End scene with confrontation between Book and Schaeffer

I think because he'd been at Schaeffer's house at the beginning of the film and you see this cosy family scene that Book is confident that Schaeffer won't shoot.

I think you make an interesting point because, as I recall, the boy's mother DOES scream when Book grabs the boy and says this. If I had edited the film, I would have simply taken this brief moment out, instead showing Book simply saying, "You gonna shoot ME?!"

All that being said, I would say that the film strongly suggests that Book knows Schaeffer very, very well. He knows his wife, his daughter, his family, etc. While on the phone with Schaeffer, Book even mentions an old saying that Schaeffer had regarding corrupt cops who "lost their meaning" or something along those lines. In other words, Book likely knew exactly what he was going to do and knew he would NEVER shoot a child.

Unfortunately, Schaeffer is a somewhat underdeveloped character and we don't know a lot about his thoughts and motivations. But I got the feeling that Schaeffer was once something of a mentor to John Book and that Schaeffer, like most corrupt cops, once truly believed in what he was doing and was genuinely idealistic. You can tell, in the final moments of the film's climax, that Schaeffer feels totally overwhelmed. His plan to kill Book has spiraled out of control.

The look in his eyes says it all.He knows he has failed. He knows there is no way out. He knows he has destroyed his career. And he knows he is in deep trouble. Schaeffer is a villain but unlike the character of McFee, it seems possible that Schaeffer may have a conscience - and John Book knows this all too well. The weight of guilt is so strong on Schaeffer's shoulder's at the end, he can do nothing as Book snatches the shotgun right out of his hand.

In short, I'd say Book acts a lot on instinct and, because he has a very intimate relationship with his mentor Shaeffer, he's confident that he can predict Shaeffer's actions.

<<I understand he's making a point but surely you'd be more considerate of a young boy's life and not want to put him in any harm's way>>

So it was OK for Book to put the old defenceless grandfather in harm's way but not the young defenceless kid?

<<After all he is a cop, and he did in a previous scene instruct the boy to flee the area. >>

The two cases are not parallel. Certainly when he instructed the boy to flee the scene Book was sending him out of harm's way, but there the circumstances were very different to those later on. When he told the boy to flee Book could only guess at what was happening and who (and how many) would be coming to get him. Or who they were coming for. (Just him or him AND the boy?)

By sending the kid away from the farm he was not only sending the kid out of harm's way, he was also freeing himself from having to look out for the kid's safety, thereby giving himself a freer hand at dealing with whatever danger was coming.

By the time he had the confrontation with Schaeffer, however, Book knew what the score was--and so should the audience. If Schaeffer had succeeded in taking Book away, it would not only have been Book who would have wound up dead. Sooner or later Schaeffer would have been back to dispose of any other witnesses. Including the kid. He would have had to or be forever living in fear of someone reporting him.

So what was Book to do? Not put the kid in danger now only to have that same kid face a greater danger, and maybe all alone, with no one at all to help him, down the track?

<<Supposing it had backfired and he did shoot the boy after being provoked.>>

In that case Schaeffer would have had to shoot everybody else who was there as well or face a charge of murder--which at the moment (if case you missed it) he isn't. He may well wind up facing a host of other charges, but not (at least as far as we the audience are aware) murder itself.

Furthermore, as far as I can tell by the time the confrontation happens there are more people at the scene than I suspect there are bullets in his gun. So once he shoots as many as he can, he will still have living witnesses. He would then have to kill them some other way or flee the scene and go on the run himself.

Either way he would left behind a mass murder situation.

<<Seemed a bit irresponsible to me.>>

No, it's called a calculated risk. There are times you have to take such risks or face a worse one down the track. The most obvious occasion when to do so is when you know that you and those you care for are facing certain death if you do NOT act.

Besides, as others on this thread have pointed out, Book plainly knew Schaeffer well. Moreover, it is clear from the movie that Schaeffer himself in unused to doing his own dirty worse. He has McFee and Fergie do that for him. (You'll notice that when the three of them go down to the farm, it's only McFee and Fergie who carry shotguns. They're the ones who will be going into harm's way to get Book, not Schaeffer.

In other words, McFee might have taken a shot, but Book was taking a chance that Schaeffer would not have the guts to do it. Especially a chilld. Killing an innocent pre-teen kid is a much greater step for most people to take than killing someone older.

I thought the question was going to be: why didn't Schaeffer just shoot Book when he was using Rachel as a shield? It was the logical thing to do - they came down specifically to kill Book, and were using the excuse that they were police, and he was wanted for a murder. Schaeffer doesn't want Book arrested, because then the evidence of the drug ring and his involvement in the other 2 murders would come out. So, given this is the case - once Book has already killed 2 officers, 1 with a shotgun in a manner which can definitely be tied to him, why doesn't Schaeffer just shoot him straight away, and claim he killed him in self-defence when making the arrest? The only problem here is that Rachel is a witness, but regardless of what he does, she will be a witness unless he kills her. Since killing Book itself would seem completely justified, the only thing he would have to worry about is Rachel's telling the world that Schaeffer used her as a human shield (if she tried to spread the word that he was involved in this drug ring and book had told her, the fact that Book was wanted for his partner's murder, which Schaeffer implies when he says to the Amish that Book is a murderer, would make anything he told her seem like delusional ramblings, or reassurance that she could trust him by (falsely) explaining his actions, and the investigation would almost certainly go nowhere. And, again, to avoid this completely, he would have had to have killed her, whch he wasn't going to do in the film anyway), but he could just play it off as her being shocked and having Stockholm syndrome, etc. and almost certainly get away with it. Basically, shooting Book then and there achieves all his aims, and gives Schaeffer the very best chance of walking away. He had no reason not to.

Yeah it was upsetting - but I thought it realistically showed how enraged Book was (the movie makes it clear he can be a hothead) and it also kind of emphasised that danger follows Book around - Book had brought terrible danger with him into their community. At the end I kind of felt (a little) that it was a *good* thing that Book left, and took his guns and his anger with him, partly because of that one moment.

I've always thought the same thing about that scene. It was a bit much.