Is Speedball responsible for the deaths at Stamford?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Scoobless
Currently, in Civil War: Frontline, Speedball is being held responsible for the destruction and deaths at Stamford, which in turn sparked off the whole Civil War storyline.

I'm interested to hear how much responsibility you all think he should take for what's going on.

Because everyone loves numbered questions:

1. As it all resulted from his teams (the New Warriors) attempts to get better ratings for their TV show, should he be held accountable for Nitro's attack? (I'm under the impression that the rest of the Warriors did not survive to share any blame)

2. Are the people behind MGH (Mutant Growth Hormone) more, less or equally to blame for what happened?

3. Should Atlantis take part of the blame as a member of their ruling house was directly involved in the "incident"?

4. Is the TV company behind the Warriors' show at all responsible for what occurred?

5. Is Speedball just being used as a scapegoat because the US government couldn't bring in Nitro?
_____________________

These, and other questions, have been on my mind while reading recent Marvel comics so tell me your opinions..... and add more points if you like.

question

Stupid Rookie
Good Points, and all cary some validity. I think he is partly responsible, but not to the extent people are taking it too.

Darth Vicious
I thin he is partially responsible but so is the TV company which no one has mentioned since CW broke out and yes he is being used as a scapegoat.

Grimm22
Whether or not he is guilty he is still being a dick about it

Seriously, imagine if you had the ability to stop 9/11 from happening and you didn't, thats basically how Speedball should feel rather than just saying, "oh its not my fault"

marvelprince
I agree Grimm. He may not have been the one to blow up the kids but he certainly was responsible for what happened. Like bringing him on manslaughter charges instead of murder

Brutacus
Nitro was wanted right or not????
Speedball didn't know that something like this could happen since nitro never had that much power.

The only thing wrong about it is that they tried to make it some kind of TV show.
I mean with super powers, you have to thing twice before you act IMO.

DarkCrawler
Originally posted by Scoobless


1. As it all resulted from his teams (the New Warriors) attempts to get better ratings for their TV show, should he be held accountable for Nitro's attack? (I'm under the impression that the rest of the Warriors did not survive to share any blame)

Yes, he should. Proper authorities should have been called.
Originally posted by Scoobless

2. Are the people behind MGH (Mutant Growth Hormone) more, less or equally to blame for what happened?

Yes, supplying known criminals with stuff that makes them stronger is an criminal offense.
Originally posted by Scoobless

3. Should Atlantis take part of the blame as a member of their ruling house was directly involved in the "incident"?

Well, individual actions of citizens of country are not fault of the country, but I guess some sort of official apology should be issued...
Originally posted by Scoobless

4. Is the TV company behind the Warriors' show at all responsible for what occurred?

Sure, I think that hunting criminals without permission is a crime.

Originally posted by Scoobless

5. Is Speedball just being used as a scapegoat because the US government couldn't bring in Nitro?


Nah...he is more like an example of what will happen without Registration, IMO.

Scoobless
Holding Speedball responsible for Stamford equates to holding every super-hero responsible for the deaths caused by every super-villain that they failed to stop.

For example:

Batman should be held accountable for everyone Joker has killed since their first meeting.

DareDevil should be held responsible for everyone Bullseye & the Punisher have killed.

etc, etc ....

If Speedball is convicted for a crime that was the result of the actions of another individual, that he had no control over, then it opens a brand new set of problems for the MU super-hero community.

no expression

Grimm22
Originally posted by Scoobless
Holding Speedball responsible for Stamford equates to holding every super-hero responsible for the deaths caused by every super-villain that they failed to stop.

For example:

Batman should be held accountable for everyone Joker has killed since their first meeting.

DareDevil should be held responsible for everyone Bullseye & the Punisher have killed.

etc, etc ....

If Speedball is convicted for a crime that was the result of the actions of another individual, that he had no control over, then it opens a brand new set of problems for the MU super-hero community.

no expression

No no expression

Batman didn't encourage Joker to kill people

Speedball and the New Warriors recklessly went in and pushed Nitro to attack.

Nitro wouldn't have killed all those kids if Namorita hadn't gone after him

inamilist
Originally posted by Scoobless

1. As it all resulted from his teams (the New Warriors) attempts to get better ratings for their TV show, should he be held accountable for Nitro's attack? (I'm under the impression that the rest of the Warriors did not survive to share any blame)

Well, yes and no. The fact that the sorta of extra-legal superhero thing is commonplace in the MU does somewhat absolve any responsability he may have had. Up until this point, Speedball had only been rewarded for doing what he did, so in fact, a whole society that supports the actions of superheros is just as responsable as speedball

more directly though, I say no. He didnt kill the kids. Nitro made his own personal descision to blow people up. Nitro is the evil one.

Speedball is just stupid, because he was being encouraged by a seemingly stupid culture of vigilantism.

Originally posted by Scoobless
2. Are the people behind MGH (Mutant Growth Hormone) more, less or equally to blame for what happened?

No

they could possibly be blamed for being indescriminate in who they sold their product to, or for dealing illegal substances anyways, but they didn't kill the kids. Nitro made that choice, independent of what the MGH people said

Originally posted by Scoobless
3. Should Atlantis take part of the blame as a member of their ruling house was directly involved in the "incident"?

Not unless they instructed her to do something.

If i go murder someone, is my mom responsable?

Originally posted by Scoobless
4. Is the TV company behind the Warriors' show at all responsible for what occurred?

maybe, but again, I think this more shows the extension of a society that desired this form of vigilantism. The people who drove the free market and the media wanted to see what Speedball was producing.

The media is only as much to blame as the people who consume it

Originally posted by Scoobless
5. Is Speedball just being used as a scapegoat because the US government couldn't bring in Nitro?


I like that. He probably would be guilty of SOME crime (assult, tresspassing, b&e) but to string him up for the actions of Nitro, c'est terrible

Originally posted by Scoobless
Holding Speedball responsible for Stamford equates to holding every super-hero responsible for the deaths caused by every super-villain that they failed to stop.

For example:

Batman should be held accountable for everyone Joker has killed since their first meeting.

DareDevil should be held responsible for everyone Bullseye & the Punisher have killed.

etc, etc ....

If Speedball is convicted for a crime that was the result of the actions of another individual, that he had no control over, then it opens a brand new set of problems for the MU super-hero community.

no expression

I agree with this 500%

inamilist
Originally posted by Grimm22
No no expression

Batman didn't encourage Joker to kill people

Neither did the New Warriors

in fact, they were doing what was expected of them to STOP villians in the way people expected them to.

If Nitro hadn't blown up the school, this wouldn't have made a differance, because it would have been buisnuss as usual.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Speedball and the New Warriors recklessly went in and pushed Nitro to attack.

recklessly - what does this matter. Every other hero has done far more reckless things than this. Jeez, how many of them have time traveled? Or done experiments on new forms of whatever that just exploded in their face?

Their actions are only reckless by real world standards. By the standards of the MU, it was totally in line with what was expected and encouraged of the super hero community

Originally posted by Grimm22
Nitro wouldn't have killed all those kids if Namorita hadn't gone after him

that is a logical fallacy. We have no idea what Nitro would have done if Speedball had not attacked him. What if he was planning something 5x bigger than stanford and speedball was the one who stopped it?

we dont know the future, all we know is that, given the situation that Speedball put him in, Nitro killed hundreds of kids. HIS CHOICE.

Grimm22
Originally posted by inamilist
Neither did the New Warriors

in fact, they were doing what was expected of them to STOP villians in the way people expected them to.

If Nitro hadn't blown up the school, this wouldn't have made a differance, because it would have been buisnuss as usual.



recklessly - what does this matter. Every other hero has done far more reckless things than this. Jeez, how many of them have time traveled? Or done experiments on new forms of whatever that just exploded in their face?

Their actions are only reckless by real world standards. By the standards of the MU, it was totally in line with what was expected and encouraged of the super hero community



that is a logical fallacy. We have no idea what Nitro would have done if Speedball had not attacked him. What if he was planning something 5x bigger than stanford and speedball was the one who stopped it?

we dont know the future, all we know is that, given the situation that Speedball put him in, Nitro killed hundreds of kids. HIS CHOICE.

I'm not defending Nitro

However, they only attacked the villains for RATINGS!

Speedball knew there was a school there, he knew these guys were powerful enough to decimate the entire town

He knew and he didn't do anything to prevent the worst possible scenario.

grey fox
Originally posted by Grimm22
I'm not defending Nitro

However, they only attacked the villains for RATINGS!

Speedball knew there was a school there, he knew these guys were powerful enough to decimate the entire town

He knew and he didn't do anything to prevent the worst possible scenario.

Wrong .

The only person there with the potential to 'destroy the whole town' was Nitro whom was being amped . The rest were B-listers.

DarkCrawler
Yeah, Nitro usually has the potential to destroy a small house or something. Daredevil has beaten him in the past...so has Spider-Man.

inamilist
Originally posted by Grimm22
I'm not defending Nitro

However, they only attacked the villains for RATINGS!

Speedball knew there was a school there, he knew these guys were powerful enough to decimate the entire town

He knew and he didn't do anything to prevent the worst possible scenario.

nope, and in the real world, that would be horrendous

but, given the MU, thats pretty normal

People fight in the middle of major metropolotan areas all the time, and they are considerably more powerful than nitro or the new warriors

He was doing what society expected of him

willRules
I think Speedball should be held accountable for being so reckless, whereas Nitro should be held accountable for all the people he blew up......

V for Valentine
No.
Nitro is, If it wasn't stamford chances are it would of been somewhere else. Seeing as he was amped insanely and he's a wanted criminal.

Scoobless
Originally posted by V for Valentine
No.
Nitro is, If it wasn't stamford chances are it would of been somewhere else. Seeing as he was amped insanely and he's a wanted criminal.

And he took out an entire SHIELD unit that was sent to bring him in

Scoobless
Most important comic storyline in recent years and people would rather talk about a "what if" Wolverine thread..... why am I not surprised?

no expression

Lucid Lui
Originally posted by Scoobless
Most important comic storyline in recent years Don't be daft. Wolverine's only had like two appearances. How important can it be?

Scoobless
Originally posted by Lucid Lui
Don't be daft. Wolverine's only had like two appearances. How important can it be?

Sorry .... embarrasment

manjaro
mark my words.all those kids will turn out to have been LMD's, or at the very least some massive reality warper or telepath just messed with everyone's minds

Grimm22
Even so, Speedball deserved to be jailed for being such a dick about all of this

Seriously, he played a part in it, you would think he would share some sympathy

inamilist
well

imagine this

all your life you have done what you believe in, what people have told you was right

you did it so well that you got a TV show and people adored you

so, now that some psycho, who should have been in jail years ago, goes nuts when you try to bring him in (in the way you always have) and the entire public you swore to defend, the very people who you risked you life for, are willing to string you up as a scapegoat to allow a piece of legislation through the courts.

Speedball is probably the only charater i really am liking in this story, the whole frontline arc actually is phenominal. Deciding to go to the supreme court in his old costume, that was priceless.

Honestly, I think he represents the only logical side in the whole debate. Crazy evil people kill children, not superheroes. I bet in the MU right now, Speedball is more hated than the Red Skull, how messed up is that?

Scoobless
Free Speedball, Free Speedball, Free Speedball, Free Speedball, Free Speedball, Free Speedball, Free Speedball, Free Speedball, Free Speedball, Free Speedball, Free Speedball!


miffed



(y'know.... if he survives being shot that is.... embarrasment )

Grimm22
Originally posted by inamilist
well

imagine this

all your life you have done what you believe in, what people have told you was right

you did it so well that you got a TV show and people adored you

so, now that some psycho, who should have been in jail years ago, goes nuts when you try to bring him in (in the way you always have) and the entire public you swore to defend, the very people who you risked you life for, are willing to string you up as a scapegoat to allow a piece of legislation through the courts.

Speedball is probably the only charater i really am liking in this story, the whole frontline arc actually is phenominal. Deciding to go to the supreme court in his old costume, that was priceless.

Honestly, I think he represents the only logical side in the whole debate. Crazy evil people kill children, not superheroes. I bet in the MU right now, Speedball is more hated than the Red Skull, how messed up is that?

First off, he went to speak in front of Congress, not the supreme court

Second, Frontline sucks, expecially the last pages of every issue. They make me want to punch Paul Jenkins

NiņoAraņa
eh, i like frontline....it is sorta more intresting then everything else sometimes....like looking back in to the past and comparing it to the present...but then again this isn't about FL, it's about Speedball

he is in some way guilty, but not in the vast form people are putting him up to be, i mean...they want to pin 600 (and 4) murders on him..double u tee eff, people?

he better survive that dam gunshot no expression

V for Valentine
Originally posted by Grimm22
Even so, Speedball deserved to be jailed for being such a dick about all of this

Seriously, he played a part in it, you would think he would share some sympathy

He's never said he wasnt sympathetic. He just wont take the blame, which is fair.

Whereas his civil rights are being extremely violated and hes being imprisoned for something he did BEFORE the act came in, which is blatantly wrong.

You dont send someone to jail for being a dick.

Scoobless
Originally posted by V for Valentine
You dont send someone to jail for being a dick.

Unless we manage to bring fascism back... who's with me???

smile

Imagine how much better KMC would be if all the dicks in the world were thrown in jail with no access to the Internet...

roll eyes (sarcastic)

NiņoAraņa
Originally posted by Scoobless
Unless we manage to bring fascism back... who's with me???

smile

Imagine how much better KMC would be if all the dicks in the world were thrown in jail with no access to the Internet...

roll eyes (sarcastic) eek! you just sent youself to jail with that last smilie!

Scoobless
Good thing my fascist regime isn't in power then....... yet ..... shifty

NiņoAraņa
Originally posted by Scoobless
Good thing my fascist regime isn't in power then....... yet ..... shifty Hail Lord Scoob shifty

inamilist
Originally posted by Grimm22
First off, he went to speak in front of Congress, not the supreme court

Second, Frontline sucks, expecially the last pages of every issue. They make me want to punch Paul Jenkins

whoops, ya, congress

Supreme court would have made too much sense for a legal case

I agree with you on the last page stuff, I stopped reading it when they compared the marvel civil war to WW2, I mean really, has it been so long that we can no longer seperate a minor tiff over legeslation from the most important conflict in the history of the free world?

seriously!

SERIOUSLY!

inamilist
Originally posted by V for Valentine
He's never said he wasnt sympathetic. He just wont take the blame, which is fair.

Whereas his civil rights are being extremely violated and hes being imprisoned for something he did BEFORE the act came in, which is blatantly wrong.

You dont send someone to jail for being a dick.

see, i think he may have some blame, and the best place for this to be addressed would be in a civil case brought against him by the parents. I don't think he is 100% innocent, though I would push the "product of an overindulgent and irrational society" thing

however, we do agree, he shouldn't be in jail

Scoobless
Technically speaking he didn't actually harm anyone himself (apart from a couple of the felons they were after)

How could he possibly be charged with murder/manslaughter? .... that's like charging a guy who pisses someone off with murder when that second person later goes on a shooting spree.

no expression

Grimm22
Originally posted by V for Valentine
He's never said he wasnt sympathetic. He just wont take the blame, which is fair.

Whereas his civil rights are being extremely violated and hes being imprisoned for something he did BEFORE the act came in, which is blatantly wrong.

You don't send someone to jail for being a dick.

True erm

Is it just me or is Civil War getting a little sidetracked with it's connections to current events?

I mean is the N-Zone prison supposed to represent Guantanamo Bay?!?

Yet Guantanamo Bay is a prison for non-American citizens who have been convicted of terrorism and even they have started getting military trials, where in the MU American Citizens are imprisoned without trial

inamilist
Originally posted by Scoobless

How could he possibly be charged with murder/manslaughter?


we have a society that likes to reduce it's responsability for it's actions through blaming circumstances.

Speedball is responsable, because he was the catalyst for the situation, not nitro.

I hear you man!

Freedom comes with responsability!

inamilist
Originally posted by Grimm22

I mean is the N-Zone prison supposed to represent Guantanamo Bay?!?

Yet Guantanamo Bay is a prison for non-American citizens who have been convicted of terrorism and even they have started getting military trials, where in the MU American Citizens are imprisoned without trial

agreed, the cliche is compleatly unnecessary

like in that new Star Wars......

Grimm22
Originally posted by inamilist
we have a society that likes to reduce it's responsability for it's actions through blaming circumstances.

Speedball is responsable, because he was the catalyst for the situation, not nitro.

I hear you man!

Freedom comes with responsability!

So is that why O.J. got away with murder? stick out tongue

inamilist
Originally posted by Grimm22
So is that why O.J. got away with murder? stick out tongue

HAHAHAHAHA

that and the LAPD is hugely racist stick out tongue

Grimm22
Originally posted by inamilist
HAHAHAHAHA

that and the LAPD is hugely racist stick out tongue

Because some people in the LAPD are ***holes, the entire department is racist?!? What the f**k?

inamilist
Originally posted by Grimm22
Because some people in the LAPD are ***holes, the entire department is racist?!? What the f**k?

wink

I was generalizing to make a joke, but I don't think its that much of a generalization. Believe me, I'm certainly not someone who just throws around the racist card.

But no, I'm sure there are good police officers in LA (As good as any fascist pig can be anyways)

Grimm22
Originally posted by inamilist
wink

I was generalizing to make a joke, but I don't think its that much of a generalization. Believe me, I'm certainly not someone who just throws around the racist card.

But no, I'm sure there are good police officers in LA (As good as any fascist pig can be anyways)

Ok stick out tongue

I just thought you were being serious for a second there laughing

Scoobless
Originally posted by Grimm22
True erm

Is it just me or is Civil War getting a little sidetracked with it's connections to current events?

I mean is the N-Zone prison supposed to represent Guantanamo Bay?!?

Yet Guantanamo Bay is a prison for non-American citizens who have been convicted of terrorism and even they have started getting military trials, where in the MU American Citizens are imprisoned without trial

In Britain one of the guys who is trying to become the new PM wants the police to be able to hold "suspected" terrorists for far longer than they are now able to .... even without real evidence .... no expression

inamilist
Canada still has, I think, 3 people in jail that we are holding indefinatly without charges.

It's weird. Strangest to me is that we don't hide their names or anything, it's all public record.

marvelprince
Originally posted by Scoobless
Holding Speedball responsible for Stamford equates to holding every super-hero responsible for the deaths caused by every super-villain that they failed to stop.

For example:

Batman should be held accountable for everyone Joker has killed since their first meeting.

DareDevil should be held responsible for everyone Bullseye & the Punisher have killed.

etc, etc ....

If Speedball is convicted for a crime that was the result of the actions of another individual, that he had no control over, then it opens a brand new set of problems for the MU super-hero community.

no expression

Bad example. Batman being held responsible doesn't make sense cause he would have failed to stop Joker. Thats not a crime, he just didn't suceed in stopping him permanently. Now if Batman rushed in on Joker without a second thought for collateral damage and Joker ends up shooting someone then he's partially responsible. Is he guilty of murder? No, but the fact that the death was due to his stupidity means he does share a part of the blame.

Same applies for Daredevil. If Daredevil tries to stop Bullseye and fails and BS later goes out and kills someone then DD is not at fault. But if Daredevil swops in and attacks Bullseye at...I don't know...a paper clip convention full of senior citizens, then DD should be held accountable for the old people who die. Not murder cause he didn't kill them, but rather he placed them all in danger by attacking and as a result some people died.

Speedball may not have been the one to blow up and kill those kids, but he is the result. There is nothing to show that Nitro planned to kill anyone when he was ambushed. Worse he taken down in the middle of a crowded area, obviously Speedball wasn't worried about casualties. Speedball may not have directly killed anyone but the blood is on his hands

inamilist
Originally posted by marvelprince

Speedball may not have been the one to blow up and kill those kids, but he is the result. There is nothing to show that Nitro planned to kill anyone when he was ambushed. Worse he taken down in the middle of a crowded area, obviously Speedball wasn't worried about casualties. Speedball may not have directly killed anyone but the blood is on his hands

This scenario is only outrageous by real world standards

by the standards of what goes on in comics all the time, Speedball was just acting in accordance to precidance.

Imagine a New Warriors comic where they had successfully taken out the house full of villains, there would be no issue, no civil war, no fan debates. In fact, nobody would question if it was morally right, because this is THE EXACT THING that is expected of heroes in general.

Speedball was not being reckless. Overzealous, maybe, reckless or neglegant, nope.

Scoobless
Originally posted by marvelprince
Bad example. Batman being held responsible doesn't make sense cause he would have failed to stop Joker. Thats not a crime, he just didn't suceed in stopping him permanently.

Same thing with Speedball (or Namorita in fact) .... all they did was fail to stop one bad guy. Nitro is the only person responsible for his own actions.

marvelprince
Originally posted by Scoobless
Same thing with Speedball (or Namorita in fact) .... all they did was fail to stop one bad guy. Nitro is the only person responsible for his own actions.

I'd say Joker escaping into the sewers is quite different from flinging a bomb into the midst of innocent bystanders

marvelprince
Originally posted by inamilist
This scenario is only outrageous by real world standards

by the standards of what goes on in comics all the time, Speedball was just acting in accordance to precidance.

Imagine a New Warriors comic where they had successfully taken out the house full of villains, there would be no issue, no civil war, no fan debates. In fact, nobody would question if it was morally right, because this is THE EXACT THING that is expected of heroes in general.

Speedball was not being reckless. Overzealous, maybe, reckless or neglegant, nope.

Even in comics its the same concept. If the New Warriors had succeeded then they would be hailed as heroes. If they failed (as they did) then people would turn on them. Same concept in real and comic world. Problem is the New Warriors failure was as a result of not planning and simply charging into a situation.

How can you say Speedball wasn't being reckless? He launched an attack on criminals in the middle of a crowded area. Obviously he wasn't too concerned about collateral damage cause he certainly didn't seem to care. It was all about the ratings for him. I doubt the possiblity that someone could get hurt never even dawned on him

inamilist
Originally posted by marvelprince
I'd say Joker escaping into the sewers is quite different from flinging a bomb into the midst of innocent bystanders

A bomb doesn't light itself

Originally posted by marvelprince
Even in comics its the same concept. If the New Warriors had succeeded then they would be hailed as heroes. If they failed (as they did) then people would turn on them. Same concept in real and comic world. Problem is the New Warriors failure was as a result of not planning and simply charging into a situation.

Ok, but the last time spiderman busted some robbers, he just ran in

or when wonderman and ms marvel attacked the robber in the burger joint in civil war, they just attacked them

Rarely (re: never) do heroes in comics really plan out the steps necessary to take out a badguy while minimizing casualties.

Its the nature of the genre. We all would rather see Carol blast some punk with energy bolts rather than 4 pages of her and wonderman bickering over their proper juristiction and the least dangerous ways to bring the guys down.

This is how comics go. This also sets precidence for how it is expected a responsable hero will act.

Speedball can only be thought of as reckless if he did something that a reasonable hero would not. Obviously he didn't (as, lets see, the FF fought Silver Surfer in the middle of NY, wow, thats totally minimizing casualties). He acted in the way that was entirely expected of him.

If your statement was "The entire mythos and expectations regarding the superhero community is irresponsable and reckless" I would agree. However, since that is the way things are (and no, the SRA will not change any of these problems) he isn't the reckless one, the entire culture is reckless.

Originally posted by marvelprince
How can you say Speedball wasn't being reckless? He launched an attack on criminals in the middle of a crowded area. Obviously he wasn't too concerned about collateral damage cause he certainly didn't seem to care. It was all about the ratings for him. I doubt the possiblity that someone could get hurt never even dawned on him

Really simple

Speedball was acting according to what was expected of people in his situation. Any other reasonable hero would have done the same. Hell, I can hear spidey's line of "I know when all these baddies get togeather no good can come of it".

Marvel has mearly decided that the people on Marvel Earth now care about all this. Its frankly ridiculous, heroes have been reckless and negligent for YEARS.

Not to mention, as I said above, the Registration act does nothing to address the issues with heroic recklessness. See the wonderman/ms marvel scenario above.

Grimm22
Originally posted by inamilist
A bomb doesn't light itself

Or do they? fear shiftyeuro

Blind
Originally posted by Scoobless
Currently, in Civil War: Frontline, Speedball is being held responsible for the destruction and deaths at Stamford, which in turn sparked off the whole Civil War storyline.

I'm interested to hear how much responsibility you all think he should take for what's going on.

Because everyone loves numbered questions:

1. As it all resulted from his teams (the New Warriors) attempts to get better ratings for their TV show, should he be held accountable for Nitro's attack? (I'm under the impression that the rest of the Warriors did not survive to share any blame)

2. Are the people behind MGH (Mutant Growth Hormone) more, less or equally to blame for what happened?

3. Should Atlantis take part of the blame as a member of their ruling house was directly involved in the "incident"?

4. Is the TV company behind the Warriors' show at all responsible for what occurred?

5. Is Speedball just being used as a scapegoat because the US government couldn't bring in Nitro?
_____________________

These, and other questions, have been on my mind while reading recent Marvel comics so tell me your opinions..... and add more points if you like.

question

1. If anything, Speedball could/should be convicted of Criminal Negligence. I think that would be the proper charge. He was just being foolish and people died. Like leaving the bathroom without flushing... wait, that's a different kind of bomb going off. Anyway, I don't think he should get the chair for what happened, even though he's already been killed. I think the whole scene of him getting shot, like Lee Harvey Oswald got shot, basically is saying that the government made him a patsy. Whether he truly was guilty or not, that's the moot point. He was their fall guy, and it was something that a lot of people in just the right places wanted to happen. At least, that's what I got from that whole thing.

2. I think the MGH people are definately to blame, at least a little. The whole purpose of that drug is to make someone potentially more dangerous, and if they didn't consider that route when they designed it, then they are just as, if not more, guilty as Speedball.

3. No way. If one of Bush's cousins shot the one of the Chinese Prime Minister's cousins, would you want to go to war against them?

4. I don't think they're responsible, because, while they were trying to get ratings, you can clearly see the camera men were just there filming, and the t.v. station just kind of let whatever happened, happen.

5. See answer number one.

Scoobless
Originally posted by Blind
3. No way. If one of Bush's cousins shot the one of the Chinese Prime Minister's cousins, would you want to go to war against them?

A ruling Monarchy isn't the same as a ruling elected party leader, just being a member of the family makes you a powerful public figure.

marvelprince
Originally posted by inamilist
A bomb doesn't light itself

No but they can explode on contact, or be on a timer. Get creative

Originally posted by inamilist
Ok, but the last time spiderman busted some robbers, he just ran in

You're really comparing robbers to Nitro and the other villians they were taking on?

Originally posted by inamilist
Rarely (re: never) do heroes in comics really plan out the steps necessary to take out a badguy while minimizing casualties.

I agree. Rarely is it ever handled or addressed but in the same vein we rarely see such a blantant disregard for civilian safety

Originally posted by inamilist
Its the nature of the genre. We all would rather see Carol blast some punk with energy bolts rather than 4 pages of her and wonderman bickering over their proper juristiction and the least dangerous ways to bring the guys down.

It needn't be 4 pages. I've read plenty of issues where the hero tries to llure the villian away from the city/people. Speedball had no such thought

Originally posted by inamilist
Speedball can only be thought of as reckless if he did something that a reasonable hero would not. Obviously he didn't (as, lets see, the FF fought Silver Surfer in the middle of NY, wow, thats totally minimizing casualties). He acted in the way that was entirely expected of him.

Yes, because Surfer is known to explode and take hundreds of lives at a time.

Originally posted by inamilist
If your statement was "The entire mythos and expectations regarding the superhero community is irresponsable and reckless" I would agree. However, since that is the way things are (and no, the SRA will not change any of these problems) he isn't the reckless one, the entire culture is reckless.

At times yes, the matter of safety isn't addressed. But most times there is some sort of forethought in terms of civilian safety.


Originally posted by inamilist
Speedball was acting according to what was expected of people in his situation. Any other reasonable hero would have done the same. Hell, I can hear spidey's line of "I know when all these baddies get togeather no good can come of it".

No way. I can't see Cap, Iron Man or even Spider-Man rushing head-on into such a situation. I can also see Spider-Man uttering that line but afterwards it'd be followed by "How do I handle this situation?"

Originally posted by inamilist
Marvel has mearly decided that the people on Marvel Earth now care about all this. Its frankly ridiculous, heroes have been reckless and negligent for YEARS.

Again I disagree. Look at Daredevil where people have sued heroes for property damage incurred from superhero damage. Also its a real world parrallel. You can generally do whatever, but once someone (children especially are hurt), no matter how much they loved you before you will be hated

Originally posted by inamilist
Not to mention, as I said above, the Registration act does nothing to address the issues with heroic recklessness. See the wonderman/ms marvel scenario above.

Again I don't see how a group of supervillians measures up to 2 goons with guns. With Carol and Simon's powers do you really think someone would have gotten hurt. Also your example is flawed. Its not like the robbers were ambushed by MM and WM and panicked killing civilians. They villians showed up after the heroes arrived. Different circumstances

inamilist
Originally posted by marvelprince
No but they can explode on contact, or be on a timer. Get creative

LOL

we are playing the game of onus. My point was that, regardless of what speedball did, it was ultimatly the choice of nitro to blow up children

obviously we arent arguing that

but ya, obviously the kids wouldnt have been blown up in that way if speedball hadn't attacked

please note, im not trying to justify his actions, im just saying he isnt a murderer

Originally posted by marvelprince
You're really comparing robbers to Nitro and the other villians they were taking on?

no, but we aren't talking about the power of the enemies. Obviously Nitro is stronger than a thug

we are talking about heroes acting irresponsably, in both cases, the hero running into a situation full of unknowns and variables they can't possibly account for, or really haven't even tried to

The action and the consequence are two seperate things, unless you are saying the ends justify the means (re: being successful as a hero means its ok to disregard caution)

Originally posted by marvelprince
I agree. Rarely is it ever handled or addressed but in the same vein we rarely see such a blantant disregard for civilian safety

ya, I'll agree, compleatly irresponsable for speedball to attack villians accross from a school.

However, as you do mention later, it wouldn't have mattered if he had been successful, again this scenario seems to put emphasis on the results and not on the method in getting there.

If the Avengers had attacked the house of villians and succeeded, would it not still be irresponsable?

Originally posted by marvelprince
It needn't be 4 pages. I've read plenty of issues where the hero tries to llure the villian away from the city/people. Speedball had no such thought

Agreed, it happens all the time. Ive even seen heroes make mention of their enemies hiding in crowds for cover or whatever

but i guarontee that for any instance of people taking the time to case and respond in what might be considered a tactful manner, there is at least one instance of someone just rushing in.

Originally posted by marvelprince
Yes, because Surfer is known to explode and take hundreds of lives at a time.

Again, missing the point.

Its not that surfer DID kill millions of people, its that he had the potential to

In the case of surfer it was much more important to fight him rather than let galactus destroy earth, so it is a bad example.

I'll be honest, I'm having some trouble comming up with really good examples of this because comics are for the most part written with the focus on results. I wasn't aware that daredevil had delt with such issues, but mostly there is little if any emphasis on the method or legalities of the hero community.

This would sortof further my point, seeing as, since nobody has been accountable before, Speedball was just acting in accordance with his position, but that comes really close to the "I was just following orders" line.

Which, works a bit here, since I would say speedball is at some fault (not nearly as much as nitro) but the brunt of the blame should be put on the MU culture (or if we want to break down the 4th wall, basically, the writers finally decided to approach this angle in a story, rather than focusing on the end result of how the New Warriors pull it off).


Originally posted by marvelprince
At times yes, the matter of safety isn't addressed. But most times there is some sort of forethought in terms of civilian safety.

I would disagree. Most is the objectable term.

I'll even be nice as to say its a 50/50 split, but I'm sure there are titles that are more one way or the other.

Originally posted by marvelprince
No way. I can't see Cap, Iron Man or even Spider-Man rushing head-on into such a situation. I can also see Spider-Man uttering that line but afterwards it'd be followed by "How do I handle this situation?"

Yup

However, I'd be willing to bet, that in a pre- civil war comic, he isn't going to say.

"wow, that school is too close, looks like I better not risk letting these 4 wanted criminals go free"

Again to break down the 4th wall, this is not what we pay comic writers to come up with. We pay them for the action.


Originally posted by marvelprince
Again I disagree. Look at Daredevil where people have sued heroes for property damage incurred from superhero damage. Also its a real world parrallel. You can generally do whatever, but once someone (children especially are hurt), no matter how much they loved you before you will be hated

Alright, I didn't know DD covered that. I know the recent She Hulk somewhat does, but I always thought it more of a commedic place where many staples of the genre are mocked.

And, yes, I see WHY Speedball is hated, I certainly don't think that makes him guilty

Originally posted by marvelprince

Again I don't see how a group of supervillians measures up to 2 goons with guns. With Carol and Simon's powers do you really think someone would have gotten hurt. Also your example is flawed. Its not like the robbers were ambushed by MM and WM and panicked killing civilians. They villians showed up after the heroes arrived. Different circumstances

Really?

Heroes X see villians Y

X knows nothing or little about Y

X engages Y in a crowded place

The only differance is the result. If all that matters is that in the end the heros win, then there is nothing being done to address the latent irresponsability of the occupation

however, seeing as it is an entertainment medium, I don't think they will EVER change this

BlaqChaos
Is Speedball to blame?

Entirely? No.

Absolved of all guilt? No.

He is partially responsible. It is his decision to not even admit to his portion of the incident that piss me off at him. He could be tried for the wrongful deaths of those people.

(Conditions for filing wrongful death claim
The death must have been caused, in whole or in part, by the defendant's conduct, even though there was no direct intention to kill the victim. The defendant must have been deemed negligent or strictly liable for the victim's death. Also the deceased has dependent party such as family members who have suffered from emotional and monetary damages as a result of the death.)

Speedball was negligent.

The deceased do have family members that have suffered emotional and monitary damages as a result of the death.

The deaths were caused in part by Speedball, with no intentions to kill.


Legally, by the letter of the law.

Scoobless
Then you would have to prove that he was negligent, or that one person can be found in any way negligent, in regards to the bodily functions of a third party.... because of this I don't believe Speedball should be found guilty of murder, manslaughter or causing wrongful death

inamilist
Originally posted by BlaqChaos

(Conditions for filing wrongful death claim
The death must have been caused, in whole or in part, by the defendant's conduct, even though there was no direct intention to kill the victim. The defendant must have been deemed negligent or strictly liable for the victim's death. Also the deceased has dependent party such as family members who have suffered from emotional and monetary damages as a result of the death.)

Speedball was negligent.

This is what I've been trying to get at

Negligence in legal terms means basically "failed to act in the way a reasonable person would act". As I have been trying to show, all the other reasonable heroes do things just as negligent in their actions, however until now there has been no writer focus on the reuslts thereof.

Speedball is NOT negligent simply because he was acting in accordance with what was reasonably expected of him in his position.

Was it a smart move, NO, was it a good move, NO, in the real world would it be negligent, MOST ASSUREDLY, however, given the circumstances of Marvel Earth and the precidence of responsable heroic behaviour, Speedball IS NOT NEGLIGENT in the strictest of legal senses

Originally posted by BlaqChaos

The deceased do have family members that have suffered emotional and monitary damages as a result of the death.


Yup, I think it is very reasonable to open up a civil suit against him, the new warriors, the network, the avengers, x- men, and EVERY OTHER SUPER POWERED CITIZEN

maybe that is a stretch, but certainly a civil and not criminal suit is more appropriate in this matter.

Originally posted by Scoobless
Then you would have to prove that he was negligent, or that one person can be found in any way negligent, in regards to the bodily functions of a third party.... because of this I don't believe Speedball should be found guilty of murder, manslaughter or causing wrongful death

Co-sign

manjaro
the whole thing about speedball is, if he was just less of a dickface about it, the public would treat him a whole lot differently

Howard_Jones
I don't think he's responsible, really.

marvelprince
Originally posted by inamilist
please note, im not trying to justify his actions, im just saying he isnt a murderer

Ok, I gotcha. I'm not saying he's a murderer either, rather than he should shoulder some of the blame. Reckless endangerment, negligence, stupidity, whatever. He's not right when he says it wasn't his fault though

Originally posted by inamilist
we are talking about heroes acting irresponsably, in both cases, the hero running into a situation full of unknowns and variables they can't possibly account for, or really haven't even tried to

But we also have to look at the level of power also. If I'm as powerful as Galactus and you're just some carjacker I don't really have to exercise too much caution as if you were the Void and I'm Blue Beetle. Speedball realized that he wasn't dealing with some regular dime-store villians. These guys were on another level capable of way more damage than your average bank robber yet he took no extra precautions.

Originally posted by inamilist
The action and the consequence are two seperate things, unless you are saying the ends justify the means (re: being successful as a hero means its ok to disregard caution)

No, I'm saying it matters on the circumstance. High risk situations like...I don't know..a man who can blow himself up at whim need to be more carefully thought out and planned than with low risk situations like a man with a banana holding up a cashier.

Originally posted by inamilist
However, as you do mention later, it wouldn't have mattered if he had been successful, again this scenario seems to put emphasis on the results and not on the method in getting there.

I agree that it wouldn't have mattered. Would that have justified his actions? No. He still would have been an idiot. The only thing is that people wouldn't have cared cause he stopped the bad guy. Its the way the people react. They're fickle so you must ensure that whatever you do you do it right, especially in high risk situations

Originally posted by inamilist
If the Avengers had attacked the house of villians and succeeded, would it not still be irresponsable?

Doubt the Avengers would have rushed in like the New Warriors did. The Avengers don't have ratings or primetime slots to worry about

Originally posted by inamilist
Again, missing the point.

Its not that surfer DID kill millions of people, its that he had the potential to

I don't get this. Where has Surfer shown the inclination to do this? He's always been more of a pacifist than anything. He's not like Nitro who lives to explode. Sure Surfer has the capability, but not the inclination or motive to do such a thing.

Originally posted by inamilist
I'll be honest, I'm having some trouble comming up with really good examples of this because comics are for the most part written with the focus on results. I wasn't aware that daredevil had delt with such issues, but mostly there is little if any emphasis on the method or legalities of the hero community.

Agreed

Originally posted by inamilist
This would sort of further my point, seeing as, since nobody has been accountable before, Speedball was just acting in accordance with his position, but that comes really close to the "I was just following orders" line.

There may not have been legal action like this taken before, but its kinda one of those unwritten rules. Don't push a guy who goes boom in a schoolbus.

Originally posted by inamilist
Which, works a bit here, since I would say speedball is at some fault (not nearly as much as nitro) but the brunt of the blame should be put on the MU culture (or if we want to break down the 4th wall, basically, the writers finally decided to approach this angle in a story, rather than focusing on the end result of how the New Warriors pull it off).

I still don't think the larger MU is to blame. Heroes have taken flak for stuff like this before. Cap and other veterans are always telling these other heroes to think first. Planning is something that should be second nature to these heroes

Originally posted by inamilist
Yup

However, I'd be willing to bet, that in a pre- civil war comic, he isn't going to say.

"wow, that school is too close, looks like I better not risk letting these 4 wanted criminals go free"

Well I have issues where he mentions that the criminals are too close to town and he doesn't want to risk anything happening to civilians. And these are from the 80's

Originally posted by inamilist
Again to break down the 4th wall, this is not what we pay comic writers to come up with. We pay them for the action.

Carefully thought out action. Realistic actions with actual forethought and consequences. And I don't mean pages of agonizing either. A simple thought bubble (or square will suffice)

Originally posted by inamilist
And, yes, I see WHY Speedball is hated, I certainly don't think that makes him guilty

But we're in agreement that he acted recklessly and was stupid right?

Originally posted by inamilist
Really?

Heroes X see villians Y

X knows nothing or little about Y

X engages Y in a crowded place

The only differance is the result. If all that matters is that in the end the heros win, then there is nothing being done to address the latent irresponsability of the occupation

No, difference is the degree of danger. Y1 could be an old lady with tapioca pudding and Y2 could be the Anniliation Wave. Wouldn't you take more time to plan on how to tackle Y2. Then again you can't really trust the elderly big grin

BlaqChaos
Namorita threw an exploding supervillian into the side of a schoolbus. As team leader, Speedball is responsible for theactions of the men and women under his command.

NEGLIGENCE:
In tort law, the right to sue and recover damages from another on the basis of negligence, as opposed to numerous other tort theories discussed elsewhere, is based upon proving that the defendant failed to use "ordinary care", that is,that degree of care for the protection of the person or property of others that a reasonably careful (prudent) person would have used under the same or similar circmstances. The negligence may be an act or an omission (failure to act.) Although violations of statutes or regulations intended to protect persons or properties are usually deemed negligence as a mater of law, "per se negligence," in many cases, the finder of fact, often a jury, uses its experience in life to compare the defendant's conduct with that of a hypothetical reasonable person.

If you unreasonably take a risk, you have breached your duty of reasonable care whether or not harm results. See discussion of proximate cause below. The possibilities for breaching this duty are nearly infinite, and an example or two would only confuse the issue. However, 'reasonable care' usually cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight. As Lord Denning said in Roe v Minister of Health (1954) 2 AER 131, the past should not be viewed through rose coloured spectacles. So if medical science said that medical jars could not get contaminated in the 1950s, but they did, the professionals of the time were not negligent. They took reasonable risks and care, even if some patients were harmed.

They were negligent. Speedball is partially responsible for Stamford.

Scoobless
Originally posted by BlaqChaos
Namorita threw an exploding supervillian into the side of a schoolbus. As team leader, Speedball is responsible for theactions of the men and women under his command.

He's not in the military, he has no legal responsibility for anything Namorita does/did.

BlaqChaos
Originally posted by Scoobless
He's not in the military, he has no legal responsibility for anything Namorita does/did. That's not just a military thing. It applies with civil agencies as well. Firefighters, Police, EMT's. How do you think hospitals can be sued for the surgical errors of one of their doctors?

I can hear Speedball's defense now. "Yes, I led these guys into battle, but I take no responsibility for any of thier actions in that battle." That's BS.

Scoobless
Those are all official organisations with formal hierarchies... the New Warriors were basically just a bunch of B-list heroes trying to make a name for themselves. I doubt Speedball signed any contract that makes him liable for the actions of any other members of the team.

BlaqChaos
Originally posted by Scoobless
Those are all official organisations with formal hierarchies... the New Warriors were basically just a bunch of B-list heroes trying to make a name for themselves. I doubt Speedball signed any contract that makes him liable for the actions of any other members of the team. So he led an unauthorized group of vigilates into a direct confrontation with with known criminals resulting in the destrcution of prperty and loss of innocent life. According to US laws, he can be held accountable. He led them, whether or not it was an "official" team with contracts or not does not matter in this case (trust me, my wife is a paralegal). As team leader, he can be held accountable as the one who incited Namorita and the others to engage in the conflict. From that point onward, their actions are accountable not only to themselves but him as well.

Scoobless
I'm actually not sure that Speedball was the leader in the first place .... did anyone actually read New Warriors?

no expression

King_Mungi
Night Thrasher was their main leader from the old series, but I never did read the most recent volume.

After Night Thrasher left, Speedball did reform the team with new members

edit: Quesada revealed that after Civil War there will be a new "New Warriors" series.

darthgoober
Speedball is no more legally to blame for what happened than every other Hero who has ever been present when a bust goes wrong. That's not to say that he shouldn't feel bad(most surviving heroes of bad situations do), but public support of heroes conducting business as usual shouldn't be changed after the fact to make the incident a legal matter on his part.

marvelprince
Originally posted by darthgoober
Speedball is no more legally to blame for what happened than every other Hero who has ever been present when a bust goes wrong. That's not to say that he shouldn't feel bad(most surviving heroes of bad situations do), but public support of heroes conducting business as usual shouldn't be changed after the fact to make the incident a legal matter on his part.

There is a big difference between a cop feeling bad for hostages getting shot and a cop who runs right into a stand-off causing the death of the hostages. Speedball isn't guilty of murder but his reckless actions did bring about the death of the the bystanders. He rushed into a situation he shouldn't have at a place he shouldn't have and as a result people died

darthgoober
Originally posted by marvelprince
There is a big difference between a cop feeling bad for hostages getting shot and a cop who runs right into a stand-off causing the death of the hostages. Speedball isn't guilty of murder but his reckless actions did bring about the death of the the bystanders. He rushed into a situation he shouldn't have at a place he shouldn't have and as a result people died
Yes, but aside from the deaths involved, that's been the standard that's been set. The government and general public have accepted, Hell even encouraged heroes to operate outside of the usual channels(except for specific government cases), do it's unfair to him to suddenly change the rules AFTER a bad situation happened. Everyone(including the government) KNEW what was supposed to go down on that show, but NO ONE made a big deal about it until after it went bad. Folks like the FBI and Shield are always popping up where they're not wanted in situations like that, but it didn't happen right then now did it? Where were the government officials that should have been there of their own volition to oversee that encounter? They were sitting behind their desk, expecting things to go the way they usually do in instances between costumed heroes and villains(Hell, they were probably watching it on TV eating popcorn). So to condemn Speedball of negligence, while excusing the government and society in general, is a representation of hypocrisy at it finest.

marvelprince
Originally posted by darthgoober
Yes, but aside from the deaths involved, that's been the standard that's been set. The government and general public have accepted, Hell even encouraged heroes to operate outside of the usual channels(except for specific government cases), do it's unfair to him to suddenly change the rules AFTER a bad situation happened. Everyone(including the government) KNEW what was supposed to go down on that show, but NO ONE made a big deal about it until after it went bad. Folks like the FBI and Shield are always popping up where they're not wanted in situations like that, but it didn't happen right then now did it? Where were the government officials that should have been there of their own volition to oversee that encounter? They were sitting behind their desk, expecting things to go the way they usually do in instances between costumed heroes and villains(Hell, they were probably watching it on TV eating popcorn). So to condemn Speedball of negligence, while excusing the government and society in general, is a representation of hypocrisy at it finest.

Not hypocrisy at all. Its life. Get used to it. Thats the way it works in the real world. No one raises a brow at what you do until something goes wrong. Then all of a sudden your trumped up on a bunch of charges wondering where your public support went too. When people stuck by you everything was fine. When you doing whatever it takes to save people they'll appreciatte you. That is till you trip up and all the good you did before doesn't matter in lieu of your error. It happens in the real world sooo many times its not even funny, but it raises a good questions. Should you be held accountable for something you've been doing for a while when the latest time results in loss of life? Should the fact that you've done so many good cancel out the mistake? Should you be allowed to just go about your business since no one had a problem before the incident?

I don't think so. If you had undergone proper training to begin with you won't have to worry about things like that. Just because you've been doing something for a while with no consequences doesn't mean you've been doing it the right way. In the end its up to you to make sure you're doing things right. Don't go be how other people react cause the pblic are fickle. Do things right and you have no worries. Speedball was always impulsive and reckless. Fortunately Nighthrasher was always there to take charge. Even the times when Speedball did manage to come through his recklessness was still a problem that needed to be addressed. Unfortunately it took hundreds of little kids in graves to bring it to light

darthgoober
Life or not, it's still an example of hypocrisy. As I said, the government KNEW what was supposed to go down, but they made no effort to see that their agents were present. So the government agency's were just as negligent as he. If they want to reprimand him, and then change the way things are run, that's fine. But they are changing the rules mid game, which is wrong by any standard. To make it a legal matter without assuming any responsibility themselves is hypocritical any way you cut it. There should have been a line of government officials who faced the same charge right behind him. For that matter, since they are using a change in current policy to address past offences, they should also be charging EVERY other hero who rushed in without clearance with negligence also whether things went awry in those instances or not(because even though nothing bad happened, it wouldn't change the fact that something COULD have, so that would still count as negligence).

Speedball is a scapegoat plane and simple, a victim of a fickle society and a spineless government who's only interest is protecting their own ass at the expense of the very people who've always supported it.

inamilist
Originally posted by marvelprince

But we also have to look at the level of power also. If I'm as powerful as Galactus and you're just some carjacker I don't really have to exercise too much caution as if you were the Void and I'm Blue Beetle. Speedball realized that he wasn't dealing with some regular dime-store villians. These guys were on another level capable of way more damage than your average bank robber yet he took no extra precautions.

So what you are proposing is a scale of positive relation between the level of threat to society and the ammount of time and effort that heroes should spend planning their attack?

ie - if an enemy is X strong, you denote Y effort to planning. For any increase in X there is a related increase in Y.


Originally posted by marvelprince
I agree that it wouldn't have mattered. Would that have justified his actions? No. He still would have been an idiot. The only thing is that people wouldn't have cared cause he stopped the bad guy. Its the way the people react. They're fickle so you must ensure that whatever you do you do it right, especially in high risk situations

Public opinion does not denote responsability, nor does it assign neglegance or recklessness

The fact that the public is fickle, as you point out, indicates that their opinion is moot in considerations like this.

The point I am making is to show that there is a culture of what would be considered in the real world as negligance that is the set normal expected behavior for people in comicdom.

The fact that people are on whole unbothered by the idea of costumed heroes playing vigalante until something goes wrong can be seen as something just short of permissiveness.

Also, as seen in the recent Ms Marvel comic, there has been NO CHANGE in this reckless behavior post SRA, and people have accepted it conditionally (the condition being that those perpetrating the reckless behavior now are registered under law).

Originally posted by marvelprince
There may not have been legal action like this taken before, but its kinda one of those unwritten rules. Don't push a guy who goes boom in a schoolbus.

Thats the differance between laws and unwritten rules

There needs to be precedance set through previous legal cases involving heroes. Since these cases are few and far between, heroes have been operating in a nebulous grey zone of legality.

HOWEVER, the coperation between heroes and government groups and the general acceptance of their actions through the courts and society as a whole DOES set a precidence or NO LEGAL LIABILITY for negligent behavior.

The clincher to this is in BlaqChaos' own definition of negligence. NOBODY needs to be hurt for a negligent action to happen.

So yes, if you are asking if Speedball was criminally responsable in the real world where you and I live (and would probably not tolorate for an instant the idea of crazy vigilante justice) then the answer is clearly yes.

But that isnt the world of Marvel. The general complacency to the actions of an entire community at all levels of government and society to blatently negligent action sets a precidence for what can be considered resonable action by an individual

Originally posted by marvelprince
I still don't think the larger MU is to blame. Heroes have taken flak for stuff like this before. Cap and other veterans are always telling these other heroes to think first. Planning is something that should be second nature to these heroes

"blame" is a dificult word here, given that these are all fictional characters. Its preposterous to think that real people would have gone so long accepting the actions of the heroes, especially given that they operate above the law.

There are huge differances between thoughts and actions. In a recent civil war book, don't some of cap's people, or even cap himself, talk about taking cover in a group of civilians? This isn't reckless?

Its fine to point to the one clear example of negligence that the writers are hold up on a pedistal as a plot device, but that doesnt change the fact that for 60 years the industry has been unconcerned with legal consequences of heroism.

Well I have issues where he mentions that the criminals are too close to town and he doesn't want to risk anything happening to civilians. And these are from the 80's

Originally posted by marvelprince
Carefully thought out action. Realistic actions with actual forethought and consequences. And I don't mean pages of agonizing either. A simple thought bubble (or square will suffice)

But this is only something we would ever consider as being responsible of a hero in the context of the Post stanford MU.

Before it would have been irrelevant because there was never any worry of legal ramifications for the actions of the hero.

Again, this is driven more by the genre and the writers than any "social" considerations, but still, if we are building a case based on precidence, this is important.

Originally posted by marvelprince
But we're in agreement that he acted recklessly and was stupid right?

only if we are in agreement that the whole concept of "super hero" is reckless and stupid

Originally posted by marvelprince
No, difference is the degree of danger. Y1 could be an old lady with tapioca pudding and Y2 could be the Anniliation Wave. Wouldn't you take more time to plan on how to tackle Y2. Then again you can't really trust the elderly big grin

however, in my example, there is no way to differentiate between the old lady and the annihilation wave, simply because of a lack of knowledge.

In most cases, heroes assume that thugs pose low level threats. Thankfully bullets are so useless in the MU.

But basically, the power level is irrelevant. If it is reckless to attack Nitro in public it is also reckless to attack any other villian in public

inamilist
Originally posted by BlaqChaos

NEGLIGENCE:
In tort law, the right to sue and recover damages from another on the basis of negligence, as opposed to numerous other tort theories discussed elsewhere, is based upon proving that the defendant failed to use "ordinary care", that is,that degree of care for the protection of the person or property of others that a reasonably careful (prudent) person would have used under the same or similar circmstances. The negligence may be an act or an omission (failure to act.) Although violations of statutes or regulations intended to protect persons or properties are usually deemed negligence as a mater of law, "per se negligence," in many cases, the finder of fact, often a jury, uses its experience in life to compare the defendant's conduct with that of a hypothetical reasonable person.


you are assuming that in the MU the same precidence for "ordinary care" and "reasonable person" is the same as it is in the real world

It is clearly not, else heroes would have been routinely rounded up and prosecuted 60 years ago.

The real world legal system cannot be applied to a fiction world with a massivly differant history, including a unique history of legal precidence.

Originally posted by BlaqChaos

If you unreasonably take a risk, you have breached your duty of reasonable care whether or not harm results. See discussion of proximate cause below. The possibilities for breaching this duty are nearly infinite, and an example or two would only confuse the issue. However, 'reasonable care' usually cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight. As Lord Denning said in Roe v Minister of Health (1954) 2 AER 131, the past should not be viewed through rose coloured spectacles. So if medical science said that medical jars could not get contaminated in the 1950s, but they did, the professionals of the time were not negligent. They took reasonable risks and care, even if some patients were harmed.

This paragraph exemplifies what I have been saying

The doctors improper storage of supplies is the same as Speedball's actions

We can see it, in light of its concequences, as being reckless or negligent. However, those actions were compleatly acceptable of other people in his position (and continue to be acceptable). Clearly he was not negligent LEGALLY.

inamilist
There needs to be a discussion about which definition of responsability we are using...

I can think of a couple....

1) Responsable in the way that it can be said adding baking soda to vinegar is responsable for the resulting eruption.

This type of responsability puts no blame on speedball, but mearly looks at his actions as a catalyst for the reaction.

In other words, Nitro would not have blown up kids if Speedball had not attacked him simply because kids being blown up were the result of the conflict.

This definition takes none of Speedball's motives into account simply because they are irrelevant.

2) In this definition, the responsability falls on to what we would HOPE people would do in a situation.

I will call this moral responsability (as opposed to catalytic responsability mentioned above) as it deals with what people would consider to be morally right, above whatever a law says.

A good example of this may be that it is irresponsable to perform in a porno flick, though not illegal. This does not mean that an irresponsable action cannot also be illegal, such as murder or rape, it is just that the importance here comes from a more abstract sense of right and wrong.

3) The plain and simple legal responsability. Either civil or criminal. Basically, One being responsable for actions that violate the rights of others (in the case of civil law) or the laws of the land (criminal).

IMHO this is how it would break down:

Catalytic responsability: obviously he is responsable for being the initiating force in the conflict.

This can be brought back further though. Each of those villians would then have to take responsability for the fact that they were felons, for there would have been no reason for Speedball to attack had they been regular civilians.

Moral Responsability: This begins to get more convoluted. Clearly people would hope that someone would act in accordance with keeping them safe, and in that regard, Speedball compleatly failed them.

This level of responsability also brings in the fact that Speedball was trying to get ratings for his show, and how that may have affected his judgement.

However, again, it isnt that simple. Speedball did think he was acting in accordance with keeping people safe, and for the most part his actions were what people expected of heroes in his position. To me this does not morally absolve him of blame.

Nor do I think the fact that his media outlet and the pressure from his viewing audience absolve him morally. While it may help to understand what motivated speedball in his actions, it cannot be ok to say "I was irresponsable because thats what people wanted to see"

So morally, ya, speedball was responsable, he screwed up a judgement call that costed people their lives. Which leads directly into the last consideration:

Legal Responsability - No. NO no no no NO.

The law is based upon past judicial history. An action cannot be sanctioned if the consequences are preferable and then demonized when they are not. This might be the way of the public BUT IT IS NOT THE WAY OF THE LAW.

Yes, in the real world the actions would be clearly illegal, but in the light of the MU history, especially as it pertains to heroes and their place in the law, what speedball did was not out of line, it was not unreasonable.

I have said before that a civil case would be much more appropriate, whereas Nitro would get the 300 counts of murder charge.

Scoobless
Originally posted by darthgoober
Life or not, it's still an example of hypocrisy. As I said, the government KNEW what was supposed to go down, but they made no effort to see that their agents were present. So the government agency's were just as negligent as he.

That's true.... Other times when a "super-hero" group starts doing something that reckless, the Avengers or SHIELD or someone show up to tell them to get their act together or get out of the game.... they must have been aware of this show.

Originally posted by inamilist
So yes, if you are asking if Speedball was criminally responsable in the real world where you and I live (and would probably not tolorate for an instant the idea of crazy vigilante justice) then the answer is clearly yes.

Being a vigilante isn't really the problem here, that's a different legal matter entirely.
_________

In the UK last year, an illegal immigrant from Brazil was seen walking to one of London's larger underground rail systems on one of the the hottest days of summer wearing a huge jacket and a backpack when everyone else was in T-shirts (which was seen as suspicious).

This was shortly after various other bombings in and around London.

An armed police unit approached him and called for him to stay where he was and surrender (or words to that effect).

He ran.

They shot and killed him.

Turns out there was nothing dangerous on him or in his bag.
____________

So I was asking my dad (a criminal defence lawyer) "what if, when the police approached him, he had ran and exploded the bomb they thought he had in a hospital or a school when he realised he couldn't escape?"

He told me that the police officers involved would not be legally responsible for any deaths occurred as a result of the arrest attempt.

I then asked "what if it wasn't the police, what if it was just a group of guys who had recognised the guy from the news or something?"

Same thing, they aren't responsible for his action of detonating the bomb.
_____________

So, at least in the UK, a person is responsible for their own actions and not the actions of those close to him/her

BlaqChaos
Originally posted by inamilist
you are assuming that in the MU the same precidence for "ordinary care" and "reasonable person" is the same as it is in the real world

It is clearly not, else heroes would have been routinely rounded up and prosecuted 60 years ago.

The real world legal system cannot be applied to a fiction world with a massivly differant history, including a unique history of legal precidence.
Despite all it's fantastic events and stories, the MU has always been based around the events of the real world Earth (right down to the event's of 9/11). Trying to change the rules for their situation only makes is seem as though you are grasping at straws. It comes off as "Okay, I'm having a hard time proving Speedball isn't at partially at fault legally, so I'll say that the laws we know of aren't the laws they go by."

In the absence of any others laws to go by, then we go by the real world US laws. If we don't do that then this entire debate it a moot point as we have no other reference of deciding matters.

That said, by the real world standards of US laws, Speedball was negligent can be found guilty of the wrongful deaths of Stamford. I'm a cop, I know the law. I checked in my wife's office (a room full of lawyers), they know the law.

darthgoober
Originally posted by BlaqChaos
Despite all it's fantastic events and stories, the MU has always been based around the events of the real world Earth (right down to the event's of 9/11). Trying to change the rules for their situation only makes is seem as though you are grasping at straws. It comes off as "Okay, I'm having a hard time proving Speedball isn't at partially at fault legally, so I'll say that the laws we know of aren't the laws they go by."

In the absence of any others laws to go by, then we go by the real world US laws. If we don't do that then this entire debate it a moot point as we have no other reference of deciding matters.

That said, by the real world standards of US laws, Speedball was negligent can be found guilty of the wrongful deaths of Stamford. I'm a cop, I know the law. I checked in my wife's office (a room full of lawyers), they know the law.
Yes but the way they changed the standard means that just about EVERY superhero is guilty of negligence at some point in their career. So ALL the heroes need to be rounded up and charged with negligence. And EVERY cop and politician should also be charged for not pursuing a case with every hero, since they've been aware of the negligence all along, but have completely ignored it.

inamilist
Originally posted by BlaqChaos
Despite all it's fantastic events and stories, the MU has always been based around the events of the real world Earth (right down to the event's of 9/11). Trying to change the rules for their situation only makes is seem as though you are grasping at straws. It comes off as "Okay, I'm having a hard time proving Speedball isn't at partially at fault legally, so I'll say that the laws we know of aren't the laws they go by."

In the absence of any others laws to go by, then we go by the real world US laws. If we don't do that then this entire debate it a moot point as we have no other reference of deciding matters.

That said, by the real world standards of US laws, Speedball was negligent can be found guilty of the wrongful deaths of Stamford. I'm a cop, I know the law. I checked in my wife's office (a room full of lawyers), they know the law.

so you are in general saying that the super hero genre is PIS?

BlaqChaos
Originally posted by darthgoober
Yes but the way they changed the standard means that just about EVERY superhero is guilty of negligence at some point in their career. So ALL the heroes need to be rounded up and charged with negligence. And EVERY cop and politician should also be charged for not pursuing a case with every hero, since they've been aware of the negligence all along, but have completely ignored it. Not every superhero is guilty of negligance that resulted in the death of innocents, and that's what this was about remember.

I gave the conditions for which Speedball was guilty of the Wrongful Deaths, and one of those was negligence. So, although every hero may be guilty of negligence at some point or another, useless said negligence destroys an entire neighborhood, don't try and apply it here.

As for the times when their negligence DOES result in the wrongful deaths of others, then it's up to the families whether they wish to pursue the matter or not. (And since most heroes have secret identities, serving a hero can be difficult if not impossible.)

Also, our real worl history shows that some laws aren't heavily enforced until some event occurs that causes more focus to be put upon it.

*sigh* If I only had the time to debate this further... Oh well, I'll be back in a month.

darthgoober
Wait, so it's only negligence if something bad actually happens? So if you leave a loaded gun on a table around someones toddler, but nothing bad actually happens, then you were'nt negligent?

darthgoober
Originally posted by BlaqChaos
Not every superhero is guilty of negligance that resulted in the death of innocents, and that's what this was about remember.
This case, yes. But that doesn't mean that if they are going to change the policy, that everyone else should get off scott free.

Originally posted by BlaqChaos I gave the conditions for which Speedball was guilty of the Wrongful Deaths, and one of those was negligence. So, although every hero may be guilty of negligence at some point or another, useless said negligence destroys an entire neighborhood, don't try and apply it here.
You mean like when Spiderman fought Firelord, or the Fantastic Four fought Galactus, or Superman fought Doomsday, or EVERYONE fought Onslaught?

Originally posted by BlaqChaos As for the times when their negligence DOES result in the wrongful deaths of others, then it's up to the families whether they wish to pursue the matter or not. (And since most heroes have secret identities, serving a hero can be difficult if not impossible.)
That's fine for a wrongful death charge(which is a civil charge if I'm not mistaken), but isn't there a criminal offence that should cover the past actions of heroes, and be up to the government to enforce? And isn't there a charge for officials and cops ignoring those occurrences(in some cases, actually waving goodbye and commending the heroes as they leave)?

Originally posted by BlaqChaos Also, our real worl history shows that some laws aren't heavily enforced until some event occurs that causes more focus to be put upon it. Yes but the law isn't really being more heavily enforced, they're singling out ONE specific event, while letting all the others slide.

Now let me ask you, should the Government officials and police officers of the town be awaiting sentencing also? That show was on TV, and EVERYONE knew what the purpose of that show was. So shouldn't the government agencies and police station taken it upon themselves to see that they had people in place to oversee that bust? By not doing so, aren't they just as accountable as Speedball?

S-Ranger
Just goes to show that nothing is done till it's too late.

marvelprince
Originally posted by darthgoober
Life or not, it's still an example of hypocrisy. As I said, the government KNEW what was supposed to go down, but they made no effort to see that their agents were present. So the government agency's were just as negligent as he. If they want to reprimand him, and then change the way things are run, that's fine. But they are changing the rules mid game, which is wrong by any standard. To make it a legal matter without assuming any responsibility themselves is hypocritical any way you cut it. There should have been a line of government officials who faced the same charge right behind him. For that matter, since they are using a change in current policy to address past offences, they should also be charging EVERY other hero who rushed in without clearance with negligence also whether things went awry in those instances or not(because even though nothing bad happened, it wouldn't change the fact that something COULD have, so that would still count as negligence).

Speedball is a scapegoat plane and simple, a victim of a fickle society and a spineless government who's only interest is protecting their own ass at the expense of the very people who've always supported it.

See but your whole thing is blame the government. Why? Speedball wasn't a federal employee. Sure the government was aware of his actions but they really had no control over the superheroes, hence why there was a proposal to ban them. All Speedball was was a catalyst to kickstart the governments agendas against heroes. Sure they're using him to achieve their own means and its wrong, but does that Speedball any less responsible for what happened?

marvelprince
Originally posted by inamilist
So what you are proposing is a scale of positive relation between the level of threat to society and the ammount of time and effort that heroes should spend planning their attack?

ie - if an enemy is X strong, you denote Y effort to planning. For any increase in X there is a related increase in Y.

Basically. I can only speak for myself here but I'd say I would take more time planning against Count Nefaria then a greased up deak guy touching on the candy


Originally posted by inamilist
Public opinion does not denote responsability, nor does it assign neglegance or recklessness

Granted

Originally posted by inamilist
The fact that the public is fickle, as you point out, indicates that their opinion is moot in considerations like this.

No, it indicates that you have to be doubly sure that you cover your own ass in case things turn sour

Originally posted by inamilist
The point I am making is to show that there is a culture of what would be considered in the real world as negligance that is the set normal expected behavior for people in comicdom.

In some instances yes, but if you maintain a certain level of disbelief then for all intents and purposes both are parallel

Originally posted by inamilist
The fact that people are on whole unbothered by the idea of costumed heroes playing vigalante until something goes wrong can be seen as something just short of permissiveness.

I wouldn't agree with this. For years we've seen MANY characters openly state their disdain for superheroes. Many of these people alos happen to be government officials so that makes the law being passed all the more believable

Originally posted by inamilist
Also, as seen in the recent Ms Marvel comic, there has been NO CHANGE in this reckless behavior post SRA, and people have accepted it conditionally (the condition being that those perpetrating the reckless behavior now are registered under law).

Are you still talking about the robbers and Carol and Simon? How was that reckless. Two thugs barge in and Carol and Simon stop them by revealing themselves. They didn't barge in and from what i saw no one was in pressing danger.

Besides, the law is two-fold. It doesn't only promise responsbility on the part of the heroes, but it promises accountability for when something bad goes down. Thats the most important part of this whole thing I'd say.

Originally posted by inamilist
There needs to be precedance set through previous legal cases involving heroes. Since these cases are few and far between, heroes have been operating in a nebulous grey zone of legality.

Exactly. Another reason the SHRA was fasttracked through. To get heroes out of any gray area.

Originally posted by inamilist
HOWEVER, the coperation between heroes and government groups and the general acceptance of their actions through the courts and society as a whole DOES set a precidence or NO LEGAL LIABILITY for negligent behavior.

No it doesn't. How can you spout superhero and government cooperation when both camps weren't on friendly terms prior to Civil War? The people may have accepted their actions but does that excuse the heroes from any sort of legal liability?

Originally posted by inamilist
So yes, if you are asking if Speedball was criminally responsable in the real world where you and I live (and would probably not tolorate for an instant the idea of crazy vigilante justice) then the answer is clearly yes.

But that isnt the world of Marvel. The general complacency to the actions of an entire community at all levels of government and society to blatently negligent action sets a precidence for what can be considered resonable action by an individual

At all levels? No way. Government higher ups have not even tried to hide their disdain for superheroes.

Originally posted by inamilist
"blame" is a dificult word here, given that these are all fictional characters. Its preposterous to think that real people would have gone so long accepting the actions of the heroes, especially given that they operate above the law.

There are huge differances between thoughts and actions. In a recent civil war book, don't some of cap's people, or even cap himself, talk about taking cover in a group of civilians? This isn't reckless?

Yes it is

Originally posted by inamilist
Its fine to point to the one clear example of negligence that the writers are hold up on a pedistal as a plot device, but that doesnt change the fact that for 60 years the industry has been unconcerned with legal consequences of heroism.

For the most part no but it's touched upon enough times to be used as a precursor for CW

Originally posted by inamilist
But this is only something we would ever consider as being responsible of a hero in the context of the Post stanford MU.

Not me. I've always looked for stuff like this in comics. Try looking back at some of your old stuff. You may come across examples where the hero dedides not to fight in a certain area etc. It may not have clicked then but you can see now what the hero was trying to do

Originally posted by inamilist
Before it would have been irrelevant because there was never any worry of legal ramifications for the actions of the hero.

Good point. Fortunately the SHRA is looking to address that

Originally posted by inamilist
only if we are in agreement that the whole concept of "super hero" is reckless and stupid

Only if we're suddenly placing all super-heroes like Cap and Spider-Man on the level of Speedball

Originally posted by inamilist
however, in my example, there is no way to differentiate between the old lady and the annihilation wave, simply because of a lack of knowledge.

But in the situations where you know what the villian is capable of (ala the New Warriors) would you react the way they did?

Originally posted by inamilist
In most cases, heroes assume that thugs pose low level threats. Thankfully bullets are so useless in the MU.

Thankfully

Originally posted by inamilist
But basically, the power level is irrelevant. If it is reckless to attack Nitro in public it is also reckless to attack any other villian in public

I don't agree. Nitro can explode, therefore attacking him within the vicinity people is stupid. Chameleon is a villian, but unless he's immersed in a crowd there isn't much worry about taking him down a few hundred feet from a school. Different situation call for different levels of attention and different course of actions. Federal training hopefully will instill that into some of these heroes

darthgoober
Originally posted by marvelprince
See but your whole thing is blame the government. Why? Speedball wasn't a federal employee. Sure the government was aware of his actions but they really had no control over the superheroes, hence why there was a proposal to ban them. All Speedball was was a catalyst to kickstart the governments agendas against heroes. Sure they're using him to achieve their own means and its wrong, but does that Speedball any less responsible for what happened?
No, I'm not saying blame the whole thing on the government. I'm saying that you can't really claim negligence on the Speedball's part, unless your willing to claim negligence on the governments part also. The fact that Speedball isn't employed by the government just reinforces the negligence on their part, because apprehending a known felon is THEIR responsibility. Where were the Shield agents that should have been present to make sure the proper precautions were taken? Has the government NO responsibility in ensuring that metahumans don't run wild until AFTER something bad happens?

If the government is going to start pointing fingers, then they should be willing to accept their own responsibility for what happened. That's why I say that Speedball DOESN'T deserve the charge, because he's the only person getting one. If they were willing to blame EVERYONE who was responsible, my opinion would be different, but a hero shouldn't be singled out for punishment when the government that condoned his reckless actions gets let off scot free.

Zahit
Speedball was being a glory-hound trying to sniff-out ratings.
He didn't seem very concerned about attacking evil superhumans
in a residential house, surrounded by other residential houses,
in a residential area. That was INCREDIBLY stupid and he
certainly deserves getting his ass beat like a rented mule for that.
Whenever say.....Spiderman for example, goes after super-villians,
he ALWAYS does whatever he can to take the fight AWAY from
bystanders. Most heroes do that. Speedball showed no such concerns.
Is he legally negligent? debatable.
Does he deserve punishment? absolutely.

Blind
Originally posted by Scoobless
A ruling Monarchy isn't the same as a ruling elected party leader, just being a member of the family makes you a powerful public figure.

I still hold to the fact that you can't hold an entire nation/country to the actions of a relative of its leader. If Namor, himself, were a member of the team, or perhaps the next in line for the throne, then maybe Atlantis should be held responsible.

I'm sure there are cases in history where countries have gone to war over the actions of a distant relative of a monarch, but no "civilized" country that I can think of in the past 100 years has done this. I could be wrong with that, though... my History is a little rusty.

Either way, is it truly right to hold an entire nation to the fact that one out of its millions of residents made such a mistake?

I believe that if this were elaborated more upon in the Marvel Universe, there would probably be a small sect who believed that Atlantis should pay... but I doubt that a lot of the nation's leaders would truly take them seriously.

Grimm... I'm still laughing about the "Noob" comment. Wow...

marvelprince
Originally posted by darthgoober
No, I'm not saying blame the whole thing on the government. I'm saying that you can't really claim negligence on the Speedball's part, unless your willing to claim negligence on the governments part also. The fact that Speedball isn't employed by the government just reinforces the negligence on their part, because apprehending a known felon is THEIR responsibility. Where were the Shield agents that should have been present to make sure the proper precautions were taken? Has the government NO responsibility in ensuring that metahumans don't run wild until AFTER something bad happens?

If the government is going to start pointing fingers, then they should be willing to accept their own responsibility for what happened. That's why I say that Speedball DOESN'T deserve the charge, because he's the only person getting one. If they were willing to blame EVERYONE who was responsible, my opinion would be different, but a hero shouldn't be singled out for punishment when the government that condoned his reckless actions gets let off scot free.

This doesn't make sense. For example, some guy manages to prevent a bank robbery and is congratulated for it. Good job blah blah. This same guy tries to rush into a hostage situation and manages to get the hostages shot so it's the governments fault for not arresting him in the first place?

Honestly the government has no responsibilty here. They've been trying to get superheroes under control for sometime now, it just so happened that it took a bad situation to fasttrack the resolution (keep in mind that the SHRA was being considered from even before Stamford). I could see your argument holding water if it was the government in the first place that sent Speedball there to take down Nitro, but thats not whats happened. Speedball went out on his own and messed up on his own. How is the government responsible?

Scoobless
Originally posted by marvelprince
I could see your argument holding water if it was the government in the first place that sent Speedball there to take down Nitro, but thats not whats happened. Speedball went out on his own and messed up on his own. How is the government responsible?

The Government are just as negligent as Speedball & the Warriors because they knew about the TV show and allowed it to continue when they clearly had the power and time to shut it down long before it got to the Stamford episode.

marvelprince
Originally posted by Scoobless
The Government are just as negligent as Speedball & the Warriors because they knew about the TV show and allowed it to continue when they clearly had the power and time to shut it down long before it got to the Stamford episode.

But the kind of things Speedball was doing on the show wasn't anything as dangerous as what they tried to pull in Stamford. Before they're changing tires for people and now they're trying to take down ruthless criminals? The NW bit off more than they can chew

darthgoober
Originally posted by marvelprince
This doesn't make sense. For example, some guy manages to prevent a bank robbery and is congratulated for it. Good job blah blah. This same guy tries to rush into a hostage situation and manages to get the hostages shot so it's the governments fault for not arresting him in the first place?

Honestly the government has no responsibilty here. They've been trying to get superheroes under control for sometime now, it just so happened that it took a bad situation to fasttrack the resolution (keep in mind that the SHRA was being considered from even before Stamford). I could see your argument holding water if it was the government in the first place that sent Speedball there to take down Nitro, but thats not whats happened. Speedball went out on his own and messed up on his own. How is the government responsible?
Yes but wouldn't the Government be responsible if they KNEW he was going to rush the hostage situation ahead of time, and made NO effort to stop it?

Originally posted by marvelprince
But the kind of things Speedball was doing on the show wasn't anything as dangerous as what they tried to pull in Stamford. Before they're changing tires for people and now they're trying to take down ruthless criminals? The NW bit off more than they can chew
The point of the show was to hunt down villains. That ALWAYS got the potential to be dangerous to civilians. So if they had any reservations about the potential for lives lost, they should have had people in place to oversee it. So they are JUST as responsible for what happened as Speedball. You can't blame one without the other, and still have any pretense of justice being served.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.