This isn't a question of moral defensibility in any one instance, it reaches deeper, to the (dare I say) ideological foundations of B7 itself. Within the B7 universe, violence is a fact of life (as it is, all too often, in the real world), and is accepted as such by, presumably, most viewers. So I find it disturbing that so much attention, if not outrage, should be directed at just one of a vast catalogue of violent actions. What is more important - the act, or the actors?

Neil

The deaths on Guada Prime (all of them, including Blake) are only significant in the big picture in that they may indicate the death of hope, at least for the time being. As unlikely as it was that rebellion would succeed, well, in the 1st thru 3rd seasons, we saw plenty of other rebel groups. By the end of the 4th season, it was pretty much a struggle to keep the Federation from gaining ground in previously independent areas. This handful of rebels were trying to put together a workable opposition to the opressor. Blake himself was a symbol of the rebellion. His death, like the death of Martin Luther King Jr or Abraham Lincoln, meant that the struggle would be that much harder without him, and the hope of many who had heard of the fight would seem lost. Also, from the standpoint of the viewer, Blake and Avon are 'friends' to the audience-- we've seen their most vulnerable moments, cheered their successes. You care more when a drunk driver kills a friend than someone unknown; it's not a worse thing, but it hits home more. You've lost someone impotant to you. No, Blake's death is not more immoral than other deaths in the series, but Yes, is meaningful because of who he is.

Helen