You wrote:

>>> What she did to Ted and Faith should have killed them if they were human - a good attempted murder is just a murder where something goes wrong. And although the "this is war" rationale isn't something she accepts, it seems to have done the trick for the Knights she offed.

You've accused Buffy of murder or attempted murder in relation to Ted, Faith and the Knights of Byzantium. I will discuss them individually.

Ted

1. Buffy did not murder Ted.

2. Ted was not even human.

3. Buffy did not even attempt to murder Ted. She responded to Ted's assault and battery of herself. Ted struck first, without warning and without just cause.

4. Ted encroached upon the personal space (ie. Buffy's bedroom) of a minor child (Buffy was still only 16 years old) without the permission of either Buffy or her mother. He refused to leave when Buffy told him to.

5. When she thought that she had killed Ted, she was stricken with remorse. She fully accepted responsibility for her actions, because she had not intended to kill him.

6. Ted and Buffy were trading blows. If her blows would have killed a normal human, then she would immediately have known that Ted was not a normal human. It was only after Ted faked his own death that Buffy thought she had killed a human. Thus, she had not been landing killing blows. Recall also that Ted's fake death occurred as a result of falling down the stairs, not as a direct result of Buffy's blows.

7. He was capable of ceasing battle and retreating at any point during the battle. As long as Ted was merely menacing, she couldn't justifiably do anything. The moment Ted landed the first blow, Buffy's imperative changed to protection of self, family and friends. She could not retreat; she was already in her own bedroom.

8. Once Buffy knew that Ted was a robot, it was fair game for destruction. Thus, Buffy did not kill a human.

Knights of Byzantium

Whether she accepted the rationale or not, Buffy did not need the rationale of this is war. Buffy did not willingly march to the field of battle to engage the enemy. Buffy and her family and her friends were running from the threat of Glorificus and the Knights. It was her sincerest wish to avoid any fighting and to get to safety. The Knights had previously stated to Buffy their full intent to murder Dawn and anyone who got in their way. In the battle during Spiral, they were attempting to make good their threat. Thus, Buffy was fully justifiable in protecting her self, family and friends from the immediate deadly attack by the Knights.

The Knights that Buffy may have killed were directly attacking her and friends and family. Buffy was fighting them off with inferior arms and numbers. To conclude that Buffy murdered them is outrageous. Should she have merely laid down and let them murder her instead?

One might ask; was she remorseful? If she was, she didn't have opportunity to show it. Buffy went from battle with the Knights, to siege by the Knights, to battle with Glorificus, to coma, to battle with Glorificus, to death. Somewhere in all this, I think that Buffy deserves a little slack.

Faith

You argue that Buffy's actions with Faith was just a murder where something goes wrong, because Buffy's blows would have killed a normal human. Your argument is a non sequitur. Buffy's blows would have been attempted murder only;

• if they would have killed a normal human, and

• if Buffy did not know that Faith was a slayer.

Buffy did know that Faith was a slayer, thus she knew that Faith was not a normal human, thus she knew that she was not landing killing blows, thus she did not commit attempted murder until she used the knife.

When Buffy went to Faith's apartment in Graduation Day, she did not intend to kill Faith, merely to capture her. My evidence for this is the use of the handcuffs. Only after Faith broke free of the cuffs did Buffy resort to the knife. Buffy was given only three choices in this episode; let Angel die, let him feed upon herself possibly killing her, let him feed upon Faith possibly killing Faith. Since Angel was dying as a direct result of the unprovoked attack by Faith, poetic justice alone suggests the proper course of action. Since Buffy did not die as a result of Angel's cure, then Faith need not have died either. Thus, Faith was fully capable to making right the crime she committed when she shot Angel with the crossbow. Thus, it was her choice to resist Buffy's insistence that she provide Angel's cure. Does a murderer have more right to life than their innocent victim? And what about justice for Faith's crimes?

Faith operated outside the justice of the normal law, both because she was a slayer and because of the Mayor protected her. She was also outside the justice of the Council of Watchers, because they were incompetent. Thus, Buffy was left with the unasked for responsibility of meeting out justice to Faith personally. There was no reason to believe that Faith would not have continued murdering innocent people if Buffy had not stopped her. Let us recall the flack Buffy took for not stopping Angelus before he murdered Ms Calendar and other innocent humans. Because it was Buffy's responsibility to protect humanity from the scourge of vampires, she does bear partial responsibility for not stopping Angelus when she had the chance. By the same argument, if she hadn't stopped Faith, she would similarly be partially responsible for any subsequent crimes committed by Faith. If the police kill a murder suspect in a gun battle with him while attempting to take him into custody, is that murder?

Was Buffy remorseful? I think she was, as shown by her actions in the hospital after she awoke. Buffy always felt some sympathy for Faith, given her hard life without a loving family and friends. Buffy understood that Faith was jealous of Buffy and her place in Sunnydale.