Is Speedball responsible for the deaths at Stamford?

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

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 😄

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

😐

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 😄

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

Originally posted by BlaqChaos

[b]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.
[/B]

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

[b]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.[/B]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.