So do you think there are others who would be justified in staking Spike?

There are times where I think anyone would have been justified. The end of AYW, late in SR. I'm not sure she'd have been justified, but I wouldn't have been morally outraged if Tara had done it on behalf of Buffy during OAFA (Out of character for her, and morally questionable, yes. But not morally outrageous, if I'm making myself clear.)

During the time when Spike was under the FE's thrall, anyone with no reason to know the full story would have been justified.

As for now, hmmmm. Buffy and Faith, or possibly others, acting on behalf of innocent past victims. If Wood had done it at the end of LMPTM, it might have been at least understandable as a reaction to Spike's "your mother didn't love you because she had a job outside the home" comment (although, yeah, Wood provoked Spike).

I have trouble justifying what Wood actually for two reasons, though. First, Nikki wasn't an innocent victim. She was the Slayer, perfectly able to fight back and actually doing so. For me, this takes the matter into the war metaphor. Second, Wood ambushed Spike. He convinced Giles to get Buffy out of the way. He lured Spike to his home on the pretext of -- don't remember exactly at the moment, was it first aid for wounds suffered in another fight? He downloaded and played the trigger song.

There are a lot of other ways Wood could have reacted to the info that would have been less blameworthy. Pull back, go back to operating on his own. Even if, in the school hallway at the end of -- "First Date"? -- he'd done a "you killed my mother; prepare to die" and rushed Spike with a stake, I could have upgraded the action to morally disturbing.

And on that note, I need to get lunch. So I'll be away for a bit.

I would buy Xander's Speedos (in another reality, where I am very wealthy), but I think I'd want them to be cleaned first.

(bolding for emphasis is mine)

Narrator, I am tickled pink that you put the think in that statement.

Actually, Willow's eyes did not go black during the re-ensouling spell in "Becoming 2" - she did seem to be posessed by something, but the only change in her appearance was due to the dramatic overhead lighting, causing her face (especially her eyes) to be in shadow.

I'm pretty sure Fred's right and that they did flash black for a moment when she was first rocked by whatever power (vengeance) entered her. They didn't remain black while she continued the curse, though. Katherine Madison's eyes also went black back in The Witch and Amy's eyes went black when she ratted herself.

However, it's all tainted (at least for me) by his relationship with Buffy. Take Buffy out of the equation and it could be really interesting and entertaining.

Isn't that what they just did, by having Spike witness Buffy and Angel's smoochies, while the first served up the color commentary?

OTOH, lesser means (the bug in the eye) didn't work. So how do you deal with a Spike that's still a threat?

***Actually it did work. They (Giles and Wood) just hadn't given it enough time. That's what got his memories started again. Then once Wood triggered him, Spike worked through his murder(s) of his own mother.

I think Wood became twisted in his quest for his mother's killer but I still think he would have been justified in killing him.

How is this justifed within the moral framework of the Buffyverse. When has any act of vengeance been served up as justice?

eta...

Everything Fred just said right above this, goes for me as well.

edited again to moved the *** paragraph to the proper place in the post. Sorry for the confusion.

And there are tears in my eyes and did you know stifling snorts of laughter hurts?

Hey, I made a Buffista laugh!

Spike-- will not be influenced by the first evil and Buffy/Angel's kiss and will stay by Buffy's side to the end

Buffy-- will either die or somehow lose her Slayer Power.

They will restore balance, which may end the Slayer line altogether.

Willow will become a guardian of the axe, like that old lady.

Giles will be Ethan.

Willow will become a guardian of the axe, like that old lady.

That would be a boring gig. IJS.

I always got the feeling that Wood was never going to play fair when it came to killing Spike.

In the high school did he start to say something to Spike before he went to stake him? I'm fuzzy on that but my impression was: Wood was going to stake Spike in the back and then maybe say "you killed my Mom" as Spike went to dust and then tell Buffy "oh, well one of the rampaging students got to Spike before I could save him."

Wood did play fair when played the trigger. It was just that the trigger turned Spike "bad" but also that it confused him and made him less coherent. Spike acted very animalistic and that wasn't the same way Spike acted at all when he killed Nikki, but it made Spike weaker, the same way taking him to a room with crosses nailed all over the walls made him weaker.

He had more than a clue. He'd been around Spike long enough to see trigger!Spike and good!Spike. You can't honestly say that Wood thought Spike was still evil when he started in on his mission to kill him.

You can make an argument based on cold logic - Spike was a danger, because of the trigger, and Buffy was unwilling to take the necessary steps to reduce that danger. (Which would not have had to include killing him.)

I totally agree that vengeance is not an okay reason to kill in the Buffyverse, though.

I think being just a Guardian of the Axe would be immensely boring, but I'd like it if Willow was able to replace the CoW with CoGuardians.

And Katie nails the reason that anyone would have been justified in taking Spike out. Trigger!Spike was actively killing people.

Did Buffy's point that Spike would be a useful source of First-related info (what with the thrall, and stuff) come to anything?

But, yeah, soul. And not under his own control. I think the combo of the two would traditionally render the scoobs unable to kill.