Jane's Superhumans

[Metaphysician]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

One last comment: Any law that a person can violate merely by being, is a law we neither need nor should have.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

How about you actually respond to the point instead of avoiding it by making a joke about it?

 

His point was, you'd apparently failed to notice how many states actually *do* have 'Right To Carry' laws, thus voiding large chunks of that argument you tried making.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

What' date=' and there are no laws like this already? The mentally-ill are regularly locked away without having done anything....[/quote']

 

I really don't think the comparison to mentally ill/emotionally disturbed people is apt. It's not really relevant to the question of people in possession of overtly lethal weapons/powers. What foundation your argument may have is weakened by including the mentally ill into it.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Please don't go claiming that its the Evil Right Wingers who are going to legislate control over superhumans...

 

I do not recall seeing anyone assert that. If they have, it's been an isolated comment. I do not think the quality of the discussion (such as it is) is enhanced by bringing in dubious partisan rhetoric.

 

(For myself, I think "left" and "right" are just minor variants of the same idiotic species, so for me, a claim of "left wing" or "right wing" behavior is just noise, anyway.)

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

(For myself' date=' I think "left" and "right" are just minor variants of the same idiotic species, so for me [...']

 

If you are a human being, then either you must really not like yourself or there's a hole in your theory.

 

If you by some incredible chance are not actually a human being, but are instead some other intelligent life form, then please, go the hell back to your home planet.

 

/sarcasm off

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

If you are a human being' date=' then either you must really not like yourself or there's a hole in your theory.[/quote']

 

You might consider the possibility that you are operating under a false assumption. Again. Hint: the political spectrum has more than one axis. (And there is more than one political spectrum, as well.)

 

But in any event, that's a red herring where this discussion is concerned.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

You might consider the possibility that you are operating under a false assumption. Again. Hint: the political spectrum has more than one axis.

 

Return Hint: That in no way changes your direct (and repeated) statement that the human species is idiotic, irrational, or just plain stupid.

 

And yes, I do think it's relevant to this thread. Specifically, I think it's relevant to (agh, need morning caffeine fix. *corrects text*) ask you to stop dragging 'People are stoooooooooooooooooopid!' into the discussion as reflexively as Pavlov's dog drooling everytime somebody whacks the bell, and me whacking you with the Sarcasm Bat every time you do so to hopefully establish a new conditioned reflex.

 

Or, just to work off my own sadistic impulses, whichever.

 

In summary -- your over-the-top hatred, scorn, and disdain for pretty much the entire human condition is the red herring, and has been since you first tried to slop it in here yesterday, so for the love of whatever supreme enlightening force in which you may choose to believe, give it a rest. Or at the very least, take it to a different theater. Fug, man, if all else fails, there's always NGD.

[Lightray]

Grrr! Has anyone actually been to England recently? Like' date=' since the turn of the century?![/quote']

Hey, now. Last few times I've been to London, it's been foggy. Of course, last few times I've been to Seattle, it's snowed...

 

If I have a knife surgically attached to my knuckle bones, it doesnt cease to be a weapon. It is a peculiar definition of weapon that it needs to be separable from the human body - some jurisdictions count any assault by trained combatants such as boxers as assault with a deadly weapon.

 

The difference is that people are potentially born with these deadly weapons. Certainly, it is harsh to treat them the same as people who intentionally carry arms. But the law is there because of the potential harm someone could cause using weapons - it's not only convicted criminals who are banned from carrying assault weapons in public, is it?

 

Which is my mind makes it all the more likely that they'd be treated within existing legislation and possibly quite harshly. It would be harder to generate a body of resistance if the laws only affected one in a million people.

I do agree that existing laws would be applied to super-humans. In fact, I think it's unlikely that many new laws would be passed absent some 9/11-type incident -- more likely that legislators will dither and argue and the courts will be left to sort it all out.

 

However, I don't think that superpowers-as-weapons will be the legal precedent used. Super-humans may be inherently dangerous or potentially dangerous, but it's not from surgically-attached knives. We need an analogy of hazard that is inseperable from the person. Trained combatant would work, as might other people who are hazardous and have no control over that (e.g., SARS victims).

 

I don't believe that enforcement of these laws would be necessarily harsh -- unless in response to some incident that caused public outcry (e.g., WMD Guy flips out). Probably a lot of media attention, and probably a lot of people not agreeing with whatever result is reached by the courts, though.

 

(By the way, I can see distinctions made between innate super-powers and artificial -- Scissorman was born that way; Wolverine has prostheses. If he keeps carving up other people, the court is going to order him disarmed. But to disarm Scissorman is to literally dis-arm him; they'd probably just file down his cutting surfaces...)

 

I think it's incorrect to assume that all powers would be treated the same, and that you were either super or not-super.

This, I completely agree with.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

His point was' date=' you'd apparently failed to notice how many states actually *do* have 'Right To Carry' laws, thus voiding large chunks of that argument you tried making.[/quote']

 

How many state's 'right to carry' laws allow their citizens to carry anywhere, any time, and without restriction, though?

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

2. Please don't go claiming that its the Evil Right Wingers who are going to legislate control over superhumans, when you at the same time try to compare superhumans to guns. Try and remember for a moment which side is *against* gun-control.

 

And please dont misunderstand, as too often seems to happen, a person's own view and a thread that is trying to hypothetically discuss what the reaction of a government might be to a situation. This discussion is - or at least, was - the latter.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Return Hint: That in no way changes your direct (and repeated) statement that the human species is idiotic' date=' irrational, or just plain stupid.[/quote']

 

I typically only bring that up when people seem oblivious to the fact that not only will people do "idiotic, irrational, or just plain stupid" things, they already have done "idiotic, irrational, or just plain stupid" things, and they continue to do so despite the predictable negative consequences. I do not know why anyone with a driver's license would need this pointed out to them: rest assurred that this annoys me as much as it does you.

 

As for the left-right thing, the "idiotic species" to which I referred was not Homo sapiens, it was explicitly that small portion of Homo sapiens which considers "left" and "right" to be distinct ideologies. Perhaps I could have been clearer.

 

I am now curious if your "left vs right" thread derailment will derail the previous "superpowers as regulated weaponry" derailment.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

How many state's 'right to carry' laws allow their citizens to carry anywhere' date=' any time, and without restriction, though?[/quote']

 

At least one, IIRC.

 

Furthermore, while I've been out (and/or trying to beat on bblackmoor's skull with my Irrelevant Sarcastic Bastard Bat), other people have quite aptly explained the fallacy in legislating people like removable objects.

 

Passing a law that somebody violates just by being born is... very, very, not good.

 

Furthermore, I think it's expressly forbidden by the 14th Amendment.

[Lightray]

I have to say this thread has been very useful for campaign ideas, even the ones from thread-drift.

 

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

I typically only bring that up when people seem oblivious to the fact that not only will people do "idiotic' date=' irrational, or just plain stupid" things, they already [i']have[/i] done "idiotic, irrational, or just plain stupid" things [...]

 

Translation -- you bring it up whenever people dare to suggest that any given group of folks might actually, in at least one instance, fail to act like complete jackasses.

 

(add) Personally, I find that in a genre of fiction/gaming about exceptional people doing exceptional things, and heroism, and hope, and all that jazz, that designing your scenarios on the premise that the human race will always fuck it up big at crunch time to be really missing the point of playing the game. But that's just me.

[Phil]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

At least one, IIRC.

Passing a law that somebody violates just by being born is... very, very, not good.

 

Absolutely. However, much of the discussion is about applying an existing law. I can see attorneys across the world with flashing before their eyes!

 

Take an interesting parallel. How would a mutant child born with a highly infectious disease with a high mortality rate, but personally immune to it be treated? OK, that's an extreme case, because that will automatically affect people. But it could happen in the real world. As a straw man it may help us apply current policies to superhumans.

 

Now that child only spreads it if it touches someone. Less extreme - an unconscious effect, but controllable.

 

Now that child only spreads it if it coughs directly into someone's mouth. Less extreme still - needs to take quite specific action, which is controllable, but can possibly happen by chance.

 

Now make that disease non-infectious, aside from the child passing it on. I cant say I have an answer, but I'm not convinced that governments would allow the child to move around unsupervised entirely, even once it was grown up. And I think here we hit the EB/Superstrength parallel, assuming that powers are not 100% controllable (which in Hero terms they are, but comic books have precedents of accidental activation when under stress or extreme emotion).

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

> Absolutely. However, much of the discussion is about applying an existing

> law.

 

There is no existing law -- either in the real world, or indeed many fictional superhero-genre worlds -- against being born with the possession of superhuman abilities. There are only laws against the possession and/or carrying of certain weapons, said categories (and/or in some cases, individual makes and models) of weapons explicitly defined in law.

 

Or, in plain English, you can't apply existing gun control laws to supers, 'cause supers ain't guns. You'd have to pass new law *modelled on* gun control laws... and at that point, we are no longer what you are arguing above.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

At least one, IIRC.

 

Which one? And even if it is one, that would make it the exception, not the rule.

 

Furthermore, while I've been out (and/or trying to beat on bblackmoor's skull with my Irrelevant Sarcastic Bastard Bat), other people have quite aptly explained the fallacy in legislating people like removable objects.

 

How is it fallacious to argue that, in a world that contained superpowers, the laws might be framed in language that addresses abilities rather than devices?

 

 

Passing a law that somebody violates just by being born is... very, very, not good.

 

Furthermore, I think it's expressly forbidden by the 14th Amendment.

 

I agree that it is very very not good, but that doesnt mean that A) it wouldnt be an unpleasant necessity or that enough voters wouldnt get together and modify the 14th amendment to not to apply to the superpowered, or, for that matter, that the 14th amendment would have been written just the way it is in the first place, if superpowers were around at the time of its writing.

 

 

Speaking of constitutional rights, consider the 6th Amendment as it might apply to mentalists.

 

MentalMan stands accused of using his super Mind Control powers to coerce a woman into his bed. MentalMan claims that, while he did use his mental powers on the woman in question to enhance their lovemaking experience, the relationship and the use of the mental powers was entirely consensual, and that it isnt his fault that nature has endowed him with such a surpassing ability to be a great lover that women become unreasonable wehn he loses interest in them. He then demands his 6th Amendment right to be confronted by his accuser. Once on the stand, his accuser breaks down in tears and says that her accusation is a lie made up out of spite against MentalMan because he no longer wants her. MentalMan then smirks, and his lawyer moves for a dismissal, since the state has no case. Shortly afterward, the woman commits suicide, citing in her note that a broken heart as her reason. MentalMan walks, as there is no proof that he used his mental powers to either coerce the woman into sex in the first place, to influence her testimony in the second, or to make her commit suicide in the third. The case is, of course, a media circus. The public thinks MentalMan is as guilty as sin, but the court has to let him walk, since, indeed, the state has no case.

 

The next month MentalMan is accused of exactly the same thing by another woman. This time the judge decides that the woman can testify by telepresence. But again she recants, MM walks, and then she kills herself. (apparently MM has some Mindscan too) The media circus is even bigger.

 

The month after that yet another woman accuses MM. This time, due to the media circus in the previous 2 trials, the court has a very hard time finding unbiased jurors. When it finally does, though, the court not only lets the woman testify by telepresence, but retains a super with Mental Awareness to report if she is subject to any mental attacks. The trial follows exactly the same course as the previous two, the mentalist reports that he sensed nothing, and again MM walks. (Looks like MM has Invisible Power Effects on his Mindscan and Mind Control... how unfortunate!) The media, and the public, and especially other superpowered people (who see his actions as a danger to them all), are screaming for blood. Everyone knows MentalMan is using his powers on the women who testify against him, but nobody can prove it in a court of law.

 

The month after than a 4th accuser bravely comes forward, despite deaths of the previous 3 women to accuse MM. By this time the court not only lets the woman testify by telepresence and has multiple Mental Awareness types scattered about looking for Mind Control, but has also retained the services of a super who has volunteered to use his Mental Defence, Useable by Others' to shield the woman. MentalMan's lawyers object to allowing testimony by a witness known to be under the influence of a mental power that is only claimed to be merely a defence, and posits that MenDUBO (the super providing the 'defence') has it in for their cleint, blaming him for the bad press the superpowered have been getting. The court upholds the objection. (perhaps the judge has been mindcontrolled?) and the trial follows the now predictable course.

 

In the months after than, MentalMan continues his imitation of Don Juan, but no more women come forward to accuse him. He does, however, become subject to random attacks by the public, both normal and superpowered, against whom he is all to happy to press charges. Many of the people who attack him end up in prison.

 

 

The kicker : His version of events is the truth. Nature has equipped him as the worlds greatest lover, and he is so good at it that women do become irrational and suicidal when he moves on. Or not. You can have the truth be just what everyone thinks, but cant prove, it is, too.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Answer -- unless MentalMan is the only psionic in the world, have the court hire another one to mind-probe *HIM* and see if he's telling the truth or not -- via mental search warrant, which by this point in the narrative they most definitely have probable cause to issue.

 

You know, like the default CU already does, as explained in _Champions Universe 5e_

 

Dilemna solved long before we got here.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Ooh, Mental Search warrants! And people are complaining that not letting Laserboy casually walk into a courtroom is a gross violation of his human rights, worthy only of fascist bigots!

 

I would think that deep probing someone's mind, even with a warrant, would be a violation of their 5th Amendment right to not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves. Why dont the courts in CU use mentalists for all their criminal trial needs? It would certaibly speed things up as compared to those tedious 'jury' and 'evidence' processes.

 

There is also the possibility that Mentalman has enough Mental Defence that the probe will be inconclusive.

 

PS : I dont own CU5e.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

> Ooh, Mental Search warrants! And people are complaining that not letting

> Laserboy casually walk into a courtroom is a gross violation of his human

> rights, worthy only of fascist bigots!

 

Exactly. The one is an invasive search being conducted *AFTER* a judge has both determined that there is probable cause (and in this case, to a pretty damn high standard of probable cause), and signed a warrant.

 

The other is a blanket ban against entire categories of people that doesn't even pretend to respect warrants, probable cause, or judicial necessity -- it's based on a blanket presumption of guilt for an entire segment of the population, based solely on genetic discrimination.

 

So your attempted analogy does not so much fly as plummet.

 

> I would think that deep probing someone's mind, even with a warrant, would

> be a violation of their 5th Amendment right to not be compelled in any

> criminal case to be a witness against themselves.

 

Given the case -- i.e., that the physical evidence of tampering is available in only one place, the inside of his head -- there's enough ambiguity for it to be argued either way, but that's what a Supreme Court is paid to decide.

 

Actually, in this case, it might also be discoverable by using the court telepath on the *victim's* head, to check for traces of tampering at the EGO+30 level... and in that case, the Fifth doesn't apply, as she's not the suspect... she's the witness.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

How about you actually respond to the point instead of avoiding it by making a joke about it?

How about you learn to deduce something on your own? Look at my location. Surely you've heard of that state, right? Here's a hint if you still cant' find it: This state was its own nation when it entered the Union. We are "The Lone Star State." Now, to have it spelled out for you, we are allowed to carry firearms. In fact, if you do the proper registering, you're allowed to carry a concealed firearm. We're even in tandem with some other southern states that a conclealed firearm permit from one state is acceptable in the other.

 

Now, are there some restrictions? Yes. You can't carry a firearm onto school property (unless you are law enforcement), but then, you can't drink alcohol or smoke either.

 

As with all businesses (which have the right to refuse service to anyone here), if they don't want you bringing a firearm in, they have this sign on their door that says so. You usually see these at grocery stores and banks.

 

SIDE: After retiring from the military, my father managed at a convenience store (out in 'the country' for you cityfolk) for a time, where one day a man came into the store riding on a horse. There was an auction across the street and he came over to buy something. When my dad asked him (dry humor, sarcasm way) why he didn't drive over, the man replied he was too drunk to drive. Strangely enough, riding on the horse inside the store, nothing was knocked over. Apparently this horse was accustomed to such things.

 

And how much harder is it to successfully blind or kill someone (or more especially many someones in a spate) with a pencil' date=' a belt, or some plastic wrap (which, in your example also requires a sleeping victim!) than it is with a firearm, a nuclear bomb, or deadly laserbeams that shoot out of one's eyes? You seem unwilling to address issues of scale, ease, or concealability of weaponry as they relate to regulation of the means to commit violence. Do you [i']really[/i] think reynolds wrap is more dangerous than a machinegun, and that the two are (or should be) regulated with the same strictness?

It doesn't matter how easy it is to kill someone with a weapon. If I kill you with a pencil, a knife, a pistol, or a rifle, and regardless of whether you were awake or asleep, I'm still going to be tried with murder.

 

As for your "fear factor" of the nuclear bomb, do you realize that you can find books in libraries that *show* you how to build a nuclear bomb? Do you know why these are allowed? Because Tom, Dick, and Harry can't get access to the materials needed (particularly the radioactive uranium) nor do they have the means to process and produce it properly.

 

No, I don't think Reynolds Wrap is more dangerous. However, on your fear theme, do you really think a machinegun is more dangerous than a human being? Because a machinegun can't kill anyone without a human being operating it. However, we DON'T BAN HUMAN BEINGS!

 

 

You seem to be arguing that laws prohibiting individuals from possessing such potentially deadly power are unjust' date=' since the [i']potential[/i] of committing violence isnt the same as the actuality of committing it. That until someone actually blows up a city, that their potential to do so should not be the law's or their neighbor's concern!

Then perhaps you should inform your local police department that you have the potential to kill several dozen people and that you should be constantly monitored.

 

And you are (purposely?) changing my argument. I'm arguing against prohibiting people access to life simply because they're born better with powers (or maybe you're afraid because they're better than you?). I've never stated anything about people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, or machine guns.

 

 

Oh' date=' yes. The annihilation of an entire city and all the people in it is the moral equivalent of a little noise and a wet porch! How could I miss that![/quote']

Because you're blinded by your own prejudice? No entire city had been destroyed, correct? So you can't compare that.

 

 

He may or may not be' date=' depending on how the law is written. If superpowered people [i']did[/i] exist, I suspect that laws would be written or rewritten in such a way as to address their existence. So your statement that he is not breaking the law is not really relevant.

It's statements like this that really make me deduce that you're not capable of a higher, open-minded thinking and it's becoming pointless to debate with you. Since you may realize that your argument is for naught, you're now changing to say "So your statement that he is not breaking the law is not really relevant," just weakens your side here. We've been talking about legality the whole time, and now you're trying to say the law is irrelelevant?

 

 

As to how it is known that he has this power' date=' that isnt really relevant to the arguement either. It is posited that it is known.[/quote']

But you haven't explained how and you're avoiding my question. Did a super detect it? Otherwise, the options I offered stand with what I stated.

 

 

So very untrue! If I' date=' and a sufficient number of my other neighbors fear this particular neighbor, we make laws or customs to restrict his liberty and thus oppress him.[/quote']

[sarcasm]WHITE POWER! WHITE POWER! -Oops, I hope I wasn't revealing something.-[/sarcasm] (While I don't *really* want to see any klan members dressed up again in my lifetime, if ever there was a rally in my area, I'd like to go with signs that stated "White flower!" and "White flour!" as well as have flour and flowers along to throw around.)

 

Sorry, Jim Crowe laws have been disbanded a long time ago. The Civil Rights Movement showed how immoral this thinking was and how illegal actions enforcing that were. You can't regulate where someone lives simply because you fear them. That IS illegal.

 

 

That is the nature of civilization. People give up' date=' or are forced to give up their liberty for the greated good.[/quote']

Go to college, even if to only get an Associate's Degree.

 

 

Why cant [sic] I own a nuclear bomb? Because 'The Law' has oppressively stolen my liberty to do so. No witch hunting here.

You never had the 'right' to own one to begin with.

 

 

If I had such an ability ... if I met all of the requirements for mental stability....

I think this sums up the fallacy of your argument.

 

 

You cant always get what you want.

Including laws banning people for being born, whom you fear.

[Outsider]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

The one is an invasive search being conducted *AFTER* a judge has both determined that there is probable cause (and in this case, to a pretty damn high standard of probable cause), and signed a warrant.

 

What probably cause? Merely that he stands accused and happens to have a certain superpower? Or does the warrant only get issued after a few of the trials have gone by, so that the probably cause is that hes been accused (but not ever proven guilty) more than once, and happens to have certain superpowers?

 

 

The other is a blanket ban against entire categories of people that doesn't even pretend to respect warrants, probable cause, or judicial necessity -- it's based on a blanket presumption of guilt for an entire segment of the population, based solely on genetic discrimination.

 

So your attempted analogy does not so much fly as plummet.

 

It is a blanket ban against people possessing massive deadly force casually entering the courtroom, regardless of the source of their power, be it technological or genetic. Would you care to explain how a blanket ban aganst just those possessing that force via technological means is any less respecting of warrants, probably cause, or judicial necessity, and isnt based on a presumption of guilt? You seem to be the one hung up on genetics, not me. Your attempted rebuttal hasnt just plummeted, but has left a smoking hole in the ground.

 

 

Given the case -- i.e., that the physical evidence of tampering is available in only one place, the inside of his head -- there's enough ambiguity for it to be argued either way, but that's what a Supreme Court is paid to decide.

 

Uh, what physical evidence? Even if the court appointed Mind Violator...er, pardon me, Mental Investigator...determines that MentalMan is lying, it isnt physical evidence. It is isolated testimony from an individual who has NO OTHER WITNESSES or other "experts" to support his claim. Perhaps you'd like to bring in a team of mind probers next so they can corroborate eachother's testimony? Of course, the defence can bring in a pile of its own (weaker?) mentalists who will claim that they detect no falsehood in MM's story, throwing doubt onto the entire 'mind probe' testimony.

 

 

Actually, in this case, it might also be discoverable by using the court telepath on the *victim's* head, to check for traces of tampering at the EGO+30 level... and in that case, the Fifth doesn't apply, as she's not the suspect... she's the witness.

 

True, but MentalMan has already admitted to using his mental powers on her with her consent to enhance their relationship, probably multiple times, and so traces of tampering WILL be there. To find anything that MentalMan has intentionally hidden in her mind will require that the court appointed mentalist overcome MentalMan's Mind Control (if he hid the truth that way) or will require that the Transform (mind) used on her be reversed, somehow, if MM used that method. Something like this comes down to asking the jury to convict based on just the word of the court appointed mentalist. I'm not saying it wont work, but I am thinking such an arrangement is incredibly ripe for abuse.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

What' date=' and there are no laws like this already? The mentally-ill are regularly locked away without having done anything. Criminals need only commit 3 crimes in California to get a 20 year sentence, just in case they commit another.[/quote']

Not here in Texas. We have mentally ill people living life without being locked away. They are locked up (and definitely not regularly) only after they're determined to be a threat, by a history of doing something. Sorry, criminals committing 3 crimes have already proven a threat and danger to society, that third strike is on their third crime.

[Kirby]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

Perhaps one of you bright boys with the college educations would care to enlighten me on the proper way to express that WMDman is 100' date='000 times more dangerous than a normal man, instead of just mocking me? Or perhaps you're too busy acting like classist/elitist snobs to bother? Am I supposed to be tugging my forelock, bowing and scraping to my betters at this point?[/quote']

I think this says it quite well.

[Chuckg]

Re: Jane's Superhumans

 

> What probably cause? Merely that he stands accused and happens to have

> a certain superpower?

 

... why yes, Virginia, being suspected of a crime to the point where there has been a successful grand jury indictment brought against you (which there obviously already has been, as you can't get Psi-Boy here to the trial stage without one) *IS* usually considered probable cause to issue warrants to search likely and/or necessary places for evidence, either damning or exculpatory.

 

Dude, this is knowledge that requires nothing greater than watching some "Law and Order", let alone actual speaking to people who do this for a living.

 

> It is a blanket ban against people possessing massive deadly force casually

> entering the courtroom, regardless of the source of their power, be it

> technological or genetic.

 

Faulty argument, as explained before -- you cannot claim that an object and an inborn genetic characteristic of your race, are or should be treated identically in law -- 'cause Lord knows, we have at least fourteen constitutional amendments designed specifically to say the opposite.

 

[snip]

> True, but MentalMan has already admitted to using his mental powers on

> her with her consent to enhance their relationship, probably multiple times,

> and so traces of tampering WILL be there.

 

Big whoop. It's /what/ tampering and /how much/ that needs to be established in law, hence the detailed examination by psychic expert.

 

And /this/ is something you could figure simply by watching CSI, and doing an analogy from 'lab test' to 'psychic examination'.

 

 

I might also point out that if the tampering he did was so extensive, and so unable to be comprehended by non-psionic humans, he's fucked *anyway* -- as if it's something that extreme, the victim was not capable of giving *informed* consent, because she didn't know what she was really getting into until after it was already done to her...

 

... and man, what happens to you if you are proven to literally screw somebody into the wacky house /without/ their informed consent is something I wouldn't do to a dog.

 

Try creating another dilemna, this one's just too full of holes to stand up.