What would your character do? #44 (May be disturbing to some)

[Bengal]

Nope, no crime here. And where Bengal is from, child brides are fairly common. I can't imagine this would even register as a crime to him.

[Chromatic]

I do not think that I have ever played with someone that would run something this offensive. That being said,

 

This is one time Laughton would very likely follow through with his often times threatened: "turn them into stone, and drop them into lake michigan."

 

Note: when he turns something else into stone they revert back to original form. He can also cancel the effect at will. The results are patently obvious.

 

As I dwell upon this, I think the option of "Make this sicko go away forever" in whatever form my characters are capable is going to be the standard answer.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Originally posted by Argus

The man is a predator who went out of his was to steal these children of their identities. It’s no different then if he stood by and took photos of them in the park. He would need to be gotten rid of.

 

A.

 

So, Superheroes should *kill* a creepy guy who takes photos of kids?

 

And I didn't let him off, btw.

 

Disregarding Flip (who would *never* hear the whole story...), my reaction was "Try to nail this guy for a crime he did commit"...

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Argus

The man is a predator who went out of his was to steal these children of their identities. It’s no different then if he stood by and took photos of them in the park. He would need to be gotten rid of.

 

A.

And I don't think taking pictures in the park is a crime either.

 

Again, as long as no one real was harmed, all of my characters would be content to just keep an eye on him.

[caris]

Originally posted by McCoy

And I don't think taking pictures in the park is a crime either.

 

Again, as long as no one real was harmed, all of my characters would be content to just keep an eye on him.

 

It is a little more complicated than that McCoy. The guy is producing the equivalent of nude photos of these childern. It would be far closer to if he were to have put a hidden camera in their bathrooms and took photos of them in the tub, and was doing it to masturbate to those photos. He has invaded the childern's privacy.

 

Please, note Adonis would not be physically assaulting the man in any way. Nor would he be playing the sex offender notification game. He would simply bring the person to court on what he feels are reasonable charges.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by caris

It is a little more complicated than that McCoy. The guy is producing the equivalent of nude photos of these childern. It would be far closer to if he were to have put a hidden camera in their bathrooms and took photos of them in the tub, and was doing it to masturbate to those photos. He has invaded the childern's privacy.

Except that he did not. No tresspass, no physical evidence. It is the equlivent of him imagining the children nude and etc. And the children, and their parents, will have no knowledge of this at all until chages are filed. AT THAT POINT the children and parents will be tramatized, not by the deviant, but by the legal system.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by Solomon

Ombra:

: pops knuckles :

"No victim you say?"

: takes out his knuckle-duster :

"What about you?"

Half an hour later, anonymous phone calls direct the police, an ambulance and a K.N.I.G.H.T.labs metahuman team to the creep.

 

Wouldn't it be simpler to turn yourself in for the assault?

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram

Ballistic would use his magic to do a little psychic surgery, and fix his problem and add in something else - if they guy ever looked a child (real or copy) with that kind of emotion again he would go suicidal and kill himself within a day.

 

Why not just kill him? Your method seems a little baroque for the same effect . . .

[caris]

Originally posted by McCoy

Except that he did not. No tresspass, no physical evidence. It is the equlivent of him imagining the children nude and etc. And the children, and their parents, will have no knowledge of this at all until chages are filed. AT THAT POINT the children and parents will be tramatized, not by the deviant, but by the legal system.

 

I'm still not buying it McCoy. This is not the same as him imagining it. If you prefer it would be like him sketching nudes of the children from memory, but even than not really. I'm pretty sure that if a janitor from the local high school was found with pics on his computer taken by a digital camera that he hid in the locker room, a place he had a legal right to be, he would still be held liable for invasion of privacy.

 

Question: would a character with clairsentience be violating a persons privacy if he used it to spy on them in their bedroom? Would it be a crime if it could be proven that it had happened?

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by grump

Tempest (dimension-hopping supermage and father of two, with a CvK and an honor code at the Total level) would probably do something along these lines.

 

First, he'd stop by radio shack and pick up a camcorder. Then, since he's a bit of a luddite, he'd have the team's gadgeteer show him how to work it. Then, he'd wait outside our friendly neighborhood sex offender's house with said camcorder for him to get started again. He'd start recording right after the small child appears, and stop recording right before the small child is dismissed.

 

Then, armed with this evidence, he'd march to various experts in digital video recording, electronics, and magic (preferably parents themselves) and have them sign affidavits that the tape wasn't tampered with in any way. Then, after a brief lecture along the lines of "whatever you do, don't go to this guy's house (which happens to be at X address) and beat him up; let the police handle it," I'd call my contact in the L.A.P.D. and arrange to drop off my evidence. I'd make sure to give him the suspected felon's address, as well as inform him that the perpetrator seemed to have some non-combat-effective superpowers and that I'd spoken with the child in question and he didn't seem to remember anything.

 

Then, in compliance with local laws, I'd go to each of his neighbors' houses and inform whoever was there that their neighbor is a suspected child molester, and that while he did seem to have some superpowers, they weren't combat effective, so they didn't have to worry about, for example, fire blasts or anything. I'd stress to them that nothing has been proven yet, and that it may take a while for formal charges to be brought, since his alleged victims didn't seem to remember a thing.

 

Then, after a few days, if he was still alive, I'd leak the story to the press. Tempest has been around a long time, and he knows very well that human nature can be a sword and shield if need be.

 

So your character would become a child pornographer in order to deal with this situation?

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by Mayday

With only his word for it that the constructs are non-sentient and that noone is being harmed, most of mine would sooner believe that Dr D was planning to retire to Aculpoco and take up ballroom dancing.

 

He's portrayed as arrogant and not at all repentent although he knows his 'hobby' is not acceptable in most cultures. His power may have other applications and victims of sexual crimes often repress the whole thing. He may be drawing on the child's soul or mystical energy, affecting their dreams, who knows. It is a potentially complex power.

 

I would never run this, nor would any of my GMs run it. We play in Fantastic Worlds that are slightly gray or moderately dark but some things we dont touch.

 

 

 

Very true Blue.

 

Memory repression is a hoax!

[caris]

Originally posted by McCoy

Except that he did not. No tresspass, no physical evidence. It is the equlivent of him imagining the children nude and etc. And the children, and their parents, will have no knowledge of this at all until chages are filed. AT THAT POINT the children and parents will be tramatized, not by the deviant, but by the legal system.

 

Furthermore child pornography laws generally target any pornographic depiction of childern even those that are strictly the product of imagination, such as drawings or animated films. Quite simply the guy has little chance of beating a child pornography rap if evidence can be produced of him using his "energy clones" the way described. As for the children being traumitized. I doubt the court would involve the childern any more than having investigators contacting the family to determine for themselves that the gentleman had or had not actually molested the "originals". If he hadn't than the childern's testimony is immaterial to the case, and they wouldn't be called.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by caris

It is a little more complicated than that McCoy. The guy is producing the equivalent of nude photos of these childern. It would be far closer to if he were to have put a hidden camera in their bathrooms and took photos of them in the tub, and was doing it to masturbate to those photos. He has invaded the childern's privacy.

 

Please, note Adonis would not be physically assaulting the man in any way. Nor would he be playing the sex offender notification game. He would simply bring the person to court on what he feels are reasonable charges.

 

Part of the dificulty with that comparison is a question about the existence of such photos. How many of you have embarassing photos parents took of you during potty-training or just pictures of you doing the common kid practice of running naked through the house or yard? So it becomes a crime when someone is aroused by such a picture?

[caris]

Originally posted by ZootSoot

Part of the dificulty with that comparison is a question about the existence of such photos. How many of you have embarassing photos parents took of you during potty-training or just pictures of you doing the common kid practice of running naked through the house or yard? So it becomes a crime when someone is aroused by such a picture?

 

No, but I would say that when the person produces a life size anatomically correct doll with the intention of using it for sexual stimulation, that it is safe to say they have moved in to the realm of pornography.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by caris

Furthermore child pornography laws generally target any pornographic depiction of childern even those that are strictly the product of imagination, such as drawings or animated films. Quite simply the guy has little chance of beating a child pornography rap if evidence can be produced of him using his "energy clones" the way described.

No physical evidence, nothing but the word of a peeping tom vigilanty against his.

 

Originally posted by caris

As for the children being traumitized. I doubt the court would involve the childern any more than having investigators contacting the family to determine for themselves that the gentleman had or had not actually molested the "originals". If he hadn't than the childern's testimony is immaterial to the case, and they wouldn't be called.

Have to have a victim if you are alledging violation of privacy, and kids still can be called by defense as rebuttal witnesses.

[Blue]

Overlooking the subject matter, I'm suddenly enjoying the "moral argument" taking place in this thread, which was likely the intent of the original poster.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

 

It was.

 

While I find the situation … repulsive to say the least. As a father of two and having a close friend who was sexually abused herself as a child I hardly take the matter lightly.

 

That said the situation has a moral grayness that this debate has expressed very clearly.

 

To further relate the matter back to more standard Champions fare, let me raise a few more questions…

 

What happens if this sicko is exposed in a world where politicians are trying to regulate super-beings already? One incident like this and it could lead to something very like the Patriot Act, a sweeping set of laws passed very quickly and without much review, only aimed at superbeings. The press would have a field day with this sort of thing.

 

Just how much would it energize the super ‘hate groups’ like Institute for Human Advancement if word of this guy got out? How much could that in turn burn the heroes later?

 

And what happens to all those righteous killers when two weeks later when someone the character cares for is dieing and only this sicko could have saved them? Would they feel guilty before the end?

 

Oh, and if it clarifies the debate at all I was thinking along the lines of Duplication, Useable as an attack, Invisible, Trigger.

[Blue]

Originally posted by Vanderbilt_Grad

Just how much would it energize the super ‘hate groups’ like Institute for Human Advancement if word of this guy got out? How much could that in turn burn the heroes later?

 

I like this angle. If I found a more appropriate crime for my game I could have some fun with my players

[Bengal]

You know what? Is this what they teach you at Vanderbilt? Enough with the political rhetoric in my Champions game.

[Bluefire]

Psyfire Being that this character is a mostly unstable mentalist and prone to being rash I might end up loosing control of the character again due to official police detainment. As to what he would do to this guy would depend entirely on the mood and desire I had to describe the mental powers I would use. It would not be pretty either way.

 

Bluefire Unfortunately this would be a hard bit of "roleplaying" due to the fact that he would want to "help" this guy. He is obviously sick and needs some serious help.

 

Now, on to the actual issue that we are starting to get to. What does our character do when we see an act commited that if we bring it to light will cause negative repurcussions for all, in this case supers? Its been a long while since I have played in a campaign so it would be hard to say as a player, but as a GM I would only want to bring this situation up and develop it if the social tensions were high. Maybe I would use this as the vehicle to cause those tensions to become high, I don't know. It is a harsh topic and I honestly tip my hat to the original poster because this one gave me reason for pause. There is a bunch more that I would love to go into, but I don't think its really needed.

 

-Bluefire

[Mayday]

Originally posted by ZootSoot

Memory repression is a hoax!

 

No.

 

It is not.

 

If a person cant deal with a trauma they blank it out.

 

 

What happens if this sicko is exposed in a world where politicians are trying to regulate super-beings already? One incident like this and it could lead to something very like the Patriot Act, a sweeping set of laws passed very quickly and without much review, only aimed at superbeings. The press would have a field day with this sort of thing.

 

How much could that in turn burn the heroes later?

 

Laws can be undermined and overturned. If it becomes a problem there are 179 other countries in the world.

 

 

And what happens to all those righteous killers when two weeks later when someone the character cares for is dieing and only this sicko could have saved them? Would they feel guilty before the end?

 

No. Mayday didnt try to kill him, and if sending him to jail meant somone she cared about would die, thats what comes with being a hero. You do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do. It is sad, she'd cry, but she would not change anything.

 

ShadowCross was a victim of sexual assault once, so this guy's dead and forgotten in her mind. She's not one to question if she did right or did wrong and in this case she believes she was right to render him dead and probably never thinks about him again.

 

 

Oh, and if it clarifies the debate at all I was thinking along the lines of Duplication, Useable as an attack, Invisible, Trigger.

 

Duplication. So they have minds, sentience, personality.

 

 

[McCoy]

Originally posted by caris

Question: would a character with clairsentience be violating a persons privacy if he used it to spy on them in their bedroom? Would it be a crime if it could be proven that it had happened?

Under existing law, probably not. Just as paparazzi can legally take pictures from public property but cannot set one toe over the property line without permission. Courts have also ruled that IR or other devices that can "see" through walls are not an invasion of privacy.

 

Depending on what he did with the info, may be some civil liability, but no criminal violation.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Vanderbilt_Grad

Oh, and if it clarifies the debate at all I was thinking along the lines of Duplication, Useable as an attack, Invisible, Trigger.

I was assuming holograms, all-senses images, rather than flesh and blood duplicates.

 

Any of my characters would need to consult a mentalist on this. Personally, I cannot help but think that there would be some sort of psychological residue when they recombined with the original, so it would be necessary to stop the deviant. Even if not, the duplicates are capible of real suffering, so it would be necessary to stop the deviant. Dolphin would attempt to help him, Millennium would stop him by legal means, Cheetah, Iron Will, and Snow Leopard by any means necessary.

[caris]

Originally posted by McCoy

No physical evidence, nothing but the word of a peeping tom vigilanty against his.

 

Lack of physical evidence means that a crime hadn't been committed? No, it means that it is difficult to prove that a crime had been committed. The guy is engaged in child pornography, wether it can be proven in court is another matter.

 

Originally posted by McCoy

Have to have a victim if you are alledging violation of privacy, and kids still can be called by defense as rebuttal witnesses.

 

Adonis isn't a DA. It would be up to the DA to determine what the charges are, and if the charges are only child pornography, than no the kids are not rebuttal witnesses.

[caris]

Originally posted by McCoy

Under existing law, probably not. Just as paparazzi can legally take pictures from public property but cannot set one toe over the property line without permission. Courts have also ruled that IR or other devices that can "see" through walls are not an invasion of privacy.

 

Depending on what he did with the info, may be some civil liability, but no criminal violation.

 

In the case of the photographer the ruling is based on the assumption that the photographer is only able to photograph what would be available to anyone in that public area, and therefore the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy, that would not be necessarily the case with the clairsentient.

 

The other devices you are mentioning are a lot more iffy areas even with the courts, and it is likely that much of the rulings with them is based on the fact that they can only provide a silhouette, and not a true photographic likeness.

 

You are right that current laws do not specifically address some of these issues, but changing technology has not stopped the courts from applying existing laws to new technology, or triggering the creation of new laws. My guess is that in a superhuman world at the very least any use of clairsentience or N-Ray vision that mimicked normal sight would require a search warrant to be used. Your world the laws may be different.