ATTENTION LAWYERS! How to deal with Heroes and the law?

[John515]

One of my players is going to play an ex-black ops agent turned hero. He refuses to take code vs. killing, although he swears he will not be a killer. So.....

ATTENTION LAWYERS: In the unlikely event a hero does manage to kill someone in a super battle, how would you deal with it? Evaluate proper use of force/deadly force like a policeman? Vigilante? Joe citizen just trying to help out? Can you think of anything else that isn't already covered in the books? (Mr. Steve Long, that's your cue...... ;-) )

 

I suppose it would depend on the individual situation and whether or not the heroes action were justified.

 

In an old game, our team managed to kill two members of Eurostar after they has killed 2 heroes and a bunch of normals. Our GM had us roleplay out the rest. However, it was about 12 years ago and I don't remember all of the legal details.....

 

I would like to have something to use in the event that it does happen. I will probably make it happen anyway, just to keep them on their toes and on their best behavior should they get a little too lax in the use of force against a lesser foe.........

[Chris Goodwin]

If you can find the fourth edition version of Dark Champions, Steve wrote a bunch of stuff in there about supers and the law.

 

Also check out "The Law is a Ass" by Bob Ingersoll at http://www.worldfamouscomics.com/law/

[McCoy]

Basic principle: anyone can use deadly force in defense of self or others. If they have witnesses that will testify the villian shot first, or threatened to shoot first, they escape the worse consequences. However, woe be unto them if a bystander gets wounded/killed in the crossfire. Area effects or bounced attacks may be seen as wrecklessly endangering bystanders.

 

In my world, Citizen's Arrest has been slightly expanded. Anyone may detain anyone a person other than a Law Enforcement Officer who demonstrates a power, device or weapon that could reasonably be interpeted as capible of Deadly Force. (In RL, you need to witness a felony to make a citizens arrest.)

[Polaris]

John,

 

Deadly force can be used if it is reasonable and necessary in the defense of oneself or another. If White Flame is about to use force that could reasonably be feared to be deadly force against your hero, or a passer by, and the hero could reasonably believe that the only way to stop White Flame was the application of deadly force, then the hero would be justified in using the deadly force against White Flame.

 

If Joe Thug were to have a knife and be moving toward your superhero, and your black ops superhero (who is probably an extremely good shot) blows his head off, even tho it was defending himself, that would not likely be accepted as reasonable and necessary. This is because being a Black Ops specialist, he likely is a fairly accurate shot. He could likely have shot the knife out of the guy's hand, or shot to injur and not kill. There is also quite a reasonable chance, being a superhero, he could have defended against the knife attack and restrained the thug.

 

As you can undoubtedly see, a lot of it comes down to whether the hero acted in a reasonable way, and only used 'necessary' force in the defense. These standards are ultimately up to folks like the District Attorney, Grand Jury, and ultimately a trial jury to interpret and decide. We have probably all heard lawyers use the phrase "an argument can be made...." If the hero uses deadly force, and someone dies, I would suggest allowing the hero to 'make his argument'. Was the force reasonable and NECESSARY. If so, then the hero goes free. If not, well... "nobody is above the law" (and if you want the heroes to be folks that preserve, and not take, life, then if this hero takes it without it being reasonable and necessary, then perhaps a prison sentence would be an appropriate way to remove him... if, he does respect life, then I think it reasonable that a black ops hero would not have a code against killing and still fit into a supers team).

 

Polaris

[Polaris]

Incidentally... even if the guy would be acquitted for killing a villain.. how would the other heroes react to him after they witness him kill someone?? Would THEY regard the killing as necessary?

 

That could lead to some interesting intra-team role play...

Polaris

[Lupus]

Originally posted by Polaris

Incidentally... even if the guy would be acquitted for killing a villain.. how would the other heroes react to him after they witness him kill someone?? Would THEY regard the killing as necessary?

I do like this point. Also, how do other villains react? PC kills one of their own, do they go gunning for that PC? I've always held that there's something of an unspoken code between hero and villain - that they don't truly pull out the stops. However, if one does, the other will. If a hero goes around killing villains, those villains will get extra-nasty. If they weren't aiming to kill before, they may start now. If they were aiming to kill before, they may start taking hostages or stepping up attempts to find out his secret ID so they can play with DNPCs.

 

Of course, if the villains are already takin' out the stops, then that kind of enforcement becomes harder.

 

As for the vigilantism issue, if I remember correctly, vigilantism is illegal. If someone is killed in the course of committing a felony, then that's defence... but it gets muddy. If you stalked them beforehand, waiting for them to do something wrong, then that's premeditation. And if you do it more than once, that's forming a pattern.

 

Basically, vigilantism is illegal, and there are laws to restrict it. I am, however, unsure of the exact technicalities.

 

Also remember that villains don't always live alone. Wrongful death lawsuits on the part of the villain's family are a bitch.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Lupus

I do like this point. Also, how do other villains react? PC kills one of their own, do they go gunning for that PC? I've always held that there's something of an unspoken code between hero and villain - that they don't truly pull out the stops. However, if one does, the other will. If a hero goes around killing villains, those villains will get extra-nasty. If they weren't aiming to kill before, they may start now. If they were aiming to kill before, they may start taking hostages or stepping up attempts to find out his secret ID so they can play with DNPCs.

 

The "get him before he gets me" theory may also come into play. "Well, we'll just try to distract Mighty Man - if he catches us, we go to the police. Oh well.. But we'd better hire someone to take out the CrookKiller. Run into him and it's all over."

 

Actually, this helps out the original posted issue in a couple of ways. First, make this quid pro quo clear to the player up front. If you are killing the villains, they will come at you harder than after the others. And they're probably likely to target the killer first - after all, as long as he's down, they only get jail cells if they lose the battle overall.

 

Second, make sure it happens if our black ops friend decides to save the state some trial expenses.

 

Originally posted by Lupus

Of course, if the villains are already takin' out the stops, then that kind of enforcement becomes harder.

 

One reason to show some restraint up front. If the enemies all fight to kill, it's a lot tougher for the heroes, or the players, to show similar restraint.

 

Originally posted by Lupus

Also remember that villains don't always live alone. Wrongful death lawsuits on the part of the villain's family are a bitch.

 

"Judge Judy, we gots no means of support since he kilt off mah husband. Without him robbin' liquor stores, how's I sposed to send lil' Billy to college?"

[Pax]

I think a lot of it depends on how “real†you want to make it.

 

Different states have different laws. I can give you a glimpse at Oklahoma laws.

 

In Oklahoma a person can get a Conceal and Cary permit for firearms. Needless to say there are a great many rules that I will not bore you with but here is one that you might find useful.

 

I can shoot someone who is threatening my life or the life of one of my family. If a guy comes up and starts a fight with me or my family I can not pull my gun and shoot them. The threat of a beating is not sufficient for me to shoot someone. If they use a weapon or I feel like the beating is not going to stop then I can shoot in self defense.

Let’s say someone was harming a kid down the block that I know. I can not pull my gun and shoot them even if they are beating the kid senseless. This is to stop the cowboy mentality that some people get when they carry a weapon. Most states that have a Conceal and carry law have a similar clause. So if you want to get technical just because the super villain was beating someone to death would not give a “civilian†the authority to use deadly force.

 

Hope this helps

 

Bryan

 

PS: when we were explained the above rule and asked the instructor what they would do. She said the law be dammed I am not letting some kid get killed. I think it would be hard for a jury to convict someone trying to protect a kid.

[McCoy]

Originally posted by Polaris

John,

 

Deadly force can be used if it is reasonable and necessary in the defense of oneself or another. If White Flame is about to use force that could reasonably be feared to be deadly force against your hero, or a passer by, and the hero could reasonably believe that the only way to stop White Flame was the application of deadly force, then the hero would be justified in using the deadly force against White Flame.

 

If Joe Thug were to have a knife and be moving toward your superhero, and your black ops superhero (who is probably an extremely good shot) blows his head off, even tho it was defending himself, that would not likely be accepted as reasonable and necessary. This is because being a Black Ops specialist, he likely is a fairly accurate shot. He could likely have shot the knife out of the guy's hand, or shot to injur and not kill. There is also quite a reasonable chance, being a superhero, he could have defended against the knife attack and restrained the thug.

 

As you can undoubtedly see, a lot of it comes down to whether the hero acted in a reasonable way, and only used 'necessary' force in the defense. These standards are ultimately up to folks like the District Attorney, Grand Jury, and ultimately a trial jury to interpret and decide. We have probably all heard lawyers use the phrase "an argument can be made...." If the hero uses deadly force, and someone dies, I would suggest allowing the hero to 'make his argument'. Was the force reasonable and NECESSARY. If so, then the hero goes free. If not, well... "nobody is above the law" (and if you want the heroes to be folks that preserve, and not take, life, then if this hero takes it without it being reasonable and necessary, then perhaps a prison sentence would be an appropriate way to remove him... if, he does respect life, then I think it reasonable that a black ops hero would not have a code against killing and still fit into a supers team).

 

Polaris

 

Maybe it's just the legacy of the Wild West but here in Tucson "reasonable" has a very elastic definition. One case a few years back one man shot another, who died several hours later, and pled self defense.

 

Victim was trying to cast a spell on the perp.

 

Grand Jury didn't indite.

[Lupus]

Originally posted by McCoy

Maybe it's just the legacy of the Wild West but here in Tucson "reasonable" has a very elastic definition. One case a few years back one man shot another, who died several hours later, and pled self defense.

 

Victim was trying to cast a spell on the perp.

 

Grand Jury didn't indite.

*shudders*

[Dog Soldier]

Something to keep in mind about concealed carry. If there's reason to believe that a beating will result in the assailant gaining possession of the gun then the assailant may be shot. That wouldn't apply to someone with super powers.

[Chris Goodwin]

As I recall from my concealed carry class, you have to use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop the crime.

 

If it goes to a grand jury, they will in general use the standard of a "reasonable" person: in the situation, would a reasonable person believe there was a necessity to use force in that situation? I would guess there's also a large part of asking the shooter "Did you feel you were in danger?" which is probably how the Tucson shooter got off. (Before you rush to judgement on that one, remember that none of us was there and none of us heard any of the details about the case -- the "casting a spell" thing sounds exactly like a newspaper headline on the case might have read.)

[McCoy]

Originally posted by archer

As I recall from my concealed carry class, you have to use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop the crime.

 

If it goes to a grand jury, they will in general use the standard of a "reasonable" person: in the situation, would a reasonable person believe there was a necessity to use force in that situation? I would guess there's also a large part of asking the shooter "Did you feel you were in danger?" which is probably how the Tucson shooter got off. (Before you rush to judgement on that one, remember that none of us was there and none of us heard any of the details about the case -- the "casting a spell" thing sounds exactly like a newspaper headline on the case might have read.)

 

Actually, I was on the Grand Jury. We did see the vic's Book of Shadows, detailed notes on his occult experiments. Both he and the perp believed that he could cast the spell, we decided the victim was guilty of attempted homocide, and was shot during the attempt by his intended victim. (Classic law school example, Alex breaks into Bryan's house and empties a gun into Bryan, autopsy shows Bryan died of a heart attack half an hour earlier. Alex is still guilty of attempted homocide even though it was impossible for him to kill Bryan.) Evidence suggest it was also with the victim's gun, the gun disappeared between him being shot and the paramedics showing up.

 

Yes, the magic phrase if you shoot someone in Arizona is "I was in fear for my life." Say it often, say it both before and after you are Mirandaed, say it to reporters as well as police.