Legal Questions: Pink Defense

[Prometheus]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

This may not fall under Assault, but it can argued to be Battery or Trespass to the Person. Drawing a mustache on someone actually could be Battery, though it may get thrown out of court. Trespass doesn't have to involve land or property.

 

More importantly, how is a private company giving itself such blanket power over how it handles offenders not setting off alarms with local and state law enforcement? And why isn't a savvy hero making a public statement comparing this to Thought Crime and the Nazi regime? Whether or not the argument holds any substance, the negative PR will have them reeling.

[Netzilla]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

OP said it was reversable.

 

Kind of:

 

It works PERMAENTLY on people opposed to the operation of the corporation in their city who trespass on corporation property to throw stink bombs in to the reception area of Corporation CPT; and then retreat.

 

...and that any abrogation of the corporation’s best interests results in an irreversible change (turning bright pink) to that person with the ONLY recourse being petitioning the corporation for reversal of the same

 

Then there was the clarification posted this evening:

 

It Is reversable so long as the individual admits to exactly what they have done wrong to Warthaw.

 

So, it's considerably more permanent than magic marker, which will wear off on it's own after about a week. Even a tattoo can be removed by someone other than the original tattoo artist, so this would seem even more permanent than that. Now, it doesn't carry the pain/disease risk that tattooing does but it still seems to be an (effectively) permanent disfigurement.

 

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

It Is reversable so long as the individual admits to exactly what they have done wrong to Warthaw.

 

Hmm. Really sounds liike a "self-incrimination thing" is happening there.

 

Evil and depraved, anyhow. My compliments to the GM.

[Balabanto]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

The problem is, it violates your right to personal property. Period. Let's say I want to sell my stock in the company. This weakens the company and causes it harm, so I turn pink. The end.

[Querysphinx]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

The Pink Defense is a form of precognition that determines if you are going to perform actions that are to the detriment of Ms. W’s parent corporation (CPT); and if you are, then it transforms you into a bright pink version of yourself

 

What I want to know is how the (bleep) it knows that I am going to harm the company. I mean, if it's really precog and not mind reading than you could get a serious case of the observer effect going. I wasn't intending to harm the company but the precog engine determined that I was, so it turned me pink. This made me so mad that I harmed the company.

 

It also means that if someone sued the company and the court sent a clerk with a summons onto the company grounds, the clerk would be turned pink. This is assault on an officer of the law in the performance of his duties. And with charges like that you don't get to apologize and take it back later.

 

Bodily changing someone in such a way as to humiliate them would almost certainly amount to battery, especially if the only way to change back was in the hands of the corporation that did it to them in the first place. Has this Pink process been approved by the FDA or any other regulatory agency? If not, it amounts to experimenting on unwilling human subjects. You say it's safe, but can you prove it. What happens if someone has an allergic reaction?

 

Quite frankly, what I see happening is the govt. declaring emminent domain on the technology and developing it for military applications. Pink IEDs are so much easier to spot and so are pink suicide bombers.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

no body has committed suicide here

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

no body has committed suicide here

 

It's all in the wording. dude. With the right wording, anything is possible.

[wick]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

No' date=' you cannot vandalize a person, only an inanimate object such as a building or a car. Throwing acid causes pain and potentially causes scars, don't think (I'm assuming) painlessly turning someone pink rises to the same level. But disagreements like this are why we have judges (and remember in this case the judges are literally controlled by the GM).[/quote']

 

 

And would you say that Carrie from Stephen Kings book of the same name was not scarred by being turned red from a substance that was easily cleaned up. Sure the pigs blood did not cosmetically transform her for even a long period of time but it sure did long term mental/emotional issues that were quite damaging to all.

 

 

I am wondering on the mechanism for the Defense. if it is a precog rather than a mind reader. That means if I am an employee and I perform an action that harms the company I would turn pink, regardless of my intent. If you have a human or AI on the other end of the Precognition it could decide if the action deserves triggers the defense. If a CEO decides it is in the company's best interest to take a loss in the short term in order to get greater gains in the long run he should not turn Pink if there is a deicision maker precog but may turn pink if there is not. It also depends on how far out the precog can see. If he can see out 6 months then a CEO taking a risk for gains that will show up a year out will be pinked.

 

Also how are the heros trying to bring down the company? Legally, physically destroying, uncovering a secret to bring in the Government etcc?

 

Solution: Use computer hacking. You can remote access to cause harm or gather data.

 

Use robots/spirits/elementals or what have you to perform your actions.

 

Set up a long term trap. Example: If I were an employee and xeroxed incriminating data that could bring the company down and mailed it to a private post office box, and then quit the company (i have intent but the precog cannot see intent only results of my actrions right?). I could then bring the data out in the open at a future date that is currently past where the precog can see (by the time the PRECOG sees the results it is too late to stop the action).

[secretID]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

[Too lazy to read whole thread - here's my 10 minutes of thought.]

 

You're not going to get anywhere on the privacy questions. Existing law obviously doesn't cover things like telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition. The GM has to determine to what degree the campaign world has developed laws accounting for super powers. There's some brief guidance in the Champions book.

 

Re the slavery, I seriously doubt it - it's not at that level. Slavery, false imprisonment, kidnapping, etc. generally require a threat of force. However, it's likely a battery (harmful or offensive touching) and/or similar offenses, criminal and civil. Again, though, you've got some problems applying real life law to this situation. Most basically, how do you prove who caused them to turn pink?

 

I'll expand. You walk up to me and dump a can of paint over my head. I have an easy battery suit against you, because you've touched me in an offensive way (though my damages are minimal). If I can get the cops to care, you'll also probably get something like misdemeanor harassment, since criminal assault usually requires harm.

 

When we switch to your situation, you only have the civil battery if you can get this accepted as a "touch." Whether that could happen is - you'll be happy to hear - your GM's call! FYI, the law does allow for "touching" to be indirect, so programming a robot to offensively touch someone would be a battery.

 

Criminally, your situation is far worse than the can of paint because it's permanent. If I were a prosecutor, I would certainly be thinking of things like assault and mayhem. But again, you have the question of whether in your world the substantive law and the rules of evidence have been adjusted to accommodate supers.

[casualplayer]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

According to current law, if the corporation is not able to corroborate the Pink result with some unimpeachable or really darn convincing evidence someone could wallop the corporation for Slander. Best be some proof that it was a righteous Pinking or the corp is going to pay in civil court.

[dmjalund]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

Anyone thought of the slander (or is it libel) angle. Turning someone pink (especially if precog cannot be used as evidence) is making a statement that that person is about to commit a crime - before he actually commited it - it is claiming a person is guilty even before he commits the crime. Since it is indelible (effectively) it could be considered 'written'

[Matt Holck]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

A lot of this stipulates that a corporation has something to hide that might but publicly or legally damaging to their operations

[McCoy]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

And would you say that Carrie from Stephen Kings book of the same name was not scarred by being turned red from a substance that was easily cleaned up. Sure the pigs blood did not cosmetically transform her for even a long period of time but it sure did long term mental/emotional issues that were quite damaging to all.

Again, may have a civil case, not a criminal one.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

bribery

deception

blackmail (pinkmail)

harassment

[Clonus]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

Anyone thought of the slander (or is it libel) angle. Turning someone pink (especially if precog cannot be used as evidence) is making a statement that that person is about to commit a crime - '

 

No, it isn't. It's a statement that the person is about to do something against the company. That something may be perfectly legal.

[Prometheus]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

You don't actually need direct contact to claim battery-- it can be committed by the driver of a vehicle, for example.

 

More importantly, this corporation is acting as judge and jury in a presumed crime. And they're coercing a confession out of someone under duress ("If you don't admit what you've done, you stay pink."). They're not a law enforcement agency or an agent of the courts and they can't make up their own rules about private security. Pardon the pun, but that private security-- and this corporation can't possibly to have any authority beyond that-- is likely acting under color of law, when it is in fact not a law enforcement agency.

 

Get yourself a good lawyer. Preferably the bookish redhead-- she looks like good DNPC material.

[SKJAM!]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

I can imagine any IRS auditor or other government regulator being turned pink the moment they ended up on the premises would cause some problems for the company.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

there is no telling the spread of the pink

 

 

Note: the practice of dying chinks was ended.

due to the the colorful chicks being abused by their peers

[Blue]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

Are there degrees of pink? Does stealing a paperclip from the company give the same shade as if you planned to hack into the mainframe?

 

Regardless, I have no doubt that it's assault, same as when a crazy PETA protestor runs up to someone with a fur and throws paint on them.

 

A company has a right to read e-mails and search your desk; it's their premises and you're using their supplies. Courts uphold that sort of thing all the time. If there were a way in real life to read minds I wonder what the law would say. I mean, common sense says it would be illegal, but in times like these, you know someone would argue in favor. Taking a lie detector test is, on a very primitive level, voluntary. Sure they could fire you if you don't take it, but that's still an option. This seems very much not optional.

 

Funny thing is, I can't imagine if there were such a company in the real world that anyone would want to work for them, or do business with them, or buy from them.

[dmjalund]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

If there is nothing stopping the company from reading thoughts not related to the company, than this would be a breach of privacy

[Matt Holck]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

Unicorn has troubles with the concept of privacy

13 days since my boss coerced me into quitting

8 days since I've had no job

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

Are there degrees of pink? Does stealing a paperclip from the company give the same shade as if you planned to hack into the mainframe?

 

Regardless, I have no doubt that it's assault, same as when a crazy PETA protestor runs up to someone with a fur and throws paint on them.

 

A company has a right to read e-mails and search your desk; it's their premises and you're using their supplies. Courts uphold that sort of thing all the time. If there were a way in real life to read minds I wonder what the law would say. I mean, common sense says it would be illegal, but in times like these, you know someone would argue in favor. Taking a lie detector test is, on a very primitive level, voluntary. Sure they could fire you if you don't take it, but that's still an option. This seems very much not optional.

 

Funny thing is, I can't imagine if there were such a company in the real world that anyone would want to work for them, or do business with them, or buy from them.

I've never heard of someone being fired for not taking a polygraph. I mean, they aren't even admissible in court any more. If you have any references for that happening recently I'd be very interested.

[Netzilla]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

I've never heard of someone being fired for not taking a polygraph. I mean' date=' they aren't even admissible in court any more. If you have any references for that happening recently I'd be very interested.[/quote']

 

Any company that did that probably wouldn't claim failure to take a polygraph as the reason for the firing (or the sole reason anyway). However, if you're in an at-will state, refuse to take a polygraph and are let go without cause given, it's probably a fair bet that the polygraph was the cause.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

In such a case, a reason would be found for termination. May not be a particularly good reason, but it probably wouldn't be for merely refusing the polugraph test. Might be due to "cutbacks" or "attitude problems" or anything else - do enough digging and a reason can be found or created, I'm sure.

[Matt Holck]

Re: Legal Questions: Pink Defense

 

or discovered