BBC America is running Sherlock anew, starting with “A Study In Pink” last night.
I had one question brought on by the story. Open spoiler.
Giving this room.
Okay, at the end of the story, Sherlock has cornered/been cornered by the killer, and going through the discussion about the pills. One is poison and one is safe. And they get to the confrontation, where Sherlock is actually free to leave, but wants to satisfy his curiosity and is preparing to swallow the pill.
Watson is in a building across an alley, and sees Sherlock and the killer through the window. Seeing Sherlock about to take the pill, he shoots the killer with his pistol.
Shortly later, Inspector Lestrade is questioning Sherlock, apparently the shooter took off and didn’t stick around. Sherlock begins describing the shooter, realizes it had to be Watson, and promptly recants and shuts up and leaves. When he gets to Watson, he says something about “you probably wouldn’t go to jail, but let’s not take chances”.
Why did Watson leave? Why would it be risky at all? Seems to me Watson had every good faith reason to believe Sherlock’s life was in danger and acted accordingly. In fact, only by virtue of the killer using a fake gun, he could have used a real pistol and then Sherlock’s life definitely would be in question. Watson had no way of knowing otherwise.
My guess is the way handguns are controlled in GB, his piece was a military issue that should never have been in his possession after he mustered out. So, illegal gun, sniping at a school. I can see him getting in trouble.
Also because of Sherlock’s dodgy reputation and huge unpopularity with many members of the police, any such activity would be given extra strict scrutiny with an eye towards prosecution if possible. Watson would have guilt by association first, and then possibly real guilt later.
Anyway, that’s why Sherlock covered for him. Why Watson left is another question.
Even if it his actions were perfectly justifiable and legal to the extent of 100% certainty that he would be acquitted in court, it is still quite the inconvenience to have to defend yourself.
Yes. However it turned out, he’d definitely spend some time in the pokey.
And this is a SWAG, since I am not familiar with British law, but perhaps the fact that Watson himself was not in danger of his life when he shot the cabbie might have put him on the shady side of the law.
There was no real evidence that the police had that the cabbie was the serial killer.
He had a gun, but being a cabbie can be dangerous. Illegal yes, proof of being a killer, no.
He had the suicide pills, but since Sherlock was also a suspect (he had the victim’s bag), the police could conclude that Sherlock brought them.
He had the victim’s phone, but the police could conclude that Sherlock dropped it on him.
As far as the cabbie’s confession, well they only have Sherlock’s word for that. Only LeStrade believes in Sherlock. The others think he’s a psychopath. Sherlock believes himself to be a high-functioning sociopath.
At that point it would be unlikely that the police would close the case on the serial killings.
Better for Watson if he is not involved at all with the cabbie’s death.
I saw that this show is now on BBCA. For anyone watching who has seen these episodes before, did it look like any scenes had been deleted to cut it down to an American-sized format?
Okay, how weird. Is it not legal to defend another person’s life?
Okay, that’s odd to me. Here in Texas, it might not even get a grand jury, or if it did go to grand jury, probably wouldn’t lead to charges. He very likely wouldn’t be arrested at all. Not for the shooting.
Which is why I ask about the legality of his gun.
Back to the “Defense of others” question.
But that’s the point: Watson believed Sherlock to be in danger for his life. I suppose he could have culpability for not verifying that detail before shooting. That might be room for charges of manslaughter or negligent homocide. He didn’t confirm Sherlock was being held against his will and forced into taking the pill. Especially given Sherlock’s reputation for being eccentric, it might be more likely that Sherlock would be there willingly.
Now that’s a good point.
Actually, he had a fake gun lighter, probably not illegal. Anybody from the UK know?
This did not appear different than I remember the PBS run. It was 90 minutes long. I didn’t see any scenes I don’t remember.
Might be to do with possession of a firearm, but also the prosecution would not be abe to prove intent on behalf of Watson - Watson could say his intent was to scare the person off, and no one could prove otherwise.
Self-defence is legal in the UK (or rather, is a defence to a charge of murder, or other violent crime), and this includes defence of others:
IANAL but I suppose that in this case the question before the court would be whether it was reasonable to for Watson to shoot, given what he honestly believed at the time. In particular, he’d have to defend the choice to shoot to kill rather than just firing a warning shot. (I can’t recall if the cabbie was holding the fake gun or not by the time Watson fired; I suspect that would be a critical detail). It could be argued that any shot fired would have had the effect of stopping Sherlock taking the pill, and so saved his life. The choice to kill would not therefore be reasonable. (Maybe?) Watson *could * try to defend himself by saying it wasn’t an aimed shot, just a rotten bit of luck - but that would be a) perjury and b) a lot to expect a jury to swallow.
As to the second question about fake guns: they’re legal in themselves but if used in the commission of crime they’re considered weapons. (E.g. If you point one at a me and threaten to shoot, the fact that you were bluffing doesn’t mean I wasn’t in genuine fear of my life - hence it’s armed robbery.)
Now that we’ve established that shooting people with an illegal handgun is frowned upon in the UK, I have a question about the final poison puzzle… Who thinks Sherlock would have died if he took the pill?
My take on it is that he failed to take into account the possibility that the medication the cabbie was taking for his condition made him resistant if not immune to the poison, and BOTH pills were poison. An iocaine powder situation, basically.
I think the gun was on the table by this point, but I’m not certain. Still, Watson had not seen the gun in the first place. He was merely assuming Sherlock was under duress because he was about to consume the pill, and any sensible person who wasn’t under duress wouldn’t. He wasn’t as familiar with Sherlock at that time.
Hard to argue. The “reasonable person” would not expect a warning shot to save Sherlock’s life, if Sherlock were under duress by a weapon. It could get him shot by the killer. Again, Watson didn’t see a weapon, so that would be assuming on his part, but as I said, a reasonable person would assume duress.
Would Watson actually have to testify? In the US, the lawyer could make that argument as a string of possibilities without Watson testifying. He would only have to testify if his lawyer thought the Prosecution had a strong enough case.
Sure, using a fake weapon in commission of a crime because someone believes it to be real gets treated as if the fake were real. I was just concerned about mere possession. Could he have obtained said lighter and carried it around openly. Probably easier to come by.
Good one! I was thinking “iocane powder” solution, too, but didn’t have a guess to how. See, that’s why he’s a genius - he doesn’t tell you everything about the puzzle, and just slightly lies.
I think if that’s the case, it undermines the character completely. The whole point is that the cabbie is going to die soon anyway, and thus does not fear losing the game. Without that element, it’s just an overly complicated murder scheme, one that provides zero satisfaction. If the game is rigged, how can you take pleasure in winning? No. I reject that idea.