Clark Kent: Killing's just dandy!

[HalJordan4184]

How is shoving aside in Clark's world sending him feet away. I guess this means handshakes in Clark's world, are turning every bone in your hand to powder then, since he obviously can't control his own strength.

Clark has exhibited so many options in the past. He has knocked out mutiple characters in the past, by merely tapping them on the noggin. Sure, they get up with a headache, but they are no worse for wear. But suddenly, if it's a bad guy, this approach seems to go out the window, the least damage Clark can do, is toss someone thirty feet, into something that kills them, and all he has to say is, my bad.

The bottom line is, Clark not only did something that's illegal in the real world, and morally shady, he did it for no reason, as he's already shown other, less dangerous methods of subduing "normal" people. Curtixs Knox was no threat to Clark, so Clark had no cause, or reason to "kill" him.

[Mischael12]

With this Clark if your an enemy you get the half treatment. He isn't the first villain we've seen him do things too that were pretty f'ed up.

Like that Kid Ryans step dad, i kept thinkin when he hit him with that bowling ball there is no way he could have survived that.

[HalJordan4184]

I know this isn't the first thing he's done to a bad guy, but that still doesn't mean I think it's okay. It's a continuing problem with the character.

[TampaVille]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
How is shoving aside in Clark's world sending him feet away. I guess this means handshakes in Clark's world, are turning every bone in your hand to powder then, since he obviously can't control his own strength.

Clark has exhibited so many options in the past. He has knocked out mutiple characters in the past, by merely tapping them on the noggin. Sure, they get up with a headache, but they are no worse for wear. But suddenly, if it's a bad guy, this approach seems to go out the window, the least damage Clark can do, is toss someone thirty feet, into something that kills them, and all he has to say is, my bad.

The bottom line is, Clark not only did something that's illegal in the real world, and morally shady, he did it for no reason, as he's already shown other, less dangerous methods of subduing "normal" people. Curtixs Knox was no threat to Clark, so Clark had no cause, or reason to "kill" him.

Hal, I don’t know what I’d do without you. This is the 2nd or 3rd thread where you’ve clarified much more vividly a point I tried making earlier. I know some people feel that the SV producers are trying to give their incarnation of CK more ‘edge,’ but there is a difference between ‘edge’ and blatant murder. Whether or not the victim actually dies isn't the point. With the powers at Clark's disposal, it is almost unimaginable that he'd end up in a situation where he realistically had no choice but to kill a normal mortal (as he believed Knox to be).

[Ardiem3]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
How is shoving aside in Clark's world sending him feet away. I guess this means handshakes in Clark's world, are turning every bone in your hand to powder then, since he obviously can't control his own strength.

Clark has exhibited so many options in the past. He has knocked out mutiple characters in the past, by merely tapping them on the noggin. Sure, they get up with a headache, but they are no worse for wear. But suddenly, if it's a bad guy, this approach seems to go out the window, the least damage Clark can do, is toss someone thirty feet, into something that kills them, and all he has to say is, my bad.

The bottom line is, Clark not only did something that's illegal in the real world, and morally shady, he did it for no reason, as he's already shown other, less dangerous methods of subduing "normal" people. Curtixs Knox was no threat to Clark, so Clark had no cause, or reason to "kill" him.

Dont be smart, so is that why when Bizarro Clark shoved Lex in "Bizarro," didnt kill him? Clark knows what hes doing and did. Clark shoved him aside because he heard from afar that Lex was going to be killed, thats why he knew where the were, so to have a villain killed to save an innocent person at the time, is the price that must be paid.

[HalJordan4184]

Yes, Clark knew he just committed an unecessary murder, and that is a complete violation of everything the character supposedly is.

[TampaVille]

Ardiem, I don't want to put words in Hal's mouth, but I think it's safe to say Hal wasn't implying Clark should have let Lex die. Unless I'm mistaken, the point HalJordan was trying to make was that there were any number of ways Clark could have stopped Knox without hurling him at a hundred miles an hour into an electrical transformer. He could have patted him on the head, the way he did with Pete in Nicodemus. He could have just kicked his feet out from underneath him and then held his arms down. Heck, he could have run into the next county, gotten some rope from the local hardware store, paid for it as fast as he paid for the maple syrup, run back, and tied Knox up, all before anybody had even realized anything had happened.

You state, "Clark knows what he's doing and did." That would mean that he knowingly killed Dr. Knox ("It makes me sick knowing that I took his life to save yours") when he did not have to. That is a desecration, not just of the modern Superman, but of ALL iterations of Superman. No Supes would ever kill a man if he didn't have to, and as HalJordan has pointed out quite succinctly, Clark did not have to kill Knox.

[Ardiem3]

Originally posted by TampaVille
Ardiem, I don't want to put words in Hal's mouth, but I think it's safe to say Hal wasn't implying Clark should have let Lex die. Unless I'm mistaken, the point HalJordan was trying to make was that there were any number of ways Clark could have stopped Knox without hurling him at a hundred miles an hour into an electrical transformer. He could have patted him on the head, the way he did with Pete in Nicodemus. He could have just kicked his feet out from underneath him and then held his arms down. Heck, he could have run into the next county, gotten some rope from the local hardware store, paid for it as fast as he paid for the maple syrup, run back, and tied Knox up, all before anybody had even realized anything had happened.

You state, "Clark knows what he's doing and did." That would mean that he knowingly killed Dr. Knox ("It makes me sick knowing that I took his life to save yours") when he did not have to. That is a desecration, not just of the modern Superman, but of ALL iterations of Superman. No Supes would ever kill a man if he didn't have to, and as HalJordan has pointed out quite succinctly, Clark did not have to kill Knox.

I think that this is a time when were just looking too deep into it. Clark isnt Superman right now, hes still learning from his triumpths and mistakes like every hero does and will do. Clark pushed Knox aside to save Lex, careless, mabye, but its always for the greater good. Perhaps Clark overheard that Knox was still alive from being shot, miles away, thats why he knew where the were, so he simply shoved them aside to get Lex away and to deal qith Knox later where there werent any chances of Lex seeing him use any of his powers.... possibility, yes..

[TampaVille]

Originally posted by Ardiem3
I think that this is a time when were just looking too deep into it. Clark isnt Superman right now, hes still learning from his triumpths and mistakes like every hero does and will do. Clark pushed Knox aside to save Lex, careless, mabye, but its always for the greater good. Perhaps Clark overheard that Knox was still alive from being shot, miles away, thats why he knew where the were, so he simply shoved them aside to get Lex away and to deal qith Knox later where there werent any chances of Lex seeing him use any of his powers.... possibility, yes..

I've heard the "Clark isn't Superman yet" argument, and though I will admit that it is not completely without merit in every situation, I don't find it to be terribly compelling for the most part. Allow me to explain.

Superman's value for human life isn't something that he comes into later in his life. It is ingrained into him in the most fundamental way. From his earliest childhood, it was instilled into him by his parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent. To say that Clark isn't Superman yet, so he doesn't need to care as much about protecting human life, is to ignore what it is about Superman that makes that respect for life so powerful.

More importantly still is the fact that throwing Knox aside wasn't just "careless," as you put it. Clark has a vast array of abilities at his disposal. I outlined a few possibilities in my last post. Clark did not simply get Knox out of the way to be dealt with later. He killed him, and in a somewhat brutal fashion, when nonlethal alternatives were easily available to deal with the situation. It would be like having a taser in one hand and a fully automatic AK-47 equipped with armor piercing rounds in the other, and choosing to go with the machine gun rather than the nonlethal taser.

[Ardiem3]

Originally posted by TampaVille
I've heard the "Clark isn't Superman yet" argument, and though I will admit that it is not completely without merit in every situation, I don't find it to be terribly compelling for the most part. Allow me to explain.

Superman's value for human life isn't something that he comes into later in his life. It is ingrained into him in the most fundamental way. From his earliest childhood, it was instilled into him by his parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent. To say that Clark isn't Superman yet, so he doesn't need to care as much about protecting human life, is to ignore what it is about Superman that makes that respect for life so powerful.

More importantly still is the fact that throwing Knox aside wasn't just "careless," as you put it. Clark has a vast array of abilities at his disposal. I outlined a few possibilities in my last post. Clark did not simply get Knox out of the way to be dealt with later. He killed him, and in a somewhat brutal fashion, when nonlethal alternatives were easily available to deal with the situation. It would be like having a taser in one hand and a fully automatic AK-47 equipped with armor piercing rounds in the other, and choosing to go with the machine gun rather than the nonlethal taser.

Every hero makes mistakes is what i meant when i said that hes not officially Superman yet because to my knowledge, Superman dosent make mistakes, but Clark Kent can because hes learning to become the hero the whole world will look up to. Knox was the bad guy, Clark threw him aside, which would have killed him, if he werent immortal, what im saying is, how do we know that Clark didnt hear that Knox was immortal and did toss him aside to be dealt with later?

[HalJordan4184]

Because CLark clearly says to Lex in the hospital, "It makes me sick to think i took a life for you". If Clark heard Knox was immortal, and the fact that Lex was unconscious for Clark's entrance, makes this line totally useless if Clark knew. He didn't know, and he thought he perfectly well did kill Knox, and he was quite okay with it, other than some contempt. I even took that to be more contempt he killed someone in an attempt to save Lex, more than he killed someone in general.

Superman does make mistakes. However, CLark didn't make a simple mistake. He doesn't have a reason he did what he did. He just simply did it, without thinking. That's something jon and martha supposedly instilled in him from the get go, that he had to be careful, and moderate his strength and powers. Instead, for almost the whole run of the show, Clark has been tossing people fifty feet, and hitting them at mach ten.

[Mischael12]

Again this smallville Clark is edgy; Clark right now doesn't have these regulators on him anymore.

He lost his dad, and his mom is no longer around; we are going to see him make so many more mistakes and I think this is what they are trying to show.

They want to show the reason why Superman is the way he is. Like i said there are a lot of people out there who don't like Superman because he is so "perfect" he hasn't made faults, even as Clark Kent growing up we have this perfect image of him.

I think they want to show the reason why he is like that; that the Superman as God image isn't so realistic.

[TampaVille]

AHHHH!!! Hal and I aren't saying Supes/CK should be a perfect Godlike being! We're saying that every iteration of Superman, no matter how 'edgy,' has had it instilled into him from a very young age to respect human life. NO Superman, NO Clark Kent, would ever knowingly or willingly do something which would probably kill a person if an equally good and less lethal alternative were available to him. That is not a 'mistake.' Trusting Lex, there's a mistake. Not spending more time finding the evil crystal... mistake. Killing somebody when he could just pat him on the head... murder. Not mistake. Murder. Violation of everything that his folks raised him to be. That doesn't change just because his mother is working in Washington.

[HalJordan4184]

Exactly.

Clark's mistake, is akin to a cop shooting a 14 year old in a fist fight with another 14 year old. Rather than simply break up the fight, and work it out, you just kill the person, then they can never bother you again.

If Clark were a cop, he'd already be in jail.

And like Tampaville said, mistakes I can take. However, there are mistakes that would be in character for CLark make, and mistakes that go against his character. Killing is not a "mistake" he can make.

[Mischael12]

Note the quotations around perfect?

Obviously there is, but honestly do you think that the directors are thinking people are going to look so deeply into it? The guy survived right? Thats why they did it, only reason they probably even had the line in it. To show that he was immortal, like i said call it what you will, but i honestly think thats the path they are taking i don't agree, but i understand the point.

Again i'm not condoning what he did, and mistake isn't the best term to use, but they want to show him acting differently. Instilled in him since youth, perhaps but from what i saw of the show, clark always wanted to act out, show what he was capable of.

Now my problem is that he said that he had to take a life for Lex's like that, and if Knox could over power lex, how did Clark overpower Knox? And Lex of course didn't even take that into consideration unto how did Clark do it? but whatever. Again i don't agree with it, i would rather them never put clark into these positions, but again not the first time we've seen him do stuff like this.