# Sherlock on BBC America **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 10, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205 "2014-11-10T01:56:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/1 "2014-11-10T01:56:25Z")
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. Is it something to do with Watson having a gun? ---
**Author:** ![StGermain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stgermain/32/2868_2.png) [@StGermain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StGermain)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/2 "2014-11-10T04:11:41Z")
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. StG ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/3 "2014-11-10T04:56:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/4 "2014-11-10T06:22:39Z")
> [@StGermain](#): > > 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. > > StG That’s assuming that it’s even legal in the UK to kill someone to save someone. ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/5 "2014-11-10T15:17:23Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/6 "2014-11-10T17:23:14Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/7 "2014-11-10T18:39:18Z")
If the series had been set in the late 1800s, I believe Watson’s trusty army revolver would have been legal. However nowadays it would be illegal. Also the villain was unarmed and Sherlock was acting voluntarily - so there’s no justification for shooting him. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/8 "2014-11-10T20:40:35Z")
> [@leahcim](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/9 "2014-11-10T20:53:40Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > 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. Plus, Watson is a private man with certain psychological demons. Any trial would likely have adverse consequences on his physical and mental health. ---
**Author:** ![teela\_brown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d9b06d/32.png) [@teela\_brown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/teela_brown)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/10 "2014-11-10T21:33:27Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/11 "2014-11-12T07:41:23Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > That’s assuming that it’s even legal in the UK to kill someone to save someone. Okay, how weird. Is it not legal to defend another person’s life? > [@leahcim](#): > > 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. > [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Yes. However it turned out, he’d definitely spend some time in the pokey. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. Back to the “Defense of others” question. > [@glee](#): > > If the series had been set in the late 1800s, I believe Watson’s trusty army revolver would have been legal. > However nowadays it would be illegal. > > Also the villain was unarmed and Sherlock was acting voluntarily - so there’s no justification for shooting him. 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. > [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > There was no real evidence that the police had that the cabbie was the serial killer. > > [snip] > > 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. Now that’s a good point. > [@](#): > > He had a gun, but being a cabbie can be dangerous. Illegal yes, proof of being a killer, no. Actually, he had a fake gun lighter, probably not illegal. Anybody from the UK know? > [@teela\_brown](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![BOOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c4cdca/32.png) [@BOOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BOOM)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/12 "2014-11-12T11:14:50Z")
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. Prosecutors wouldn’t even take it to court. ---
**Author:** ![BOOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c4cdca/32.png) [@BOOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BOOM)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/13 "2014-11-12T11:20:46Z")
opps. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/14 "2014-11-12T13:14:36Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > That’s assuming that it’s even legal in the UK to kill someone to save someone. > [@Irishman](#): > > Okay, how weird. Is it not legal to defend another person’s life? [Self-defence](http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/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: > [@Crown Prosecution Service](#): > > **Reasonable Force** > A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: > > [ul] > [li]self-defence; or[/li][li]defence of another; or[/li][li]defence of property; or[/li][li]prevention of crime; or[/li][li]lawful arrest.[/li][/ul] > In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions: > > [ul] > [li]was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and[/li][li]was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?[/li][/ul] > The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367). > > To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive. > > It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814); > > “_If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken …_” 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. > [@](#): > > Actually, he had a fake gun lighter, probably not illegal. Anybody from the UK know? 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.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/15 "2014-11-12T13:21:38Z")
> [@BOOM](#): > > 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 I don’t think John Watson, as of that episode, would lie about it under oath. ---
**Author:** ![BOOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c4cdca/32.png) [@BOOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BOOM)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/16 "2014-11-12T13:57:36Z")
Then perhaps it’s just as well you don’t work for the Crown Prosecution Sevice in London. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/17 "2014-11-12T14:19:05Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2014, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/18 "2014-11-13T04:50:58Z")
**Stanislaus** , thank you for the reply. > [@Stanislaus](#): > > 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). 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. > [@](#): > > 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?) 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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.) 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. > [@Ethilrist](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2014, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-on-bbc-america/704205/19 "2014-11-13T06:00:24Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > 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 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.