what do u think about Jane? the gold digger bitch or good person?
she threatened Walt, ruined Jesse made him a heroine addict. she wanted a way out from rehab so she was using Jesse's money.
on the other side, she wanted the money badly so she has to blackmail walt.
All things that you could see racing through Walt's mind during the few seconds, while she was choking.
shareThat, and jealousy. He angsts that whole episode about not being able to tell his family (except Holly) about all the money he's earned them, and then Jane tells him that Jesse had told her everything. I thought Walt was pretty bitter about Jesse confiding in his girlfriend of only a few months, whereas Walt had to swallow his pride and donate his own money to his family anonymously - in a way that made it look like charity no less.
I personally really liked Jane (love Krysten Ritter as well) but obviously she was pretty volatile and impulsive. Too bad for her that she ever met Jesse.
Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.
Interesting observation...jealously summed up by Walt's comment: "Way to wear the pants...".
shareI love that episode. On my latest rewatch (just a few weeks ago) I made myself a ranking of all the episodes and this made my Top 10. The Jane death is the biggest shock factor of it but so much about Walt's character is revealed in it by his interactions with other characters, besides just letting Jane die.
How he resents not being able to tell his family where the money is coming from (which for someone as prideful as Walt is terribly humiliating), how Holly isn't important to him just in a normal father-daughter way but as the only family member he can be honest with (he even takes her to the laundry room to show her the money), the aforementioned jealousy about how Jesse can be truthful with his girlfriend. Good point on that comment about "wearing the pants", I expect it was out of frustration since - in Walt's somewhat outdated world view - he felt like Jesse could be more openly "the man" in that situation whereas Walt felt emasculated by taking charity through Walt Jr's webpage and having to pass his own earnings as donations as well.
Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.
I don't know if she was bad, but she was definitely naive, and got blinded by Jesse's money. She made some pretty stupid mistakes, the biggest one being (besides choking) was threatening Walt. She didnt know him or what he was capable of, and threatening a meth dealer in her shoes could have earned her a bullet in the head. She was just lucky it was Walt, another dealer may have killed her before her accident.
I'm sure she had goodness in her, but turning someone onto heroin, and giving it to someone for the first time, is very bad. She would have known how seriously addictive it is, being in recovery, and if she really cared for Jesse she shouldn't have wanted that for him.
Sounds awful to say, but I think Walt did what he had to do, in the position he was in. Or didnt do, I guess I should say.
She was just lucky it was Walt, another dealer may have killed her before her accident.
Except Walt did kill her. He was the cause of the accident, which created a moral and legal obligation to save her. He had control of her fate, and chose that she should die.
Sounds awful to say, but I think Walt did what he had to do, in the position he was in.
At least take responsibility for an awful rationalization rather than spinning it as if it only sounds that way.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Okay I will, Jane dying was a good thing for Walt and Jesse. Does that sound better?
Jesus, you know its only fiction right? No need to get so excited there whatlarks lol
And she could have just as easily rolled onto her back on her own, like a towel or blanket pressed against someone is some foolproof method to keep someone laying on their side..you take heroin without somebody around to make sure that doesn't happen when you're passed out, then you take your chances.
It doesn't sound better, but making it sound better wasn't the goal. The goal was honesty.
While not excited, I did think it was worth mentioning that your rationalization is indeed awful, and that it would be more honest to own that than to pretend it only sounds that way. It is what it is, not just what it sounds like.
Good fiction, like Breaking Bad, has relevance to life. It reveals truth about it. It sparks reflection -- including moral reflection. It speaks to the part of us that is most alive. It doesn't have to be "only" something slight. If good fiction had no relevance to life then it would fail to move people. Most people are moved by this scene.
What could have happened is irrelevant. All that matters is what did happen. Jane took chances, but they were her chances to take. Everyone has the right to continue living on their own terms, even if the way they live increases the probability of death, and even if that means they live for just another day, another hour, another minute. No third party gets to decide when they die unless they give formal consent (such as a DNR order). Heroin addicts live through the night on a regular basis.
The fact is that Jane was in a stable situation before Walt broke in. She had taken the precaution to make sure that both she and Jesse assumed the recovery position, which is taught in every basic first aid course. The position minimized danger as much as possible. She tried to increase the probability of survival for herself and Jesse. No matter how slim it may have been, Walt accidentally reversed that precaution, creating a lethal situation. He then deliberately ensured -- i.e., premeditatively -- that her probability of survival would be reduced to near zero.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
All due respect here, but you're coming off as very pretentious. Its a forum and youre absolutely free to say anything you'd like, but there's no need to be rude and condescending because I started off my rationalization with 'it sounds awful'
I said it sounds awful because it is awful, hence why I said it that way. I was stating my opinion, so I dont know how much more I can possibly 'own it'...its already mine lol
Anyways, no disrespect intended, cheers!
I have to say, you REALLY go out of your way to make Walt responsible for the death of Jane. Everything you say is mere fluff regarding this particular event. The fact remains, Jane made the decision to take drugs and that's what ended her life. Period. Walt didn't put a gun to her and force her to do drugs. He didn't deliberately turn her on her side. She started choking on her vomit (because of her drug use) and Walt chose to not save her. You talk about Jane taking the necessary precautions and about how stable she and Jesse were when THEY WERE ON DRUGS. Precautions guarantee nothing and stability is nonexistent when someone is on heroin. Walt was not required by law to save Jane. Just like a passerby isn't required by law to save someone getting attacked in an alley way. The same concept. Your logic is so severely flawed it's laughable.
shareWith regards to Whatlarks key point, that Walt disrupted Jane after she put herself into the recovery position, I think we need to consider how effective that is.
I mean, let's say Jesse had a pink teddy cam in his room and it caught Walt on tape bumping into the pillow and Jane rolling over onto her back. But Walt then leaves, and 5 minutes later Jane stsrts choking and dies.
If Jesse took Walt to court for murder or manslaughter, with this evidence, would/could he win?
we need to consider how effective that is.
How effective that is was plainly shown to us: Jane was not in critical condition before Walt, but in a stable one. All that matters from a moral and legal perspective is the context which actually existed during the time Walt was in the room.
If Jesse took Walt to court for murder or manslaughter, with this evidence, would/could he win?
Not in that scenario, because for the law to apply Walt must know that he'd put Jane in critical condition. If, in this alternative scenario, she wasn't actually in that condition at the time, then he couldn't be held responsible for her starting to choke 5 minutes after he left. There's no discovery, no premeditation, no controlling.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
What's "laughable" is your asserting the law so confidently yet so ignorantly. Here's the breakdown:
Walt was not required by law to save Jane.
In fact Walt was required by law to save Jane. Under US law there are in fact seven exceptions to the so-called bystander rule, any one of which is sufficient to determine culpability for murder. Walt/Jane meets these 2 of the 7 exceptions:
1) If you accidentally create a lethal situation for another and you are aware of it, you are legally obliged to take reasonable steps to help them.
2) There was a significant relationship between victim and potential rescuer, which greatly influenced the direction of events.
Sometimes a deliberate choice not to act is as real and effective a tool for murder as a physical object -- and the law accounts for such context.
Jane made the decision to take drugs and that's what ended her life. Period.
You're mistaken, period. Jane's decision put her life at risk, but it was her life to risk, not Walt's to condemn, which is just what he did.
Skydiving tempts fate, yet if someone accidentally damages your chute, realizes it but doesn't warn you, then your death would not be the result of your choice to skydive, and they would have committed a crime. This is even more the case if there is a personal relationship involved.
Walt premeditatively ensured Jane's death, as the show made very clear. During the crime we see that Walt did not act mechanically, merely from an unconsidered and rash impulse, which would constitute second-degree murder. Rather, the close-up of his face, along with sufficient time, provides clear evidence that he weighed and considered the question of killing Jane.
Walt took absolute control of a lethal process, consciously changing it from an accidental beginning, which he caused, into a conveniently applied tool by which he could get rid of a personal problem. He appointed himself judge, jury and executioner.
At the point Walt took absolute control he may as well have had her own hands around Jane's neck, choking the life out of her. From then on, he alone could determine her fate, and he alone consciously chose that she should die.
Precautions guarantee nothing and stability is nonexistent when someone is on heroin.
Nothing in life is guaranteed to last. There is no legal or moral requirement that Jane's situation should have been more stable than it was. Stability was in fact existent at the time of Walt's break-and-enter. All that matters is that Jane's condition was stable before Walt, and that state changed to a perilous one due to his interference.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
In fact Walt was required by law to save Jane. Under US law there are in fact seven exceptions to the so-called bystander rule, any one of which is sufficient to determine culpability for murder. Walt/Jane meets these 2 of the 7 exceptions:
1) If you accidentally create a lethal situation for another and you are aware of it, you are legally obliged to take reasonable steps to help them.
2) There was a significant relationship between victim and potential rescuer, which greatly influenced the direction of events.
First off, Walt wasn't aware of what he did. He sat on the bed to wake Jesse and she happened to roll over. At no point is it even implied that Walt knew that she rolled over because of him sitting down. So I guess 1 out of 7 isn't so bad (being sarcastic). You're still reaching though.
Skydiving tempts fate, yet if someone accidentally damages your chute, realizes it but doesn't warn you, then your death would not be the result of your choice to skydive, and they would have committed a crime. This is even more the case if there is a personal relationship involved.
This is in the top five worst analogies I've ever heard. Damaging someone's chute, knowing that you damaged their chute, and letting them skydive anyway is a FAR, FAR, FAR cry from sitting on a damn bed and someone rolling over because of such. And again, Walt wasn't even aware that she rolled over at that point, much less that she rolled over because of him.
Walt premeditatively ensured Jane's death, as the show made very clear. During the crime we see that Walt did not act mechanically, merely from an unconsidered and rash impulse, which would constitute second-degree murder. Rather, the close-up of his face, along with sufficient time, provides clear evidence that he weighed and considered the question of killing Jane.
You keep using words like "murder" and "kill" but it's clear you don't understand the definition of either. The cause of someone's death would have to be that of another individual. For example, I put a gun to your head and force you to shoot heroin and you die because of it. That's murder. There needs to be intent for someone to be charged with murder. The fact of the matter is Walt had no intention of killing Jane when he went to that apartment (as far as we know). The cause of Jane's death was the heroin and she's the one who chose to take it. Without the heroin being in her system, she'd still be alive. Sure, Walt realized that her death would be beneficial for both him and Jesse and It's morally repugnant of Walt to not rescue her (that is if you didn't watch the show and saw that scene out of context), but to act like he was the CAUSE of her death is absurd. He sat on a damn bed. Stop reaching, dude.
At the point Walt took absolute control he may as well have had her own hands around Jane's neck, choking the life out of her. From then on, he alone could determine her fate, and he alone consciously chose that she should die.
You really suck at comparisons. I won't even entertain this drivel you wrote here.
Walt took absolute control of a lethal process, consciously changing it from an accidental beginning, which he caused, into a conveniently applied tool by which he could get rid of a personal problem. He appointed himself judge, jury and executioner.
A lethal process that was CAUSED by Jane's decision to use drugs. And once again, Walt wasn't aware of what he did (but really didn't do). As far as he knew, she was just ODing...and as for your judge, jury and executioner bit...Jane chose to use drugs, knowing it could kill her and it did. That's what happens. Your analogy makes zero sense.
Nothing in life is guaranteed to last. There is no legal or moral requirement that Jane's situation should have been more stable than it was. Stability was in fact existent at the time of Walt's break-and-enter. All that matters is that Jane's condition was stable before Walt, and that state changed to a perilous one due to his interference.
Sigh. Can you even begin to comprehend the life-threatening dangers associated with hard drugs like heroin? There is ZERO stability for a person who's on this kind pf drug. People OD on this stuff all the time, whether they lie on their side, backs, or their damn heads. It's the nature of the drug. So for you to act like Jane was "stable" before Walt stopped by is just delusional on your part. The guy SAT ON A BED. Like I said before, you're really, really reaching here. Walt had no intention of hurting Jane, didn't consciously realize that him sitting down caused her to roll over, and he didn't make her do drugs. You say that it's up to a person to make their own choices in life, no matter how questionable they may seem. Great. Jane made her choice and suffered the consequences because of it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Ultimately, Jane was responsible for her own death. So no, Walt didn't "kill" her, no matter how desperately you try to stretch the definition of the word.
Walt wasn't aware of what he did. He sat on the bed to wake Jesse and she happened to roll over. At no point is it even implied that Walt knew that she rolled over because of him sitting down.
First, he didn't just sit on the bed, but actively shook Jesse, and since Jane was spooned to him, he shook Jane at the same time. Jane didn't just "happen" to roll over, and certainly not because of Walt sitting down. You haven't watched this scene with enough care.
Since Jane was spooning with Jesse while Walt was shaking him, it would be impossible for Walt not to realize he'd dislodged her. She was lying tight with Jesse's back, her hand on his waist, in Walt's immediate field of view. The two overhead shots amply demonstrate this, and the impossibility of Walt's not realizing he'd shifted her away during his shaking.
The "reaching" is in actually believing Walt wouldn't notice he'd separated Jane in spooning position from Jesse as he's shaking him -- and worse, you don't even know it was his shaking him that caused her to roll. You actually think she rolled when he sat on the bed.
a FAR, FAR, FAR cry from sitting on a damn bed and someone rolling over because of such.
Since you didn't risk saying why the analogy is a far far cry from it, your complaint is empty, and can be dismissed.
Your next paragraph is full of more bold pronouncements born of ignorance of the law. Breaking it down:
There needs to be intent for someone to be charged with murder.
As there was, if you actually read the paragraph you quoted.
The fact of the matter is Walt had no intention of killing Jane when he went to that apartment
The relevant fact, legally and morally, is Walt's intention once he got to the other side of the bed as Jane was vomiting. What he intended when he went to the apartment isn't relevant.
Next, since you won't even entertain the comparison, your complaint about it is once again empty, and can be dismissed.
A lethal process that was CAUSED by Jane's decision to use drugs.
No, that's mistaken. Walt ensured Jane's death, not Jane, or the heroin. Taking heroin made death more likely for Jane, but it didn't ensure it. That is a major difference.
Again, Jane was in stable condition before Walt put her in a critical one, and at that point under the law (and the moral reasoning informing that law), Walt created a duty for himself to take reasonable steps to rescue her. Walt not only accidentally negated the safety precaution Jane had taken, but accidentally reversed it, changing her condition from stable to critical. Under US law he therefore created a duty to help her.
Everyone has the right to continue living on their own terms, even if it's just another day, hour, or minute. Regardless of how much risk Jane put herself in, Walt denied her any chance of making future choices to avert death. He denied her all probability of survival, no matter how slim it might have been. That was not his right.
Jane's situation before Walt knocked her over didn't need to guarantee her safety in the future, even if only a few minutes more. All that matters with respect to determining whether a crime was committed is that Jane was in stable situation before Walt, meaning she had some probability of survival, and no matter how slim it may have been, Walt predmeditatively ensured that it became zero.
Jane chose to use drugs, knowing it could kill her and it did.
Again, take any dangerous sport: every participant knows it could kill them, but even given that conscious risk, if someone were to accidentally put a participant in harm's way, knows they did, and deliberately doesn't help, then they are culpable. This is even moreso if there is a personal relationship involved.
There is ZERO stability for a person who's on this kind pf drug.
You're as ignorant about heroin as about the law. Heroin addicts routinely beat the odds. They get through the night, and many nights. Vomiting is common to heroin use, yet quite evidently users do not always die from asphyxiation. Many take care to sleep in the recovery position just like Jane, who made Jesse do the same. Those with enough resources become functional addicts for a long time. If there was actually "zero" stability, then every heroin user would die. Which is of course untrue.
Again, everyone has the right to continue living on their own terms, even if the way they live increases the probability of death, and even if that means they live for just another day, or another hour. No third party gets to decide when they die unless they give consent (such as a DNR order). Jane tempted fate, but it was her fate to tempt.
So no, Walt didn't "kill" her, no matter how desperately you try to stretch the definition of the word.
According to the correct "definition" - i.e., US/New Mexico law, and the moral reasoning underlying it - Walt was indeed guilty of murder. I have the relevant legal material at hand, so if you would like details it's easily done.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
Ah, more hot air. You must either be a very good troll or a very bad lawyer.
A pretty big part of your reasoning for Walt being responsible for Jane's death is that he deliberately made her roll over and was aware that that's what caused her to vomit. You're absolutely wrong abut this. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Walt was paying no attention to Jane and was SOLELY there to attend to Jesse. Despite what the cinematography shows us, as far as Walt knew, he didn't do anything to make Jane OD (when he really didn't). He was completely focused on Jesse until Jane started choking. This is why your entire argument is as flawed as it is and why your parachute analogy is terrible. The scenarios are no where near being the same and the fact that I'd have to explain that to you (which I did, you just chose not to open your mind) is pretty pathetic on your part. Damaging someone's chute, knowing what you did, and letting them jump out of an airplane anyway IS murder. YOU are the CAUSE of their death. That is not the same as someone taking drugs, putting THEMSELVES at the risk of death, and then someone else inadvertently causing them to roll over and not even being aware of what they did; especially when it was the drugs that ended the person's life, not being flipped over in bed. Your analogy is a joke and your entire argument is invalid because of such.
And please, you CLEARLY don't know a thing about heroin, or meth, or coke, or maybe even weed for that matter. Because if you did, then you'd know you can't assure anything, you can't control anything, that taking the drug is a mess of a rollercoaster ride regardless of what damn position you sleep in. If there was some foolproof way to "beat the odds" then no one would drop dead from drugs. Even long time, functioning addicts can OD at any given point and it happens every single day. That's why people refer to taking drugs as a game of Russian Roulette, because of how unpredictable the whole lifestyle is. In this case especially, unpredictability is synonymous with instability. So why you continue to act like Jane's decision to use heroin isn't what ended her life is beyond me. Normal people just don't vomit in their sleep when lying on their backs. So again, if Jane wanted to live life on HER terms, taking the risk of using hard drugs like heroin, then great, that's her choice. But she suffered the consequences because of it. That was the CAUSE of death. Not being rolled over, inadvertently, because of someone else trying to wake another person up. You can't expect to have the right to make bad decisions in life and then also expect people to bail you out when it all goes south. That's called having your cake and eating it too. Jane died because of her decision to use heroin. Walt let the event run its course, but he didn't CAUSE it. Walt would have to be the CAUSE of Jane's death to be convicted of murder, which he wasn't, at all. So yeah, you really don't understand the definition of murder. But go ahead and keep stretching that "legal" definition till it pops like a rubber band, even though the entire basis for your argument is tripe as I pointed out in my opening paragraph.
I'm not from the US so I'm going by my understanding of law (I'm a lawyer, neither criminal nor criminal though) from my own country. Here what Walt did would definitely not be murder, but it would be negligence. He had the chance to save Jane's life but decided not to, that isn't murder or even manslaughter, but it is a criminal offense by omission - failure to do something which any person is legally required to do: help when possible.
It's like a random situation where you see a car crash and decide not to stop and call for help, or you see a stranger dying on the street and simply walk by. We have the legal obligation to act in those situations, deciding to not do so is an offense. With Walt a prosecutor would have a good case for gross negligence since Walt was integral in causing that situation (knocking Jane over.) In situations where you cause - intentionally or unintentionally - a situation such as that one, you have diminished responsibility if you actively try to (I am sorry, I don't know the jargon in English, it is not my native language nor the language I studied in in law school) prevent the consequences of your actions. But Walt didn't do that.
Do you even know what honor is?
- A horse.
In the US there are 7 exceptions to the bystander rule. Under US law, what Walt did would have been ruled murder - and first degree murder at that, since it was premeditated.
Jane's death involved two of those exceptions. Create a dangerous situation for another, and if you're aware of it, you've created an obligation to take reasonable steps to help. The existence of a personal relationship - i.e., baggage - is the second relevant exception.
People often say that Walt just let Jane die, but it's not that simple. This is because Walt had a significant measure of control. Specifically, he had the capacity to give Jane a chance of survival, or to leave her with virtually none. The course Jane's struggle took wasn't necessarily inevitable because of the very fact of Walt's presence. That the end was death was only made inevitable because Walt chose to make it so. The very fact that he chose not to intercede indicates he had significant control of her destiny.
In certain conditions, such as this, to not act is as tangible and powerful a weapon as committing a physical assault -- only far more serviceable, since it nearly eliminates the risk of leaving personal traces. Which is why the law provides for those exceptions to the bystander rule.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
It's telling that you didn't take up my offer to provide details on the law regarding this situation.
A pretty big part of your reasoning for Walt being responsible for Jane's death is that he deliberately made her roll over
Evidently you can't read plain English, since exactly none of my reasoning is that idea.
you can't assure anything
Again, you can't read plain English, since I've neither stated nor implied that argument.
Basing your response on two major misreadings renders it irrelevant. That's not too impressive.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
I didnt take up your offer because you suck at analogies and a large chunk of your reasoning is flawed. You keep saying Walt was "aware" of what he did when he wasn't at all, since there is no evidence of that like I said to you, so him being responsible murder-wise is ridiculous. Because of that, very little if any of your argument bolds any real water. The poster above might be correct when they said Walt could be charged with negligence of some kind. But the "murder" element is stupid. So yeah, you're nitpicking and twisting things around in a way that's borderline delusional. You haven't clobbered anyone. You're a moron.
shareI offered to quote the law, not make an analogy. You literally can't read plain English sentences. No wonder you don't understand analogies.
If you really had confidence in your statements about the law you'd take me up on my offer to quote it in detail. You're afraid it would show that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Which it would.
It would be impossible for Walt to miss noticing that his shaking Jesse moved Jane onto her back. This is because she was literally connected to Jesse, pressed right up against him with her hand on his hip before Walt shook him, and she detached from Jesse while Walt was shaking him, and the whole time Walt was looking in that direction.
You have only your insistence that he couldn't have known, whereas I've described the physical scene, including the camera positions/viewpoints that make this evident. Stamping your feet and insisting really isn't sufficient.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
You made the parachute analogy and I called you out on how dumb and nonsensical it was. Either you don't even remember your own nonsense or you're, like I said before, twisting things around to suit your own deluded viewpoint. You can quote the law as much as you want, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that a large portion of your argument is based on mere speculation since we don't know for sure as to whether or not Walt knew what he did. Saying "he had to know" just goes to show that you're talking out of your ass. He was focused on Jesse, not Jane. So for the last two posts all you've contributed is how I can't read when you'e the one who cannot even remember what the hell you're talking about. Be consistent at least.
shareI plainly stated that "I have the relevant legal material at hand, so if you would like details it's easily done." That's the only offer I made, the only one I referred to. You're off on a tangent, confused that I'd offered another analogy.
As for that analogy -- but any risky activity will do as an analogy -- you merely insist it's nonsense without providing any grounds for saying so. That's why it's just an empty complaint, and can be dismissed.
Jane was physically connected with Jesse, with no separation between them. Look at the shots again with more care: there is no way Walt would not have had Jane in his field of view while shaking Jesse, no way he would have missed that she was dislodged from that position while he did so.
When it comes to Walt's awareness, you merely insist rather than offer any evidence. That's in contrast to what I've done. Disagree all you like, but at least try to present counter-evidence instead of just stamping your feet and saying it ain't so.
Just insisting without any reference to concrete details - whether from the actual show, or the actual law - is nothing more than empty words.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
And no, just because of what the filmmakers show us that doesnt mean that the character is on the same page as us, the audience. The camera angles tell us that Walt flipped her over and that led to her vomiting, that DOESN'T tell us that Walt was consciously aware of what he did. Not at all. So you're description of the physical scene reveals nothing except that you're projecting onto the character, because Walt was focused solely on Jesse at that point.
shareWhen Walt enters the room he's shown taking in the whole scene -- the pair of them lying together, spooning. He knows the "before," even prior to sitting on the bed. Then there are two shots from above Walt's shoulder which show that sitting on the bed with Jesse only inches away and Jane not much more, he would have had Jane in his field of view the whole time he was looking in that direction. Which means he'd have Jane's movement in his field of view, specifically her shift from physical contact with Jesse to lying flat on her back. Sitting so close to both Jesse and Jane would make it impossible for Walt not to know he'd accidentally changed Jane's position. He'd have to be both blind and mentally challenged not to know. And Walt was neither.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
The bitch ODed and it was her own fault. Walt had the opportunity to save her but decided to pass for various reasons. It might be "awful to say" but junkies die of ODs and this is a thruth. No need to be so butthurt.
Btw, I am myself someone who loves drugs but I know what moderation means. If someone doesn't, it's his problem.
me too, anyone would have killed her. she died for good for walt, maybe for jesse too. we dont know, whether they would live a happy life after running, or end up on drugs all the time like Mr. Spooch and his wife..
shareDescribing Jane so reductively as merely good or bad can never be accurate. I think it's useless and also detrimental to think in such black and white terms. It's not faithful to life, or to the nature of Breaking Bad. People, like characters, are not robots, with a single-dimension program. They aren't a balance sheet of quantifiable traits that can be added or subtracted to arrive at a definitive sum. People are more than the sum of their parts. They are inconsistent, paradoxical, ambiguous.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
spoiled, reckless, irresponsible, sick
apply yourself
Was glad Walt let her die
share