Did Boyd become a monster when he broke Elgin's hand?
inspired by today's thread about Acosta, seems like a decent amount of people think Boyd is somehow horrific for what he did to Elgin and are acting like thinking that Boyd is a fundamentally good person is unhinged
i guess my question is: what was the right answer then? Elgin literally kidnapped a pregnant woman and held her against her will. they are in a place where normal "detective work" is basically impossible and Fatima could be dying at any second. there are no cellphones to track or CCTV footage to examine. no witness. they are in a literal supernatural situation where everyone except Elgin knows that he is being lied to by the entities in the town, but he is a true believer and will absolutely not give any information without extreme force.
again, he has kidnapped a pregnant woman that could have died if they hadnt gotten her location, she was in really bad shape and couldnt even get up. are we really suggesting that Elgin's physical safety is worth more than, again, a pregnant woman he has abducted?
finally, i believe that the boundary set for Boyd by the writers was doing something irreversible. something like what Sarah did. and that is why Sarah did what she did. to preserve Boyd. she even says it explicitly
so whats up? am i a torture apologist despite being strictly anti-carceral like some suggested? or was Boyd justified because of the unique circumstances? personally i find absolutism morality which leaves no room for circumstances useless
edit: have yet to see a single reply about what Boyd actually should have done if not what he did which was the second part of this post