Not really. It was a gratuitous and unnecessary act of violence that isn't really in Jaime's nature. Again, look at the other ignoble acts he's committed in the books and you can apply some moral relativism to them (saving KL, saving Cersei, wanting to avenge Tyrion). I don't believe this falls into the same bracket, as I will elaborate on below.
Because it didn't work. A poor plan is better then no plan. He had little in the way of options.
I'm not seeing the connection. Jaime doesn't a toss about Bran's blood ties. He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and loose lips would have seen Jaime and Cersei sent to the gallows. Again, not condoning his actions but I understand the context of them.
I was talking about the guestright, the breach of which stands on similiar ground as kinslaying as a sin in the faith of the Seven. And even Cersei felt it was entirely unneccesary to just murder him over it, he could have easily been silenced.
Murdering his own relative, thus adding kinslayer to his list of crimes, and trying to escape a camp surrounded by Stark men... which was self-evidently pointless and seemed like a lame attempt at speeding up the plot so that we get to the part where Catelyn lets him go (this happened at Riverrun in the book). It doesn't sit well with me. It makes him look like a psychopath. Did he have to kill Alton in the first place? Apparently, the creator commentary for the episode on HBO Demand has the writers referring to Jaime as a 'monster', which suggests they don't really get his character.
I get the complaint that was selfevidently pointless and just a way to drive Cateln in tight spot, but that's tv. stupid tv logic doesn't equal us actually being asked to see him as psychopath.
That's irrelevant. Jaime acts recklessly but you can't question his intentions. Catelyn had no right to take Tyrion hostage.
Jaime had no idea that Catelyn acted alone, Eddard informed him it was done under the orders of the Hand of the King (which makes it as lawful as anything), then he has Eddards men butchered.
He wasn't going to sit back and see Tyrion murdered for a crime he committed. Again, slaughtering Ned's men might not have been the smartest move but if the Starks can take the law into their own hands, why not him?
Killing random bannermen accomplishes exactly as much as sitting back, if not less in the way of improving Tyrions chances and again Ned Starks isn't just any old civilian that went vigilante, he's the Hand of the King and Lord-Protector of the North, Lord of Winterfell and Cat is Lady of Winterfell. It is entirely their responsibilty to bring Bran's assailant to justice.
Because, if you're going to arrest a member of the most powerful family in the kingdom, you'd better have more to go on than the testimony of one whoremonger, friend or no.
He is a appointed member of the King's small council, a lord in his own right. Calling him "one whoremonger" is ridiculously baised.
And Catelyn didn't take Tyrion because she felt like it. He pointed her out where she wasn't expected to be, with one old man to guard her. Those Riverland bannermen were reluctant enough to get involved when she questioning their loyalty in front of each other. She could make a spectacle of herself or be entirely at Tyrion's mercy. If he was the guy out to get Bran, she wouldn't have made it through the night.