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.

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.

I think it depends on how much injury you are reasonably expecting. If I'd gotten into a physical fight with my sister (which didn't happen often--too big an age difference) and pulled a gun to stop it that would be way out of line. No real expectation of serious harm. I think it would be wrong, to a lesser extent, for me to tell her I'd been trained to kill, with the implication I would do the same to her, to get her to knock it off. With people I don't know as well my ability to judge expected damage would be different, so I think I'd have a lot more justification to go for the implied threat or gun.

So when I'm looking at John's actions, I'd wonder if he really felt threatened. Sherlock had hit him. Did John have reason to expect Sherlock would go further, once his goal of getting John to hit him was met? Debatable. (I'm not saying I like Sherlock's methods, although they made good tv.)

I'd put John's implied threat at a far lower level than Irene's or Mycroft's actions. Still, I think it's a bit not good.

I'm perhaps tainted by hanging out with people I know can kill me, but I'm surprised and a bit chastened to see judgment of what seemed to be simple, factual, and relevant. More than all of that, provoked. It is by far the better resolution to the scuffle, when compared to compared to an escalation of force. He chose the method of talking it down, instead of hurting Sherlock enough to end the fight. It seems the best way out to me. I am confused by the idea that it is even fruit to the oranges of murder and extortion.

I was thinking of it more along the lines of Sarah covering up for John's sleeping on the job. But I do see your point about it being a quicker way to end things than an escalation of force. I don't know that Sherlock's punching would have continued this time once Sherlock got his way--John was the one who continued it past returnng the face punching. But because John was willing to both add the extra punches and the verbal warning, Sherlock did walk away with something more than, "Punching John gets me what I want." And that's good.

I think John's response at the end of Study in Pink also has bearing on how he relates to killing people (even if they aren't very nice). I agree with the assessment that it's more on-par with Sarah.

I do think that Mrs. Hudson is not entirely free of Bit Not Good herself.

I do think that Mrs. Hudson is not entirely free of Bit Not Good herself

Mm-hm. We just haven't seen it yet. And, really, the stuff I like best is often stuff I wouldn't go for in real life. Defenestrating prisoners, even those that torture little older ladies? Sorry--trial and sentencing, please. On Sherlock ? Totally satisfying and comedy gold.

Adler's specifically called out as an adventuress in ASiB.

She's called that by the king initially, and he's portrayed as a self-important douche. If he genuinely thought she was just a malevolent social climber, his reaction of "Oh, she promised not to use the photo? Problem solved!" makes no sense.

She's called that by the king initially, and he's portrayed as a self-important douche. If he genuinely thought she was just a malevolent social climber, his reaction of "Oh, she promised not to use the photo? Problem solved!" makes no sense.

But if she doesn't have any aspect of that, then her threat in the first place to use the pictures makes little to no sense. I never got the sense that he thought she was *just* that--he makes too many comments about what a rocking queen she'd have been, had she been of his social class for him to think that's all there is to her.

She took both the king and Norton as lovers. (Well I can't prove Norton, but I'm pretty sure she was sleeping with him before marriage. ) At the time that was enough to get her labeled an "adventuress" and worse. Especially if, horror of horrors, these were not the only lovers she took. But at the end it seems that the King, Holmes and Watson all three agreed that she rocked. Given diverse personality types, that at least one was an expert at seeing through bullshit, another at least bright and fairly conventional, and the third a douchebag, but a douchebag with a strong interest in not getting that judgement wrong, I would say that we are justified in believing them.

My preceding post was well supported. This one is just a possible interpretation: the King was never sure she was a threat. But she had evidence that could bring him down. Minus a promise from her not to use it, he intended to secure it. She said in her letter at the end that she kept it only as protection from the King. That was only in the future, but possibly she never intended to destroy it and held on to it only for protection all along.

King Douche's intent may have been to get the photograph, and then have her murdered just to be on the safe side.