29 Superheroes Who Have Killed People4029
 Collector
|
det_tobor private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by dielinfinite Thanks for the lesson..voluntary manslaughter would do it. Do you think he would be found guilty? And reversing that, Batman walks into a bar doing nothing else. A henchman shoots him out of pure fear because he is so scared of Batman because of his reputation of striking fear. Would the same hold true for him? |
||
| Post 26 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
ZosoRocks private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Towmater ...and you guys think I am taking this too serious?...or limiting my responses?.....now you know why. Perception is soemthing we all utilize.....in both odd and straight forward ways. "Batman could have swung either way".....LOL.....my mind slipped into the gutter for a moment....sorry. But yes....he could have tried to "at least" save the falling guy....or in the least....made an attempt. But clearly he didn't. Now back to the first post I made...."What does the community think?" This isn't about my views....even though I make them....it was for an open discussion. Rational discussion that includes many sides. We all have our perceptions on how "super" a hero can be. Shoot....my heroes are those who died on Flight 93....those individuals knew they were going to die, but instead, chose to sacrifice themselves in order to possibly save many hundreds.....if that plane was actually able to make it to LAX. Soooo....just so everyone understands.....my view of a superhero is one that does not kill....but tries to save people. If killing someone in the process was the result of saving someone, then it can be classified as an accident, self-defense, a "necessity"?, etc.....many terms can be used and many versions of those terms can be said. to justify the term being used. We are talking about fictional characters. This has been just an open discussion, and I appreciate everyone's passion towards those heroes you align with. Shoot - my favorite characters are Batman, Pitt, Ironman, and others.....but I also like the villians - Doomsday, Bizarro Supes, Joker, Brainiac, Doc Ock, Rhino, Magneto, etc. But it isn't about who kills who.....I could care less.....I just thought it might be a different look at these characters that hasn't been discussed. Cheers to all and for all the responses.....keep 'em coming. |
||
| Post 27 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @det_tobor If the indisputable facts of the case were as you put them, then it seems like a texbook case. However, such cases you have to prove state of mind and that he had no malicious intent, which is usually difficult to in practice. The thing about the law is that it should apply the same standards without caring who you are. So in your second case, all-else being equal, the law should apply the same way. That said, the application of the law is done by emotional, imperfect individuals (aka humans) and once again, proving state of mind would be difficult. That said, being found guilty of a lesser crime (or even innocent of that crime) does not absolve one of all the other crimes he may have committed. And being a criminal may cloud things for a jury so proving that the shooting was accidental or unintended when they have a proven history of malicious behavior would be difficult. Of course, I may be wrong. I'm not a lawyer so don't take any of this as legal advice but let's not turn this into a legal discussion, as it's full of technicalities, precedent, etc that can apply to a case and similar cases may have reached a different verdict. The criminal may get a deal for providing information on bigger criminals, etc. And let's not forget that most cases are resolved by plea bargain. |
||
| Post 28 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
det_tobor private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @dielinfinite, does that mean having Bruce Wayne in such a jury would make it easier or harder? same with Clark Kent, investigative reporter? | ||
| Post 29 • IP flag post | ||
|
COLLECTOR
|
dielinfinite private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @det_tobor I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Each juror brings with them their own life experience and whatever tenacity or attention to detail they might have. Jurors are expected to be impartial and to decide based solely on the facts presented in court, keep their deliberations in strict confidence, and certainly not conduct their own investigation. If their alter-egos were somehow involved in apprehending (or absolving) the criminal, they'd be morally obligated to recuse themselves from the case in order for the accused to receive a fair trial. Once again, I'm not interested in a legal discussion so this will be the last I'll be responding about the subject. |
||
| Post 30 • IP flag post | ||
 COLLECTOR
|
conditionfreak private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Some of you know how the justice system is supposed to work, but you don't understand of how it DOES work. The criminal justice system does not in any way, shape or form, guarantee justice. It only guarantees the CHANCE for justice. Some famous people who beat murder charges, and anybody with half a brain knows was guilty. OJ Simpson (2 deaths) Casey Anthony (1 death) Robert Blake (1 death) Lizzy Borden (2 deaths) Al Capone (many) Don King (2 deaths) I won't even mention "Her" |
||
| Post 31 • IP flag post | ||
This topic is archived. Start new topic?