|
|
Post by MsElliott on Nov 11, 2015 4:00:01 GMT
Why would it be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives? Integrate a quote in your response.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cassandra on Nov 11, 2015 8:42:03 GMT
It would be unfair to reveal who saved the kid's lives because Boo Radley already has prejudices against him and it would also get him convicted, despite him saving the children, hence Heck Tate insisting that 'Bob Ewell fell on his knife' and killed himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by kayleewilliams on Nov 12, 2015 22:23:04 GMT
Why would it be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives? Integrate a quote in your response. It would be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives, as people already had bad thoughts and opinions of Boo Radley, and even created horrible rumours about him. They already believed that he killed another man, so they would have been suspicious and would have gotten him convicted for the murder. |
|
|
|
Post by Cassandra on Nov 12, 2015 22:27:10 GMT
Why would it be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives? Integrate a quote in your response. It would be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives, as people already had bad thoughts and opinions of Boo Radley, and even created horrible rumours about him. They already believed that he killed another man, so they would have been suspicious and would have gotten him convicted for the murder. I agree with this also, because it shows that whilst Boo is a minor character, there are big issues and rumours surrounding him and his lifestyle and history. |
|
|
|
Post by kayleewilliams on Nov 12, 2015 22:27:33 GMT
It would be unfair to reveal who saved the kid's lives because Boo Radley already has prejudices against him and it would also get him convicted, despite him saving the children, hence Heck Tate insisting that 'Bob Ewell fell on his knife' and killed himself. I agree. The citizens of Maycomb were known to spread rumours about him too, so it could only have ended badly. |
|
|
|
Post by kate Fincham on Nov 12, 2015 23:29:41 GMT
Why would it be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives? Integrate a quote in your response. It would be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives because they would naturally assume that whoever saved them also killed Bob Ewell. Even though Heck Tate insists that Ewell simply "fell on his knife and killed himself," since Boo is already the subject of so much gossip and has so many rumors about him circulating there would have been speculation that he killed Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by zoewatson on Nov 13, 2015 10:14:38 GMT
Why would it be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives? Integrate a quote in your response. It would be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives, as people already had bad thoughts and opinions of Boo Radley, and even created horrible rumours about him. They already believed that he killed another man, so they would have been suspicious and would have gotten him convicted for the murder. I agree, they want to be respectful of Boo and they are thankful that he saved the kids. |
|
|
|
Post by remimckenzie on Nov 19, 2015 9:03:56 GMT
It would be unfair because Boo Radley is already ostracised within his community, and to say that he killed someone would create an even bigger space between him and the people of Maycomb. Therefore, it is decided that they would say "Bob Ewell fell on his knife" to avoid suspicion of who killed Bob, and to avoid Boo being thrown in jail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hope15 on Nov 19, 2015 11:14:30 GMT
It would be unfair to reveal who saved the kid's lives because Boo Radley already has prejudices against him and it would also get him convicted, despite him saving the children, hence Heck Tate insisting that 'Bob Ewell fell on his knife' and killed himself. I agree. The citizens of Maycomb were known to spread rumours about him too, so it could only have ended badly. I agree with both of you and it would also be unfair as instead of receiving thanks and recognition for saving two children's lives from his community, it is likely that Boo would be judged and convicted for killing Mr Ewell. |
|
|
|
Post by mackenzieg on Nov 19, 2015 12:28:23 GMT
It would be unfair to reveal who saved the kid's lives because Boo Radley already has prejudices against him and it would also get him convicted, despite him saving the children, hence Heck Tate insisting that 'Bob Ewell fell on his knife' and killed himself. It may also be because Heck does not want to disrupt Boo's way of life seeing as any public attention could make him uncomfortable |
|
|
|
Post by zoebia on Nov 19, 2015 20:18:41 GMT
Many people judge Boo and don't trust him because of the many stories they have heard, this would mean that if it came out that he saved the kids life people wouldn't see it from that angel, they would think of him as a killer.
|
|
|
|
Post by lilyklunyk on Nov 19, 2015 20:46:19 GMT
It would be unfair on Boo to let the public know that he saved the kids. Even though he would receive positive attention for it, it would make him feel very uncomfortable because of the way he has been brought up and the way he lives his life. Scout says that telling the public that Boo was their hero would "be sort of like shootin' a mockingbird".
|
|
|
|
Post by Yor a wizard Harry!! (Ashton) on Nov 19, 2015 21:31:05 GMT
Why would it be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives? Integrate a quote in your response. To reveal who the true murderer and or savior in the childrens case, would be a literal death sentence for Boo. It is not the fact that Boo is the person to blame, but the existent prejudices that rules the minds of those around them. Saying Bob Ewell "killed himself" presented an ideal, 'get out of jail free' card. |
|
|
|
Post by stewarts on Nov 19, 2015 23:20:52 GMT
To reveal the identity of the childrens saviour would be to reveal the killer of Bob Ewell. Since Boo was already subject to speculation and he didn't need a murder accusation. Saying Bob Ewell "killed himself" allows Boo to remain anonymous.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewarts on Nov 19, 2015 23:27:29 GMT
Why would it be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives? Integrate a quote in your response. It would be unfair to let the public know who saved the children's lives, as people already had bad thoughts and opinions of Boo Radley, and even created horrible rumours about him. They already believed that he killed another man, so they would have been suspicious and would have gotten him convicted for the murder. This gives Boo more of a chance to integrate into the accepted lifestyle |
|
