|

Buffy s4e6
There are two main arguments that might been used to defend Oz's action. One is that he was acting in defence of Willow. It seems to me important to point out that Oz's response would not be justifiable within a legal definition of private defence. The law does permit private citizens to act to defend others in danger from aggressors, but any action must be a response to an attack and not a pre-emption of one. It is not permitted to strike or kill another prior to any attack. Although Veruca had hit Willow earlier and had stated her intention to harm her, Veruca was not making a direct move to harm her any further when Oz attacked and killed her.
I don't of course want to get bogged down in the legalities of the matter. After all, the law, whilst reflective of ethical standards, it is not always reflective of our intuitive judgements on right and wrong. And we can all see that once Veruca turned into the wolf, she was bound to pose a danger to Willow and that Oz's pre-emptive strike was a sensible way of preventing her being harmed.
The other defence might be that Oz was not responsible for his actions, since he killed Veruca in a wolf-state. This seems to me to be negated by the fact that as he made the decision to attack her and at the beginning of the actual attack, he was clearly still human.
Of course it might be said, that while Oz's form was still human, that his judgement was affected by the altered state that precedes the transformation. But I think that the lack of actual aggressive action on Veruca's part before Oz struck and the fact that it was human Oz who initially acted may be a pointer to the fact that the killing can be explained in another way than merely as a defence of Willow.
Oz is and always has been uncomfortable with his "wolfiness." We saw in Fear Itself his terror of losing control, of becoming the wolf when he is un-caged and could hurt another. Veruca challenges Oz's view about his life as the wolf. Her attitude to their wolf-nature is attractive because it would rid him of the concern he has about his dangerous side. She gives into her wolf-nature completely; she feels no concern; no guilt. She even allows herself to roam free as a wolf, regardless of the possible harm to anyone she might attack. Veruca believes that the wolf-nature is their true nature and even feels sorry for ordinary humans because they don't have the same power. Though Oz disagrees with her, he is clearly intrigued by the idea. In Wild at Heart, we see Oz allowing his wolf nature an unaccustomed freedom, as Veruca's idea takes a subtle hold over him. Despite his feelings for Willow, he gives in to his animal attraction for Veruca, seducing/dragging her into the cage with him, when he might have continued to try to reason through their differences or have sought help from Buffy and the Scooby Gang to control her. Instead he gives in to his own wolfiness. Oz is seduced as much by Veruca's ideas as by her body.
Still, Oz resists allowing the wolf a completely free rein, constrained by his need to believe that he is normal, that he is only the wolf three nights a month. Oz has always considered the wolf to be separate from him, more of an affliction than a part of him. He has no memory of his acts when he turns, yet Veruca tells him that he will gradually begin to remember what he does in a wolf-state. Oz wants to be human, yet he wants to let go of his restraint and revel in his wolfiness, as Veruca does. He is in conflict between these two views of his own nature (naturally, Oz being Oz, this conflict does not manifest itself in a tremendously open way. As Willow has said, when it comes to a taciturn man, you have to look to his deeds).
When he discovered Veruca is prepared to kill Willow to secure him as a mate, Oz's internal conflict is resolved, since her savagery is revealed in its true harmful light. He realises where embracing the wolf might lead him and is no doubt horrified that he had ever considered Veruca's ideas. She had tantalised him with a freedom he could never possess, a freedom which had hurt and finally endangered his beloved Willow.
Oz's attack on Veruca was a result of his disillusionment. He attacked her to extinguish the idea she represented, that he is not human and should not try to be so. The fact that she also presented a threat to Willow merely provided an acceptable opportunity for him to express the impulse to eliminate her.
It is in this very act that Oz proves Veruca right. He has the savagery of the wolf within him all the time. This is what leads him to leave at the end of the episode. He must come to terms with a fundamentally different view of his own nature, with the knowledge that he can never consider himself to be human again.
Opinions
justjo 19/2/00
I think Oz was less attracted by Veruca's propaganda than your article suggests. What he was
attracted to was an animalistic sexual impulse, based on pheromone and instinct. Male aninals are
unable to resist female animals on heat, as anyone whose ever owned a female dog and experienced
their house being surrounded and laid under seige will know!
I think Oz was quite disgusted by Veruca's suggestions, but he was unavoidably attracted to her.
His strongest motivation was to get her into the cage, so that she wouldn't harm anyone or be
harmed. At no point did he give in to his wolfy urges, except to protect Willow.
Veruca had clearly threatened Willow, and after hitting her was waiting for the change to come so
that she could kill her. When Oz started fighting her, I think he was waiting to fully change, he
showed no compunction to actually kill her in his semi-wolf state - at least we have no way of
knowing this. But while he appeared to hold off of from doing much damage in his semi wolf state
he killed Veruca very swiftly and efficiently as full-wolf.
However, he does reveal that he was aware of his actions post event, or he wouldn't have felt
that he needed to leave so urgently. Is he remembering more, and becoming more united with his
wolf self, as Veruca suggested he would? I don't think we can do anything but speculate about
this as yet.
|
Little odd 19/2/00
I think that maybe Oz isn't necessarily to blame for killing Veruca because although
he started attacking her before the change he didn't kill until after his werewolf state was
fully evident. I think that if he hadn't changed he may not have killed Veruca...
|
Sententia 28/2/00
Yes, but he definitely made the decision to kill her before he changed. I think you're right in the sense that his change
gave him an excuse to be able to kill her without it being murder pure and simple. Oz's own consience had the possibiltity
of excusing him because when he killed her he was in a wolf state. But Oz didn't take this way out. When he left he admitted
that there was not as great a separation between him and the wolf as he had believed and I think that was a result of him
realising that his human side had also wanted to kill Veruca and that he had merely allowed him wolf side to carry out the
actual act.
It's like a man who takes a drink to steal himself so he can get the guts to kill his wife. He forms the intent while sober
and carries out the act while drunk. We might say that he wouldn't have killed her if it hadn't been for the drink, but
surely the true reason was the intent he already formed. In the same way, Oz allowed his wolfiness to be the tool he used to
kill Veruca, but he still formed the intent to kill her before he turned. You might say that he couldn't have done anything
else; he couldn't just leave the room before he changed, because Willow was in danger. But after all, he never even tried to
take another way out. He might have tried to take Willow and leave the room with her. He might have waited for Veruca to
attack first. The reason he attacked her was because he wanted to.
|
Masquerade 25/2/00
The law isn't always commensurate with our ethical intuitions, but one can see why the law
would disallow preemptive strikes. It's easy for us in this (Veruca and Willow) situation to see
that a preemptive strike is necessary to prevent an act that will almost certainly occur the law
has to be more general, governing many situations of a kind. It gets really sticky at the more
general level to make a law that would allow personal judgements of when a lethal act is "likely"
to occur or when it isn't. Whether an individual's judgement was sound would always have to be
judged after the fact, after they have already been exonerated by this "hero law".
The other defence might be that Oz was not responsible for his actions, since he killed Veruca in
a wolf-state. This seems to me to be negated by the fact that as he made the decision to attack
her and at the beginning of the actual attack, he was clearly still human.
I agree, and that's why he IS responsible. I think people might take issue with what you have
to say because they confuse two different issues--"Was he responsible" with "was he wrong"? He
WAS responsible for killing Veruca he chose to attack her in his human state, knowing the damage
the wolf could do. Was he wrong? No--Veruca had to be stopped, and he had the power to do it.
There's a third issue, of course, which is "what happens when Veruca is taken care of and Oz-wolf
is left with Willow". This was a risk on Oz's part.
Despite his feelings for Willow, he gives in to his animal attraction for
Veruca, seducing/dragging her into the cage with him, when he might have continued to try to reason through their differences or have sought
help from Buffy and the Scooby Gang to control her. Instead he gives in to his own wolfiness. Oz
is seduced as much by Veruca's ideas as by her body.
Yes, but in an ironic move, he gives into his wolf side to kill her when his human side finds
her desire to kill Willow unacceptable. It could be argued that he was following a natural
instinct to protect his mate against her rival, of course, in which case it's just animal
morality against animal morality. Veruca can't condemn him for the instinct motivation for saving
Willow, and in fact in her animal morality, she must accept her final defeat as morally
permissible.
|
Diandra 7/3/00
Maybe it's because here in America, we're closer to the old frontier defense, "he needed killin'," but I think a homicide case against Oz is winnable.
Generally speaking, Oz would need to raise the issue of the defense of a third party, Willow. He has to prove the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that he has to show that his version of the facts is at least 51% likely to be true.
First, Oz would have to think that Willow was in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm, and that Willow would have the right to defend herself from that imminent danger.
There's caselaw, at least in some states, that says that "imminent danger" is what a reasonable person would perceive as a threat of serious bodily harm. (It doesn't even have to be death--it could be rape or kidnap. Or serious dogbite.) Now by the time Oz actually attacks Veruca, he's a wolf, but it probably doesn't matter because I think Sententia's right--Oz did decide to unload on Veruca before he became a wolf.
Anyhow, a jury could consider, in deciding what's reasonable, past threats made by Veruca (she's told Oz she lets her wolfy nature out to play) Veruca's motivations (i.e. she REALLY doesn't like Willow) her slapping Willow and last but not least, the fact that it was nearing sundown and Oz knew that Veruca, already pissed off, jealous, uncontrolled, would be turning into a wereworlf shortly. Assuming you get a jury that believes in werewolves, and that the jury doesn't have a romanticized view of them, (i.e. werewolves are the "lonely ones," only with fur)it should be pretty easy to convince them that Willow was in serious trouble of serious bodily injury, even thought Veruca hadn't done anything more than backhand her before Oz attacked.
Next, Oz would have to show that he didn't do anything more than was reasonably necessary, and he can't use deadly force unless the danger to Willow was that of serious bodily harm. This latter requirement dovetails into whether his belief that Willow was in imminent danger was reasonable, and as I've said above, I think there's an awfully strong argument that she was in danger.
This leaves the requirement that Oz didn't do anything more than what was reasonably necessary to protect Willow. Given the situation at hand, where he had no weapons but his own strength, there wasn't a lot he could do.
In some states, he would have to show that retreat or escape wasn't an option, which it really wasn't since Veruca was moving pretty fast, and she'd locked at least one door. Remiss of her to miss the door through which Oz came.
If Oz is successful in convincing a jury that things were at least 51% likely to have happened this way, the prosecution must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that not only did Oz kill Veruca, but that it wasn't a matter of self-defense (or third-party defense.) And if the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it WASN'T self-defense, then Oz walks.
And I would love to have Oz as a client--if he decided to take the stand, he wouldn't rattle on like some witnesses do. He can have those big brown eyes fill up with pain when he talks about how he betrayed Willow and how sorry he is. Willow can testify and have her big brown eyes fill up with pain when she talks about how perfectly amoral Veruca was. Plus, what juror in their right mind couldn't identify with Oz wanting to protect Willow (although hmm, that could be a double-edged sword if they decide to hate him for cheating on her...) We know Willow can take care of herself in a lot of ways, but she can look pretty bunny-like. Plus if you could somehow get in footage of Veruca with her band, doing that femme fatale (read, "annoying") head-rolling thing she does throughout the episode--why, I bet the jury would not only acquit, but take Oz out for steak afterwards...ask for autographs...offer to take him into their homes like people did for that cat who kept going into a !
burning building to save her cats. I see endorsements for dog food ("Must be the puppy chow")...a syndicated show on Animal Planet (more entertaining even than the Crocodile Hunter)...guest spots with Jack Hanna on the tonight show...the guy would need an agent, stat. Although Oz, being the principled fellow he is, would absolutely turn all those offers down.
|
ajn 7/3/00
Previous contributors have picked up the points on the formulation of intent. There is one further point to do with Oz's consent to the action which denied him the self control to resist the homicide. A concept known to English common law as the involuntary automaton and which has provided a defence on rare occaisions to persons such as diabetics in a low sugar situation who have commited acts of violence. It is not a defence which is open to drug addicts and drunks who have voluntarily put themselves into the physiological condition where they act as an automaton. It is arguable that Oz's condition is synonomus with that of the voluntary automaton... he put himself in a position where he would be unconfined at sun down and therefore able to follwo throught the intent which he had already formulated to do serious harm to verruca. Also in English law the intention to do serious harm through an attack is sufficient to support a conviction for murder, if the attack ends in a death it is not neccessary to have had the intention to kill at the outset. The defence of diminished responsability which would reduce murder to manslaughter would also not be available to Oz as he formulated the desire to harm before he was under the mental impendiment.
|
Your opinion
Or you can
Email the Webmaster
Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel: The Series are the property of the WB Network or perhaps Fox, maybe both. I'll leave them to work it out and contact me with the result. This web site, its operators and any content on this site relating to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" are not authorized by Fox. No copyright infringement intended. This site is for entertainment purposes only and does not profit in any way.
The picture was taken from The Slayer Show and is © the WB.
The Above the Law banner is an altered form of a screen-cap taken from the The Slayer Show, the original screen-cap is © the WB.
|