knight rider online

Matthew wrote:Keep the personal insults to yourself please PunkMaister.

Matt

Soory about that but there is nothing I find more irritating than people thinking in absolutes...

With the topic.......
You got to remember, there were 3 people with guns pointed at Mike who could have opened fire at any moment, KI3T asked a logical question to Mike since he was still in charge and didnt know what type of option to go with....

How was it logical when..

a. Kitt has a hard coded program to never take human life

and

b. He had a non-lethal option which would work regardless of what those women where doing. Even if they started shooting the darts would still have solved the problem, so there was really no need for a lethal option.

I believe watching the show from the perspective that we are suppose to see is that KITT and Mike are running on strict government protocol: saving the ambassador, and preventing civil war in ..........uh, ..whatever country she is from.

KITT is not suppose to kill, but he can be over rode if an order is placed by Mike or Torres, granted if the sake of a nation rests upon one man. That's my take on it, and it deems legit. But, I didn't see one thing on KITT's defensive tactics list that looked lethal...did see ski mode

TOS had issues with KITT in conflict on preserving human life at all costs. Mike and KITT are stuck underground, and Mike was losing oxygen. He knew that his chance of survival rested on KITT's turbo boost. But KITT knew there was a probability that it may not be successful, since that turbo boost requires air intake to motivate a jump, and the only resource was in the cab. Mike had to over ride him then on KITT's protocol.

Comparing KI2T and KI3T under the preservation of human life is going to be taken onto a higher platform; we are seeing a darker and more serious situation that TOS barely touched. This was what some of us have been wanting for so long: a serious KNIGHT RIDER!! KITT having to take lethal measures is practical, and is in no way contradicting to his programming if he is suppose to take orders from his pilot. Speaking about pilot, why don't you guys look back at the movie and see what KI3T's reason on searching for Mike Traceur was in the first place.

KnightINSTINCT wrote:KITT is not suppose to kill, but he can be over rode if an order is placed by Mike or Torres, granted if the sake of a nation rests upon one man. That's my take on it, and it deems legit.

Why would he need a lethal option when he had the knock out darts?

because those girls were nuttin' but hoes

KnightINSTINCT wrote:I believe watching the show from the perspective that we are suppose to see is that KITT and Mike are running on strict government protocol: saving the ambassador, and preventing civil war in ..........uh, ..whatever country she is from.

KITT is not suppose to kill, but he can be over rode if an order is placed by Mike or Torres, granted if the sake of a nation rests upon one man. That's my take on it, and it deems legit. But, I didn't see one thing on KITT's defensive tactics list that looked lethal...did see ski mode

TOS had issues with KITT in conflict on preserving human life at all costs. Mike and KITT are stuck underground, and Mike was losing oxygen. He knew that his chance of survival rested on KITT's turbo boost. But KITT knew there was a probability that it may not be successful, since that turbo boost requires air intake to motivate a jump, and the only resource was in the cab. Mike had to over ride him then on KITT's protocol.

Comparing KI2T and KI3T under the preservation of human life is going to be taken onto a higher platform; we are seeing a darker and more serious situation that TOS barely touched. This was what some of us have been wanting for so long: a serious KNIGHT RIDER!! KITT having to take lethal measures is practical, and is in no way contradicting to his programming if he is suppose to take orders from his pilot. Speaking about pilot, why don't you guys look back at the movie and see what KI3T's reason on searching for Mike Traceur was in the first place.

Agreed a 100%

Rockatteer wrote:How was it logical when..

a. Kitt has a hard coded program to never take human life

and

b. He had a non-lethal option which would work regardless of what those women where doing. Even if they started shooting the darts would still have solved the problem, so there was really no need for a lethal option.

If they had started shooting Mike would have been as good as dead from that range as last I checked he is not bulletproof genius! The idea is to save Mike and that takes precedence over the lifes of 3 criminals with clear intent to kill. Had they killed which is the most likely at that range or wounded him just because his programing does not allow to do any harm no matter how dire the situation me and a whole lot of other people would have been really peeved!

There's a difference between doing harm and flat out killing people even if it's for the "greater good". They weren't threatening his life exactly either, they had their guns up, but not pointing at him in a manner where they could actually pull the trigger. They had no real intentions on killing Mike as long as he gave them Gunner Haas. It still seems like a joke that was badly executed. There should never be a situation where KITT intentionally takes anyone's life, even if they are a bad guy, same goes with Mike. There's always another method of disabling them to where killing isn't needed. At worst, Mike should be able to lose it and beat an enemy within an inch of his life or KITT starts picking up more aggressive traits to where he becomes reckless and more dangerous in an episode, putting criminal into a hospital's ICU but again, no killing. There is absolutely no situation where it would be required and IF they ever go that route then it's going to be taking an amazingly easy way out. Sure, Mike's life is priority in the whole "preservation of human life" thing but again there's no reason for KITT to independently decide that killing is the best option because when that starts, there's no going back. IMO it's a line that should NEVER be crossed. If anyone is going to do that kind of dirty work it should be Mike and even then it would be a major mistake to do. It would make them anti-heroes and that got old in the 90s..

But hey, you go right on defending and supporting the whole KITT killing idea while insulting and attacking those who don't agree with you like you usually do. You must really hate super heroes because of the "unrealistic" non-killing stance many characters take. But it seems to work for them nicely.

BTW did KITT ever kill anyone in TOS?


Not that I can recall, KI2T was programmed to protect and preserve human life.
That was the major difference beteween him and (original) KARR.
KARR was self preservation.

You take it your way, and I'll take it mine. In my imagination to what he says is what I stated in the last two posts. We are all looking down from the edge of the cliff half of the time on here, imagining what the real purpose to "this" or "that" is anyway. KITT asks Mike "Lethal or non-lethal?" Was it a joke; was he serious??? Would you prefer KITT simulate a gun shot sound effect? ....well, that does sound more like TOS.

It's fun to speculate at what he really meant.....asking Mike firmly "Lethal or non-lethal?"

"KITT, did you just ask me lethal?"

"These gurls ain't nuttin but trouble, broseph"

For me, I do believe in absolutes when it comes to this "Preservation of Human Life" program or Firmware. It is one of the many reasons that I have enjoyed this show and everything else about it! Take that away and you take KITT away from me.

The only way I may concent on this, is if Mike uses some long string of code or a physical "yanking" of some sort of circut to bypass the program like in Trust Doesn't Rust. And then there had better be some REAL good reason for it (but there should always be another way).

Also another thing...KITT should never suggest the Lethal or Non-Lethal options. He should just offer alternatives and then let Mike choose how best to respond. Then if Mike chooses a "lethal" weapon, KITT can inform him of the lethal nature and his "dominant program".

I am with many others on this...I hope it was a joke in very bad taste or just poorly written....

I'm sorry PunkMaister that I cannot agree on this. But I can agree to disagree. Please don't berate me on this when you respond.

Wow! Would've guessed one line would cause so much debate!? I've been quite entertained by the posts on here. At the end of day I see this as GST's big plan. He's always maintained that Ki3t is learning for a reason, maybe this fits in to that statement somehow. So I guess you could put this down to Ki3t trying to find the line beween humour and seriousness and failing on this count.

PHOENIXZERO wrote:There's a difference between doing harm and flat out killing people even if it's for the "greater good". They weren't threatening his life exactly either, they had their guns up, but not pointing at him in a manner where they could actually pull the trigger. They had no real intentions on killing Mike as long as he gave them Gunner Haas. It still seems like a joke that was badly executed. There should never be a situation where KITT intentionally takes anyone's life, even if they are a bad guy, same goes with Mike. There's always another method of disabling them to where killing isn't needed. At worst, Mike should be able to lose it and beat an enemy within an inch of his life or KITT starts picking up more aggressive traits to where he becomes reckless and more dangerous in an episode, putting criminal into a hospital's ICU but again, no killing. There is absolutely no situation where it would be required and IF they ever go that route then it's going to be taking an amazingly easy way out. Sure, Mike's life is priority in the whole "preservation of human life" thing but again there's no reason for KITT to independently decide that killing is the best option because when that starts, there's no going back. IMO it's a line that should NEVER be crossed. If anyone is going to do that kind of dirty work it should be Mike and even then it would be a major mistake to do. It would make them anti-heroes and that got old in the 90s..

But hey, you go right on defending and supporting the whole KITT killing idea while insulting and attacking those who don't agree with you like you usually do. You must really hate super heroes because of the "unrealistic" non-killing stance many characters take. But it seems to work for them nicely.

KITT never made the decision to kill he simply asked Mike if he needed to resort to lethal force or not, he knows he cannot harm a human being thru direct action, the even in the previous episode cannot be taken into account becaase he was being overriden by the nanovirus. And you are seriously misundertanding where I'm coming from as well, I'm only suggesting the use of lethal force as a last resort when there is simply and absolutely no other alternative, and Superman and other heroes have had to kill enemies from time to as well so is obvious that you do not read the comics. They do avoid the situation for the most part but yes even they have had to do such a thing at least once.

My_Friend_KITT wrote:IMO, No matter how much learning KITT may have, he should NEVER under any circumstances take a human life. A hard-wire program (maybe Firmware) prevents it.

As per the Ryan Arrow incident, KITT was so infected by the virus that it prevented him from detecting said human life. He did not knowingly shoot at the occupied building.

This preservation of Human Life firmware is a very vital fragment of the KR world the new crew (writers) still haven't gotten right.

So far, you're the only person I've seen who has gotten this. THANK YOU.

Vegasmike wrote:BTW did KITT ever kill anyone in TOS?


Not that I can recall, KI2T was programmed to protect and preserve human life.
That was the major difference beteween him and (original) KARR.
KARR was self preservation.

He never actually killed anyone that I can recall, but he sure THOUGHT he killed Michael for a while in 'Killer KITT'. It still bothers me that they never followed up on that.

You know if KARR was never stolen, he might have not been that bad. By hanging around the thugs that stole his AI lead him more into crime.

But what the heck, it was a good episode to watch

PunkMaister wrote:

PHOENIXZERO wrote:There's a difference between doing harm and flat out killing people even if it's for the "greater good". They weren't threatening his life exactly either, they had their guns up, but not pointing at him in a manner where they could actually pull the trigger. They had no real intentions on killing Mike as long as he gave them Gunner Haas. It still seems like a joke that was badly executed. There should never be a situation where KITT intentionally takes anyone's life, even if they are a bad guy, same goes with Mike. There's always another method of disabling them to where killing isn't needed. At worst, Mike should be able to lose it and beat an enemy within an inch of his life or KITT starts picking up more aggressive traits to where he becomes reckless and more dangerous in an episode, putting criminal into a hospital's ICU but again, no killing. There is absolutely no situation where it would be required and IF they ever go that route then it's going to be taking an amazingly easy way out. Sure, Mike's life is priority in the whole "preservation of human life" thing but again there's no reason for KITT to independently decide that killing is the best option because when that starts, there's no going back. IMO it's a line that should NEVER be crossed. If anyone is going to do that kind of dirty work it should be Mike and even then it would be a major mistake to do. It would make them anti-heroes and that got old in the 90s..

But hey, you go right on defending and supporting the whole KITT killing idea while insulting and attacking those who don't agree with you like you usually do. You must really hate super heroes because of the "unrealistic" non-killing stance many characters take. But it seems to work for them nicely.

KITT never made the decision to kill he simply asked Mike if he needed to resort to lethal force or not, he knows he cannot harm a human being thru direct action, the even in the previous episode cannot be taken into account becaase he was being overriden by the nanovirus. And you are seriously misundertanding where I'm coming from as well, I'm only suggesting the use of lethal force as a last resort when there is simply and absolutely no other alternative, and Superman and other heroes have had to kill enemies from time to as well so is obvious that you do not read the comics. They do avoid the situation for the most part but yes even they have had to do such a thing at least once.

First you have no idea what I have read or haven't read so keep your petty little attempts at belittling me to yourself, same goes for others you've attacked and insulted since you've been here because they do not agree with you, it would certainly be in your best interest, trust me Punky, I'm not one you want to start that with.

So come up with some examples, are you thinking of the story of Superman killing of Zod and the Kryptonian criminals in a pocket universe?? Or Doomsday or the Doomsday clones from Our Worlds At War? Zod, Ursa and Non in Superman II being basically falling to their deaths, specifically Zod? Other, non-canonical Superman stories? Golden age stories from 70 years ago? What's next? Batman Begins where Bruce tells Ras that he won't kill him but doesn't have to save him? That's a nice old argument of "did he/didn't he". How about TDK where he inadvertently knocks Harvey over the edge, breaking his neck and killing him ? Hey! There's Wonder Woman's killing Maxwell Lord! Much to the dismay of Clark. OF COURSE there are exceptions here and there especially with comics that have been around longer than probably everyone here has likely been alive, talk about missing the point. Obviously I haven't ready every single comic out there and I'm certain you haven't either, not even close, even the characters I'm a fan of and I am way behind on those and even if I did read it, it doesn't mean I remember exactly what happened. But the fact remains is that for many of them it's not in the spirit of the characters to kill other people.

I'm not misunderstanding anything, you've stated you're not against or would except the idea that KITT would directly kill someone as a "last resort" and I'm saying that there is no such thing in "TV Land" as a last resort that would require doing so and that I'm against any situation where KITT directly, willingly and intentionally cause someone's death, same thing to a lesser degree with Mike who can still be driven by human emotion and be illogical. It would do nothing but damage to either character in the eyes of many. Not to mention the other problems there are with "heroes" killing, even in self defense. There's nothing KITT can't do in a non-lethal manner and good writing but it doesn't mean villains can't die especially when disabling them in a not lethal way is easy enough. Look at Tanya Walker in the original series pilot, ricochet off the window, killed indirectly by KITT or more the car itself. If for some reason we want go back to Knight Rider 2000 with Watts falling in an unintentional death after being stunned. Two examples of bad guys killed with involvement of the heroes of the story, neither intentionally caused and I'm sure I could find more, not including the KR08 pilot where the new KITT also unintentionally caused a couple deaths.


Leave the killing or potential killing to KARR.

PHOENIXZERO wrote:

PunkMaister wrote:I'm not misunderstanding anything, you've stated you're not against or would except the idea that KITT would directly kill someone as a "last resort" and I'm saying that there is no such thing in "TV Land" as a last resort that would require doing so and that I'm against any situation where KITT directly, willingly and intentionally cause someone's death, same thing to a lesser degree with Mike who can still be driven by human emotion and be illogical. It would do nothing but damage to either character in the eyes of many. Not to mention the other problems there are with "heroes" killing, even in self defense. There's nothing KITT can't do in a non-lethal manner and good writing but it doesn't mean villains can't die especially when disabling them in a not lethal way is easy enough. Look at Tanya Walker in the original series pilot, ricochet off the window, killed indirectly by KITT or more the car itself. If for some reason we want go back to Knight Rider 2000 with Watts falling in an unintentional death after being stunned. Two examples of bad guys killed with involvement of the heroes of the story, neither intentionally caused and I'm sure I could find more, not including the KR08 pilot where the new KITT also unintentionally caused a couple deaths.


Leave the killing or potential killing to KARR.

It goes against the spirit of the characters but never the less it does happen. I guess when you have family members in either the military or the police one tends to see things differentlly and not see killing as a last resort an an evil act that can only be commited by villains or murderous robots whatever...

I forgot all about Knight Rider 2000! Yep, KITT aided Mike in the death of..........that one guy......who was bad.

I try not to include that story into my charting into the world of Knight Rider, because that movie sucked so bad. But KITT didn't even offer an alternative to the situation, because there was only one means to resolve. So, KI3T being a learning AI and analysing the scenario, is this the conclusion that all of us can agree on? I'm going to say whether KI3T was older, these are the options that he is fully capable of....which brings me to a deeper question. What if Mike gets brainwashed? OOOooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOO

I think the new Mike and KITT are making a greater team than the originals. KNIGHT RIDER!!!