Originally posted by Grimm22
Because some people in the LAPD are ***holes, the entire department is racist?!? 🤨
😉
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)
Originally posted by inamilist
😉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 😛
I just thought you were being serious for a second there 😆
Originally posted by Grimm22
True 😬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 .... 😐
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.
😐
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
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by inamilist
This scenario is only outrageous by real world standardsby 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
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.
Re: Is Speedball responsible for the deaths at Stamford?
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.
Re: Re: Is Speedball responsible for the deaths at Stamford?
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.
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
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
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.
Originally posted by BlaqChaos
([b]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. [/B]
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