I probably like this book the most out of the series. So, no wonder, I revisited it a few times.
With more details caught, it strikes me funny, that the security chief Murtry is villainized from the beginning. It's suggested multiple times that he is a killer and a psychopath with empty eyes and an evil grin. Surly Holden and Amos don't let any doubt on that.
This stands – in my eyes – in contrast to his behavior. The guy responsible for the security of the mission and mission participants lost dozens of scientists and security personnel to a murderous terrorist group – with help/reinforcements being a year and a half away. So, apart from the public shooting of the terrorist leader in response to a vague verbal thread, which is extreme, all his moves seemed rational to me. I can emphasize with not wanting to 'turn the other cheek', but getting proactive instead. It wasn't his choice that the remaining terrorist group chose to fight to the last man from an indefensible position, instead of surrendering. It wasn't his choice that the Rosinante crew chose to sabotage the makeshift weapon he built in an attempt to even the odds. Which the reader probably would have approved of, if it had been done by 'our' side. Yes, in the end, he loses it (which then moved Havelock to switch sides), but up to that point, that wasn't announced by anything else but the author telling me so.
So, am I a sociopath?
by rhubarboretum