Cemetery Warriors

Lance Quazar said:

^

1) Indy is not a minor

2) There was a warning sign

3) The cemetery was a sacred, religious site, not just a fenced-in field



But, in my lifetime, I've seen MANY "no trespassing" signs that said "violators would be shot on sight." (mostly in rural areas.)

Wisely, I decided not to tempt fate.

Click to expand...

My analogy to a teenager is that they look like adults some time.

The warning sign said grave robbers would be shot, not trespassers. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Whether a private area is sacred or not does not affect the law - people believe in many differeny gods, and some not at all.

A fact that can't be got around is that the warriors attacked innocent men.
It doesn't matter if the knew it or not. They assumed wrongly and paid for it.
It's their fault - not Mutt's or Indy's.

Dark Horse said:

My analogy to a teenager is that they look like adults some time.

The warning sign said grave robbers would be shot, not trespassers. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Whether a private area is sacred or not does not affect the law - people believe in many differeny gods, and some not at all.

A fact that can't be got around is that the warriors attacked innocent men.
It doesn't matter if the knew it or not. They assumed wrongly and paid for it.
It's their fault - not Mutt's or Indy's.

Click to expand...

There is no difference between grave robbers and trespassers! The assumption is that anyone trespassing IS there to rob the graves, not take souvenir photos.

If you catch me in a bank vault in the middle of the night, the "I'm just trespassing, not robbing" excuse isn't going to wash.

And, yes, they did poke around and take stuff from graves. Ergo, robbing!

And the burden is NOT on the cemetery warriors to ascertain the motives of the trespassers! That's a ridiculous argument. It's not up to me to find out whether the intruder in my house is there to rob me, kill me or just grab a glass of apple juice.

They were enforcing the laws, as clearly stated on the warning sign.

Indy wasn't innocent.

It's the textbook definition of felony murder, a homicide committed while in the commission of another crime.

I'm with Lance on this one.

If I find a guy in my backyard at 2 in the morning, even if he's planting flowers, he's a threat and I'm in attack mode.

If I find a guy in my backyard at 2 in the morning, even if he's planting flowers, he's a threat and I'm in attack mode.

The graveyard in the film is not like a bank; it is not private property (it probably belonged to the government) and it does not have business hours. In any event, a guard or police officer responding to a bank break-in will give the trespasser at least one warning, unless the trespasser is actually pointing a weapon at them.

Analogizing the graveyard to a home is not appropriate. Your home is your castle, you have no duty to retreat. However, you cannot use deadly force to protect your property; deadly force is only allowed if one has a reasonable belief that they are threatened with imminent death or grevious bodily harm. A nighttime invasion of a home generally is sufficient to give a person such a belief, but again, this is a cemetary, not a house or apartment.

The fact that they had shovels probably gave the warriors a reasonable belief that Mutt and Indy were grave robbers. The sign posted warned that grave robbers would be shot. I suppose if the warriors owned the cemetary, or were acting as agents of the government protecting government property, and the law in Peru was shoot first, ask questions later, then Indy could be found guilty of felony murder. However, I'm guessing that the warriors, like Indy and Mutt, were private parties who did not own the cemetary. If this is the case, then Indy was acting in self defense, as the warriors were the aggressors on neutral ground.

Anyway, its pretty clear that Indy and Mutt were in a "kill or be killed" situation. I don't think Indy's killing of the cemetary warrior mitigates his status as a hero in any way.

My god we over analyze things.

I feel like I'm watching a tennis game. Heehee.

All that is told to the viewer is that the darts are poisonous. That's not to say deadly necessarily. Sure, the guy got jabbed in the back of the throat, but i'm not sure that could be considered necessarily a "fatal blow." Personally, it looked like the guy passed out to me.

Naw, man...the guy died. But hey! I like to tell myself that Temple of Doom happened after Raiders, so who is stopping anybody from making us think otherwise about irrelevant stuff like that?

Cairo Swordsmen didn't die either. He was taken to a hospital immediantly after he was out of frame and nursed back to health. And in 2 short weeks he was back on street performing with his sword.

Sadly he committed suicide 2 months later after his Cairo Swordswoman left him.

At least, that's how I see it.

Toht didn't die. He just had a huge headache for three weeks and some fever. Then he deided it was time to recompose himself. Put the pieces together again. He came back as Mola Ram and HE is the real bad guy in Temple of Doom...

At least that's how I see it.

There ya go guys! See, it's all a matter of perspective. Someone should jump on writing a book about where they are now and what they've done with their lives since their run in with Dr. Jones.

Lance Quazar said:

There is no difference between grave robbers and trespassers! The assumption is that anyone trespassing IS there to rob the graves, not take souvenir photos.

Click to expand...

that pretty much kills your own argument right there....

Lance Quazar said:

If you catch me in a bank vault in the middle of the night, the "I'm just trespassing, not robbing" excuse isn't going to wash.

Click to expand...

Comparing a bank vault to a graveyard? Um.....ok....

Lance Quazar said:

And, yes, they did poke around and take stuff from graves. Ergo, robbing! .

Click to expand...

they didn't touch a thing before the Warriors attacked.

Lance Quazar said:

And the burden is NOT on the cemetery warriors to ascertain the motives of the trespassers! That's a ridiculous argument. It's not up to me to find out whether the intruder in my house is there to rob me, kill me or just grab a glass of apple juice.

Click to expand...

Like Kevin said, sounding a warning is pretty much a given. Are you telling me that if you shoot a guy you find in your house, the police are just gonna say "ok, fair enough"? No chance. You'd get investigated and treated as a criminal, and even if he did turn out to be a burglar, you'd probably get in some kind of trouble for using extreme force. If you sounded a warning first, a life might be saved.

Lance Quazar said:

They were enforcing the laws, as clearly stated on the warning sign.

Click to expand...

Unless they had some form of identification, or were a recognized security service, then the Warriors were no better than vigilantes, and had no more or less rights than Indy and Mutt for being in the graveyard.

Lance Quazar said:

Indy wasn't innocent.

It's the textbook definition of felony murder, a homicide committed while in the commission of another crime.

Click to expand...

Indy was innocent. He did NOTHING wrong before he was attacked. You can't trespass in a public place. There were no gates or opening times on the cemetery. Everyone was free to come and go whenever they wanted to.


Now besides my thread being hijacked - I actually prefer Indy being more gritty (i.e. - a murderer etc) I just think it didn't happen in this case.


But back on topic, are there anymore thoughts about if Indy shot that other Warrior? Or was I having a mental episode?

Dark Horse,

To answer your original question (which I thought someone did answer), Indy definitely did not shoot the other Warrior. I haven't seen the film since it was in theaters, but I am 100% positive on this. He drew his gun, but the guy ran away.

I particularly remember that Indy didn't shoot anyone in the entire film.

You are definitely misremembering. But that happens to all of us sometimes, there have been many times I was convinced I remembered a line or moment from a movie only to later learn it was all in my head....

As to a few of your more recent arguments -

You don't have to give anyone a warning that you are going to attack them if they're in your house. That would only serve to endanger yourself.

The cemetery is not a private residence, I'll give you that. However, it is a private place, not a public one. It is also a sacred religious site.

(but you can indeed trespass in a public place. Even public places have rules. You can't go into many public places after dark or when they are closed, for instance. A cemetery at night is a perfect example.)

Indy was definitely trespassing. The presence or absence of fences is irrelevant. As discussed, there was also a warning sign.

There is no way the Warriors could have known his true intention and the order in which the robbing took place is also irrelevant. They saw two trespassers armed with shovels and acted accordingly. The burden is not on them to ascertain the motives, history and mental state of the invaders, just as it's not your responsibility to figure out if guy rooting around your house in the middle of the night is a burglar or a frustrated interior decorator. It's a very safe and fair assumption to make that they were up to no good.

They were completely in the right to attack these invaders and would-be robbers, particularly since there was even a warning sign telling people not to mess with the cemetery.

Indy should never be a murderer. Particularly at that age. He should be more enlightened. Being a bad-ass is great, kicking butt when necessary is great. Murder is not.

Anyone want to know how I see it?

DocWhiskey said:

No........

Click to expand...

Oh come on! Well I was never one to listen to quacks, or snake oil salesmen( )

Well, it seems to me the cemetery was pretty run down and by my estimation virtually abandoned. The attackers were named cemetery warriors not guardians, defenders, or more importantly guards. As likely an explanation as any they were homeless squatters in a forgotten and abandoned grave yard who had no more right to be there then Indy or Mutt.

Indy never fired a shot, sad to say, and only used his attackers weapon against him, self defense. If it was laced with poison it would have been unlikely he would have died, so; live by the blow dart-die by the blowdart.

Rocket Surgeon said:

so; live by the blow dart-die by the blowdart.

Click to expand...

Very true... that would be the way I see it.

Rocket Surgeon said:

As likely an explanation as any they were homeless squatters in a forgotten and abandoned grave yard who had no more right to be there then Indy or Mutt.

Click to expand...

Pure speculation, backed up by nothing.

Indy never fired a shot, sad to say, and only used his attackers weapon against him, self defense.

Click to expand...

So if a burglar uses my gun against me, it's self-defense?

Another point to mention (apart from the ignored points about Indy doing NOTHING wrong before he was attacked, and that there was no warning sign about trespassing )

Indy actually finds the shovels INSIDE the cemetery. He doesn't go there with them.
Also, I'm thinking Indy and Mutt went there in the morning, not in the middle of the night. It's broad daylight when they exit the tomb. They could only have been in there an hour or so.