I think Murphy is going to get killed here is why

[huangjimmy108]

I'm confused as to what you are saying here. Are you saying that it was wrong for Harry to steal Bob in the first place regardless of the fact that he returned him, or that returning him didn't count because Murphy pressured him into doing it, or that you don't think Harry returned Bob at all?

...Then why did he do it? He specifically told Andi that she couldn't be seen to help him, even after she found out that he needed Bob and said that he could take him; however, when he ran into Molly and Thomas, he was just fine with both of them helping--to me, this shows that Harry was trying to protect his lower-powered friends by keeping them out of it; he was fine getting help from people who could protect themselves.

When do we see this close partnership? Their relationship in Storm Front is basically Murphy not really trusting Harry but trying to get his help regardless, then we're told that Murphy hasn't talked to Harry between Storm Front and Fool Moon, then in Fool Moon their relationship starts as Murphy not really trusting Harry but trying to get his help regardless and degenerates from there.

And I'm saying that if that scene in Fool Moon is not out of character for Murphy, then Murphy is a character whom I do not like and do not think is a particularly decent person.

Assaulting suspects is not due process of the law, yet Murphy had no problem with that. I fail to see how, after a scene in which Murphy clearly disregards the law, and in which you say that she is not out of character, you can then turn around and claim that it is obvious Murphy would not do something outside the law and that always following the law is an intrinsic part of her character at that time.

Also, you did not respond to my reasons for not believing that Murphy would listen to Harry: namely, that when Harry tried to say something, she punched him in the face and said, "no more talking." That sends a pretty clear message.

Entering into someone's house without permission is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Harry knew it. He should have ask to borrow Bob from Butters. He said he can't do it because he need to keep Butters uninvolved and safe, but Bob denounce him and Harry has no defense.

Harry should have learn this lesson long ago. Susan in book 3 and that 2 werewolf in book 11 is the price for this kind of mistake. The moment he burgled Butters's home, Butters already involve. He should have known better and he did, but he still make the mistake because he don't trust anyone.

Harry don't mind Thomas and Molly because Harry don't have much of a choice. He can't intimidate them, Thomas is his brother and Molly is freaking Molly and Harry owe her too much for what happened in book 12. He could not get them uninvolved even if he wanted to. The fact that Harry do not take the initiative to ask Thomas or Molly for help is already a bad indication.

As for Murphy in FM. Remember that Murphy's and Harry's relationship during book 1 and 2 is not as strong as after book 4. How can a trusting partnership be develop if Harry is keeping so much secrets?

Yes, there is trust between them, but that is trust between an employee and an employer, not the trust between comrades that has gone through life and death. The evemnts in FM started the evolution of their relationship from mere employer and employee to life and death partner. Even so, I say Murphy and Harry only truly become life and death comrade in book 4 and it solidify after book 6.

The start of book 2 when Murphy involve Harry in the investigations and ask for full disclosure is the turning point. As many things, anything that need to evolve into the next stage requires a trial by fire, and what Murphy and Harry go through in book 2 is their first crucible.

If you say you don't like Murphy because of that punch, well, that is your choice, though I don't understand why we need to dislike a character for a single mistake. Harry himself make a much worse mistakes and nobody is hating him for it. Heck, even Michael is not totally clean. There are people who even like freaking Marcone, what can I say?

And it is common sense not to listen to suspects during the time of arrest. So Murphy not wanting to listen to Harry at the time is normal. Harry is a suspect now and he needed to be treated as such. Expecting Murphy to still treat Harry as a friend and partner under such a circumstance is asking too much. And though the punch in the face probably could be avoided, it is not too far out of the practical norm either.

[nadia.skylark]

First thing, it is exactly due process not to listen too much to a suspect words during the time of arrest. There is a better time to do that kind of thing. You have the right to remain silent is not a joke. A suspect is treated differently than a witness, and Murphy acted as such.

1. I do not think you understand what is being said here. The violation of due process that has been committed is the assault of a suspect. The argument is: since she already violated due process once (by assaulting, ie repeatedly punching) a suspect, you cannot logically claim that Murphy would do anything (in this case, listen to Harry) because not doing so would violate due process. Murphy has already proved that she is willing to violate due process once, so it cannot logically be claimed that she would never violate due process. That is the main rebuttal of your claim that "of course Murphy would have listened to Harry because if she didn't, it would violated due process."

Supporting evidence also provided is that Murphy did not, in fact, listen to Harry when he tried to talk to her; that further, she assaulted him when he tried to speak; and that even further, she specifically said "no more talking."

2. Yes, suspects have the right to remain silent. Not the obligation to do so.

3. A suspect is treated differently than a witness, yes. This does not mean it is in any way acceptable for a police officer to physically assault them--which Murphy did. This makes her as much of a criminal as she believed Harry to be.

As for police vilence, well, you know yourself that this kind of thing happened quite often. Furthermore, Murphy know more than most what Harry is capable of. It is actually not a bad idea to incapacitate Harry with a punch just in case. Harry is a powerful and dangerous man after all. It might not be legal or ethical, but it is practical to put the guy down to reduce the chance of complication. In the case of FM, Harry is innocent and he probably won't escape the police, but nobody knows that and Murphy can no longer depend on the trust between her and Harry.

1. Yes, police violence happens a lot. So does murder. Does the fact that lots of people commit murder mean that we should stop arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning murderers?

2. First, as I remember it, it was at least two punches. Second, it demonstrably did not incapacitate him.

3. By your logic, Murphy should have put a bullet through Harry's head rather than arresting him.

4. What trust? The only trust the books have shown between Harry and Murphy is exceedingly one-way: Harry trusts Murphy, and Murphy does not trust Harry.

Harry is a good guy, but in case he is the bad guy, he need to be treated seriously considering his power. It is the same reason why the white council is so wary of him. The same reason why Murphy is harsh on him in book 14. The same principle applies. It is the side effect of having great power which is probably why the council emphasize secrecy.

So you're saying that police brutality is acceptable when directed at people who have a black belt in martial arts? Or military veterans? I assume when you say "powerful," you mean people who are physically dangerous and who cannot be considered safe even when disarmed. If not, maybe we should say that police brutality is fine when directed at computer hackers, rich people, and people with political connections as well.

Entering into someone's house without permission is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Harry knew it. He should have ask to borrow Bob from Butters. He said he can't do it because he need to keep Butters uninvolved and safe, but Bob denounce him and Harry has no defense.

I'm pretty sure no one on this thread is claiming that stealing is right. What we're saying is that Harry had understandable reasons, and that his motivation was good.

Harry should have learn this lesson long ago. Susan in book 3 and that 2 werewolf in book 11 is the price for this kind of mistake.

...Actually, I don't think either of these are good examples, but getting into a discussion about them would derail the thread. I'll start another thread about this issue when I'm finished responding to your post.

The moment he burgled Butters's home, Butters already involve. He should have known better and he did, but he still make the mistake because he don't trust anyone.

He does trust people--he trusts Murphy's judgement more than his own, and he trusts Molly enough that he tells her what he describes as (paraphrased, because I don't have my book available to look it up) "far more truth than I ever shared." He's not refusing to ask Butters for help because he doesn't trust Butters; he's refusing to keep Butters safe. (I'm explicitly not referring to what happens after Harry finds out about Nemesis--at that point he does stop trusting people, and quite rightly).

Harry don't mind Thomas and Molly because Harry don't have much of a choice. He can't intimidate them, Thomas is his brother and Molly is freaking Molly and Harry owe her too much for what happened in book 12. He could not get them uninvolved even if he wanted to. The fact that Harry do not take the initiative to ask Thomas or Molly for help is already a bad indication.

Harry does have a choice--I am reasonably confident that Harry could beat either of them in a fight, and then knock them out or otherwise restrain them. And "can't intimidate them"? They're his friends--he would be trying to persuade them, not intimidate them. And practically speaking, Harry doesn't owe Molly for what happened in Changes: the suicide thing was an explicit abrogation of his free will, and thus he cannot be held responsible for it; and coming to the big fight was Molly's free-willed choice, as I believe she told Harry in Ghost Story. And when and for what would Harry have asked for Molly and Thomas's help with? He didn't know he needed them until he'd already run into them. As soon as he does run into them, he does ask them for help--it's not like he says, "hi, we should catch up later, but right now I'm doing something that I'm not going to let you get involved in."

As for Murphy in FM. Remember that Murphy's and Harry's relationship during book 1 and 2 is not as strong as after book 4. How can a trusting partnership be develop if Harry is keeping so much secrets?

Yes, there is trust between them, but that is trust between an employee and an employer, not the trust between comrades that has gone through life and death. The evemnts in FM started the evolution of their relationship from mere employer and employee to life and death partner. Even so, I say Murphy and Harry only truly become life and death comrade in book 4 and it solidify after book 6.

Once again, you are misunderstanding what I, at least, am saying. My claim has never been that Murphy should treat Harry as her close friend. It has explicitly been that there is little or no trust between them, so claiming that Harry betrayed Murphy's trust does not excuse her actions--because, once again, that trust does not exist to be betrayed.

If you say you don't like Murphy because of that punch, well, that is your choice, though I don't understand why we need to dislike a character for a single mistake. Harry himself make a much worse mistakes and nobody is hating him for it. Heck, even Michael is not totally clean. There are people who even like freaking Marcone, what can I say?

It's not just her punching Harry. It is what that action shows about her earlier actions, and her later actions in response to that.

Earlier: At this point, I have been excusing Murphy's treatment of Harry for a book an a half because "She's a good cop. That's why she's acting like this." However, her assault of Harry proves that she is not a good cop, and that therefore her being one retroactively does not excuse any of her earlier actions.

Later: She never apologizes (not until 6 books later, and not until Harry brings it up, and then the apology was perfunctory, so to me it does not count). She still tries to arrest him even when he is in the middle of saving her and her fellow police officers' lives. She acts as though Harry expecting her to shoot her is somehow unjustified, even though all her behavior up until this point makes it a completely reasonable assumption on his part. She never indicates that she feels that she was wrong to assault a suspect (ie, she wishes she hadn't done it because Harry was innocent, not because it's a violation of the law) while still claiming that the law is important and should be upheld as this sacred thing, which makes her a hypocrite.

Harry, by contrast, almost always feels bad about his mistakes, and either apologizes, tries to make up for them, or both.

What has Michael done that's wrong?

And yeah, I don't get why people like Marcone either.

And it is common sense not to listen to suspects during the time of arrest. So Murphy not wanting to listen to Harry at the time is normal. Harry is a suspect now and he needed to be treated as such. Expecting Murphy to still treat Harry as a friend and partner under such a circumstance is asking too much. And though the punch in the face probably could be avoided, it is not too far out of the practical norm either.

1. Since when do people not listen to suspects when they're being arrested? They may disregard what they say, but that's not the same as not listening.

2. I'm not expecting Murphy to treat Harry as a friend; I'm expecting Murphy, as a police officer, to not commit a felony-level crime. I don't feel like that's an unreasonable standard.

3. It's not outside the norm to repeatedly assault suspects who are A) not fighting back; and B) clearly in shock? Can you please provide evidence for this position? Because I find it fairly unbelievable.

[Bad Alias]

First thing, it is exactly due process not to listen too much to a suspect words during the time of arrest. There is a better time to do that kind of thing. You have the right to remain silent is not a joke. A suspect is treated differently than a witness, and Murphy acted as such. If Murphy stay and listen, she could be accuse with colluding with a felon.

I'm under the impression you have no idea what due process of law is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause Once Harry is in custody, the 5th Amendment rights kick into high gear. It is very bad policing to shut up a suspect who is talking before an arrest when there is not sufficient evidence for a conviction. Listening to a suspect is her job. It's what she should do.

[huangjimmy108]

1. I do not think you understand what is being said here. The violation of due process that has been committed is the assault of a suspect. The argument is: since she already violated due process once (by assaulting, ie repeatedly punching) a suspect, you cannot logically claim that Murphy would do anything (in this case, listen to Harry) because not doing so would violate due process. Murphy has already proved that she is willing to violate due process once, so it cannot logically be claimed that she would never violate due process. That is the main rebuttal of your claim that "of course Murphy would have listened to Harry because if she didn't, it would violated due process."

Supporting evidence also provided is that Murphy did not, in fact, listen to Harry when he tried to talk to her; that further, she assaulted him when he tried to speak; and that even further, she specifically said "no more talking."

2. Yes, suspects have the right to remain silent. Not the obligation to do so.

3. A suspect is treated differently than a witness, yes. This does not mean it is in any way acceptable for a police officer to physically assault them--which Murphy did. This makes her as much of a criminal as she believed Harry to be.

1. Yes, police violence happens a lot. So does murder. Does the fact that lots of people commit murder mean that we should stop arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning murderers?

2. First, as I remember it, it was at least two punches. Second, it demonstrably did not incapacitate him.

3. By your logic, Murphy should have put a bullet through Harry's head rather than arresting him.

4. What trust? The only trust the books have shown between Harry and Murphy is exceedingly one-way: Harry trusts Murphy, and Murphy does not trust Harry.

So you're saying that police brutality is acceptable when directed at people who have a black belt in martial arts? Or military veterans? I assume when you say "powerful," you mean people who are physically dangerous and who cannot be considered safe even when disarmed. If not, maybe we should say that police brutality is fine when directed at computer hackers, rich people, and people with political connections as well.

I'm pretty sure no one on this thread is claiming that stealing is right. What we're saying is that Harry had understandable reasons, and that his motivation was good.

...Actually, I don't think either of these are good examples, but getting into a discussion about them would derail the thread. I'll start another thread about this issue when I'm finished responding to your post.

He does trust people--he trusts Murphy's judgement more than his own, and he trusts Molly enough that he tells her what he describes as (paraphrased, because I don't have my book available to look it up) "far more truth than I ever shared." He's not refusing to ask Butters for help because he doesn't trust Butters; he's refusing to keep Butters safe. (I'm explicitly not referring to what happens after Harry finds out about Nemesis--at that point he does stop trusting people, and quite rightly).

Harry does have a choice--I am reasonably confident that Harry could beat either of them in a fight, and then knock them out or otherwise restrain them. And "can't intimidate them"? They're his friends--he would be trying to persuade them, not intimidate them. And practically speaking, Harry doesn't owe Molly for what happened in Changes: the suicide thing was an explicit abrogation of his free will, and thus he cannot be held responsible for it; and coming to the big fight was Molly's free-willed choice, as I believe she told Harry in Ghost Story. And when and for what would Harry have asked for Molly and Thomas's help with? He didn't know he needed them until he'd already run into them. As soon as he does run into them, he does ask them for help--it's not like he says, "hi, we should catch up later, but right now I'm doing something that I'm not going to let you get involved in."

Once again, you are misunderstanding what I, at least, am saying. My claim has never been that Murphy should treat Harry as her close friend. It has explicitly been that there is little or no trust between them, so claiming that Harry betrayed Murphy's trust does not excuse her actions--because, once again, that trust does not exist to be betrayed.

It's not just her punching Harry. It is what that action shows about her earlier actions, and her later actions in response to that.

Earlier: At this point, I have been excusing Murphy's treatment of Harry for a book an a half because "She's a good cop. That's why she's acting like this." However, her assault of Harry proves that she is not a good cop, and that therefore her being one retroactively does not excuse any of her earlier actions.

Later: She never apologizes (not until 6 books later, and not until Harry brings it up, and then the apology was perfunctory, so to me it does not count). She still tries to arrest him even when he is in the middle of saving her and her fellow police officers' lives. She acts as though Harry expecting her to shoot her is somehow unjustified, even though all her behavior up until this point makes it a completely reasonable assumption on his part. She never indicates that she feels that she was wrong to assault a suspect (ie, she wishes she hadn't done it because Harry was innocent, not because it's a violation of the law) while still claiming that the law is important and should be upheld as this sacred thing, which makes her a hypocrite.

Harry, by contrast, almost always feels bad about his mistakes, and either apologizes, tries to make up for them, or both.

What has Michael done that's wrong?

And yeah, I don't get why people like Marcone either.

1. Since when do people not listen to suspects when they're being arrested? They may disregard what they say, but that's not the same as not listening.

2. I'm not expecting Murphy to treat Harry as a friend; I'm expecting Murphy, as a police officer, to not commit a felony-level crime. I don't feel like that's an unreasonable standard.

3. It's not outside the norm to repeatedly assault suspects who are A) not fighting back; and B) clearly in shock? Can you please provide evidence for this position? Because I find it fairly unbelievable.

The 2 punches does incapacitate Harry, at least mentally if not physically. Harry is too busy hurting and being sorry for himself. If not for Terra west appearing to rescue him, Harry would have end up in the detention centre. The punches has it's uses, though I am not sure whether or not Murphy has that function in mind when she punch Harry. Most of it is probably because Murphy is piss off with Harry and felt betrayed.

However, the idea that because Murphy punch Harry at the time meant that she'll never going to listen to Harry for all eternity is ludecrous. Her action at the heat of the moment cannot be use to decipher her entire attitude and personality. 

This is exactly the problem. Murphy punch Harry in book2 and it is concluded that she won't listen to Harry forevermore. She talk about retaliating against those street punks in book 13 and it is concluded without a doubt that she must have gone darkside. That simply does not make sense. It is making a mountain out of a mole hill. People say things and even sometimes do things during times of anger and stress which does not reflect their entire personality. You might as well say that Michael is a murderer because he threatens to kill Ft. Douglas during that SS.

Yes, the punch is a mistake, I never say it wasn't. But it is within limits and the circumstances involve does make it understandable. Murphy refuse to listen to Harry at the time cannot be use as the reason to say that she will never going to listen to Harry for all time. Murphy deviating slightly from police procedure cannot be make the evidence to conclude that she is not a good cop. Nobody is perfect and Murphy's personality flaw is something that makes her character more real instead of a fictional Marry sue.

As for appolagizing. Well, we know she already appoligize in book 8. When exactly she apologize and how she make up for it probably is not on the screen. There is too much happening between books that we don't know. All I know that Harry accepted and acknowledge her apology. That should be enough.

As for police violence. I am saying that there is a reason why this kind of thing is tolerated and sometimes police leaders shut one eye regarding such matters. There are time and place and extenuating circumstances which makes such things understandable.

If Harry has his own reasons to steal Bob and it is understandable, why not Murphy as well?

Since the books does not focus on Murphy, we know too little to say that Murphy don't have an understandable reason for what she did.

FM for example: It is a serial murder case. A new victim may appear anytime. Capturing a culprit is saving a life. It is urgent as hell. Involving Harry in the investigations already put Murphy under pressure. If Harry suddenly become a suspect, how do you think this will effect Murphy?

This alone already makes her anger understandable. Why does it becomes understandable when it comes to Harry and it is untolerable when it comes to Murphy? That is what I am confuse about.

[nadia.skylark]

The 2 punches does incapacitate Harry, at least mentally if not physically. Harry is too busy hurting and being sorry for himself. If not for Terra west appearing to rescue him, Harry would have end up in the detention centre.

No. Seeing Kim dead incapacitated Harry. He was non-functional before Murphy punched him--it's one of the things that, as I have stated before, makes her actions worse.

The punches has it's uses, though I am not sure whether or not Murphy has that function in mind when she punch Harry. Most of it is probably because Murphy is piss off with Harry and felt betrayed.

Why does Murphy feel betrayed? You've acknowledged yourself that she doesn't trust Harry all that much.

However, the idea that because Murphy punch Harry at the time meant that she'll never going to listen to Harry for all eternity is ludecrous.

This is a straw man argument. Please do not use them in serious discussions. Saying that Murphy would refuse to listen to Harry for all eternity is ludicrous, which is why no one's said that, and no one who bothered to think about it would assume so. What is being said is that Murphy would refuse to listen to Harry for somewhere between a few days and a month--somewhere in that time range.

This is exactly the problem. Murphy punch Harry in book2 and it is concluded that she won't listen to Harry forevermore. She talk about retaliating against those street punks in book 13 and it is concluded without a doubt that she must have gone darkside. That simply does not make sense. It is making a mountain out of a mole hill. People say things and even sometimes do things during times of anger and stress which does not reflect their entire personality. You might as well say that Michael is a murderer because he threatens to kill Ft. Douglas during that SS.

Are you actually reading my posts? I feel like you're not, because I responded to exactly this in my last post. Here, I'll re-post it:

It's not just her punching Harry. It is what that action shows about her earlier actions, and her later actions in response to that.

Earlier: At this point, I have been excusing Murphy's treatment of Harry for a book an a half because "She's a good cop. That's why she's acting like this." However, her assault of Harry proves that she is not a good cop, and that therefore her being one retroactively does not excuse any of her earlier actions.

Later: She never apologizes (not until 6 books later, and not until Harry brings it up, and then the apology was perfunctory, so to me it does not count). She still tries to arrest him even when he is in the middle of saving her and her fellow police officers' lives. She acts as though Harry expecting her to shoot her is somehow unjustified, even though all her behavior up until this point makes it a completely reasonable assumption on his part. She never indicates that she feels that she was wrong to assault a suspect (ie, she wishes she hadn't done it because Harry was innocent, not because it's a violation of the law) while still claiming that the law is important and should be upheld as this sacred thing, which makes her a hypocrite.

Yes, the punch is a mistake, I never say it wasn't. But it is within limits and the circumstances involve does make it understandable. Murphy refuse to listen to Harry at the time cannot be use as the reason to say that she will never going to listen to Harry for all time. Murphy deviating slightly from police procedure cannot be make the evidence to conclude that she is not a good cop. Nobody is perfect and Murphy's personality flaw is something that makes her character more real instead of a fictional Marry sue.

Do you honestly believe that assaulting a suspect repeatedly is only "deviating slightly from police procedure" (emphasis mine)? Because either you live somewhere with a far worse law enforcement system than where I live, or there is something wrong here. It is a felony-level offense committed by an officer of the law. That is extremely serious. That is the equivalent of Michael deciding to murder someone because he thought they might be a denarian--a grievous violation of all that a cop/Knight (cop referring to Murphy, Knight referring to Michael, if that wasn't clear) is supposed to stand for.

As for appolagizing. Well, we know she already appoligize in book 8. When exactly she apologize and how she make up for it probably is not on the screen. There is too much happening between books that we don't know.

I recall no evidence that Murphy ever apologized prior to Proven Guilty, and her apology there (not knowing the extent of the damage she did to Harry) indicates that such an apology did not take place. As such, I will continue believing that she did not do so until someone provides specific book quotes with evidence to the contrary. As to her apology in Proven Guilty, I will again quote my last post:

She never apologizes (not until 6 books later, and not until Harry brings it up, and then the apology was perfunctory, so to me it does not count).

All I know that Harry accepted and acknowledge her apology. That should be enough.

I'm going to be blunt here: Harry in Fool Moon acts like an abused spouse when it comes to Murphy. His entire attitude is "I'm sorry I made her hit me." Seriously, switch the genders and replay that scene and the discussion Harry has about it with his subconscious.

As for police violence. I am saying that there is a reason why this kind of thing is tolerated and sometimes police leaders shut one eye regarding such matters. There are time and place and extenuating circumstances which makes such things understandable.

Yes. There are times and places that make this kind of thing understandable. This is not one of them.

Murphy is not being betrayed by her close friend who she has lost her job over and defended to all comers.

Murphy is not attempting to extract information from Harry that would save lives.

Harry is not smug or gloating about what happened. (Quite the contrary, actually.)

Murphy has not been personally assaulted by Harry, nor has anyone she cares about.

These are all reasons that I would consider to make Murphy's behavior understandably--but none of them apply.

If Harry has his own reasons to steal Bob and it is understandable, why not Murphy as well?

See above for the answer to this. Harry provides reasons; Murphy does not, nor does the text of Fool Moon, nor the text of any of the other books.

Since the books does not focus on Murphy, we know too little to say that Murphy don't have an understandable reason for what she did.

This quote reminds me irresistibly of Xenophilius Lovegood. No, you can't prove a negative. However, we have 15 books and assorted short stories worth of Murphy, and in all of that I can't find an understandably reason. As such, I assume that there is not one, for the same reason that I assume that gravity is going to continue working. I may not be able to prove definitively that it won't stop working at some point in the future, but there's plenty of evidence that it hasn't yet, and that's good enough for me.

FM for example: It is a serial murder case. A new victim may appear anytime. Capturing a culprit is saving a life. It is urgent as hell.

Yeah, but even Murphy doesn't believe that Harry's the actual killer. She's arresting him for conspiracy. That means that arresting him won't actually save lives, and wouldn't even if he were guilty.

Involving Harry in the investigations already put Murphy under pressure. If Harry suddenly become a suspect, how do you think this will effect Murphy?

Probably less badly than if she were brought up on charges for a felony-level crime committed during the commission of her duties.

This alone already makes her anger understandable.

It makes her being angry understandable. It does not make her assaulting Harry understandable.

Why does it becomes understandable when it comes to Harry and it is untolerable when it comes to Murphy? That is what I am confuse about.

Once again, you are not reading my posts, and once again, I will repost what I have said on this topic in my last post:

She never apologizes (not until 6 books later, and not until Harry brings it up, and then the apology was perfunctory, so to me it does not count). She still tries to arrest him even when he is in the middle of saving her and her fellow police officers' lives. She acts as though Harry expecting her to shoot her is somehow unjustified, even though all her behavior up until this point makes it a completely reasonable assumption on his part. She never indicates that she feels that she was wrong to assault a suspect (ie, she wishes she hadn't done it because Harry was innocent, not because it's a violation of the law) while still claiming that the law is important and should be upheld as this sacred thing, which makes her a hypocrite.

Harry, by contrast, almost always feels bad about his mistakes, and either apologizes, tries to make up for them, or both.

[Bad Alias]

[1.] Murphy deviating slightly from police procedure cannot be make the evidence to conclude that she is not a good cop. ...

[2.] If Harry has his own reasons to steal Bob and it is understandable, why not Murphy as well?

[3.] Since the books does not focus on Murphy, we know too little to say that Murphy don't have an understandable reason for what she did. ...

[2.] Why does it becomes understandable when it comes to Harry and it is untolerable when it comes to Murphy?

1. I think you're underestimating the seriousness of the legal offense. To add to what Nadia said, it is a constitutional violation of due process rights. That's literally fundamental the the American justice system. I don't know where you are on how bad of a policing mistake Murphy made was. It was a very bad mistake in my opinion. Granted, I have very limited experience in law enforcement and only a little more in criminal law.

Question 2. is answered by statement 3. It's harder for an author to explain the motivations of a character if they aren't a POV character, but the author still needs to do it for the story to make sense.

I'm not saying it's an intolerable mistake. I'm saying it is an unexplained mistake because it is such a grave offense and mistake. I don't understand what made Murphy so mad. I understand that she was so mad that she made a very bad mistake. It is never explained why she was so mad. It may be later if/when her dad's death is explained more. My theory is that this isn't an isolated instance, and it's the reason she's in S.I. in the first place. My problem with Murphy is that I have to come up with half baked theories to explain the actions of a character who has been in every book. "She has anger issued because of her dad's 'suicide' that landed her in S.I. and is the reason she loses control at times" isn't much of a theory.

I just remembered that Murphy has issues with dogs that are in the neighborhood of a phobia. A case in which large supernatural canines are eating people may be enough to explain what unnerved her. Such fear with her POV explanation in Aftermath that she often has a "KILL IT WITH FIRE" reaction to Dresden helps me understand how she would be on unstable ground leading to such a reaction. Though, I don't think she has experienced Dresden in a "KILL IT WITH FIRE" situation at this point in the series. Partly because she's worried about "taking a civilian along" in at least the first book when the truth is, when it comes to the supernatural, she is the civilian.

[huangjimmy108]

No. Seeing Kim dead incapacitated Harry. He was non-functional before Murphy punched him--it's one of the things that, as I have stated before, makes her actions worse.

Why does Murphy feel betrayed? You've acknowledged yourself that she doesn't trust Harry all that much.

This is a straw man argument. Please do not use them in serious discussions. Saying that Murphy would refuse to listen to Harry for all eternity is ludicrous, which is why no one's said that, and no one who bothered to think about it would assume so. What is being said is that Murphy would refuse to listen to Harry for somewhere between a few days and a month--somewhere in that time range.

Are you actually reading my posts? I feel like you're not, because I responded to exactly this in my last post. Here, I'll re-post it:
Do you honestly believe that assaulting a suspect repeatedly is only "deviating slightly from police procedure" (emphasis mine)? Because either you live somewhere with a far worse law enforcement system than where I live, or there is something wrong here. It is a felony-level offense committed by an officer of the law. That is extremely serious. That is the equivalent of Michael deciding to murder someone because he thought they might be a denarian--a grievous violation of all that a cop/Knight (cop referring to Murphy, Knight referring to Michael, if that wasn't clear) is supposed to stand for.

I recall no evidence that Murphy ever apologized prior to Proven Guilty, and her apology there (not knowing the extent of the damage she did to Harry) indicates that such an apology did not take place. As such, I will continue believing that she did not do so until someone provides specific book quotes with evidence to the contrary. As to her apology in Proven Guilty, I will again quote my last post:
I'm going to be blunt here: Harry in Fool Moon acts like an abused spouse when it comes to Murphy. His entire attitude is "I'm sorry I made her hit me." Seriously, switch the genders and replay that scene and the discussion Harry has about it with his subconscious.

Yes. There are times and places that make this kind of thing understandable. This is not one of them.

Murphy is not being betrayed by her close friend who she has lost her job over and defended to all comers.

Murphy is not attempting to extract information from Harry that would save lives.

Harry is not smug or gloating about what happened. (Quite the contrary, actually.)

Murphy has not been personally assaulted by Harry, nor has anyone she cares about.

These are all reasons that I would consider to make Murphy's behavior understandably--but none of them apply.

See above for the answer to this. Harry provides reasons; Murphy does not, nor does the text of Fool Moon, nor the text of any of the other books.

This quote reminds me irresistibly of Xenophilius Lovegood. No, you can't prove a negative. However, we have 15 books and assorted short stories worth of Murphy, and in all of that I can't find an understandably reason. As such, I assume that there is not one, for the same reason that I assume that gravity is going to continue working. I may not be able to prove definitively that it won't stop working at some point in the future, but there's plenty of evidence that it hasn't yet, and that's good enough for me.

Yeah, but even Murphy doesn't believe that Harry's the actual killer. She's arresting him for conspiracy. That means that arresting him won't actually save lives, and wouldn't even if he were guilty.

Probably less badly than if she were brought up on charges for a felony-level crime committed during the commission of her duties.

It makes her being angry understandable. It does not make her assaulting Harry understandable.

Once again, you are not reading my posts, and once again, I will repost what I have said on this topic in my last post:

I only want to say that Harry, as the main protagonist of the story, is not that much of a loser. If six years pass and Harry acknowledge Murphy's apology and even felt ashame digging it up in an argument, I must assume that Murphy has already properly apologize and the matter is over and done with. There is no need to show it on the screen. I trust Harry's judgement at least that much.

During FM, Murphy and Harry has a working relationship. Harry is her trusted employee. It is a betrayal from an employee instead of a close friend, but it is a betrayal regardless, at least in her point of view at the time.

If you understand her anger in FM, we are in accord. She punching Harry is a mistake, we both agree about that as well.

Using this mistake to conclude that Murphy won't listen to Harry afterwards however, is another story. After Murphy punch Harry and blew up some steam, she is likely to back to herself. The way JB is portraying Murphy, Murphy punching Harry should be an isolated incident, a means to portray Murphy's angry state of mind at the time, not an indicator of Murphy's character.

[nadia.skylark]

I only want to say that Harry, as the main protagonist of the story, is not that much of a loser. If six years pass and Harry acknowledge Murphy's apology and even felt ashame digging it up in an argument, I must assume that Murphy has already properly apologize and the matter is over and done with. There is no need to show it on the screen. I trust Harry's judgement at least that much.

I, on the other hand, read the books well enough to understand that Harry has a guilt complex, and that such is a part of his character.

During FM, Murphy and Harry has a working relationship. Harry is her trusted employee. It is a betrayal from an employee instead of a close friend, but it is a betrayal regardless, at least in her point of view at the time.

Trusted? What books are you reading? Murphy has demonstrated repeatedly and consistently, in both Storm Front and Fool Moon, that she does not trust Harry.

And if he were her trusted employee, it still wouldn't be enough of a betrayal to warrant her actions.

If you understand her anger in FM, we are in accord. She punching Harry is a mistake, we both agree about that as well.

Actually, we're not in accord, because you think that her punching Harry is a small thing and an isolated incident, and I feel that it reflects a pattern of behavior that continues through Skin Game (albeit, not directed at Harry much in the later books). Her reasons for punching Harry are exactly the same reasons she cites in the beginning of Skin Game for why she should not pick up a Sword.

Using this mistake to conclude that Murphy won't listen to Harry afterwards however, is another story.

...using her actions, ie her physical assault of Harry when he tries to speak for the purpose of preventing him from speaking and her verbal confirmation that she does not want him to speak, to provide evidence for my claim that she is not going to listen to him? How is that in any way even controversial? If, when I open my mouth and try to speak, someone punches me in the face and says "no more talking," I am going to assume, like a rational person, that they aren't interested in listening to me talk. Are you honestly saying I would be wrong to do so?

After Murphy punch Harry and blew up some steam, she is likely to back to herself.

No, she isn't. We know this because we saw her not being back to herself later in the book.

The way JB is portraying Murphy, Murphy punching Harry should be an isolated incident, a means to portray Murphy's angry state of mind at the time, not an indicator of Murphy's character.

Really? Have you read Ghost Story? What about Skin Game? The way Jim has written Murphy, her actions in Fool Moon are an extreme manifestation of negative character traits which she is shown to continually struggle with.

[Bad Alias]

Using this mistake to conclude that Murphy won't listen to Harry afterwards however, is another story.

It's not just the punching. It's the repeated shutting down of him attempting to speak to her. It's her arresting him thus giving him additional constitutional protection form self incrimination. It's her reading him his rights while they are battling MacFinn. It's her still wondering if Harry is playing her while they are on Marcone's estate. Honestly, the punching is the least of it when it comes to my opinion that she's not going to listen to him any time soon.

[huangjimmy108]

I, on the other hand, read the books well enough to understand that Harry has a guilt complex, and that such is a part of his character.

Trusted? What books are you reading? Murphy has demonstrated repeatedly and consistently, in both Storm Front and Fool Moon, that she does not trust Harry.

And if he were her trusted employee, it still wouldn't be enough of a betrayal to warrant her actions.

Actually, we're not in accord, because you think that her punching Harry is a small thing and an isolated incident, and I feel that it reflects a pattern of behavior that continues through Skin Game (albeit, not directed at Harry much in the later books). Her reasons for punching Harry are exactly the same reasons she cites in the beginning of Skin Game for why she should not pick up a Sword.

...using her actions, ie her physical assault of Harry when he tries to speak for the purpose of preventing him from speaking and her verbal confirmation that she does not want him to speak, to provide evidence for my claim that she is not going to listen to him? How is that in any way even controversial? If, when I open my mouth and try to speak, someone punches me in the face and says "no more talking," I am going to assume, like a rational person, that they aren't interested in listening to me talk. Are you honestly saying I would be wrong to do so?

No, she isn't. We know this because we saw her not being back to herself later in the book.

Really? Have you read Ghost Story? What about Skin Game? The way Jim has written Murphy, her actions in Fool Moon are an extreme manifestation of negative character traits which she is shown to continually struggle with.

Harry has a guilt complex, but he always get things right in the end. He is slow, but he'll get there eventually. Six years has gone by, if Harry still can't straight things out in his mind, he is not worthy of his wizard title.

With all those rumors running around, Murphy would not have involve Harry in the investigations if she do not trust Harry. So if you say there is no trust and thus no betrayal, it is wrong.

If I want to talk and someone punch me in the face to shut me up, I will indeed assume that this person don't want to talk to me. In my anger and humiliation, I even may assume that this person will never talk to me again. But if I calm down and think rationally, I will realize that we should be able to talk again after both party calms down.

You say Murphy won't listen to Harry. I say Murphy won't listen to Harry at the moment.

Murphy has a temper. It is a character flaw. The same as Harry's character flaw which is his guilt complex. Maybe arrogance and some trust issue too. The character flaw causes problem from time to time. There is nothing wrong with that. If you call this a patern, than perhaps it is. Murphy is not the only one who has it though.

[huangjimmy108]

It's not just the punching. It's the repeated shutting down of him attempting to speak to her. It's her arresting him thus giving him additional constitutional protection form self incrimination. It's her reading him his rights while they are battling MacFinn. It's her still wondering if Harry is playing her while they are on Marcone's estate. Honestly, the punching is the least of it when it comes to my opinion that she's not going to listen to him any time soon.

Listen in the midst of Battle? Are you serious? That sounds suicidal to me.?

And as for Murphy reading Harry's rights when fighting Mcfinn. Well, Harry is a suspect. Not just a suspect, but a suspect that escape police custody. Reading his rights is as it should be. If she is still angry, she would have gave Harry another punch or just shoot him.

Having a good talk under those circumstances simply isn't right.

[nadia.skylark]

Harry has a guilt complex, but he always get things right in the end. He is slow, but he'll get there eventually. Six years has gone by, if Harry still can't straight things out in his mind, he is not worthy of his wizard title.

In that time, Murphy and he have become friends, so it makes sense that he doesn't really think about it that much. Also, in Fool Moon Harry's subconscious notes that he's been blaming himself for Elaine's fall to darkness (at that point, he didn't know that she had been enthralled) for ten years, so...

With all those rumors running around, Murphy would not have involve Harry in the investigations if she do not trust Harry. So if you say there is no trust and thus no betrayal, it is wrong.

Really? So she has some other wizard she can go to for information on werewolves, then?

If I want to talk and someone punch me in the face to shut me up, I will indeed assume that this person don't want to talk to me. In my anger and humiliation, I even may assume that this person will never talk to me again. But if I calm down and think rationally, I will realize that we should be able to talk again after both party calms down.

What if, prior to them punching you, they've made it clear several times that they don't trust you and therefore won't trust what you say? What happens if, the next time you see that person, while you are actively saving their life and the lives of their co-workers, they try to arrest you? What happens if, the time after that, while you are once again working to save their life, they tell you that they still don't trust you, even though they've been proved wrong about their suspicions of you?

I agree with Bad Alias--the punching is in no way the whole story here.

Also, you are far more all right with being physically attacked than I can ever imagine being.

You say Murphy won't listen to Harry. I say Murphy won't listen to Harry at the moment.

I say that Murphy won't listen to Harry for a period of a few days to a month. If she were going to turn around and listen to Harry immediately, I would expect her to not try to arrest him in the middle of the Loup Garou fight in the police station, or at least to ask him what's going on first.

Murphy has a temper. It is a character flaw. The same as Harry's character flaw which is his guilt complex. Maybe arrogance and some trust issue too. The character flaw causes problem from time to time.

Also control issues.

There is nothing wrong with that. If you call this a patern, than perhaps it is. Murphy is not the only one who has it though.

It's a problem when she doesn't try to improve. I had thought she was improving in later books, and quite liked her, but then Cold Days made me re-evaluate, and caused me to conclude that she didn't actually improve that much, but rather her character flaws just weren't directed at Harry in those books.

I'm fine with Harry's guilt complex because he is improving, and we regularly see people call him on it. Actually, if we saw Harry actually get angry at Murphy during Fool Moon, rather than just roll over and take it, I'd be considerably more likely to excuse Murphy--which is not necessarily fair to her character, I'll admit.

Listen in the midst of Battle? Are you serious? That sounds suicidal to me.?

If she had time to read Harry his rights in the middle of the Loup Garou fight, she had time to listen to him. And on Marcone's estate, they had the time in the pit where they actually had a conversation.

And as for Murphy reading Harry's rights when fighting Mcfinn. Well, Harry is a suspect. Not just a suspect, but a suspect that escape police custody. Reading his rights is as it should be. If she is still angry, she would have gave Harry another punch or just shoot him.

They're in the middle of a supernatural battle! Furthermore, Harry was actively working to save everyone's lives. In those circumstances, I would expect her to save the arresting for after the fight.

Having a good talk under those circumstances simply isn't right.

Nor is trying to arrest the person saving the lives of you and all your co-workers, and yet that didn't stop Murphy.

[huangjimmy108]

I don't see Harry improving much either. His character flaw is still there and making trouble from time to time as always.

[nadia.skylark]

I don't see Harry improving much either. His character flaw is still there and making trouble from time to time as always.

To an extent. One major example of character development here is his response to Murphy getting hurt in Skin Game. In earlier books, he would have (and frequently did) blame himself for what happened to Murphy, but in this book he is able to acknowledge that she made her own choices, and he is not to blame for what happened to her. He also doesn't hold himself responsible for Butters being put in danger, for much the same reason.

[huangjimmy108]

To an extent. One major example of character development here is his response to Murphy getting hurt in Skin Game. In earlier books, he would have (and frequently did) blame himself for what happened to Murphy, but in this book he is able to acknowledge that she made her own choices, and he is not to blame for what happened to her. He also doesn't hold himself responsible for Butters being put in danger, for much the same reason.

Murphy has improve too. She don't punch Harry anymore.