Episode premise:
Kivas Fajo is determined to add the unique Data to his prized collection of one-of-a-kind artefacts and, staging Data’s apparent death, he imprisons him aboard his ship.
We know that Data is later logically coerced to lie in “Clues” to protect the crew, but this appears to be a decision all his own. Or did he not in fact actually fire the weapon?
Summoned, I take the place that has been prepared for me.
My thoughts from the other thread:
So, did Data lie?
Obviously the way he words his statement is vague enough that you can say it isn’t a lie. But even so, I don’t think you can take it at face value. He was clearly getting ready to fire, and the episode had made it abundantly clear why he needed to do it, why he was justified in doing it. It’s a strange point for the script to get hung up on, because the difference between being interrupted before he can pull the trigger vs being interrupted as he is pulling the trigger is pretty much irrelevant.
While I’m fairly certain the original intent behind putting the line in the episode is to gloss over the fact that Data was going to kill someone, I don’t think that’s how it comes across. The performances in the scene make it clear that Data is not just flatly denying that he was firing the weapon, nor do Riker and O’Brien take it as a clear statement of fact.
While I’d rather they never put the line in to begin with, we got the episode that we got. And my interpretation would be that what occurred during transport wasn’t a weapon malfunction,* but rather a change in the moral calculus. Fajo had to be stopped, and the only way Data could do that was to kill him while he had the chance. As soon as the Enterprise arrived and beamed him out, that all changed. Fajo would be captured and face trial, and Data would face him in the cell without hostility.
Riker asked about the weapon discharge with some concern. He and O’Brien don’t know what happened, they don’t have the context for the situation. Data knows they can’t fully understand what happened based on a simple verbal exchange. I think you could almost take his reply as dismissive, a rejection of the line of thinking that’s behind the question. Data will make a full report when the time comes, no need to talk through it all there, and no point in covering it in inadequate detail.
* I would hope that weapons don’t just go off at random during transport. Given how often people beam up and down while wearing a holstered weapon that can potentially vaporize someone, I’d imagine that would cause some pretty nasty situations.