initiative without obeying orders and not because of military necessity, when their actions are not justified by the war that they occur during.

A fact that I am very much aware (I never said that this wasn't the case).

So Shinji Ikari may have been charged with the civil crime of murder because killing Rei Ikari was not justified by or part of the war effort. In my account It is mentioned that standing orders require the capture (when possible) of enemy generals to use as hostages to stop the battle in question.

Again, what YOU say does not change the law. The law comes first before military policy, including orders. Shinji Ikari went against orders to capture Rei but (if we are using real laws) he not commit a war crime because Rei was armed AND hadn't surrendered (if she did "surrender", then it would be void since she was armed; you can't be armed and surrender at the same time). So, AT BEST, he would be charged with insubordination, not murder.

Clearly it was possible for Shinji Ikari to capture an enemy general who had been prepared to surrender before recognizing him, had hugged him when she did recognize him, and had previously promised to surrender to him instead of fighting to the death. If Colonel Ikari had obviously disobeyed standing orders when killing General Ikari he was not protected from murder charges by taking part in a war and a battle, since his action was clearly not justified by obedience to rules and regulations but was in direct disobedience to them. Thus he could have been tried for murder just as easily as a civilian who shot someone in a time of peace could have been tried for murder.

Which would be (partly) true, if not for the fact that the law trumps military policy and orders. The Hague Convention comes first before military orders, ALWAYS (this is something a soldier is taught from day one). If using real laws (and not the ones that you made up), Shinji was not guilty of murder due to the fact that Rei was armed and hadn't surrendered at the time (if her previous contact with her father was some sort of truce, then Shinji was not obligated to follow it, no matter who it came from). He did go against orders, but his actions were, technically, not against the law. So he wouldn't be charged with it...in the real world (again, if you using made up laws then you are free to do whatever you want).

I say that killing someone as easy to capture alive as Euphemia should be a war crime under ideal laws of war. Therefore it should be a war crime in the fictional world of Code Geass and it would be made a war crime in our world. I say that ideally ever real and fictional warrior should be judged by the ideal laws of war.

What would be the "ideal" laws of war, exactly? I will assume that these "ideal" laws of war are not written in a book somewhere. I will also assume that, since these "ideal" laws of war are made up, then they will be made by you (based on your convoluted knowledge of military strategy...hell, the military in general) and will based, not on real world applications, but on different ways of keeping Euphemia (and ONLY Euphemia) alive and well (and to hell with everyone else).

[proEuphie]

Yeah, in your head you can create all those theories about how Lelouch could have otherwise acted and dominated the World and whatever (with the secret geassing chambers and stuff)...

But they're all a whole patch of woulds, ifs and buts. In Trigun Maximum, Raidei the Blade admits defeat, then takes his weapon and attacks Vash from behind anyways, but he was otherwise an honourable man and could have stopped, but Wolfwood shot him and Vash notes that he has just eliminated both possibilities, namely that Raidei could have either continued to attempt backstab Vash who may or may not get hit from it or he could have stopped, repented, became friends with them and whatnot.

Lelouch just did it like Wolfwood, screw the buts and ifs, yeah there are possibilities of it turning out better or worse, screw them all, annihilate the possibilities, positive and negative alike and thats that. It solved the immediate problem.

The author could have written that Euphemia overcomes the Geass in captivity, or she becomes insane after realising what she did, or that aliens abduct her and she returns as a pink elefant, but thats completely up to the author, you only make theories with buts and ifs with what you know from watching the show, but you're not the author so all this "highly likely" to work out well if euphemia was kept alive if Lelouch just captured her if he thinks of something that time if if if if if is complete moot and you're rewriting the story.

Go and make a doujin or fanfic like any other normal obsessed fangirl would with Euphemia surviving and taking over the world and whatever, make her black hole sue for all I care with all other characters agreeing to whatever she says, it would be a more legit way of expressing yourself rather than trying to convince the whole dam world to agree with Euphemia having to live just because you like her. You even have to go press your opinion on splee although he openly declares himself almost trolling for it and you have the opinion that Euphemia dying "destroyed the series". Well tough luck for you.

Putting a nice and innocent character of a series through the worst up to the point of killing him/her (usually her) happens.

You talk about lelouch eliminating the possibilities but that is rather meaningless. Every decision that everyone makes eliminates the other possibilities. but so what. that does not mean that nobody ever criticizes a decision or ever points out that a different decision would have had other results. Doing so is a significant proportion of what professional historians do.

You say that killing Euphemia solved the immediate problem. But how? If at that time there were still Britannian soldiers masacring Japanese civilians capturing Euphemia and using her as a hostage to stop the massacre would be the fastest way to save the most Japanese lives. Unless you can prove beyond any doubt that there were no Britannians still massacring Japanese civilians when Lelouch shot Euphemia, choosing to kill her instead of using her as a hostage to stop the massacre was the same as murdering all the Japanese who were killed as a result of that decision.

And it is true that killing Euphemia solved the problem of preventing her from killing anyone else in the future. But capturing her and confining her would do just as well to protect the Japanese from her and would be a lot better for her. And it would certainly be just as safe and easy to capture her as to kill her. So there was absolutely no possible decent and honorable reason to prefer killing her instead of capturing her.

You say that bad things happen to good characters all the time in tv. Which is true. But I am complaining about the protagonist of a series senselessly murdering someone.

[proEuphie]

Okay, but you know that I am right on that, yes? Using YOUR definition of murder doesn't matter; the LAW is what matters. YOUR definition of murder means nothing on that regard. YOUR standards of murder do not matter.

Who the hell said anything about anger? See, you went on a moot tangent. You need to read quotes better (if at all).

You didn't say anything about anger. But thousands and millions of Americans did say and write about anger at the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And I pointed out that some of their anger should have been directed at the current state of international law regarding declarations of war. International law should have been and should be rewritten to make certain that everyone is warned before fighting begins.

You say that International law requires warning states. But states are not real. They are imaginary concepts. They are simple ways of describing some of the complex ways that large numbers of people behave in. Individual people are real. International law should be more concerned with the rights of individuals and less concerned with the rights of imaginary concepts like states.

Again, what YOU say has no baring on what happened and on the law. A declaration of war ONLY has to be made to the state. NO ONE ELSE. If the declaree wants to let their citizens know about it, it is really up to them. It is STRONGLY recommended and encouraged that both parties let their citizens know about the declaration, but it is not required under international law. This is because the conflict is between the two states, the leaders and their forces. The civilians (technically) are not involved and since they are protected by various laws to begin with, warning them is not required under international law. It is up to the state to do that.

I have already explained exactly why killing Euphemia wouldn't be a war crime in real life: she was armed, hadn't surrendered and was part of a belligerent force (she was shooting at him moments before); I am more than sure that your opinion is based SOLELY on your love for Euphemia. If the shoe was on the other foot and Lelouch was in Euphemia's position, you would be more than happy to see him dead.

You say that Euphemia had been shooting at Lelouch only moments before he shot her. She had been shooting at his heavily armored nightmare, without knowing who was inside. Between her shooting at the nightmare and his shooting her, Lelouch got out of the nightmare and Euphemia apologized to him for shooting at his nightmare, which was probably totally invulnerable to her puny bullets, and did not accuse him of destroying her nightmare. Thus Lelouch learned that she was not hostile to him before he shot her, and of course he had already assumed that was the case when he made the decision to leave the safety of his armored vehicle.

You claim that my position that killing Euphemia was murder is based on my love for Euphemia.

I have said time and again that whatever love or admiration I have for Euphemia is based on my belief that almost every Code Geass character is way too evil to be likable, while Euphemia is many, many times better than the minimum required to be likable and is much more good and benevolent than all the other characters combined.

And those beliefs about the ethical value of the characters are based on my constant thinking about the series ever since I saw Lelouch shoot Euphemia and realized that there could never be any justification for killing anyone as easy to capture as Euphemia was.

The chronological order is:
1) Saw episode 23.
2) Realized that killing Euphemia was unjustified and a terrible (fictional) murder.
3) obsessed abut Code Geass.
4) realized that almost all the other characters were evil. Realized that Euphemia was wonderfully good.

No, I would not have been happy to see Lelouch murdered before I saw him murder Euphemia. That was when I thought that he was basically good, denying all the evidence of his evil that I had seen so far.

AGAIN, what YOU say has NO baring on what happened or the law. You need to give something to back up what you say. YOU say that it should be relevant. WHY? Tell me WHY? Simply saying that Euphemia wouldn't be ignorant of the threat if Lelouch wasn't a threat to begin with does not tell me WHY her being aware of the threat should be relevant under international law. If you can't tell me that, then what YOU say doesn't matter.

Because international law should be concerned with the rights of individuals, not the so-called rights of states which are mere concepts with no reality and no life. That is why her being aware of the threat should be relevant under international law.

First off, as I have told you before, I am merely using real world applications because you are using them (inaccurately) as a counter. Using them is a moot point. Saying that Euphemia needed to be warned under real-world laws doesn't prove your point (or anything). Second read the bold. There needs to be a LEGAL declaration of war between STATES in order for the laws to truly apply. If there is no war, then it doesn't matter. Anything goes (well, civilian law certainly applies, but international laws do not). Also, only the declaration itself needs to be stated to the country; information about other parties doesn't need to be stated. So Euphemia did not have to be told about the Black Knights.

If there was not a state of war, Lelouch murdered Euphemia under civilian law. And if Lelouch murdered her under local civilian law then whatever international law may have applied to the case (such as extradition treaties) would have considered him guilty of murder. If someone is guilty of murder according to civilian law you cannot say that he is innocent of murder according to the laws of war if there has been no declaration of war. You cannot use the laws of war to shield him against a charge of murder if there was no state of war.

Besides, since Euphemia decided on the Fuji Massacre on the spur of the moment without consulting superior authority such as Cornelia (due to being controlled by the geass command) a case can be made that Euphemia was in (involuntary) revolt against the Britannian government and thus, like Lelouch, was more or less the sovereign of her own rebel group, and thus needed to be informed for there to be a legal state of war, and thus for Lelouch to be considered innocent of murder due to a state of war instead of a state of peace..

First, Lelouch wasn't out of his Knightmare when Euphemia was shooting at him and when the gun jammed. Under your logic, Lelouch would have had to capture her between the time the first gun jammed and the time Euphemia picked up a new one (unless he captured her with his Knightmare, which I have debunked) for in order for Euphemia to be treated as a defenseless belligerent. Second, the Hague Convention states that a soldier can not kill an enemy that has laid down their arms OR having lost their defenses, surrendered. Euphemia merely not having a gun does not mean that Lelouch couldn't kill her. She needed to have been unarmed AND have surrendered in order for it to be a war crime (and, again, ONLY under real world laws; whether it would be a crime in the Code Geass universe is not known and is anyone's guess).

Your statement that Lelouch would have had to capture Euphemia between the time her first gun jammed and the time she picked up the second gun is not accurate. Euphemia had only one gun after her nightmare was destroyed.

Euphemia was unarmed when she crawled out of the wreckage of her nightmare. Then she picked up a machine gun from the ground and shot at Lelouch's invulnerable mecha. Then her ammo cartridge apparently jammed, because she picked up another one from near the hand of a dead man and fumbled with loading it into the machine gun. And it snapped into place right before she recognized Zero.

Why do you say that Lelouch would have had to capture her during the period when Euphemia did not have a loaded machine gun? Do you claim that there was no method Lelouch could have possibly have used to capture Euphemia while she had a loaded machine gun which was not as safe or safer than what he did do when she had a loaded machine gun?

If so, I tell you that Lelouch could have tried to persuade Euphemia to stop killing temporarily in order to save her life and thus be able to resume killing later when it was safer (though he would plan to keep her locked up forever and never release her as he implied he would). "She who massacres and runs away, lives to massacre another day" he could have told her.

And when did you debunk the idea that Lelouch could have captured Euphemia with his nightmare? All he had to do was reach down and pick her up in one giant robot hand. What could be easier than that?

Or did you mean that carrying Euphemia would make his nightmare defenseless since Emperor Charles did not love his children and thus would never allow his soldiers to stop attacking in order to save her life?

Suppose that a squad of German soldiers and a squad of Russian soldiers are fighting in World War II and some of the Germans capture some of the Russians somehow and hold pistols to their heads and tell the others to retreat and break off the fight or they will kill their comrades. Do you suppose that the Russians are going to ask for instructions all the way up to Stalin in the Kremlin who will tell them to attack anyway and let the Germans kill their friends, or are they going to decide for themselves or merely call their immediate superior for instructions?

You keep saying that because Emperor Charles doe not love his children Lelouch could not use her as a hostage. Emperor Charles was not in Japan and he was not in his office at Pendragon ready to answer a phone call from Tokyo. Instead he was up in the clouds somewhere observing everything which went on and unable to quickly give orders.

In the next episode Prince Oddysseuss was seen in Pendragon dealing with the situation in Japan because the Emperor was still absent. So the question becomes how much do Suzaku, Cornelia, and Oddysseuss love Euphie, not how much Charles Loves her.

You saw that Euphemia was still killing a lot of Japanese when Lelouch shot her. If so, most of that killing was being done by Britannian soldiers obeying her orders to kill. Capturing her alive would seem to offer a chance of using her as a hostage with the Britannians soldiers at Fuji to stop the massacre a lot faster than defeating all the little scattered groups of soldiers one by one. And thus it might save a lot of Japanese lives. But Lelouch ordered his men to "kill her" (I hope none of the Black Knights happened to be brooding about a bitter quarrel with his girlfriend when he heard and misinterpreted that order) and didn't bother to say anything about capturing her alive to use as a hostage if possible.

And of course it might have been possible to use Euphemia as a hostage to get Suzaku to switch sides or become a prisoner of the Black Knights in order to save Euphemia.

Once again, the Hague Convention only concerns STATES. Aside from the fact this is not real and that the HC wouldn't have any effect anyway, whether Euphemia knew about the "conflict" between her and Lelouch is irrelevant as the HC doesn't apply to such things. Her not surrendering doesn't even truly matter (again, it was a matter I added because you applied this law first and did it wrong).

You are comparing apples and oranges. Shinji Ikari would be guilty of insubordination for not carrying his gun and for killing Rei (but not for murdering her, since he, technically, didn't). Him not carrying his gun did not lead to the death of Rei, nor did it lead to the deaths of other people (whether or not he actually participated in any other action other than killing Rei is not said).

you claim that Shinji Ikari's insubordination was only in not carrying a pistol. In my story of Shinji Ikari's court martial, it is said that standing orders are to capture the enemy commander if a general or higher to use as a hostage to force the Azurian troops to surrender or retreat: "Standing orders say that whenever possible an enemy leader of the rank of general or above must be captured to be used as a hostage to stop the battle."

So Sinji Ikari was guilty of insubordination when he killed Rei Ikari against orders. When a military person does something against orders he is open to any criminal charges which might have been filed against someone who did the same actions during peacetime as his insubordinate actions. Thus killing someone against standing orders and the policy behind them can be considered murder by the courts. And quite possibly Shinji Ikari was also going to be tried on charges of murdering the Viridian soldiers who were killed in the Battle of of Madnug after he could have used General Ikari as a hostage to stop the battle.

Notice that the standing orders say capture the enemy general. That involves accepting his surrender if he is willing to surrender and it also means, if he ejects safely from his destroyed mecha, using one of the capture devices (or other methods which may be available) to capture him even if he doesn't want to surrender and is trying to run away to safety.

Plus, the Battle of Copenhagen occurred in 1801 (if you are going to use the year, use the right year), some 98 YEARS before the first Hague Convention and 106 years before the second one and the creation of Section IV of the Hague Convention ("The Laws and Customs of War on Land"), which I have been referencing most of the time.

Yes, I got the year wrong. And of course the Hague Convention mostly ratified and gave the force of international law to the customs and rules of war which had been followed (more or less) by the European powers for decades and centuries earlier. In most cases it did not invent totally new rules and customs of war.

Vice-Admiral Nelson (if you going to use his rank, use it properly) MIGHT have been charged of war crimes, but since the Battle of Copenhagen happened at a time where international war laws were not in existence, it doesn't even matter. So there is no comparison and no point in bringing it up.

The rank of vice admiral is one of the admiral ranks and thus is often called simply admiral, as you no doubt have often done yourself.

I say that if Nelson was not obeying the orders of his superiors in the second part of the Battle of Copenhagen, the military and/or civilian courts could have decided and possibly might have decided that he was not any more shielded from charges of murder, arson, destruction of property, etc. etc. than any private individual who did the same things would have been. Thus Nelson could have been tried in a British or Danish military or civilian court on charges of murdering the British and/or Danish sailors killed after he ignored his orders to withdraw. And the fact that this was before the Hague Convention merely means that Nelson would never have been tried for violating the Hague Convention, not that there was no legal grounds that some court might have considered sufficient to try him for murder.

A fact that I am very much aware (I never said that this wasn't the case).

Again, what YOU say does not change the law. The law comes first before military policy, including orders. Shinji Ikari went against orders to capture Rei but (if we are using real laws) he not commit a war crime because Rei was armed AND hadn't surrendered (if she did "surrender", then it would be void since she was armed; you can't be armed and surrender at the same time). So, AT BEST, he would be charged with insubordination, not murder.

You say that the law comes before military policy, including orders. And that is true in the sense that military policy and orders can not make unlawful actions lawful. But that does not mean that obedience or disobedience to military policy and orders can not makes actions which are sometimes lawful unlawful in particular instances.

Colonel Ikari was not acting as a loyal soldier when he killed General Ikari but as a private person driven by some inner compulsion. He was disobeying orders to always capture enemy generals if possible, and clearly capturing means capturing by nonlethal force those who have not yet surrendered and are armed as well as accepting the surrender of those who wish to surrender.

As for General Ikari still being armed when Colonel Ikari shot her, I believe it was sometimes customary for high ranking officers to offer their swords, or their pistols in more modern times, to those they were surrendering to. So General Ikari was offering her pistol as a sign of surrender. And she didn't have any other concealed weapons such as a hand grenade which might be used to suicidally damage Colonel Ikari's mecha, since I wrote that her sweaty flight suit stuck tight to her. Thus any concealed weapons would have been noticed by the spectators in the courtroom.

I suppose that if I had written that General Ikari dropped her gun when she rushed to hug Colonel Ikari, and Colonel Ikari picked it up off the ground before he shot her, you would say that made it murder. That seems a very technical argument.

And are you absolutely certain that it is impossible to legally be a prisoner of war and armed at the same time?

Which would be (partly) true, if not for the fact that the law trumps military policy and orders. The Hague Convention comes first before military orders, ALWAYS (this is something a soldier is taught from day one). If using real laws (and not the ones that you made up), Shinji was not guilty of murder due to the fact that Rei was armed and hadn't surrendered at the time (if her previous contact with her father was some sort of truce, then Shinji was not obligated to follow it, no matter who it came from). He did go against orders, but his actions were, technically, not against the law. So he wouldn't be charged with it...in the real world (again, if you using made up laws then you are free to do whatever you want).

I clearly wrote that General Ikari held out her pistol with the butt facing her captor so he could take it from her. No doubt high ranking officers ritually surrendered that way in the world of my story. And when her captor took the pistol from her she would probably officially become a prisoner. And Colonel Ikari snatched the pistol from her and shot her with it. Thus General Ikari was certainly disarmed seconds before Colonel Ikari shot her and probably officially a prisoner seconds before he shot her.

If two civilian men quarreled and then one tried to patch up the quarrel and gave his gun to the other as a token of friendship and the second used the gun to shoot the first, he would be guilty of murder. And if Colonel Ikari disobeyed standing orders and killed someone he was commanded to capture he would not be an obedient and loyal solider and his actions could not be acts of war.

What would be the "ideal" laws of war, exactly? I will assume that these "ideal" laws of war are not written in a book somewhere. I will also assume that, since these "ideal" laws of war are made up, then they will be made by you (based on your convoluted knowledge of military strategy...hell, the military in general) and will based, not on real world applications, but on different ways of keeping Euphemia (and ONLY Euphemia) alive and well (and to hell with everyone else).

[kimi no kioku]

It's actually pointless to argue about it. It's only her/his opinion. Apparently, they won't listen to reason. There are much more meaningless deaths in anime. Like these.

-Persona Trinity Soul- Morimoto figures out that she wasn't really human. She doesn't tell Shin that she's programmed to die, but Shin admits that he loves her(kinda) and she dies laying against him and he doesn't realize she's dead until someone calls him and tells him. In the same series, Eiko is trying to find Ryou, and he was injured so his Persona goes out of control and kills her.
-Blood Plus- All the Schiff dying. Solomon saves Saya and her sword falls from James' hand and cuts him, which kills him.
-Samurai 7- All of them. Specially Heihatchi(sp?) and Kyuzo
-Code Geass- Rolo kills Shirley for NO REASON!


Euphy's death was bad, but these are even more unfair, don't you think?

[proEuphie]

It's actually pointless to argue about it. It's only her/his opinion. Apparently, they won't listen to reason. There are much more meaningless deaths in anime. Like these.

-Persona Trinity Soul- Morimoto figures out that she wasn't really human. She doesn't tell Shin that she's programmed to die, but Shin admits that he loves her(kinda) and she dies laying against him and he doesn't realize she's dead until someone calls him and tells him. In the same series, Eiko is trying to find Ryou, and he was injured so his Persona goes out of control and kills her.
-Blood Plus- All the Schiff dying. Solomon saves Saya and her sword falls from James' hand and cuts him, which kills him.
-Samurai 7- All of them. Specially Heihatchi(sp?) and Kyuzo
-Code Geass- Rolo kills Shirley for NO REASON!


Euphy's death was bad, but these are even more unfair, don't you think?

I say that those other deaths were not as unfair and meaningless as Euphemia's killing.

To me it seems that one of the main things which makes a person's death worse is his age. The younger the death, the more tragic the death and the more evil the murder if he is a murder victim.

And the more innocent and good a person is, the more tragic his accidental death is and the move evil his murder is.

And you can see that Euphemia has a very high score on both those points.

You say the deaths of the Schiff, created with a limited lifespan, are very unfair and meaningless. you realize that means that your death will be very unfair and meaningless due to the evil of God or evolution giving you a limited lifespan. A limited lifespan which will kill you unless methods of life extension are invented first. Which is why all sensible and rational political parties make developing methods of life extension a major part of their platforms.

And as you describe it the death of Solomon is a meaningless and useless accident, but not a terrible crime.

I keep telling you that Lelouch killed Euphemia for NO REASON, just like Rollo killed Shirley for NO REASON.

I say that capturing Euphemia would have just as safe for the Japanese as killing her.

Many serial killers and mass murderers have been locked up for years and decades without escaping to kill anyone else. Countless millions of people may have sometimes worried about if a particular serial killer escaped he might kill them. And at the same time they may have seen innocent little children and not been the least bit worried that those children would ever kill them. And in thousands of cases those children grew older and killed the persons who had been worried about famous serial killers escaping and killing them and not worried about those children killing them.

Even a homicidal maniac who is confined securely is less likely to to kill you in the future than even the most innocent child you might see today, because the child is free and thus will be able to act on his impulse to kill you if he ever has such an impulse. So if it was right to kill a homicidal manic instead of capturing him because of the fear that he might someday escape and kill someone in the future, then it would also be right to kill everyone in the world who is free, even innocent little children, because of the fear that they might someday kill someone.

Killing someone because of worry about whether that person has a slight chance of killing someone in the future is murder, because everyone in the world has a slight chance of killing someone in the future. And yet most people do not believe that makes them so dangerous that they must be killed now to prevent them from killing in the future.

I say that it can only be right to kill someone because of an immediate danger they pose, not because of a worry that they might be at least slightly dangerous in the future. After all, it is certain that everyone will be slightly dangerous in the future.

And don't say that Euphemia was posing an immediate danger and thus had to be killed. Euphemia had to be stopped from killing more Japanese by either killing her or capturing and confining her. Capturing and confining her would have been just as safe for the Japanese as killing her and a lot better for her. Thus if it was equally as safe, as fast, and as easy for Lelouch to capture Euphemia as to kill her, or even safe, faster, and easier to capture her than to kiLl her, Lelouch had to choose capturing her instead of killing her.

If you have a good and humane reason to kill or capture someone, and if you can capture them alive just as fast, as easy, and as safely, as you can kill them, then your good and humane reason for killing them disappears. What you have left is a good and humane reason for capturing them, and no reason for killing them. And if you kill them you will kill them for NO REASON and commit a terrible and senseless murder.

What if it was harder, or more dangerous for Lelouch to capture Euphemia than to kill her? How much more risk or difficulty must he face to capture her alive before it became too hard or too dangerous and it became right for Lelouch to kill her instead of capture her?

It doesn't matter, since once Euphemia climbed out of the wreckage of her nightmare she was just one girl -- unarmed until they inexplicably let her pick up and keep a machine gun -- against two nightmares. Euphemia seemed helplessly at Lelouch's mercy. Lelouch could have captured her by picking her up in a giant robot hand as soon as she got out of her wrecked nightmare. That would have been faster than killing her the way he killed her. That would have been safer for Lelouch than taking a very slight but real risk, one in a thousand or one in a million, that Euphemia might shoot him. And it would seem to be at least slightly easier than what Lelouch did in order to kill her.

I say that killing anyone when it is as safe, and fast, and easy to capture them as it would have been for Lelouch to capture Euphemia is a senseless, unfair, meaningless murder. An evil, vile murder committed by the protagonist of the Code Geass series. That is what I am against.