I know he killed many people before, but from what I remember, they were all self defence. What I mean is, is this the first movie where he has kills that would've been murder if he didn't have a license to kill?
share[deleted]
That's an interesting one. If he didn't have a license to kill, and he told the police exactly what happened, I'm not sure if he would've gotten away with it. It generally is legal to kill intruders, even when they're unarmed, but there are examples where people have gone too far, and been convicted for it, like Byron David Smith, who shot two intruders, and later shot them again while they were incapacitated.
Dent was pointing a gun at Bond, but Bond knew it was empty. Bond had a loaded gun, he could've easily turned him over to the police. However, he could've argued that Dent could've quickly reloaded or pulled out another weapon, and that since he'd just tried to shoot him, he didn't want to take that chance.
Bond made it much harder for himself by shooting Dent again while he was on the ground. If he did it quicker, it would've been much more permissible, as he could've argued it was the adrenaline. However, he did wait a little while to shoot him again. It wasn't that long though, I suppose he could've argued Dent still could've shot him while wounded.
'he could've argued that Dent could've quickly reloaded or pulled out another weapon, and that since he'd just tried to shoot him, he didn't want to take that chance.'
I think if it had come to it Bond would have simply told the police he wasn't sure how many shots Dent had fired.
Well I'm talking about if Bond told the police exactly what happened.
shareThat was the the one that leaped to my mind.
shareIn "The World Is Not Enough" 007 shot Davidov and Elektra King.
shareThat was self defence, he shot her while she was telling a man to fire a nuclear missile.
shareThat is kind of laughable, she did not have to be killed. In legal sense she should have been arrested and facing trials.
Bond decided to kill her out of vengeance for his friend.
It doesn't matter whether or not he had vengeance in his mind. People have the right to kill people who are about to fire a nuclear missile, or do something that would result in it happening, including giving the order. He killed her right as she was giving the order. What else was he supposed to do, say "please stop giving that order"?
I didn't notice you also mentioned Davidov, or maybe you edited your post, I suppose you're right about that one. It wasn't self defence, although sometimes you can argue committing a crime is necessary to prevent something worse from happening.
She did order the strike, but after she did that the prevention is already out of window, it became execution.
Yeah, I did edit the post, I usually do that before anyone answered. If you had answered I usually would mention it in the next post. So it is just a short window of timing.
But anyway, Bond will kill anyone during the course of missions regardless who they are, that is what the 'license to kill' means. If the police are dogs on the leash, Bond has no leash whatsoever.
He killed her right as she was ordering the strike, the gunshot cut her sentence short, so it could've at least made the order more confusing.
shareI doubt that.
Also 007 is an excellent shot, he could have shot the radio, he won't miss at the point blank range, but no, he decided to kill her.
The radio was in front of her face. If he shot it, he still would've killed her. And he would've been taught to always aim for the center mass. It doesn't matter how close the target is, and how good of a shot he is, there's still a higher chance he'll miss, it's not worth the risk.
shareAnd he would've been taught to always aim for the center mass.
It doesn't matter how close the target is, and how good of a shot he is, there's still a higher chance he'll miss
Also shooting her legs, or other non-lethal parts of body I think is the best way to change people's mind.
But Bond did not explore that road in his rage.
It doesn't matter what his intentions were, his actions would've been legally justified even if he didn't have a license to kill.
If he shot her non-fatally, and she called it off, Renard may have been able to tell she was in pain from her voice, and it could've made him suspicious.
Renard may have been able to tell she was in pain from her voice, and it could've made him suspicious.
It doesn't matter what his intentions were, his actions would've been legally justified even if he didn't have a license to kill.
I think it probably would be, but I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.
shareIf a person is in peril such that they are employing lethal force, it's probably - generally speaking - unwise to shoot for the extremities. Aiming centre mass has a greater chance of hitting, even at close ranges. While Bond is different because he's basically a superhero with his level of competence, "Why couldn't they just shoot the legs?" is a common question, but it's usually asked by people who have more experience with firearms from films than reality. Shoot to wound isn't usually an option, and if we're talking about court defense, this would either be self-defence or it wouldn't, but it wouldn't take long for an expert witness to dismantle the idea that Bond should have shot her arms or legs first.
shareI don't think your thought process makes any sense. Bond was not in peril, he was not in immediate danger, he was in fact in control, and he could shoot anywhere he wanted.
"Why couldn't they just shoot the legs?" is a common question, but it's usually asked by people who have more experience with firearms from films than reality. Shoot to wound isn't usually an option
and if we're talking about court defense, this would either be self-defence or it wouldn't, but it wouldn't take long for an expert witness to dismantle the idea that Bond should have shot her arms or legs first.
Well, this particular situation is James Bond, who can make basically any shot he wants to. So, to some extent, yes, he could hit her anywhere. We're also talking about a movie world where "shot in the shoulder" is shrugged off by most action stars even though it would be a big, big problem.
As far as the larger conversation goes, it seems to be something like, "Could James Bond be considered a murderer but for his licence to kill?" and in this particular circumstance, I think arguing that he should have aimed for a non-vital spot wouldn't get very far, partly because of how difficult it is to shoot to wound.
In practically ever single James Bond film - if not every - he goes into the villain's "lair" and lands up killing multiple people.
Whether he's really "licensed" to dispatch of these people is questionable I suppose, since he's not (usually) operating on British soil.
But from what I remember, he always kills them in self defence.
shareI can't remember exactly off the top of my head but I'm sure in both YOLT and TSWLM he lands up with a machine gun mowing down countless expendable enemy goons.
And in most of those classic "villain's layer" infiltrations, he's chosen / been directed to go there. So not sure if it's self defence, killing the poor security detail just there doing their jobs.
He didn't kill anyone with a machine gun in YOLT, he did in TSWLM, but they were all armed and trying to kill him.
It is legal to kill kidnappers, even when they're unarmed. In YOLT and TSWLM, he was being held in the villain's lair against his will, and I can't think of any movies where he wasn't. In YOLT, he did voluntarily enter, but then they held him against his will with the intention of killing him, and they were also already holding others against their will.
Yeah, it's definitely a grey area since he went into those places of his own volition. Once he's captured, he usually starts gunning them down making his escape. Not exactly self defence actions.
I think the real question - given the "license" to kill can only really have any meaning on British territory - is, do we have any instances where he just goes straight out and shoots / kills someone, as directed, within the UK? Kind of like the beginning of TLD I guess...
People do have the right to kill intruders, or detain them at gunpoint and turn them over to the police. But they don't have the right to hold them against their will for the rest of their life. If they do, the intruder becomes a kidnapping victim, and they have the right to kill their kidnappers. I think this is what happens when Bond enters the villains' lairs. It's always clear that they intend to kill Bond while he's detained and no longer a threat, which is illegal, and Bond would have the right to defend himself from that even if he didn't have a license to kill.
I can't think of any other examples of that.
Just thought of a couple more:-
TSWLM:- slaps that guy holding on to his tie. Falls to his death.
FYEO:- Kicks that car that guy's trapped in off the cliff.
Again, not self defence. Not sure if "licensed" kills though as neither in the UK...
The one in TSWLM could be argued as self defence, the man was trying to kill him, and grabbed onto his tie. He could've argued he had to prevent him from dragging him off the roof. He could've argued helping him up was too dangerous, since they were at the edge of the roof, the man was bigger than him, and likely would've kept trying to kill him.
You're right, there's no defence for the one in FYEO.
I think his license to kill means he can kill whoever he wants wherever he wants, but it's only recognised in the UK. He could be arrested in other countries, but the UK wouldn't extradite him.
In "For your Eyes Only" he has a guy who's car is perched perilously at a cliff ledge, who begs him to spare his life and he kicks the car causing it to fall
shareOf course if he were captured on foreign soil he would not have immunity, but I think in practical terms it means he won't have legal issues in UK, even he has murdered people overseas.
shareIn practical sense all spies did all kinds of illegal things overseas, committing murder is among them.
But it is usually a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing.
The authorisation I think removed some uncertainty.
I'd have to run down a LOT of kills in each film, but generally-speaking...
If you're talking about, "What would be considered murder but for the LTK?" there are probably a lot. Any time Bond infiltrates a villain's hideout, lair, or residence, even if he's attacked, that's not self-defense, is it? I think from a legal standpoint, he wouldn't be cleared of that because he started it by breaking and entering, and/or thieving depending on exactly what he's up to.
So, I think several wouldn't qualify under "self-defense" in that regard.
More to the point, however, I think the licence to kill is more about his being an assassin. Any agent - 00 or not - in MI6 (fictional or real) would surely be allowed to act in self-defence. The "licence" isn't legal. He doesn't have it in his wallet. It's not recognised internationally. Like, if he wipes out a SPECTER agent in Monaco who is a citizen of that country, Monaco wouldn't like it. The point is that the British Crown is telling Bond, "Go kill this guy." He's often sent to take out a specific target, and that's what the licence refers to. I think it also gives him discretion to employ lethal force outside of the assassination if it is part of his mission.
From what I remember, whenever he killed people in the villain's lair, he was always being held against his will. It is legal to kill kidnappers, even when they're unarmed.
I don't remember much detail about his license to kill in the movies, but in the Dr No trailer, the narrator says he has a "license to kill whom he pleases, where he pleases, when he pleases."
License to Kill was the first movie because he had it revoked in that one
shareSo that means technically he didn't use his license to kill in that movie, because he didn't have one. But he did have some kills in that movie that weren't self defence.
shareBond killed 2 people before becoming a 00 agent and getting his Licence To Kill in Casino Royale and that comes before Licence To Kill.
shareYes but that movie was released in 2006 and LTK was released in 1989, despite the timelines within the plots. You keep forgetting that I'm an expert on the Bond movies and know more than anyone else
shareBut chronologically Casino Royale occurred first.
shareYes, but the question was "which 1st movie...", so LTK came out before CR. I also happen to be an expert in reading questions comprehension
shareBut at that point in Bond’s life he had killed people without having a Licence To Kill.
shareI also personally don’t think you know much about James Bond.
shareNot always. Goldfinger, for instance. He breaks into Goldfinger's refinery, resulting in the nighttime car chase. That was all initiated by Bond.
shareBut he wasn't trespassing, he was outdoors on public property.
shareTilly sets off a tripwire around the perimeter - with a rifle barrel, no less. While it isn't Bond himself, he's with her. Arguably, he is trespassing. Now, the idea of this calling for lethal force is absurd, but he definitely initiates it.
But, if you won't take that one, there are two in Thunderball.
Bond throws the first punch while apprehending the "widow" in Thunderball's opening credit sequence. The disguised Colonel fights back, but that makes *his* actions self-defence. Nevertheless, it ends with Bond either choking him to death or snapping his neck.
Later, he breaks into Largo's compound and shoots first, killing at least two people before they even return fire. They are armed guards, but again, he is breaking in as you point out elsewhere on this thread, they have the right to repel intruders.
If we're talking strictly legal, those are not self-defence. Morally justified? Sure, as he's still taking down horrible people. But they are not acts which would be excused but for his licence to kill.
OK, you're right about those ones.
share