# The Walking Dead; 2.07 "Pretty Much Dead Already" (open spoilers) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 28, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298 "2011-11-28T01:30:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/141 "2011-11-29T21:15:10Z")
No, it’s not. I would shoot you to save my own life. I would NOT cut tiny pieces off of you and feed them to my dog while you watch to save my own life. The former is normal. The latter is Lecter. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/142 "2011-11-29T21:19:17Z")
Zombies are clearly more interested in live people than corpses, so shooting Otis in the head might’ve spoiled the whole plan. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/143 "2011-11-29T21:22:03Z")
On the other hand, he could have saved the three minutes he spent wrestling with him. Seriously, give it up. That was NOT OKAY. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/144 "2011-11-29T21:56:41Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > On the other hand, he could have saved the three minutes he spent wrestling with him. > > Seriously, give it up. > > That was NOT OKAY. You’ve got your answer: Zombies want live-people brains. This is an example of not having to out run the bear. He beat him up because he needed the back pack. ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/145 "2011-11-29T22:00:40Z")
The only reason people in this thread think Shane murdering Otis was no big deal is because Shane is one of the main characters in “our” group, while Otis was a stranger. Had the tables been turned and the group in Atlanta killed Glenn, no one here would be cheering them on. Where did this “people become zombies through infection. Anyone who dies becomes a zombie” thing come from? It’s clearly been shown on the show that being bitten turns you into a zombie, there are plenty of dead bodies around that are just normal dead bodies. And Sophia has a pretty large chunk taken out of her neck/shoulder. I’m not sure how people could have missed that. ---
**Author:** ![MeanJoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanjoe/32/5693_2.png) [@MeanJoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanJoe)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/146 "2011-11-29T22:10:40Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > The only reason people in this thread think Shane murdering Otis was no big deal is because Shane is one of the main characters in “our” group, while Otis was a stranger. Had the tables been turned and the group in Atlanta killed Glenn, no one here would be cheering them on. > > Where did this “people become zombies through infection. Anyone who dies becomes a zombie” thing come from? It’s clearly been shown on the show that being bitten turns you into a zombie, there are plenty of dead bodies around that are just normal dead bodies. > > And Sophia has a pretty large chunk taken out of her neck/shoulder. I’m not sure how people could have missed that. This idea came from the comics which is verboten to discuss in these threads. Per the earlier comments in this thread about the title The Walking Dead, in the original material the name references the living. They are already infected and once they die, regardless of how, they will become zombies. Thus, it is natural to assume the show also follows this same pattern although they’ve not revealed it directly yet. Speculation on what the CDC doctor told Rick includes this little tidbit of information. But we are not allowed to talk about the comics here so this response did not happen… MeanJoe ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/147 "2011-11-29T22:11:09Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > On the other hand, he could have saved the three minutes he spent wrestling with him. > > Seriously, give it up. > > That was NOT OKAY. Give us some figure then. What percentage does it have to boost the chances of his and Carl’s survival justifies 30 seconds of horrible death? If there’s a 10% chance that shooting him in the head makes the zombies less interested in Otis and they catch up to Shane and he dies, and Carl dies, is that worth making his death easier? 20%? 30%? Edit: And to the other poster, no one was “cheering on” Shane. It’s a shitty situation with no real happy ending - his choice was a rational one to lead to the least amount of damage, or the best good to bad ratio for the outcome. ---
**Author:** ![MeanJoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanjoe/32/5693_2.png) [@MeanJoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanJoe)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/148 "2011-11-29T22:14:47Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Why do people keep overlooking the fact that Shane didn’t just kill Otis, he left him to just about the most horrible death imaginable? He could have shot him in the head and still gotten out of there, since I’m pretty sure that Otis didn’t actually HAVE to be screaming bloody murder to get the attention of a bunch of zombies that were ALREADY chasing him. > > Yeah, he’s right about a lot of things. He’s still a rotten motherfucker, though. Shane did not just kill Otis by shooting him in the head because zombies do not stop and eat dead people. In order for Shane to survive and get the supplies back to the farm, he needed something to stop the zombies from pursuing them and allow him to escape. A dead Otis would not do that but a wounded Otis unable to walk would. MeanJoe - Who now adds “Do not join a group of SDMB people to survive the zombie apocalypse” to his Zombie Survival Guide to-do list. ---
**Author:** ![MeanJoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanjoe/32/5693_2.png) [@MeanJoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanJoe)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/149 "2011-11-29T22:19:46Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > The only reason people in this thread think Shane murdering Otis was no big deal is because Shane is one of the main characters in “our” group, while Otis was a stranger. Had the tables been turned and the group in Atlanta killed Glenn, no one here would be cheering them on. I don’t think anyone is saying it was “no big deal” nor is anyone defending Shane’s course of action “cheering them on”. It was a very big deal, a very difficult situation and decision and you can see in Shane’s character that he is struggling in the aftermath. What people here are saying is that it was the only remaining option and logically the only course of action if Carl was to be saved. It was and is a big giant shit sandwich of a decision but it was what had to be done if Carl was to be saved which was why they were there in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/150 "2011-11-29T22:26:04Z")
> [@TBG](#): > > I just don’t see how the timeline would fit. That’s way too much ground for a little girl to have covered in the timeframe between her going missing and Otis shooting Carl. Particularly if she was wounded at some point. > Regarding the dead bodies in the cars, I don’t think they prove much. Hypothetically, the zombie disease could’ve been bite only at first then mutated and gone airborne. I think there is more time then we realize - first episode - she gets lost - there is a night and a full nother day and night - then carl gets shot - then another night (otis gets shot) - Plenty of time for the events to occur - ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/151 "2011-11-29T22:26:08Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > No, it’s not. > > I would shoot you to save my own life. I would NOT cut tiny pieces off of you and feed them to my dog while you watch to save my own life. > > The former is normal. The latter is Lecter. If it was me, I wouldn’t mind so much being eaten by the zombies. I would rate it maybe (negative) 0.5% the value of my life, maximum. So I disagree with you there. Once you kill the person, you can as well make the most out of it, even if it causes some additional pain for that person. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/152 "2011-11-29T22:43:25Z")
> [@Dingbang](#): > > Agree mostly, but I think a lot of people (myself included) get distracted if such a critical point is not addressed and dismissed early on. The writers can make up whatever specific rules/facts/assumptions they want for the movie/tv show/book, and I’ll accept it and go with it. But when they leave in apparent contradictions – i.e., the zombies attack and devour their victims, people become zombies when bitten, but most of the zombies are left relatively intact – it just becomes an unnecessary distraction. > I’m not seeking any dedication to reality in a zombie show, but a lot of this distraction could be avoided if they just let us know the parameters of their zombie world. > (Then I’d only be left with that distraction about Shane. Yeah, I noticed and can’t stop noticing.) Exactly. Like I said, I am enjoying TWD. However, I wish they would clean up the inconsistencies. There is also more to it than this. Most fiction, SF or otherwise…is crap. What did that one guy say? 90% of everything is crap. So…I start to watch your show/read your book…a part of me is wondering…are you writing crap? How am I to know? Well…like Dingbat has said…does your story make sense in terms of how you laid it out? If it doesn’t…that MIGHT mean there is a deeper meaning going on…so large plot point in the future that will come out and surprise everyone and make your story self consistent. …or you are just writing crap. WHich is most likely? Take a current example. Terra Nova. This is the story about the future 150 years from now where Earth is in trouble ecologically and they find a crack in time to 80 million BC. They send a probe back designed to last that amount of time and never find it. Current theory from the show is that by going back, you create a new timeline…so the ‘current’ future is not that new timelines future. FINE AND GOOD! However, they have multiple colonization waves…hmmmmmmm…if each going back creates their own timeline…how can wave 2 show up in the future of wave 1? They keep talking to the year 2150…but that future is supposedly in a different timeline! How can they be talking? Just 2 examples…and it is POSSIBLE that what we currently know from the show is wrong. Maybe something deeper is afoot! Or maybe the writers are frackin idiots. How to know? well…look at what they do? Ohhh…a dinosaur from the Jurassic…more than 100 million years earlier…shows up. Well, now…that means the writers really didn’t check their facts and/or are just lazy/careless…so what does that mean for the big mysteries above? Most likely Terra Nova is crap…and I shouldn’t waste my time. The writers probably don’t even KNOW about the inconsistencies! Now…TWD has the comics to go on. I have been reading them from even before season 1. So I KNOW that he has issues with consistency…but I also know that he can write a story so I can relax and enjoy the show. If the comics didn’t exist, I would not know that and so would be wondering if it was just going to be crap. ---
**Author:** ![Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disgruntled_Penguin)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/153 "2011-11-29T23:30:02Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Rick made a similar choice when he handcuffed Merle at the top of that building in Atlanta. He did it because Merle was threatening the safety of the group and there was a good chance he was going to start killing people. The difference is that Rick wasn’t afraid to admit what he did. If Shane thought he did the right thing he wouldn’t have any problems telling the truth about what happened to Otis. I might agree with you that Shane was a monster and made an evil selfish choice had Shane not offered to be the distraction first but he did. He knew the score at the school but Otis wouldn’t leave him. By the time he shot Otis there was no time for a lengthy discussion on the issue and he already knew Otis would not leave him otherwise and probably not even then. Otis already felt like crap for shooting the boy. He was not going to leave Shane behind Shane didn’t suddenly come up with the distraction plan and off Otis. In my mind, that clears Shane on that issue. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/154 "2011-11-29T23:30:46Z")
> [@MeanJoe](#): > > This idea came from the comics which is verboten to discuss in these threads.\ > > But we are not allowed to talk about the comics here \ And maybe some day you comic boosters will get over it. 🙂 > [@simster](#): > > I think there is more time then we realize - > > first episode - she gets lost - there is a night and a full nother day and night - then carl gets shot - then another night (otis gets shot) - > > Plenty of time for the events to occur - I think more time has passed, too, just based on the injuries of Carl and Daryl - those were serious, almost-deadly injuries - you don’t get up and walk around like nothing happened after a day or two. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/155 "2011-11-29T23:43:45Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > Where did this “people become zombies through infection. Anyone who dies becomes a zombie” thing come from? The genre itself. The original Romero zombie apocalypse was of the latter variety, where all dead reanimate as zombies. Subsequent additions to the genre added the flavor that you have to be bitten to be zombified. Those are the only two options, really, and both are valid within the genre. It’s only natural to speculate which rules apply to any given zombie story. Infection stories are bad but can be overcome. When all dead reanimate, you are facing an insurmountable, literal apocalypse with no hope for recovery of the human race. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/156 "2011-11-30T00:10:18Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I don’t find the “everyone is a carrier” thing particularly shocking or interesting myself. Okay, so everyone is an asymptomatic carrier until they die. So what? You’re still going to do your best to avoid dying for the sake of, you know, not dying…So I get that this is supposed to be unsettling to our survivors, sort of hope-breaking, but I don’t understand why, I don’t see what difference it makes. Because it makes survival that much harder. It’s not enought to lock your group behind a big wall away from the zombies and strip search, skin check, & quaratine anyone who comes in from outside. You can’t keep the plauge out. Think about it, could you go to sleep in the same room (or bed) as someone knowing that they could die in their sleep, reanimate, & bite you while you’re asleep and completely defenceless? Or that you could do that to your partner or child? > [@EllisDee](#): > > The genre itself. The original Romero zombie apocalypse was of the latter variety, where all dead reanimate as zombies. Subsequent additions to the genre added the flavor that you have to be bitten to be zombified. Those are the only two options, really, and both are valid within the genre. It’s only natural to speculate which rules apply to any given zombie story. > > Infection stories are bad but can be overcome. When all dead reanimate, you are facing an insurmountable, literal apocalypse with no hope for recovery of the human race. The infection model is an attempt to make zombies slightly less implausible than Romero’s zombies. Stories using it will have a definate biological cause. Romero had the right idea; he never revealed why the dead were reanimating, he just had characters speculating (everything from radiation from space to divine wrath) without anything being confirmed. Dramatically it didn’t matter why the dead were reanimating; it was all about who the survivors were dealing with it. ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/157 "2011-11-30T00:16:34Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I think there is more time then we realize - > > first episode - she gets lost - there is a night and a full nother day and night - then carl gets shot - then another night (otis gets shot) - > > Plenty of time for the events to occur - Actually, I’ve done a timeline and Carl gets shot the day after she goes missing, and Otis that same night. I think she went missing somewhat early in the day, say 10am, and Carl was shot at, say 5pm (the lighting looks like evening), making it around 30 hours or more. There was no blood in the house though, so maybe she got bit the second day or during the night. She would have had to reanimate quick and Otis find her soon after though. I bet we get a flashback sometime this season to clear up what happened to her. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/158 "2011-11-30T00:18:24Z")
> [@Disgruntled\_Penguin](#): > > I might agree with you that Shane was a monster and made an evil selfish choice had Shane not offered to be the distraction first but he did. He knew the score at the school but Otis wouldn’t leave him. By the time he shot Otis there was no time for a lengthy discussion on the issue and he already knew Otis would not leave him otherwise and probably not even then. Otis already felt like crap for shooting the boy. He was not going to leave Shane behind > > Shane didn’t suddenly come up with the distraction plan and off Otis. In my mind, that clears Shane on that issue. I think this part keeps getting overlooked. Shane offered himself to be the distraction first and was willing to die so that Carl may live. Otis refused. I suppose Shane could have gone one step further and shot himself in the belly or something but even then there’s no telling if Otis would leave him. Shane made the right call all around in that situation. He could have turned and finished off Otis with a remaining round if he had it. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/159 "2011-11-30T01:02:09Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I wouldn’t have murdered Otis, that’s for sure. > None of this absolves Shane. Even Shane knows what he did was wrong. > [@Dingbang](#): > > Then you both would have died and the boy back at the farm would have died. In a world full of desperate, terrible choices, you get no credit for pointless nobility. > > I think Shane is wrestling with this, but he understands that he did what he had to do. That doesn’t make it easy and sometimes even the right choice will leave you troubled forever. The fact that he’s troubled by it, even though in an intellectual, logical sense he is confident of his actions, shows he is much more of a decent guy than he’s getting credit for here. > [@MeanJoe](#): > > Then, to be blunt, you would have died there. I don’t fault Shane for making the decision he made. It was a hard decision, not without emotional consequences he has to live with but still the right decision when facing no other option. I have a hard time agreeing that it was “wrong” - it was what he had to do to save Carl’s life. No way both Shane and Otis could have gotten away alive at that point and back to the farm to save Carl. > > I have to agree with SenorBeef, I don’t see Shane as a “bad guy” at this point. I believe the stress and inner turmoil is going to bring him to make poor decisions that may change my opinion. In fact, I’m 99% positive that will happen but at this point in the show, Shane is right about what needs to be done. > > MeanJoe > [@Odesio](#): > > If it was the right thing to do, why would it have sown hatred between the two groups? Plus, after the mid-season finale I think it’s quite clear that Shane isn’t concerned about sowing the seeds of friendship between the two groups. No, Shane doesn’t tell the truth about Otis’ death because he knows that everyone would think him a monster. i.e. He knows what he did was morally wrong. > [@Odesio](#): > > And you would see it the same way if you were Otis, his wife or his friends? A rational decision that was totally moral? > [@whole\_bean](#): > > Horseplop! It would have been pointless and risky to tell this group of strangers that he just shot one of theirs to save Carl.\* At that time, all he knew (outside of appearances) of Herchel’s band was that they shot a little boy > > The great thing about this show (and this genre in general) is that it wipes away the veneer of bullshit that allows folks to prance around so sure of their own morality when in truth, they’d almost all to a man kill another if it meant protecting their own. It removes the moral hazard created by mercenary armies and drone strikes. > > \*Let’s not lose sight of this. If Shane doesn’t kill Otis, then in all likelihood, Shane dies, Otis dies, and Carl dies. You can stroke your beard and cluck your tongue in condenmation of Shane, but the truth is, your “morality” would have resulted in three deaths. His resulted in one. > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > It’s the Dr. McCoy Effect - I can see the conversation Shane/Spock would have had with the farm people; “I shot Otis and sacrificed him so that I could save Carl. If I hadn’t, we both would have died, and Carl would have died, too.” > > “You shot Otis? YOU MONSTER!” > > “Yeah, but I saved Carl! It was a tough call in a bad situation!” > > “You shot Otis! You monster!” > [@DianaG](#): > > Why do people keep overlooking the fact that Shane didn’t just kill Otis, he left him to just about the most horrible death imaginable? He could have shot him in the head and still gotten out of there, since I’m pretty sure that Otis didn’t actually HAVE to be screaming bloody murder to get the attention of a bunch of zombies that were ALREADY chasing him. > > Yeah, he’s right about a lot of things. He’s still a rotten motherfucker, though. > [@mr.jp](#): > > It seems they react to sound, and so might find him more interesting in that case. At least it’s a possibility, so it’s worth taking that chance, to save his own life and Carls. > [@DianaG](#): > > No, it’s not. > > I would shoot you to save my own life. I would NOT cut tiny pieces off of you and feed them to my dog while you watch to save my own life. > > The former is normal. The latter is Lecter. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > Zombies are clearly more interested in live people than corpses, so shooting Otis in the head might’ve spoiled the whole plan. > [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > The only reason people in this thread think Shane murdering Otis was no big deal is because Shane is one of the main characters in “our” group, while Otis was a stranger. Had the tables been turned and the group in Atlanta killed Glenn, no one here would be cheering them on. > > Where did this “people become zombies through infection. Anyone who dies becomes a zombie” thing come from? It’s clearly been shown on the show that being bitten turns you into a zombie, there are plenty of dead bodies around that are just normal dead bodies. > > And Sophia has a pretty large chunk taken out of her neck/shoulder. I’m not sure how people could have missed that. > [@MeanJoe](#): > > Shane did not just kill Otis by shooting him in the head because zombies do not stop and eat dead people. In order for Shane to survive and get the supplies back to the farm, he needed something to stop the zombies from pursuing them and allow him to escape. A dead Otis would not do that but a wounded Otis unable to walk would. > > MeanJoe - Who now adds “Do not join a group of SDMB people to survive the zombie apocalypse” to his Zombie Survival Guide to-do list. > [@MeanJoe](#): > > I don’t think anyone is saying it was “no big deal” nor is anyone defending Shane’s course of action “cheering them on”. It was a very big deal, a very difficult situation and decision and you can see in Shane’s character that he is struggling in the aftermath. What people here are saying is that it was the only remaining option and logically the only course of action if Carl was to be saved. It was and is a big giant shit sandwich of a decision but it was what had to be done if Carl was to be saved which was why they were there in the first place. > [@Bone](#): > > I think this part keeps getting overlooked. Shane offered himself to be the distraction first and was willing to die so that Carl may live. Otis refused. I suppose Shane could have gone one step further and shot himself in the belly or something but even then there’s no telling if Otis would leave him. Shane made the right call all around in that situation. He could have turned and finished off Otis with a remaining round if he had it. And THIS is why I love the Dope… ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298/160 "2011-11-30T01:11:13Z")
I know. I was here when that all happened the first time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-walking-dead-2-07-pretty-much-dead-already-open-spoilers/604298.md?page=9)