What's wrong with bragging about killing people? That seems entirely harmless, unless they were murders.

I do think that talking to Sherlock about killing people is not the same as talking about it with other people, which we haven't seen John do, that I recall.

It doesn't seem like a moral issue to me at all. That's why I'm confused. He was a soldier, and he's comfortable with and sometimes reliant on his reputation as having done so. That seems ethically legit to me--it's not like mentally torturing someone in a bomb vest or orchestrating fake police action.

Maybe not a moral issue, but it does have an air of cold-blooded-ness, I think. Someone else is going to have to work on verbalizing why, as I'm not coming up with much.

The bragging isn't the problem (although I wouldn't call it a great thing to do). But we don't know that he did kill other people, aside from the cabbie, we just know that he says he did, so I modified "John killed people" with "bragged about" to acknowledge that. Taking him at his word, he's killed people. We could, and probably should, assume he did so in defense of his military unit, but he didn't say that. He just bragged that he killed people, and in the process suggested that Sherlock—not quite a lethal enemy, although an assailant—should knock it off. It did imply he'd be willing to use deadly force to deal with a non-lethal situation. We weren't suppose to take him seriously. We probably weren't supposed to take the drug bust seriously or Sarah's covering for John's work issues seriously, either (although I sure wouldn't have wanted to be the last patient just before he conked out at his desk—heaven knows what he might have missed). But taken at face value, using implied threats based on previous killing to attempt to influence a current non-lethal situation is a bit not good.

If John wasn't fucked up too, the show wouldn't be half as much fun.

If John wasn't fucked up too, the show wouldn't be half as much fun.

Oh, yes. It's all glorious, interlocking dysfunction.

It did imply he'd be willing to use deadly force to deal with a non-lethal situation

Huh. I would totally tell people I (c/w)ould kill them in order to shorten a physical altercation. It seems so ethically a non-issue to me, because it's so damned expedient. It's not sadistic, and as it was delivered it wasn't even egotistical. It was just impatient. It's about as morally fraught as pointing a gun at someone who's trying to hurt you with their fists.

I thought you weren't supposed to point a gun at someone unless you were willing to kill them with it.

If I had a gun to hand and someone was trying to beat me up, I probably would point it at them to get them to stop (of course, in my real world situation, I don't know that I'd trust them to stop at beating), knowing I might kill them with it. But (hope) I wouldn't pull it out knowing someone's being an asshole with no intent to go beyond bruises. I don't think killing people is an appropriate response to anything but them attempting to kill other people.

I don't think saying, "I kill people, so stop hitting me to pick fights" is the same as pulling a gun. It's not as dangerous.

I thought you weren't supposed to point a gun at someone unless you were willing to kill them with it.

No, you're not. But you're also allowed to defend yourself with deadly force in a situation where you're being attacked and they haven't escalated to deadly force yet.

I don't think saying, "I kill people, so stop hitting me to pick fights" is the same as pulling a gun

I don't either. But I think pulling a gun to stop a fight where someone is intent on injuring you is perfectly reasonable, so the lesser step isn't morally complex at all.