Yeah. They would never have arrived at that decision by committee - someone had to take the moral weight on his/her shoulders.

For me it's not really a question of if Charlie was right to kill Ethan (I agree it probably was the best solution), but why he did it. It wasn't about doing what was right for the survivors, or even for Claire; it was about Charlie wanting to prove he could take care of someone.

(I agree it probably was the best solution)

I don't think that (and would be disappointed if) Charlie was thinking of it as a solution. It was a necessity.

Can you explain the distinction? Do you mean he just acted by compulsion?

BTW, the shooting thing: all englishmen can put 5 rounds through a playing card from 20 feet away in less than 2 seconds. We learn it between Latin classes.

Do you mean he just acted by compulsion?

I saw him as motivated by a desire for revenge, and unsettled by high emotion. If Sayid had killed him, I'd characterise that as a solution, because Sayid would have been thinking.

As much decision as I (and I'm not speaking for the writers' intent here) see in Charlie is "Who gives a fuck if I do this? It won't really matter."

I don't think that (and would be disappointed if) Charlie was thinking of it as a solution. It was a necessity.

True. I meant solution from an overall standpoint. Charlie probably was thinking about it as a necessity. It's his motivations I think were whack.

I actually think Charlie's actions probably resulted in the safest outcome for everyone, although his "I must be He-Man and protect the damsel!" rationale rankles. I'd have been much more comfy with a hysterical "you were all just going to pussyfoot around and let him get away and try to kill me again!"

I'd have been much more comfy with a hysterical "you were all just going to pussyfoot around and let him get away and try to kill me again!"

Yeah, I would, too.

I didn't mind the flashbacks as long as they were just Charlie remembering another woman he liked and lied to (though I was yelling at the screen for him to take anything other than the hard to fence item that was valuable because of its historical siginificance) but turning it into motivation to shoot Ethan was annoying.

I actually switched the channels and watched 60 minutes during the flashbacks. I guess that means I thought they were boring.

Anyway, the shooting didn't bother me so much as you all, I think, because I was not getting the backstory.

I fast-forwarded through most of the flashbacks. Too cringe-pants for my liking. They seemed too shoe-horned in. I know it's the structure of the show and all, but I think it would have been a stronger episode without any at all.

I wasn't particularly surprised at Charlie shooting Ethan, though I had the issues with an English guy being able to handle a gun. I'm perfectly willing to handwave it though. Keeping Ethan alive would have presented a whole heap of problems for the writers, even if they had him keeping quiet.

Put me in the Charlie making a decision for the good of the group camp. With a side-order of revenge.