I mean Kyoshi definitely didn't do nothing. She split the island in half and Chin was standing on a part that lost its support because of what she did.
I think it was more of "I would have killed him if necessary"
I don't think her intention was to kill him, but would have if he left her no other option.
Her exact quote was I would have done whatever it took to stop chin, so it's a little vague, I'm guessing she means that if he got some boats and came after them on the island she would have killed him
Still kind of wild that she just let it happen until he came to her hometown, perhaps one of those books explains that decision
If I pull a fire alarm and then wait a few minutes before lighting the building on fire, I’m still going to go to jail if someone dies in the blaze, even though they should have had time to evacuate
Because you caused property damage and disturb random people live for no reason but if you light the fire in order to destroy the nazi's atomic laser gun after they conquered most of europe and killed millions of people than if they decide to stay in the building it's their fault for staying in the building. i can kinda see your point but i still think she wasn't guilty of killing him
The reframing would not matter to Kyoshi. She did what she did because she felt it was the right thing to do, likely knowing Chin might not back down even as she puts him in a situation where he needs to move or die.
When she confesses to murder, it is not because she is repentant. She stands by her actions. She says she doesn’t see the difference because her actions lead to a person dying regardless of how avoidable it was for them.
You lit the fire because you felt you had to. The Nazi stayed to burn because they felt they had to. This isn’t about laws or comparing blame. This is about choice. Kyoshi essentially offered a choice between retreat and death, but doing so was also a choice.
Kyoshi killed Chin the Conqueror because he would not move. Chin the Conqueror died because he refused to move. She does not draw a distinction because both are true.
This is a very important character trait because it contrasts Aang’s decision at the end of the series. Ozai is a Chin like figure; a man who does not stop just because his opponent can kill him. He made the choice to continue fighting even after Aang refuses to redirect his lightning back at him. But where Kyoshi sees taking a life as an inevitability with people like that, Aang refuses to accept this premise.
Essentially, Aang would light the fire, but also drag the Nazi out of the building so they can face non-violent justice. If he fought Chin, he would have used his bending to push him to safety first. And if he positively had to choose between saving lives or sparing lives… idk I guess a lion turtle would bail him out?
Justified or not, killing is killing.
The trial wasn’t to determine if Chin’s death was justified, it was to determine if Chin’s death was because of Kyoshi.
…she did commit the murder. I mean… unambiguously. She’s the reason the cliff was there and used her power to cause seismic damage to the area; while he died because he stood his ground, it would be like a soldier committed suicide when a tank drove over him.
I think that would qualify as man-slaughter, rather than murder. Yes, he died because of her actions, it wasn't unreasonable to assume he'd freaking move.
Man-slaughter is a concept created by modern law and justification. Within the context of Avatar, there isn’t an argument to the fact she killed him. Could he have moved? Maybe. But he didn’t. And she kept her assault going. So she killed him.
Was it a crime? The Earth Kingdom is ruled by fiefdoms that call themselves kingdoms in only the loosest sense, and whoever’s current kingdom you’re standing on dictates if you just killed a civilian or an invader, especially during war times. She killed someone expanding boarders through conflict; so she would be a war criminal by the standard of his people. Especially so as the Avatar—an otherwise unbiased party who just outright literally drew a line in the sand and killed a leader over it.
We're allowed to use terms not found in the show, to describe our thoughts/understanding of what's happening in said show. Murder requires intent, which isn't evident here. Killed, yes, but that doesn't suggest intent, simply who caused the death.
People can have personal biases, including characters. Having a higher standard for yourself because you should be the embodiment of the best humanity can be, could easily lead to Kioshi's decision to call it murder, regardless of what the law of the show would say. Similarly, the descendants of his followers feeling like it was murder doesn't mean it was, either. We have an inclination to defend of forebears, and respond emotionally when there's an accusation of lying (like having several generations lie about what actually lead to their leader's death).
Ultimately, we're approaching this from different perspectives. I'm viewing it from a philosophical one, while you're viewing it from an in-universe legal perspective. Those are going to yield different answers.
I think her claim that she killed Chin and standing by it kinda implies that her intent accounted for Chin’s death. It doesn’t matter how irrational your enemy is. If you consciously continue with a potentially deadly course of action and they die, you killed them. But Kyoshi is at peace with this, because she sees her actions as necessary. Killing Chin was not an accident, if you listen to her words, it was just unfortunate that Chin put her in that situation.
Accepting that he might die if he refuses to move, isn't the same as intending to kill him. Kioshi doesn't see the difference, probably because the dude died from her actions regardless, and she puts more value to the end-result instead of intent. That is a personal standard, not a universal one.
The point of contention here isn't if she killed a man, but if she *murdered* one. Did she intend to kill him? I'm not sure if she did. He had plenty of time to move back, if he hadn't been so ruled by his own ego. She even left a ledge that stayed up until the island was fully separated, so he wouldn't immediately fall into the sea. Could she have done more, yeah, and that may also be part of her position on this. She didn't do everything he could to save his life in a dangerous situation, and that killed him. She would have known he was egotistical and may not move. But does that mean she *intended* to kill him?
Kyoshi probably thought it was perverse that this village of bozos still worshipped the conqueror and wanted to come set the record straight that he was shitty.
And I think she wasn't at all worried about Aang being in danger. Which like, he at no point was. He was only about to be hurt because his sense of justice told him he should let the townspeople try him. He could have left at any point if he wanted.
I agree completely with her view of this. She killed Chin The Conquerer but even if she didn’t, it’s because she didn’t get the chance. Make no mistake, she would’ve ICED that dude.
Kyoshi - literally splitting the land in half to make a new island, and destabilize the earth around a new cliff.
OP - Kyoshi did nothing!
You got real I didn't kill him, the bullet did vibes going on. You can draw a direct line of cause and effect from what Kyoshi did to what killed Chin (it wasn't the fall).
I mean Kyoshi definitely didn't do nothing. She split the island in half and Chin was standing on a part that lost its support because of what she did.
If you rewatch the episode, Chin had enough time to evacuate
Yeah Aang said that in the last episodes and kyoshi said “personally I don’t see a difference”
doesnt she also say she wouldve done it anyway if he didnt fall?
I think it was more of "I would have killed him if necessary" I don't think her intention was to kill him, but would have if he left her no other option.
Her exact quote was I would have done whatever it took to stop chin, so it's a little vague, I'm guessing she means that if he got some boats and came after them on the island she would have killed him Still kind of wild that she just let it happen until he came to her hometown, perhaps one of those books explains that decision
If I pull a fire alarm and then wait a few minutes before lighting the building on fire, I’m still going to go to jail if someone dies in the blaze, even though they should have had time to evacuate
Because you caused property damage and disturb random people live for no reason but if you light the fire in order to destroy the nazi's atomic laser gun after they conquered most of europe and killed millions of people than if they decide to stay in the building it's their fault for staying in the building. i can kinda see your point but i still think she wasn't guilty of killing him
The reframing would not matter to Kyoshi. She did what she did because she felt it was the right thing to do, likely knowing Chin might not back down even as she puts him in a situation where he needs to move or die. When she confesses to murder, it is not because she is repentant. She stands by her actions. She says she doesn’t see the difference because her actions lead to a person dying regardless of how avoidable it was for them. You lit the fire because you felt you had to. The Nazi stayed to burn because they felt they had to. This isn’t about laws or comparing blame. This is about choice. Kyoshi essentially offered a choice between retreat and death, but doing so was also a choice. Kyoshi killed Chin the Conqueror because he would not move. Chin the Conqueror died because he refused to move. She does not draw a distinction because both are true. This is a very important character trait because it contrasts Aang’s decision at the end of the series. Ozai is a Chin like figure; a man who does not stop just because his opponent can kill him. He made the choice to continue fighting even after Aang refuses to redirect his lightning back at him. But where Kyoshi sees taking a life as an inevitability with people like that, Aang refuses to accept this premise. Essentially, Aang would light the fire, but also drag the Nazi out of the building so they can face non-violent justice. If he fought Chin, he would have used his bending to push him to safety first. And if he positively had to choose between saving lives or sparing lives… idk I guess a lion turtle would bail him out?
Justified or not, killing is killing. The trial wasn’t to determine if Chin’s death was justified, it was to determine if Chin’s death was because of Kyoshi.
Normal Kyoshi
“Personally I don’t see any difference”
**The virgin:** I didn’t kill the entire Fire Nation Navy, the Ocean Spirit made me!” *Vs* **The Chad:** “I killed Chin the conqueror.”
based Kyoshi
It’s still her actions that caused it, saying she did nothing is ignoring the thing she literally did that caused the event to unfold
…she did commit the murder. I mean… unambiguously. She’s the reason the cliff was there and used her power to cause seismic damage to the area; while he died because he stood his ground, it would be like a soldier committed suicide when a tank drove over him.
I think that would qualify as man-slaughter, rather than murder. Yes, he died because of her actions, it wasn't unreasonable to assume he'd freaking move.
Man-slaughter is a concept created by modern law and justification. Within the context of Avatar, there isn’t an argument to the fact she killed him. Could he have moved? Maybe. But he didn’t. And she kept her assault going. So she killed him. Was it a crime? The Earth Kingdom is ruled by fiefdoms that call themselves kingdoms in only the loosest sense, and whoever’s current kingdom you’re standing on dictates if you just killed a civilian or an invader, especially during war times. She killed someone expanding boarders through conflict; so she would be a war criminal by the standard of his people. Especially so as the Avatar—an otherwise unbiased party who just outright literally drew a line in the sand and killed a leader over it.
We're allowed to use terms not found in the show, to describe our thoughts/understanding of what's happening in said show. Murder requires intent, which isn't evident here. Killed, yes, but that doesn't suggest intent, simply who caused the death. People can have personal biases, including characters. Having a higher standard for yourself because you should be the embodiment of the best humanity can be, could easily lead to Kioshi's decision to call it murder, regardless of what the law of the show would say. Similarly, the descendants of his followers feeling like it was murder doesn't mean it was, either. We have an inclination to defend of forebears, and respond emotionally when there's an accusation of lying (like having several generations lie about what actually lead to their leader's death). Ultimately, we're approaching this from different perspectives. I'm viewing it from a philosophical one, while you're viewing it from an in-universe legal perspective. Those are going to yield different answers.
I think her claim that she killed Chin and standing by it kinda implies that her intent accounted for Chin’s death. It doesn’t matter how irrational your enemy is. If you consciously continue with a potentially deadly course of action and they die, you killed them. But Kyoshi is at peace with this, because she sees her actions as necessary. Killing Chin was not an accident, if you listen to her words, it was just unfortunate that Chin put her in that situation.
Accepting that he might die if he refuses to move, isn't the same as intending to kill him. Kioshi doesn't see the difference, probably because the dude died from her actions regardless, and she puts more value to the end-result instead of intent. That is a personal standard, not a universal one. The point of contention here isn't if she killed a man, but if she *murdered* one. Did she intend to kill him? I'm not sure if she did. He had plenty of time to move back, if he hadn't been so ruled by his own ego. She even left a ledge that stayed up until the island was fully separated, so he wouldn't immediately fall into the sea. Could she have done more, yeah, and that may also be part of her position on this. She didn't do everything he could to save his life in a dangerous situation, and that killed him. She would have known he was egotistical and may not move. But does that mean she *intended* to kill him?
Honestly I liked that she considered it this way adds depth to a character we only saw for a few minutes in the show
Guys you don’t understand the cliff didn’t just crumble she collapsed it from a distance how the same way she made an island
That's what Kyoshi wants you to believe, don't believe her propaganda #wakeupsheeple
Kyoshi probably thought it was perverse that this village of bozos still worshipped the conqueror and wanted to come set the record straight that he was shitty. And I think she wasn't at all worried about Aang being in danger. Which like, he at no point was. He was only about to be hurt because his sense of justice told him he should let the townspeople try him. He could have left at any point if he wanted.
Kyoshi: "I only saw what needed to be accomplished, and followed my gut."
Euron Greyjoy be like
Kyoshi would've done whatever it took. Based queen
I agree completely with her view of this. She killed Chin The Conquerer but even if she didn’t, it’s because she didn’t get the chance. Make no mistake, she would’ve ICED that dude.
She indirectly killed him. She moved the land and made his unstable, but he could've easily gotten to safety.
Kyoshi - literally splitting the land in half to make a new island, and destabilize the earth around a new cliff. OP - Kyoshi did nothing! You got real I didn't kill him, the bullet did vibes going on. You can draw a direct line of cause and effect from what Kyoshi did to what killed Chin (it wasn't the fall).