Board Thread:Character Discussion/@comment-26814591-20150724030749/@comment-76.17.103.248-20150725203405

Yes, intellectually and practically speaking, as a leader, you sacrifice the one to save the majority. But easier said than done. He wasn't some chest piece or abstract idea. Finn was a human being and one of their own. Nor was he some stranger. This was someone with a face that Abby knew, and he was the boy that her daughter loved. And even if that weren't the case, Abbey knew exactly what the grounders would do to Finn. How could you as a human being turn over an 18 year old boy to be brutally tortured to death? Is it that easy? And don't forget, it was Abbey who sent him and the others out their armed with automatic rifles in the first place. Finn and the others weren't soldiers, but she risked their lives to try and save her daughter. Abby broke the rules and she bares some responsibility for what happened. So she sacrifices Finn for her own mistake?

Personally, I think there were other negotiations they could have tried. And I'd have talked to Lexa, not Indra who was ruled by hatred. If they attacked the Arkers, they may have succeeded in wiping them out, but not before hundreds of their warriors would have died. The mountain men would go on bleeding some of them and turning others into reapers. They'd always live in fear. Was that worth the life on one broken boy? What reparations could they have made to the village? What punishment of Finn would assuage their outrage. Point out that they had killed the innocent too. They didn't try hard enough, but I guess the writers just wanted Finn to die.