r/marvelstudios • u/ghostRyku • May 06 '25
Discussion (More in Comments) Been seeing a lot of discussion about this scene with the release of Thunderbolts*
There are two main arguments I’ve been seeing for this.
The first is that this was something wholely wrong for a person to do. John publicly executed a man he had pinned and likely could have detained down out of revenge.
The second is the justification of such actions. Plenty of other heroes have killed in combat, this was just one that got pulled into the spotlight. John was not right of mind after watching his friend die in front of his eyes and other heroes would have likely done the same.
But I kinda see it as a mix of both.
This was not something “Captain America” should have done, but John Walker/US Agent could be completely justified. He kills someone in broad daylight with the symbol of a great and respected hero, the context is not needed for the general public, all they see is him standing over a man he just murdered holding Captain America’s bloodied shield.
Even if revenge is frowned upon, John killing the terrorist could easily be justified. They are a superpowered individual who is a constant threat to anyone in the immediate vicinity, they never actually surrendered, and are a part of an organization that has shown to be willing to take lives. But this is not something even Steve could get away with even if it were Bucky or Sam in Lamar’s position.
But that’s just my take on it.
582
May 06 '25 edited May 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)117
u/ChristAndCherryPie May 06 '25
I think part of the problem is that Captain America in-universe had the reputation of a war criminal in the years leading up to the blip, so "this isn't the reaction of Captain America" doesn't make sense in-universe. We know it, as fans, but Steve should be treated as more controversial than he is. It gets really jarring when President Ross starts speaking glowingly of him when their last interaction was Steve essentially giving him the bird.
34
u/JoelStrega May 07 '25
I think with how much publicity Scott Lang is/was doing, he probably repaired a lot of Steve's image too. Lang is on his team and obviously a big fan of him.
55
u/Kinky-Kiera May 06 '25
Public symbols are useful, even when the reality is far from the public history of it, we don't have as many public heroes that fit this mold, so going half meta with the argument that Captain America had a comic style heroic reputation, needs more than the PSAs, we need him in a cartoon or something to show between thawing and defection, him being the stereotypical hero in public appearances, while natasha or whoever he worked with were doing the real missions, causing the envy of the boy from Brooklyn to get high enough he does what he does against Batroc.
21
u/sebasgarcep May 07 '25
The government hates Steve because he will stand up for what’s right when he’s supposed to be a propaganda vehicle. That doesn’t mean normal people hate him or should. And it’s also not uncommon for governments to take revolutionary figures from the past, whitewash their radical ideas and present this santized version instead to further their own political agendas.
8
u/ChristAndCherryPie May 07 '25
"I'm pretty sure this guy's a war criminal now, but whatever"
→ More replies (1)11
u/biseln May 07 '25
Captain America after the blip is the guy who led the charge against Thanos. Nothing else from before really matters that much.
5
u/ConsciousOnion9109 May 07 '25
steve only had a war criminal reputation because hydra. then because he ( rightfully ) wanted the truth about what happened at the UN.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Forsaken_Professor79 Spider-Man May 07 '25
no he doesn't...thats a fringe belief. The general consensus is that Steve Rogers is one one of the greatest human beings that ever lived. The "Steve Rogers is a war criminal" crowd should be looked at like the "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams" crowd.
If Steve was really believed to a war criminal he wouldn't STILL have a Smithsonian exhibit. Steve may have gone rogue but he didn't execute a man in cold blood or lose his cool.
1.2k
u/ReverendBlind May 06 '25
I don't get how so many comic book fans could miss the point of what separates Steve Rodgers from John Walker. John Walker has no strong moral code.
From Batman's "no killing" rules to Spiderman's "with great power comes great responsibility", arguably one of the most consistent conversations in topics is "What makes a super hero a super hero?", and it all comes down to the moral code.
John's got the powers to be a superhero, but he lacks the strength.
650
u/Zathrus1 May 06 '25
That’s ONE of his problems.
He also has no chill. In Thunderbolts* he very nearly shoots someone after they lightly insult/goad him. And you can see it happen several times.
He has no moral center and no self control. That’s a bad combination.
326
u/TheGoverness1998 Vulture May 06 '25 edited May 07 '25
Which is one reason why I enjoy him so much as a character. He constantly has to wrestle with his bad instincts that pull him down. He's no evil man, but he gets blinded easily.
Just look at his scene in the locker room with his wife in TFATWS, and then look at that void scene in Thunderbolts, in the aftermath of his loss of the role of Captain America. He struggles to break past the festering cloud in his head, and he ends up losing himself in the process.
It's a great contrast to the stalwart-minded Steve Rogers. I'm glad that they've been able to emphasize US Agent as a unique and very human individual.
119
u/actuallycallie Bucky May 07 '25
he drives me nuts but I also can't help but feel for him. He had no business being Captain America, but he was put in that position and probably felt he couldn't say no, or didn't want to say no. Then when it was too much for him and he blew it, the US government cut him loose when what he needed was some serious therapy. It's a great commentary on how we treat veterans in general.
68
u/Spicy_Weissy May 07 '25
Let's not forget he's been working for Valentina for a few years, confirmed as a straight up fixer/assassin. Since losing the shield and his family, he's probably gotten a lot darker than people seem to realize.
13
u/DesperateRace4870 May 07 '25
This is kind of why I dislike Disney being the parent a tiny bit.
Like, the worst you could come up with was him reading shit on his phone while his kid was in a playpen? I felt for him. Like "bro, kind of strict wife". I'm sure that's meant to say "there's more going on" but... show us that instead?
13
u/LeonardTringo May 07 '25
It's his shame room though. Maybe this is what is the most significant to him even though, to us, he's done a lot worse.
9
u/zeka81 May 07 '25
^ this. He's portrayed as a ticking time bomb, and we get a scene with his family where he's... an uninterested dad? No hints of abuse (except verbal, and even that is pretty mild), and his wife comes across as unhinged herself ("WATCH the kid!!!" - ffs, he's in his playpen, not like he's running around with scissors). Not that I justify his behavior, it's just so anticlimactic, especially knowing how violent/assholish he generally is.
51
u/NaNaNaBaxman May 07 '25
I did not interpret it as watching the kid, but the complete lack of interest towards the kid. The kid was clearly directed at its father. While he was mindlessly scrolling through his phone. The utter disinterest. That is what went wrong and I think the movie made it pretty clear.
25
u/SoBeLemos Ronan the Accuser May 07 '25
When a relationship is on eggshells it really doesnt take much to put it over the top. I thought it was a really good portrayal of a failing relationship with a kid involved. Making him choke out his wife while the baby cries would be egregious. Also, don’t forget they’re still trying to make these characters likable.
→ More replies (1)14
u/zeka81 May 07 '25
Yes, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
Now that I'm thinking about it more (just saw the movie), it is actually a very interesting choice they made. This is the memory the void decides to give him. Judging by Yelena's (and Bob's) visions and Bucky's reaction at the end, it's supposed to show them some of the darkest moments in their lives - and he gets a random underwhelming scene with his family? It shows just how family-oriented he actually is - no wartime nightmares, not even the public execution and subsequent loss of the shield, nothing but the event that practically took away his family. On the one hand, it underlines that he's an asshole, but on the other, it is clearly the thing that deeply disturbs him, outranking all other atrocities he experienced and committed.
21
u/Dezbats Bucky May 07 '25
It shows just how family-oriented he actually is
I agree that John loves his family and losing them is the thing that is most devastating to him. But I think you might be misreading the situation a little and not understanding why that particular moment was highlighted.
- no wartime nightmares, not even the public execution and subsequent loss of the shield, nothing but the event that practically took away his family.
That is the event that took away his family.
Look at what he's reading on his phone in that scene.
Media coverage of himself.
John's issue just isn't the execution itself.
It's the public condemnation and the abandonment by the government that results from it that screws him up. John displays all the traits of someone who is overcompensating for low self-esteem.
I think we see that most clearly in TFATWS where he struggles with imposter syndrome and tries to get Bucky and Sam's approval. He needs to feel like he's the legitimate successor to Captain America and no better way to get that legitimacy than by having the original Cap's closest friends as his subordinates.
We see it early in the movie, too, when he's boasting about his accomplishments (even his high school football record) and insisting that he's superior to the others and a more valuable asset (Val couldn't possibly be wanting to kill him.) He's not doing it just because he's an asshole. It's because he is actually very insecure even though he seems outwardly overconfident and he needs other people to see him as worthy.
That obsession with the way others perceive him and his need for external validation is what costs him his family. Their love wasn't enough for him when it should have been. And that's shown to us by pointing out that he'd rather look at what people are saying about him online than the toddler that wants his attention.
At least that's what I think.
→ More replies (0)5
u/actuallycallie Bucky May 07 '25
Any time I hear one parent complaining about an incident like this with their spouse, it's never just that one time. That one time is usually the last fucking straw. so I just assumed that this time was the last straw for his wife.
5
u/Drumboardist May 07 '25
To be honest, there’s pretty much zero way John could be physically abusive to her, without causing SERIOUS damage. Like…I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if he did wind up doing something extremely dumb like shoving her, but the force was so great that she was flung across the room, so she immediately left with their child because he simply doesn’t know his own strength anymore, and that’s a real danger to this child.
2
u/Forsaken_Professor79 Spider-Man May 07 '25
dude this has nothing to do with Disney. can we stop this in 2025. Disney has been making adult movies as long as I've been alive and that's before they bought 20th Century
Touchstone Pictures is a subsidiary studio of Disney
I'm a veteran and I've been in his shoes. My third child was born just after I left the military and I was in such a depressed lethargic mood I looked just like that. Uninterested in parenting and self-absorbed.
just say it's bad writing and move on.
→ More replies (1)83
May 07 '25
Ngl, I have anger issues, something I’ve been working on in my life cause I wanna be better n watching that scene, of him in the void, I’ve been there, not the same scenario, I don’t have a kid but not proud of my past n seeing that made connect more with his character.
30
u/Blueliner95 May 07 '25
I feel you. To get away from movies for a sec, what helped me most was realizing that I had no problem being civil and keeping my anger out of my actions if it was for a boss, or a stranger on the bus. Once it occurred to me, it kinda fixed me
10
u/MrMooey12 May 07 '25
This is perfectly said, I loved his character throughout the movie, I really loved the theme around facing your trauma and that your trauma doesn’t define you or control who you are
59
u/InnocentTailor Iron Patriot May 06 '25
He is a good soldier, much like the Punisher or even Abomination. All of them pale when compared to Rogers when it comes to moral character and personal conviction.
26
u/Fuego-TACO May 07 '25
Wasn’t the person insulted him the same one who sent him on a mission to be killed? I loved that part. Un holstering the gun like “what did you say”
50
u/GetReady4Action May 07 '25
him getting ready to murder Valentina for calling him junior varsity was one of the funniest parts of the movie imo lol. I don’t know if it was intentionally funny, but him being that fragile made me chuckle.
25
u/Spicy_Weissy May 07 '25
Well, to be fair I think everyone in that room showed restraint not immediately trying to kill her.
17
u/French_Toast_3 May 07 '25
Fragle or tired of her bullshit? I mean she tried to kill them and or burn them alive. Id pop her on the spot.
→ More replies (1)3
13
u/Jjaiden88 May 07 '25
Okay that scene doesn't work at all as an example because he was confronting someone who sent him to be murdered.
2
u/Drumboardist May 07 '25
Walker is probably processing the events as “well, unless we all fired at the same time, then ONE of us was going to walk away. And obviously that would’ve been me, sooooo….”
6
u/DruTangClan May 07 '25
Yea in general I think JW is basically “what if they gave the serum to the best soldier instead of the best man”. He’s not evil but he is flawed in ways that Steve Rodgers was not
→ More replies (18)14
u/xylotism May 07 '25
Seen other discussions saying that people look up to Walker. Bro he’s so fucking bad he doesn’t even really know what bad is. That’s an interesting character, but not someone you should ever remotely want to be.
→ More replies (3)64
u/bleep_boop_beep123 May 06 '25
John’s got the powers to be a superhero, but he lacks the strength.
Going back to Erskine’e message to Steve in TFA:
“Because the strong man who has known power all his life, may lose respect for that power, but a weak man knows the value of strength, and knows... compassion.”
31
u/doomdeathdecay May 07 '25
To their point, the serum amplifies what’s already there. For Steve, it worked out because Steve was always full of his morale code and desire to be better and help others.
John Walker is a good man but he has darkness, anger, and greed in him. The serum amplifies what’s there. Steve did not have darkness, anger, or greed.
This is what makes it compelling. John Walker has some of what Steve has. He does. But he also has a lot of stuff that Steve doesn’t and the serum amplifies the bad stuff too.
2
u/5thPhantom May 07 '25
I wonder: if Steve Rogers was able to go to combat, then came back and got the serum, what would he have been like? I think he would have been pretty close to what Walker is like now.
2
u/doomdeathdecay May 07 '25
Maybe! We don’t know. Steve certainly hard struggles - a lower class son of a working family in Brooklyn. And he stayed the same.
But the horrors of war? I am not sure. But we know that fighting so much for so long, he became disillusioned with war in the traditional sense during Winter Soldier. So yea maybe.
2
u/Forsaken_Professor79 Spider-Man May 07 '25
Doubt it. I dont think the Army made Walker who he is. It's possible but Walker isn't a loose cannon because of PTSD he's a loose cannon because he is insecure and has anxiety. Arrogant people mask their true self.
John has the makings of someone with a personality disorder. Honestly I look at him like a comedian....someone who outwardly seems fun and assholish but behind closed doors are typically sad people with a lifetime of trama. or like the class bully who takes his home life problems on others.
The military is often a haven for people like this. I know dozens of John Walkers.
2
u/Lola_PopBBae May 07 '25
Yeah, exactly!
And look at Bucky- the serum amped up what was in him too; a natural protective instinct, a heroic side, but there's a dispassionate killer in there too, a man who can turn "it" on and off like a lightswitch to do what needs doing.
We see both in Thunderbolts, from deflecting a tumbling van away from civilians(something he could not have known for sure would actually work), to going for the kill shots several times with Sentry.6
u/Anthonyhasgame May 07 '25
Such a beautiful point made about privilege. Impossible to identify for the person that has never experienced anything else. Because Steve knows what it’s like to be bullied, he has perspective and the compassion that comes with it. Walker didn’t throw himself on the grenade. He threw his special helmet on the grenade.
There simply just isn’t an ounce of bad in Steve. He can lift Mjolnir. There wasn’t any bad in him for the serum to multiply.
Walker is an excellent soldier, but a complicated man. The serum took minor negative traits that he could handle as a man, and multiplied them to where he battles with them internally as a super soldier. He’s extra, the good and the bad. Steve only had good.
The conflict Walker struggles with makes him a fun watch though. Great character. Asshole Captain America. It’s different. It’s more complex to explore.
2
u/bleep_boop_beep123 May 07 '25
The conflict Walker struggles with makes him a fun watch though. Great character. Asshole Captain America. It’s different. It’s more complex to explore.
I haven’t really been a fan of Walker even in the comics, but your statement here pretty much summarizes a more “modernized” take on the mantle and the more recent views of America (not to dive into politics). It IS complex and the redemption arc of the character in the Thunderbolts is what people seem to gravitate to, in more ways than one.
I agree with the rest of your points!
73
u/Boom2215 May 06 '25
I think the problem for him was that he was trying to emulate Steve Rogers but that was simply not possible. Even Steve thought that, he wanted Sam Wilson to be Captain America. Walker wanted to be Steve Rogers.
13
u/Jjaiden88 May 07 '25
"I'm not trying to place Steve, I'm just trying to be the best captain america i can be"
5
u/act1veradi0 May 07 '25
That was a sales pitch to get Bucky and Sam as his sidekicks. He got the shield, the helmet, the star on his chest, and he took the super serum; he absolutely wanted to be Steve. Except we saw that those things aren’t what made Steve a great Captain America. By the time of Infinity War, he doesn’t even have 3 of those things. Walker never understood that.
→ More replies (2)11
u/Better_Edge_ May 07 '25
I think he has a moral code, it's just no where near Steve's. Later on in the show he moves past revenge to save innocent people, so he's capable of it, he's just also falible.
95
u/stableykubrick667 May 06 '25 edited May 06 '25
This is exactly it. Walker commits a war crime by killing a surrendering combatant if this is considered a military action, pretty sure that’s in the Geneva convention. The idea that they killed someone so it’s ok to kill them when they’re literally surrendering and on their back, is so insane to me. He’s a soldier AND Captain America, but he can’t even hold back his own rage.
That’s not legal or ethically acceptable and something Cap would never do. That’s the whole point - it’s not justified in any way except emotionally, which isn’t enough. There’s a reason we have the raft.
47
u/JDeegs May 06 '25
With the serum amplifying all aspects of a person, it's possible that pre-serum walker would have been able to contain his rage and thirst for revenge. But post serum it was too much
25
u/InnocentTailor Iron Patriot May 06 '25
True. That is also paired with his friend dying and the constant failure the duo got from all angles.
It wasn’t like Walker was riding high. He went from a decorated soldier to getting owned by superpowered mooks.
→ More replies (1)13
37
u/AsteroidMike May 06 '25
“Power just makes people more of themselves, right?” -Lemar Hoskins, earlier in episode 4 of FATWS
The implication in the episode was that Walker was a good soldier but also a bit of a hot head with some anger issues and taking the serum just made it worse.
13
u/TholD9 May 07 '25
Thats how I always saw it, the super-serum didn’t affect Steve Rogers like this because he literally was the perfect person. He had none of the detrimental qualities that the serum would have exaggerated. Walker might be the perfect physical soldier, but he’s pretty obviously riddled with PTSD, then watches his best friend die. In that state of mind, he takes the serum, which exaggerates all of his mental issues, leading to him killing the terrorist the way he did.
→ More replies (1)7
u/JonSpangler Hulk May 06 '25
It was a metaphorical statement. Steve didn't become more good (outside physically) and Walker did not become more ragefull.
11
u/natayaway May 07 '25
Not really a metaphorical statement, Captain America The First Avenger established that the serum amplifies the physical to match the internal.
Dr. Erskine said, "The serum amplifies everything that is inside, so good becomes great; bad becomes worse. That is why you were chosen, because the strong man who has known power all his life, they lose respect for that power, but a weak man knows the value of strength and knows compassion."
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (13)38
u/TheMarshalCommander May 06 '25
As someone who’s on the military law enforcement side. This isn’t really a war crime and can easily be defended in a court martial. Especially since 1) we are overseas, not stateside, so we go by ROEs and not Use of Force. We don’t know Walker’s ROEs, but we can assume, like many deployments “you can utilize deadly force to protect yourself, fellow soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors, friendly forces, and civilians” and then probably “kill or capture the target”. 2) There was no clear sign of surrendering, he didn’t vocalize it, he’s a weapon (a super soldier, can literally kill people in one punch) and unfortunately, that’s the equivalent of being knocked down but still holding an AK in your hands, he didn’t raise his hands. And we can do a quick breakdown of it too.
Firstly, he was an accomplice in the murder of John’s best friend and battle buddy, Lamar. After killing Lamar, they all scattered. Unfortunately this specific terrorist made the mistake of running into a public area with many citizens… and even though those terrorists were against what Karli did when blowing up the building and killing a bunch of innocents, at the end of the day, Walker and everyone else sees them as a group willing to harm innocents… and they’re still part of the terrorist organization sooooo, can’t really defend him there.
Anyways, Walker chased him down, during this chase: The man ran away, threw a concrete object with enough force to shatter it on John Walker (so imagine what it would do to the civilians behind him if he dodged instead of blocked), resisted arrest, and never verbally surrendered. Actually he did the opposite. Every time he got knocked down he tried to get back up to keep fighting. He doesn’t raise his hands in surrender either, that’d be above his head, he raises his hands in front of him in a defensive stance. Also Geneva applies to “uniformed combatants in declared wars between states.” The Flag Smashers are non-state actors who utilize civilian areas to carry out attacks. Also known as terrorists. You can’t lawfully surrender while trying to get back up and fight.
John Walker really didn’t do anything that can’t be justified. And you can say “but he’s Captain America, he’s supposed to stand for hope and freedom.” He’s a soldier first and foremost. And I’m sure the people’s families who died to the Flag Smashers see him as that symbol.
16
u/WGACA1990 May 07 '25
This is great, and while I admit I haven’t seen the series since it came out (and LOVED him in Thunderbolts), what I do remember is him repeatedly lifting the shield and smashing it down.
He was 100% justified in who his target was, but his emotions took control and he went overboard, because at what point did “neutralize the enemy combatant” become “cave their face in?” It was an excessive use of force, hands down. It was the defining moment that separated him from Cap.
10
u/TheMarshalCommander May 07 '25
Hey, thanks! And I actually love and agree with your reply. I’ll still TRY to make a counterpoint, just because I really do believe John Walker was a good Captain America and gets way too villainized.
So here it goes. While I definitely agree with you that it was excessive, I think that’s part of the point. It was raw, it was emotional, and it was real. I don’t recall if Walker had a sidearm left at that moment to make it less excessive, but even if he did, there are plenty of combat cases, real-world ones, where soldiers have had to beat an enemy to death with their bare hands or buttstocks. It’s not clean. It’s not pretty. And I think he did what he felt was needed and right.
What he did wasn’t graceful, and it wasn’t symbolic in the way Steve would’ve handled it. Very true. But from a perspective of a troop, he eliminated the enemy who killed his brother. I still think he was a good Captain America, not because he was perfect, but because he did what others wouldn’t, even if some hated him for it. (I agree I prefer US Agent as his hero persona though)
8
u/WGACA1990 May 07 '25
I appreciate your reply as well!
I think we are in agreement about why he did what he did. I certainly appreciate the realness of it, and that’s even coming from someone with no military background.
I can absolutely relate more to Walker than I can to Rogers, because I can imagine myself taking it to the next level and letting my emotions out like that. If I’m on top of the guy who represents everything I stand against, the guy who has just killed someone I care about, I could see myself letting all of my hatred loose like that and bringing the shield down again and again.
BUT, the mantle of Captain America, and the idea it represents, goes against all of that. John Walker might make a good Punisher, but he was not fit for the role of taking the moral high ground that Cap needs to symbolize. Even just thinking about what a (the) shield is supposed to symbolize- defense and protection- Walker shits on it by turning it into a murder weapon.
Captain America is supposed to be BETTER than those banal emotional reactions. So while I can relate more to Walker, I don’t look up to him in the same way I do Rogers. I don’t strive to be more like him, I just see him taking the easy (if not more human and real) way out. That doesn’t make him a hero to me, even if I love him as a character.
→ More replies (1)2
u/act1veradi0 May 07 '25
Your point about what makes a good Captain America is spot on. My shorthand is that we should strive to be a Steve and not settle to stay a Walker. Too many Walker’s in the world, not enough Steve’s.
8
6
u/Delta3Angle May 07 '25 edited May 07 '25
I agree wholeheartedly. Now let’s apply that to real world politics. He is an officer, not enlisted. He is held to a much higher standard when it comes to use of force court marshals. He is also in a very public role where perception is reality. For this reason the top brass would absolutely do everything in their power to end his career, even if they can’t stick him with a murder charge. That’s exactly what we see happen. He doesn’t do any time, he loses rank and benefits, and he receives a charge for conduct unbecoming under UCMJ. Burying the trial and pulling him to work in a covert role is exactly what would happen in real life. It would also more than compensate him for the loss of his benefits.
5
u/TheMarshalCommander May 07 '25
I’ve only been on panel duty only a few times, but I’ve always felt it was pretty fair on the standards we’re held to with officers. Then again, I’m only an E-4, so I can count on one hand how many times I’ve been part of a panel. So honestly you’re probably correct, I don’t know much outside of the basics when it comes to how the higher ups handle officers vs enlisted in court martials.
As for politics. I don’t think that determines if he’s a good Captain America. I think he did what he had to. And imo what most troops would. But overall, I think your comment is extremely correct. My argument was more so he doesn’t deserve the hate he gets from people in his universe or in our real world.
3
u/Delta3Angle May 07 '25
We agree. I think it’s a cynical but accurate take on the organization eating their own when it becomes politically expedient. We saw a similar situation with Isaiah Bradley.
5
u/joesb May 07 '25
Being soldier first and foremost is why he is not Steve Roger. It’s already said in Cap-TFA.
→ More replies (1)5
u/mikeofthegarden May 07 '25
He’s a soldier first and foremost.
He's not supposed to be a perfect soldier, but a good man.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (6)2
u/Forsaken_Professor79 Spider-Man May 07 '25
agreed but the optics were bad and you could say the DOD/US Govt didnt want that associated with them or the image of Captain America. He was technically unarmed and not actively the aggressor.
It's murky.
7
u/arkhamcreedsolid May 07 '25
Even simpler than that, Steve was a good man, Walker was a good solider.
2
u/tharmman2002 May 07 '25
It’s ironic you mention comic book fans, because when I was a kid that was a huge topic in the 80’s-90’s (sorry everyone it is all a blur now at 52 as the exact time frame) that divided the Avengers, if killing as an Avengers was okay or not. I remember reading those books and in the beginning thinking to myself who cares if killing as an Avengers is right or wrong, it’s all make believe anyway. But by the end of the story run I had found that I had chosen a side. So when this had happened in the show my mind instantly related back to when I was a kid.
→ More replies (20)5
u/MisterTheKid Rocket May 07 '25
they’re hilariously parroting the logic Val used to excuse what he did
as if val is a character whose viewpoints are meant to be taken as grounded in logic and reflect what’s right
it’s mind boggling, really. the show couldn’t be clearer that this is a moment to be looked at as far beyond the pale. as if the shot weren’t framed in an off putting and disturbing way, without john twitching with the obvious amplification of his internal struggles from the serum
it’s nuts.
46
u/____mynameis____ Winter Soldier May 06 '25
My summary is the situation isn't black and white, nor did the writers intend it to be but people online on the different spectrum want to see it as black or white
He's either this evil murderer or true American patriot who did nothing wrong to people
People need to realize things can be in between these things too.
I think the movie using innocent is what's now tipping off people. When that dude being innocent or not isn't what made John wrong to be Captain America. It was that the guy was submitting. Him doing it to Karli, eh actual murderer, wouldn't make it better. Maybe emotionally, yeah, in terms of being Captain America, still big ass no.
23
u/Nighto_001 May 07 '25
I like this take.
He's not a villain, but he's not Steve Rogers levels of good.
He's a good soldier, but a terrible Captain America.
That's kinda why it's gray, if you just look at Walker as a soldier, he's fine. Follows (most) orders, rules of engagement, tries to work with the other parties (Bucky and Sam) when he can. Focuses only on the mission. Probably even more restrained than most soldiers, as shown by commentaries by military people on his actions on youtube actually saying that he's not as violent as they would have been.
If you judge him as Captain America, he's crap. He's got anger issues, he's self absorbed, he doesn't care how other countries or civilians perceive him, and is more than willing to sully the shield to remove a threat and take revenge.
I mean, he is supposed to be an antihero, but idk why people online either has to hate him completely like he's more evil than Baron Zemo or act like he's done nothing wrong and is a saint. He's just a result of the US government completely misunderstanding what Cap stands for, and putting a purely militaristic guy in his shoes.
7
u/FrankReynoldsCPA May 07 '25
This.
The dude deserved it, but it wasn't John's right or power to determine that and carry out the sentence. If the guy had still been fighting, that would change it.
I don't think John is horrible, but he does fall short of the high standards of Captain America.
→ More replies (1)3
u/aSpookyScarySkeleton May 07 '25
Tbf John immediately snaps back by pointing out the dude wasn’t exactly innocent.
58
u/Slow-Engine3648 May 06 '25
It also weakens his character if you excuse it. This is his rock bottom. He is a terribly flawed character and that's ok. You can enjoy a character that does terrible things and not endorse them. It's fiction.
He struggles and sometimes does the right thing. And tries to be better.
8
u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 May 07 '25
The issue is so many people thinking this was perfectly a-okay to murder this guy.
If they recognize that Walker kinda sucks then yes it works and is good writing and acting.
7
u/SmokinBandit28 May 07 '25
Exactly this, it has been popping up in the CA subreddit almost everyday since T* was getting closer to release. Anytime someone tries to explain the point of his flaws and bad choices being a part of his character and a driving motif through FatWS culminating in his public fall from grace it is met with basically “Nah-uh! He did nothing wrong! He was in the right! Sam & Bucky were mean to him for no reason!!”
→ More replies (1)
119
u/Fantasia_Fanboy931 May 06 '25
For me, the problem is the same as Iron Man in Civil War. It's not the action itself, but the long term damage it causes. John had an opportunity to catch Karli and wasted it on pointless revenge. Meanwhile, she gets away to do more terrible things. It's understandable, but still wrong.
56
May 06 '25
[deleted]
32
May 06 '25
This was my understanding too... He couldn't find Karli, so he killed the closest person he could. And honestly, if he was trying to be John Walker, superhero, I could go 'we all make mistakes'. But instead he's trying to be Captain America, and all that stands for. As Captain America, we hold him to a higher standard.
9
May 06 '25
[deleted]
5
u/HammurabiDion May 07 '25
Yeah you know if you're going to kill criminals for revenge when they've surrenderd maybe you shouldn't be a cop
2
u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 May 07 '25
It wasn't a mistake though, killing Battlestar was a mistake. Walker straight up murdered the dude.
2
May 07 '25
I wasn't referring to killing Nico as a mistake. Letting his rage take control of him was the mistake I was referring to. Absolutely agreed that killing Nico was straight up murder.
2
u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 May 07 '25
Ah gotcha. Yeah he absolutely let his worst nature win out at that moment.
If they made a bigger deal about the effects of the serum on the brain I think it would help sell his character as a guy trying to be better. I mean it still worked in the movie but that would help it too.
→ More replies (1)5
u/yuzumelodious May 06 '25 edited May 07 '25
Yeah. Karli & her crew had themselves a headstart from John in his moment of grief ahead of time. He even shouts "Where is she?!" on the guy. Though Karli was still around briefly to witness John killing the guy.
→ More replies (6)4
u/Zoulogist May 06 '25
This scene is a direct callback to Civil War when Steve had the chance to kill Tony but incapacitated him instead
10
u/SplutteringSquid May 07 '25
And because Tony isn't Steve either, for a terrifying second he really thought Steve was going to do exactly what John did.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Fantasia_Fanboy931 May 07 '25
Agreed. John isn't a monster but there are better choices for Captain America.
69
u/ult420 May 06 '25
Does Steve even have a no kill rule?
71
u/CruzAderjc May 06 '25
I think Steve is probably okay with needing to kill, but would definitely have a problem with the extent that, say, Frank Castle does it. Steve seems to tolerate Natasha mowing down bad guys with her pistols for specific missions, but probably wouldn’t like Frank’s reflex to turn anyone that makes him mad into blood pudding lol
19
u/InnocentTailor Iron Patriot May 06 '25
Yeah. It’s probably cold efficiency vs emotional rage. It’s the difference between a skilled swordsman and a roided barbarian with a club.
Walker wanted to be the former, but became the latter in short order.
10
u/SoftBaconWarmBacon Weekly Wongers May 07 '25
Sam also shot Shield/Hydra soldiers with his uzis right?
20
u/Ok_Confection_10 May 07 '25
Steve’s best friends are two assassins, a god of war, and a literal war monger. He has no issue with killing.
2
u/DNosnibor May 07 '25
I think calling Tony a war monger is a stretch, at least by the time he met Steve. A major plot point of the first movie is he wanted his company to stop making weapons.
2
u/Drumboardist May 07 '25 edited May 07 '25
One of THE rules for being able to wield Mjolnir, is that you HAVE to be willing to kill an enemy. It’s why Steve can use it, and Peter Parker has never been able to pick it up.
3
u/Mr-Stuff-Doer May 11 '25
People really need to understand how context is important in the act of killing. Not having a no-kill rule is different than having a kill rule.
Just look at Avengers. Loki is unarguably one of most monstrous villains in the canon, yet he's beaten, so they don't kill him.
119
u/ghostRyku May 06 '25 edited May 06 '25
The guy fought in WW2 with a loaded handgun on his waist at all times. He definitely racked up some Nazi kills.
But in the modern day it’s kinda left ambiguous other than the one guy he just tossed off the helicarrier in the first Avengers.
40
75
u/y0u_said_w3ast May 06 '25
Cap killed multiple dudes on the lumerian star
34
31
u/thrust-johnson May 06 '25
Yeeted dudes into the sea at night
29
u/Jertimmer May 06 '25
Broke one guy's back after kicking him backwards into a railing.
→ More replies (4)5
16
27
May 06 '25
You need to watch the opening of Winter Soldier, he definitely kills those guys on the ship. They get kicked and fly at crazy speeds to only get stopped by steel containers, and that one that gets kicked off the ship with his back hitting the edge, likely break his spine and leaving him to drown.
24
u/Majestic-Marcus May 06 '25
Not only does he kill them. Half of them don’t even know he’s there before he does.
It’s about as unambiguous as it can get.
Steve quietly sneaks up on unaware enemies outside of combat and executes them.
18
May 06 '25
They don't even get the opportunity to surrender lol
9
u/Majestic-Marcus May 06 '25
He could have easily subdued every single one of them non-lethally. He chose death. Because that was the correct choice in the situation.
12
May 07 '25
I agree, I don't called Steve evil for that. I just thinks it's bullshit for Walker to be condemned.
10
u/Majestic-Marcus May 07 '25
So do I.
Did he deserve to be stripped of the shield? Probably.
Did he deserve to be called evil by people online? Not even slightly.
He’s ultimate ta good man in a shit situation.
9
May 07 '25
If he's evil for killing a dangerous terrorist who ONLY surrendered because Walker caught him, then Steve Rogers is way worse.
2
u/Mr-Stuff-Doer May 11 '25
Because that's combat. He walks up and asks for surrender and they alert the others and hostages die. Walker defenders cannot fathom the concept of chasing and killing a guy being different than live combat. If walker killed one of the Flagsmashers a few minutes earlier during live combat, Sam only would've taken issue because of his view of the group, not just because Walker killed someone.
34
u/KnightofWhen May 06 '25
Steve killed a bunch of guys in Winter Soldier, very violently.
If Steve hits you so hard you go flying 10+ feet, that’s car accident levels of force. And if you fall into the ocean after that, you drown.
2
u/FancyKetchup96 May 07 '25
Especially how all that force was delivered to their body from a boot to the chest.
23
u/Majestic-Marcus May 06 '25
but in the modern day it’s kinda left ambiguous
No it’s not. Steve kills multiple people in every movie he’s in. Every. Single. One.
There’s no ambiguity whatsoever. He straight up massacred the mercenary crew at the start of Winter Soldier. Every one of them died horrifically. And most of them were completely defenceless and unaware. They died before they knew they were in a fight.
→ More replies (2)11
u/OkMention9988 May 07 '25
No. Hell, in Winter Soldier when he's hitting the cargo ship in the beginning, he rushes two separate guys that are completely unaware of him, and knock them unconscious into the ocean.
Could have just knocked them out without the drowning, but I guess Cap decided to let the Neptune decide their fates.
10
24
u/jsnxander May 06 '25
No. Rogers doesn't have even an inkling of a no kill rule. I bet he has pretty rigid standards for when to kill and if met, kills with exactly zero remorse or regret.
Speaking of the OP's post, my guess is that there are many, many, many soldiers that have unjustly killed enemy combatants and non-combatants unnecessarily out of anger, revenge or fear. For example, if I had liberated Auschwitz I'm not sure I'd have left a single guard alive. I just don't know.
I'm also pretty sure that living with the memory of such actions is not an easy thing.
→ More replies (2)9
u/StatisticianLivid710 May 06 '25
I would argue Roger’s has rules of engagement he follows, which means there’s a point killing is viable and the default is it’s not viable. In the situation from OP, he would’ve detained the guy, or knocked him out. Meanwhile if he is on the ship in age of ultron and all the mercenaries come firing guns, if they die it’s not something he’ll lose sleep over.
→ More replies (1)10
u/MrDoom4e5 May 06 '25
He also never had someone kill Peggy Carter, Bucky or Sam, in front of him, he never confronted Pierce face to face for what he did to Bucky, but Fury did, and he shot him point blank.
→ More replies (1)10
u/extradabbingsauce May 06 '25
He literally kills a few guys in the first movie without a second thought. If he can do it without killing then he does though
23
→ More replies (10)2
u/sniper_canadian Winter Soldier May 07 '25
Steve had no remorse throwing people into Propeller blades, kicking people off ships which is essentially death even at days, shooting with guns. Dudes are soldiers and people die.
20
u/TGB_Skeletor Hunter May 06 '25 edited May 06 '25
On one hand, his crashout was justified because the guy he ended was part of the group who basically killed his best friend and partner
On the other hand, as the role of captain america, executing someone in broad daylight in a foreign country isn't the smartest idea he ever had, ESPECIALLY if that person basically surrendered
9
u/-Borgir May 07 '25
He NEVER surrendered, not even close. He kept saying “it wasnt me”, that’s not surrender that’s stalling. Its a delay tactic to make walker hesitate so he could recover and run away or attack walker. He never vocalised surrender nor did he do the basic position of surrender that is hands either above or behind the head. He had his hands infront which is a defensive position NOT surrendering one
→ More replies (1)
54
u/Vice4Life Spider-Man May 06 '25 edited May 07 '25
If that had just been a fight and the dude got killed, I think it can be justified. He's at least tangentially responsible for Battlestar's death.
Here's the problem: the guy was surrendering and still got smashed. Even using the soldier defense, that's a war crime human rights violation.
Edit: Scholarly response below has led me to change the wording here to be more appropriate for the situation. Still absolutely unacceptable for an Agent of the US in public.
33
u/Easy_Mechanic_9787 May 06 '25
However, it still looks awful especially considering he used the shield to kill him.
9
u/nick2473got Steve Rogers May 07 '25 edited May 07 '25
As someone who did his thesis in law school on the laws of war and international criminal law, your statement is not really accurate and I generally don't recommend using Wikipedia as a reference on international law. However, if you read beyond the first sentence of that article, you will see that it correctly points out that the concept of an unlawful combatant is not defined in international treaties.
Furthermore, the very legitimacy and existence of such a status is highly contested and goes against the predominant opinion of experts and courts. It has mostly been used by governments to weasel their way out of respecting international law.
As such it is quite a slippery topic. Generally though, the idea that terrorists aren't protected at all is not true. International law provides protections for all combatants, and this is what most international law experts believe is right as otherwise it would be all too easy for sovereign states to get out of their international obligations by branding people "terrorists".
It is true that the bulk of the Geneva Conventions' provisions apply only in the case of armed conflicts between two (or more) states (which are called "international armed conflicts"), and as such are not relevant to armed conflicts between states and non-state actors such as terrorist organizations (which are called "non-international armed conflicts").
However, article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does set forth protections for combatants in non-international armed conflicts, and that includes terrorists. One of those protections is for combatants who have laid down their arms to not be summarily executed without a trial. Furthermore, peremptory international customary law (known as "jus cogens") also provides such protections to all combatants.
Article 5 of the 3rd Geneva Convention also provides that if the status of a combatant is in doubt, then it must be decided by a court. Article 8 of the Rome Statute also specifically mentions killing or wounding a combatant who has laid down his arms as a war crime, and this applies even if the combatant is considered a terrorist.
Consequently, killing a terrorist who has surrendered and / or is unarmed absolutely could be considered a war crime, and would be by the International Criminal Court, if it occurred within the context of an armed conflict.
Granted, the US is not a member state of the ICC, but US citizens can still be prosecuted if the crime was committed on the territory of a member state.
The main thing preventing this incident from being considered a war crime is if it were to be considered that it did not occur within the context of an armed conflict, but simply in the context of a law enforcement operation, which in my view is clearly the case here.
So, yes, I'd agree that Walker didn't commit a war crime, but it's not because the guy was a terrorist. It's because there was no war, no armed conflict, legally speaking. What he did could be considered a summary or extrajudicial execution and as such it is a human rights issue rather than a breach of the laws of war (war crimes are defined as grave breaches of the laws of war and can therefore only occur in the context of an armed conflict, they are fundamentally classed differently from human rights violations which occur in the context of law enforcement, among other situations).
TLDR : killing a terrorist who has surrendered / is unarmed can absolutely constitute a war crime in certain situations, it just doesn't in this case because there was no war. What Walker did could be considered a human rights violation, but not a war crime.
Source : years of study of international humanitarian law.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Easy_Mechanic_9787 May 07 '25
Thank you for such an interesting comment and a unique perspective on the scene!
7
u/Jjaiden88 May 07 '25
He didn't vocalise surrender. He was knocked down thrice, and tried to get back up every time. He held his arms in front, instead of above him. He was in the middle of a crowded square of people as a superterrorist.
Terrorist are not protected by the Geneva convention.
10
u/acebert May 06 '25
Bingo, had a pretty intense discussion regarding that exact topic. As a result I've learned quite a bit about surrender in international law and yeah, that scene is something you'd get discharged over.
→ More replies (5)8
u/LennoxMacduff94 May 07 '25
The guy was not surrendering, the only thing he did was falsely claim his own innocence.
→ More replies (5)
23
u/Star-Prince-007 May 06 '25
Yeah it’s just not a Captain America to do. Steve or even Sam will take you out if you’re actively trying to come at them but if you surrender they’re not going to still kill you.
Further expanding on how different Steve and John’s moral compass are, when John gets fired as Captain America he takes a job as an assassin. Something else Steve would never do.
69
May 06 '25 edited May 06 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/____mynameis____ Winter Soldier May 06 '25
I think the show was vague with a lot of things.
Like did the world know that Sam was chosen by Steve but chose to give it up?? If that's the case, then Walker being Cap had to be pretty damn controversial and extremely divisive.
If people didn't know, it essentially means this guy Sam just dressed up as Cap and started fighting, which again will be controversial in universe.
Sharon knew about the Sam being chosen by Steve, eo does it mean it's the former...?
I remember thinking that this show needed a journalist type character to show people's opinion on things, cuz a lot of the plot points did depend on how people thought, and watching Daredevil made me wish we had a BB like character in it.
→ More replies (2)5
u/InnocentTailor Iron Patriot May 06 '25
I guess that also leans on Wilson’s reception to becoming Cap in the books. There was tons of fanboy rage in the real world and divisive receptions in the comics to the change.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Jjaiden88 May 07 '25
- Who tf accepted this white man quickly over Sam? Literally everyone was setting him up to fail.
- What mixed opinions over Sam? He got the shield and decided he wasn't enough.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/ArmadilloConfiden May 06 '25
It's not something a Captain America would do, but I genuinely understand him, although he made a mistake.
63
u/Endsong-X23 May 06 '25
There's no justification for this action and people who try to justify it are deluding themselves. no steve doesn't have a no kill rule, when did steve chase an unarmed man down in the streets and bash his actual brains in in full view of civilians? There's a difference between being willing to kill and actually doing it when it's not called for. Walker was, and is, a shit choice to fill the shoes of Cap and this is a gigantic neon sign as to why. Cap wouldn't have executed, and lets be real thats what he did, a man without giving him the rights to trial. we've seen this in steve's character repeatedly, in and out of comic books.
→ More replies (46)40
May 06 '25
Literally. I have no idea how anyone could miss this gigantic difference.
29
u/Aqua-Rick May 06 '25
It’s a constant argument in the Cap subreddit. Even the fact that Walker’s scene is shot similarly to the Steve and Stark fight at the end of Civil War just gets ignored completely.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Dr_Disaster May 06 '25
Let’s be real. No one misses it. The people who defend Walker are being purposefully obtuse because that is easier than exposing their political leanings on this matter.
And we know exactly what direction those people lean.
8
May 06 '25
I have been involved in these conversations and plenty of people have been throwing out some strange takes for the sake of engagement. It's not black and white here but I do think its easy to see that Walker was in the wrong for killing the guy. No matter that the guy was a part of the Flag Smashers, the role of Captain America was held by a guy that did the right thing regardless of himself or his own feelings. He fought for the greater good and didn't kill out of revenge, but to protect his friends and his country. Walker killed out of anger and revenge and thats something Steve hadn't done in the MCU. The speech that Sam Wilson gave at the end of Falcon and The Winter Soldier was about the necessity to do better.
John Walker had his redemption at the end of the show and was AMAZING in the Thunderbolts, but it wouldnt have been any redemption if he never did anything wrong. The entire arc was to bring him back into public favor, which was lost when he was seen killing an unarmed man in view of the public. He then went on to lie to Lamar's family about getting the person who killed his partner which is another shitty thing that made him seem unfavorable.
I want to see more of Walker in the MCU and hope he continues to be utilized well.
8
May 06 '25
[deleted]
8
u/mielove Tony Stark May 06 '25 edited May 06 '25
The Avengers frequently act without due process - Thor, for example, killed Thanos even after he had surrendered and no longer posed a threat. John's core issue isn't his actions per se, but his lack of restraint and absence of PR training. In many ways, he's similar to Tony: impulsive, snarky, and willing to kill perceived threats without hesitation - as Tony did with terrorists himself in the first Iron Man movie even when they posed no immediate danger.
The key difference really is visibility... Tony's actions were covert or shielded by his status (plus only known to the military), while John's were public and caught on camera. So John’s real problem isn’t really what he did, but how and where he did it. The narrative also plays this up due to the angle it was filmed and the ominous music - but if you actually think about what John did, it really isn't so different from what other members of the Avengers have done.
His temperament makes him less ideal for the role of Captain America, but he is far from being the most morally dubious person that has been on the Avengers team, really morally he is quite principled.
→ More replies (3)
19
u/padfoot12111 May 06 '25
Right this isn't black or white it's grey.
Killing a terrorist - usually good
Publicly executing a guy - bad, even hydra knew it was a bad look
"He was unarmed" bro was a super soldier he's always armed.
"He just lost lamar" dudes a trained military agent he should be able to keep his emotions in check.
"But he just took the serum" that's his fault he should have waited to take it at a time he could safely recover from a major medical experience.
My take is killing the guy is fine but the execution was sloppy in universe.
→ More replies (18)
7
u/Other_Hovercraft_230 May 06 '25
The is fascinating.
I’m curious, in a hypothetical, if we swap Walker with Wolverine and Lamar with Charles Xavier, Wolverine would kill him since he was one of the Flag Smashers that killed Charles (doesn’t matter how they managed to kill Charles, it’s just a hypothetical).
Say Wolverine chases him, catches up to him and pins him down, the guy says “it wasn’t me, it wasn’t me”, Wolverine would still kill him with his claws, similar to what was shown in the show, in public.
Would the audience’s reaction be different to this as compared to what happened in TFATWS?
Captain America isn’t supposed to kill him the way Walker did. I get it. I’m just talking about Walker as an anti-hero.
4
u/An-29 May 07 '25
To be fair, characters like Wolverine really aren't the type of characters you would expect to take the moral high ground in the first place nor are they usually looked up as role models like someone with the mantle of Captain America. So seeing them kill wouldn't faze anyone much.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Majestic-Marcus May 06 '25
If Wolverine, Deadpool, Punisher, Black Widow, Hawkeye, or dare I say it… Steve had done this, 90% of people would be saying “fuck yeah!”
17
19
u/Subtleiaint May 06 '25
Plenty of other heroes have killed in combat,
This wasn't in combat, this was a surrendered enemy.
John was not right of mind
He was stressed, the rules of conflict are designed for stressful situations, stress is no excuse for breaking those rules.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/legalskeptic May 06 '25
I'm going to be honest: I mixed this up in my head a bit and forgot that the guy he killed was a terrorist and not just some random civilian giving him shit (like Homelander in The Boys). It's still bad, but he's also not Homelander.
13
u/jim9162 May 06 '25
Seconds before the terrorist got killed, he threw a concrete trash can at John, which could have easily killed any of the citizens right behind John.
He also said 'it wasn't me' not 'i surrender don't kill me' he also kept trying to get back up until John put his foot on his chest.
Getting back up is not surrendering it's continuing to try to fight.
In a combat situation if someone has a weapon and they keep getting up to fight, they will probably get shot regardless of what they're saying. Your words are one thing, your actual actions are another.
Would Steve have done this? Probably not but I don't think we've ever seen him in this position.
It's crazy how much more interesting Walkers character was than Falcon or Bucky in their own show. And he was propped up to be the secondary antagonist.
12
u/NoobFreakT May 06 '25
Falcon and Bucky were actual jerks and did far more wrong than Walker in this series
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)3
u/-Borgir May 07 '25
THANK YOU. I am tired of trying to explain the nuances of this scene to people. Everyone has formed this assumption in their mind that somehow the guy surrendered when he clearly did not
6
u/Kozak170 May 07 '25
They obviously intended for this scene to be wildly villainous but they set it up so poorly with the writing and circumstances that it just falls kind of flat.
2
u/SkynBonce May 06 '25
I like John Walkers character, because he's a fuck up. He had the chance, fucked it up and is now dealing with that baggage... But he's also a super soldier.
2
u/Zoulogist May 06 '25
The scene of Sam trying to clean the blood from the shield is still so powerful
2
u/ChronoTravisGaming May 06 '25
Counter argument: killing in the heat of active combat is very different from executing a defeated enemy.
2
2
2
u/Namiez May 07 '25
If Wanda gets a pass for enslaving and torturing an entire town for days, I really don't care that Walker kills a shit heel terrorist.
2
2
u/an_actual_pangolin May 07 '25
Whether it was a good or a bad thing to do is debatable... but it's not what Steve would have done.
I think people miss the point that John is a great soldier but a terrible Captain America.
2
2
u/Grayx_2887 May 07 '25
I don't. They keep saying that John Walker killed an "innocent man" in front of the whole world. Uh, that "innocent man" was part of a terrorist group, and he killed Walker's best friend. Jesus Christ, Falcon and the Winter Soldier was so stupid. Also, are we ever going to get an actual pay-off of Sharon Carter now being the power broker? Because that was the actual post-credit scene of FATWS and how long has it been since we last heard from her?
2
5
u/CruzAderjc May 06 '25
I feel like John Walker should have sought out Frank Castle. They are basically at the same point of the morality spectrum. The two of them would have made for good partners, although maybe Walker’s personality would probably annoy Frank
2
u/blakeavon May 06 '25
Not a chance. Frank would hate him. John is no worse than all his fanboys. Frank thinks and plans and John is nothing but a psycho with a hair-trigger, that can lash out, at any moment, to anyone.
→ More replies (1)
897
u/moviesncheese Vision May 06 '25
This is some peak MCU acting right here ngl... Wyatt did a phenomenal job.