No, she can’t. There’s a reason King’s Landing was as large as it was: the seat of power requires a lot of infrastructure to maintain that power, which attracts people and resources there. King’s Landing is the quintessential example of this, since it was not a city before Aegon founded it which means it doesn’t have…

The action is the city putting up any kind of resistance at all.

But there was no ultimatum. Nothing to connect the burning with the actions Dany wants to dissuade. Even under medieval sieges, besieging armies routinely sent messengers or propaganda telling the cities explicitly what would happen if they didn’t throw open their gates. This connected the actions to the consequence…

Everything you’ve said here is absolutely spot on . I agree 100%. Thanks for putting in the work to set all the issues out like this.

“Ruling by fear” requires a connection between action and harsh consequence. What Dany did was pure cruelty. KL had already done exactly what she wanted: surrendered and refused to back Cersei. Killing everyone indiscriminately at that point is pure cruelty, and is more likely to sow dissent than stability.

Sure, she wants to rule by fear. But how does bruning King’s Landing accomplish that? There’s no rational connection between her burning KL and some objective she wanted to achieve. KL had already surrendered, so burning them just proves she can’t be trusted and is literally insane. Her decision is actively harmful to…

This would make sense if King’s Landing wasn’t the ultimate prize. Like if she rolled up to White Harbor or Oldtown and pulled this sure.

Tiger’s personal culpability is irrelevant here. If the bar over-served him under the relevant state’s Dram Shop Act then the bar is liable. And if Tiger owns the bar outright (as opposed to having the bar held by a corporation) he’s liable for the bar’s liabilities.

Dram Shop liability means that bars are responsible, to some extent, if they over-serve someone and that person is harmed or causes harm. It varies drastically from state to state but the basic principle is present in many, if not most states’ laws. It’s weird to me to see so many comments here saying the bar should…

Dram Shop liability means that bars are responsible, to some extent, if they over-serve a patron and that patron is harmed or causes harm. It varies drastically from state to state but the basic principle is present in many, if not most states’ laws. It’s weird to me to see so many comments here saying the bar should…

Not according to HBO. They offered the showrunners full length seasons and even additional seasons beyond 8. The showrunners turned them down.

I’m seeing this (terrible) take everywhere and I want to be clear: for us longtime fans (I read the books before the show was even announced) Dany’s face heel turn was not disappointing because it was unexpected. It was disappointing because it wasn’t earned. I fully expect that GRRM’s master plan is to have Dany turn…

This becomes especially infuriating when you realize that the shortened seasons were the showrunners’ doing. HBO was committed to the show indefinitely, it was Benioff and Weiss who decided they only wanted 13 more episodes to finish off the story.

I see what you did there.

I posted elsewhere in this thread, but if I remember from my crim law class 1L year even your distinctions isn’t entirely correct.

Actually, murder does not have to be premeditated. That’s a common misconception between manslaughter and murder. The difference is not one of intent, it’s one of “excuse.” One classic example of an intentional homicide that would be classified as manslaughter is where somebody “adequately provokes” the killer, by for…

So, I think the Unsullied are actually less like a pike force or shield wall and more like a phalanx. This is supported by the show last night, which showed that they had tremendous discipline in forming, staying formed, and reforming their formations perfectly at all times. It’s actually extremely interesting to see…

Eh I don’t know that Moat Cailin would have been that much better. It’s a decaying structure that’s excellent for slowing and harassing armies moving north, but I’m not sure it has particularly good defenses on its northern side. But if it did I’d agree with you.

No, ignroance of the law is still no defense in most circumstances. But for certain crimes (white-collar crimes in particular) you need to show what’s known as “scienter.” This means showing that the actor had knowledge that what they were doing was wrong and/or criminal. The report mentions scienter by name when…

Generally ignorance of the law is not a defense. But in a lot of white collar crime you need to prove scienter, which is knowledge of wrongdoing . If you go back to Mueller’s report he mentions scienter by name.