And without even changing Mel Gibson's performance. He is an emotionally-unstable cop with a gun and rage issues who repeatedly demonstrates he doesn't respect the law or boundaries. And he physically restrains her until she agrees to go out with him. And she ends up dead.
She doesn't get dragged back to his trailer.
The South Africans don't see her there banging (hopefully consentually) Riggs and decide to eliminate her.
She survives to return home.
I was being sarcastic because of the OP's ridiculous comment. For starters, I don't remember Riggs "restraining" her, it' been a while since I've seen the movie. I highly doubt he assaulted her. But even if he did, it's got nothing to do with her death. The OP's comment is nonsense.
If you don't remember (since it has been a while since you've seen the movie), then you can't flat out say that my comment is ridiculous, since you aren't 100% sure that Riggs "restrained" her at all.
It is 100% ridiculous. She isn't dead because Riggs restrained her. Your implying a connection between the two.
Are you just in the mood to argue or something? Because this isn't a real argument. She wasn't killed because Riggs restrained her. Everyone knows this. Is it your goal to just annoy people? Trolling as they say?
My point is that don't come in calling what I addressed and brought up "ridiculous" if you claim that you don't remember very well. And you're also taking what I said out of context. The whole point was that if the movie was told from a different point of view or edited differently, then Martin Riggs might not exactly be interpreted or seen as the hero.
Your "point" IS ridiculous. Riggs didn't kills her. Whatever this encounter your talking about with Riggs didn't lead to her death. You're COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY WRONG. I hope for your sake your trolling, because if this is a serious attempt at making some kind of point you failed miserably.