Did Gollum deserve death?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Recall the words of Gandalf in the Council of Elrond, "I shall roast the old fool over a slow fire". If the ring had been taken by the Nazgul, Gandalf would have killed Butterbur.

I'm not sure if he meant it, as well as I am not sure that even then he would use exactly the method he named. I can hardly imagine Gandalf attacking, stunning and then burning Butterbur (not taking into account that he could hardly do so before the eyes of the townsfolk). Also note that it's Gandalf narrating, describing what he thought at that moment. It may be just "poetic licence" to express his feelings at the moment to the audience.
"Butterbur they call him," thought I. "If this delay was his fault, I will melt all the butter in him. I will roast the old fool over a slow fire."
He expected no less, and when he saw my face he fell down flat and began to melt on the spot.
It is the same way as I don't believe Gandalf wanted to "roast" Butterbur, I don't believe that Butterbur really started to "melt". "Poetic licence", as I said. Also if you look at the context, and take into account whole Gandalf's personality, I strongly disbelieve he would ever kill anyone similar to Butterbur, a simple person who just failed his duty but otherwise is okay. I can even hardly imagine him killing Men. Maybe if he was assailed by a troop of Easterlings, in self-defence, but he did not even kill any Gondorian who blocked the passage to Faramir (unlike Beregond - and not that I would even expect him to do that).

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I'm not sure if he meant it, as well as I am not sure that even then he would use exactly the method he named. I can hardly imagine Gandalf attacking, stunning and then burning Butterbur (not taking into account that he could hardly do so before the eyes of the townsfolk). Also note that it's Gandalf narrating, describing what he thought at that moment.

With the Ring taken by the Nazgul, & the fall of Middle Earth beckoning, there is no knowing what Gandalf could have done to Butterbur. Maybe he would have decided there was no time to lose & give chase to battle the Ring off the Nazgul before they reached Mordor.

On the other hand, Gandalf would be seen as the fool for letting all the responsibility of Middle Earth lay on a letter which Butterbur was entrusted to deliver. This is very foolish & I doubt anybody here would have done the same thing for such an important matter. The wise would acknowledge that the safety of the Ring should come first, ahead of the aid of Saruman.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Mansun

With the Ring taken by the Nazgul, & the fall of Middle Earth beckoning, there is no knowing what Gandalf could have done to Butterbur. Maybe he would have decided there was no time to lose & give chase to battle the Ring off the Nazgul before they reached Mordor.

Actually, if Gandalf returned to Bree and found that the Ring was taken by the Nazgul (and Barney is responsible), I doubt even more that he would waste time with him. "Fool! You don't know what you've done!" - then he'd jump on the horse and be away. And, let's face it and I say it for the last time, he would not kill anyone just like that. That what you are speaking about is NOT Gandalf. After all (and it's funny that we are returning to the main topic of this thread from the other way), he did NOT kill Gollum, who - deserved or not deserved - was surely (at least from what we know) more "guilty" than Butterbur.

Originally Posted by Mansun

On the other hand, Gandalf would be seen as the fool for letting all the responsibility of Middle Earth lay on a letter which Butterbur was entrusted to deliver. This is very foolish & I doubt anybody here would have done the same thing for such an important matter. The wise would acknowledge that the safety of the Ring should come first, ahead of the aid of Saruman.

Sorry for the little irony, but you here speak exactly like Saruman. Logical, technical, but it does not work like that and never worked. Saruman - and you, apparently - would have chosen some sort of similar "better" way to take care of the fate of Middle-Earth. The question what fool would let the fate of the Middle Earth lay on a forgetful bartender is exactly the same as what fool would let the fate of the Middle-Earth lay on a little hobbit. Had Saruman been there instead of Gandalf, and had he been still "on the good side" and wanted to destroy the Ring (and not used it), I am quite sure he would have planned carefully each step to Mount Doom, sent at least six Rangers and one Elf Lord (like Glorfindel) with the Ring and also send some "decoy Fellowships" to force the Nazgul to split (oh, I'm getting too far to it... lovely idea), but I doubt it would've worked. Because ultimately, he'd have persuaded the Council to choose someone else than Frodo to carry the Ring, probably a strong Man, like... for example Boromir. We don't have to press too hard on our imagination to think of what would've happened.
Sorry for the little off-topicness...

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Sorry for the little irony, but you here speak exactly like Saruman. Logical, technical, but it does not work like that and never worked. Saruman - and you, apparently - would have chosen some sort of similar "better" way to take care of the fate of Middle-Earth. ...

Prey, do not speak of others like you know them - stick to the Lord of the Rings, & not individual posters like Mansun, who has greater wit than you, & an education behind him that can only be bettered by Harvard or Oxbridge graduates.