Hettie they are speculating.
When they said that they had no problem with Holmes shooting CAM because that is the kind of cold, unemotional thing he would do they are being contradictory. On the one hand they want to show Holmes as an emotional man who makes mistakes and lets his emotions get in the way but on the other they want him to be so cold blooded as to shoot an unarmed man in the head.
It is their interpretation of Holmes and I'm sorry but I do think they are wrong.
It also irked me mightily when they said that those who criticise the humanisation of Holmes have obviously never read the books. That's just a patronising and wholly defensive reaction.
Tell me, what is the difference between this Sherlock and the American one in Elementary? No doubt Moffat and Gatiss would claim that theirs is more true to the books and certainly they have inserted plenty of nods to the stories and to Doyle himself as well as various film versions but their Sherlock is no different to the American version. It's an interpretation but for their part they have also thrown in plenty of speculation that has not come from or even been hinted in, the books.
Yes you had glimpses of Sherlock's loyalty for his friend, of his sense of moral justice, of his anger at criminality and his protective streak over his clients. It's this very emotion which means that he could not have shot an unarmed man in cold blood.
The stories may have had him breaking the law in withholding evidence, breaking and entering, etc but only once did he threaten to kill someone and that was when he thought Watson had been seriously hurt. Other times he fought in self defence and only once did he threaten someone with a riding crop when he was angry. Very different to shooting someone in the head.
They have speculated about his parents, about sibling rivalry, about his childhood, etc. None of that is in the books. Holmes remained an enigma with the reader knowing nothing of his background. They have changed all that and yes, you say it's about Sherlock himself rather than his skills now, but my argument is that this is the Sherlock that Gatiss and Moffat have created rather than the Sherlock that Doyle had in mind.
It's simply not true that they are sticking to the original character and I think even they would have to admit that now. They've created a new, modern character with similarities to the original Holmes but it's not quite the same character.
In the books, Holmes remains unattached for the majority of the time, demonstrating his deductive skills. Glimpses of his emotions are rare and even then, they don't cloud his judgement. Once or twice he misreads someone. His emotions are usually shown in his humour, his regard for Watson, his concern for his clients, etc. A couple of times his lack of emotions have led to him not acting quick enough to save a life (The Dancing Men is one such example and when he heard of the death he was became morose and despondant) because he was too wrapped in solving the puzzle and didn't pay enough attention to the urgency of the case. That is an example of how his cold nature sometimes worked against him. They could equally have focused on that side to Holmes but they have instead taken one small side to his character which is rarely shown, expanded upon it, speculated over it and developed a new character because of it.
The Holmes in the third series is different to the Holmes of the first series. They can say that is Watson's influence but again, that is speculation and has not come from the books. There is no evidence that Watson softened Holmes whatsoever.
But that's by the by. They are the writers so they are at liberty to do what they like with the character, despite what American heiresses say to the contrary, there is no copyright on the character of Holmes or the stories anymore.
I will carry on watching it and will perhaps enjoy it better if I accept that their Sherlock is not the same Sherlock I've come to know so well. 