Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

They weren't defenceless. They were military personnel in the most powerful war machine in the galaxy. You can't get more defended than that. Similarly' date=' Hitler in his bunker is not defenceless. His heavily guarded bunker is a defence. It's getting past those defences that makes your hypothetical assassin a hero. Shooting him after he's been captured? Not so much.[/quote']

 

I don't agree.

 

My statement about the Death Star assumes that, in any military installation of this size, there will be not only families of personnel 'on base' (who perhaps did not choose to be there, especially children) but also caterers, janitors and the like, i.e. non-combat support personnel. Not just Storm Troopers. And if you then argue that any sleeping children onbard still were not "defenseless" because the Death Star was itself a powerful military weapon, then you head down a very slippery slope that gets into issues of whether, for example, German citizens and Londoners who were subject to savage aerial bombardment during WWII weren't actually "defenseless" civilians because the areas where they lived were prepared for war, defended, and, indeed, armed themselves.

 

The assertion that Hitler would not be considered "defenseless" in my hypothetical either, because he was in a heavily guarded bunker, can also be addressed by merely adding to the hypothetical. Suppose his entire staff had deserted the bunker just ahead of the rampaging Red Army, and Hitler was left alone in his bunker. And perhaps he passed out from exhaustion. A Red Army private finds him there, unconscious on a cot, but alive. If he then puts a bullet in Hitler's head, would most everyone have considered that act "craven, villainous murder" or "heroic"?

[Clonus]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

I don't agree.

 

My statement about the Death Star assumes that, in any military installation of this size, there will be not only families of personnel 'on base' (who perhaps did not choose to be there, especially children) but also caterers, janitors and the like, i.e. non-combat support personnel. Not just Storm Troopers. And if you then argue that any sleeping children onbard still were not "defenseless" because the Death Star was itself a powerful military weapon, then you head down a very slippery slope that gets into issues of whether, for example, German citizens and Londoners who were subject to savage aerial bombardment during WWII weren't actually "defenseless" civilians because the areas where they lived were prepared for war, defended, and, indeed, armed themselves.

 

And the problem with that is? If you are performing some kind of shipboard function that helps the Death Star function, you ARE front-line combat personnel even if you never pull a trigger. Even if you aren't, and your death is incidental to Luke's objective (which is to destroy the weapon), Luke isn't a hero for killing you. He's a hero for destroying the weapon, and your death is a regrettable side-effect. And once against, the rules for serving military personnel are different from the rules for cops and the rules for public spirited citizens with eccentric fasion sense.

 

 

The assertion that Hitler would not be considered "defenseless" in my hypothetical either, because he was in a heavily guarded bunker, can also be addressed by merely adding to the hypothetical. Suppose his entire staff had deserted the bunker just ahead of the rampaging Red Army, and Hitler was left alone in his bunker. And perhaps he passed out from exhaustion. A Red Army private finds him there, unconscious on a cot, but alive. If he then puts a bullet in Hitler's head, would most everyone have considered that act "craven, villainous murder" or "heroic"

 

Considered by whom? I certainly would not consider it an act of notable bravery or heroism.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Probably the most positive thing I would say about such an act is that it was 'pragmatic'.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

And the problem with that is?

 

I have no problem with it at all. I merely mention it to illustrate that things aren't as Black & White as 'defenseless' = 'murder.'

 

If you are performing some kind of shipboard function that helps the Death Star function' date=' you ARE front-line combat personnel even if you never pull a trigger. [/quote']

 

What shipboard function would a 6 month old baby be performing, for example?

 

Even if you aren't' date=' and your death is incidental to Luke's objective (which is to destroy the weapon), Luke isn't a hero for killing you. He's a hero for destroying the weapon, and your death is a regrettable side-effect. [/quote']

 

I agree entirely, which is precisely why I would consider killing an unconscious, but unrepentant and highly dangerous, super-villain 'heroic.' In so doing, you would be permanently disabling a potentially destructive weapon (i.e. the villain's super power(s)). The loss of an individual life as a consequence would be incidental to that goal, just like destroying the Death Star.

 

 

And once against' date=' the rules for serving military personnel are different from the rules for cops and the rules for public spirited citizens with eccentric fasion sense. [/quote']

 

This assertion I didn't really understand, to be honest. I must be missing something obvious.

 

Considered by whom? I certainly would not consider it an act of notable bravery or heroism.

 

I posed a rhetorical question.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

The assertion that Hitler would not be considered "defenseless" in my hypothetical either' date=' because he was in a heavily guarded bunker, can also be addressed by merely adding to the hypothetical. Suppose his entire staff had deserted the bunker just ahead of the rampaging Red Army, and Hitler was left alone in his bunker. And perhaps he passed out from exhaustion. A Red Army private finds him there, unconscious on a cot, but alive. If he then puts a bullet in Hitler's head, would most everyone have considered that act "craven, villainous murder" or "heroic"?[/quote']

 

Neither. It was a practicle choice, but not notably "heroic". The private could have easily taken him into custody if he was that defenseless, then he would have been charged with war crimes/crimes against humanity, executed officially, and we would have a lot less conspiracy theory crap about him still living in South America. The private would probably be made out as a hero for capturing him, even though he really didn't do much, but that's a whole other issue.

[Major Tom 2009]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

I don't agree.

 

My statement about the Death Star assumes that, in any military installation of this size, there will be not only families of personnel 'on base' (who perhaps did not choose to be there, especially children) but also caterers, janitors and the like, i.e. non-combat support personnel. Not just Storm Troopers. And if you then argue that any sleeping children onbard still were not "defenseless" because the Death Star was itself a powerful military weapon, then you head down a very slippery slope that gets into issues of whether, for example, German citizens and Londoners who were subject to savage aerial bombardment during WWII weren't actually "defenseless" civilians because the areas where they lived were prepared for war, defended, and, indeed, armed themselves.

 

The assertion that Hitler would not be considered "defenseless" in my hypothetical either, because he was in a heavily guarded bunker, can also be addressed by merely adding to the hypothetical. Suppose his entire staff had deserted the bunker just ahead of the rampaging Red Army, and Hitler was left alone in his bunker. And perhaps he passed out from exhaustion. A Red Army private finds him there, unconscious on a cot, but alive. If he then puts a bullet in Hitler's head, would most everyone have considered that act "craven, villainous murder" or "heroic"?

 

 

 

I don't think that you'd have to worry about killing civilians where the Death Star is concerned; remember,

we're talking about a weapon of mass destruction created by Palpatine's Empire, not a starship of the 24th

Century Federation's family-friendly Starfleet. It's a given that there's no way in hell that there'd be civilians

serving in any capacity aboard that monstrosity, nor would there be any families of said civilians be aboard

it.

 

As for the hypothetical case of the Red Army private popping a cap in Herr Hitler, I think that it would be

considered more a case of that soldier having cheated the war-crimes court and the hangman of the opp-

ortunity to see that justice was well and truly done, and that that genocidal psychopath had had his day

in court to answer for his crimes.

 

 

 

Major Tom 2009

[Psybolt]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

I think the Hitler example and the Death Star example are missing one important component. These were both war settings. The rules in a war would be considered a little different than the situation that is described.

 

Let's compare for a moment, the shootings that occurred in Aurora. Let's say the audience members raised up and took the shooter down. They rendered him unconscious. Then the police came and walked over and shot him in the head. He certainly would have deserved it with his horrible actions, but would that have been considered heroic by the cops? No.

 

I hope no one is offended by my example. That is not my purpose.

[Clonus]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

have no problem with it at all. I merely mention it to illustrate that things aren't as Black & White as 'defenseless' = 'murder.'

 

But since they are in fact defended, I don't think your point is scoring a touch.

 

 

 

 

What shipboard function would a 6 month old baby be performing, for example?

 

I have no reason to think that there were in fact 6 month old babies on board the Death Star. If there were, then the responsibility for their deaths lies with those who made the decision to carry babies into front-line combat.

 

 

 

 

I agree entirely, which is precisely why I would consider killing an unconscious, but unrepentant and highly dangerous, super-villain 'heroic.' In so doing, you would be permanently disabling a potentially destructive weapon (i.e. the villain's super power(s)).

 

Yeah right. As we all know supervillains never come back from the dead. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to accept one unrealistic comic book convention (imprisoned supervillains never stay imprisoned), but not the other, (killed supervillains only stay dead when they're lame and not very dangerous).

 

This assertion I didn't really understand, to be honest. I must be missing something obvious.

 

You don't get that military personnel in wartime can and must do things that could not be allowed to civilians?

[sinanju]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Prosecutor: "...and that's murder, any way you slice it. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must convict Captain Righteous of murder. Thank you."

 

Defense Attorney: "...and as numerous witnesses testified, Doctor Apocalypse has been captured and jailed repeatedly. And he has escaped repeatedly, often killing prison guards, other prisoners, and innocent bystanders along the way. And he has tried repeatedly to destroy major cities from Los Angeles to New York, and in one case, had he not been stopped, he would have destroyed the world. We've been lucky. Doctor Apocalypse's victims number in the hundred, not the millions--or billions. But how long can we expect our luck to hold? Captain Righteous may have acted rashly but...."

 

Jury: "Not guilty." (What they won't say, if they're smart, is that yes Captain Righteous violated the law, but they're all going to sleep a lot better at night from now on because a criminal lunatic won't be threatening their lives--and the lives of millions of others--ever again.)

[megaplayboy]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

This is a repost of something I wrote in the "comic book why" thread:

This seems like a variation of the "why don't superheroes just kill supervillains?" perennial question. I think, depending on the setting, there are a variety of perfectly good reasons:

1. Crime-fighting isn't war-fighting. Superheroes aren't soldiers.

2. A police officer has no particular advantage over a an armed criminal, and isn't bulletproof. Ergo, shooting the criminal may be the only option. Even so, when you compare the number of arrests, number of police, etc. with the number of officer-involved shootings, the rate at which cops shoot suspects dead isn't all that high. They also don't tend to shoot escaped murderers dead, unless the circumstances warrant it.

2a. By contrast, superheroes, by virtue of their superpowers, may have a virtual "swiss army knife" of combat/subdual options. Because they have the option to capture the villain alive, they have an overwhelming tendency to first attempt to do so.

3. Crime-fighters tend to have a higher regard for the law than criminals. The law has a process for investigating crimes, arresting suspects, charging them, trying them, and punishing them appropriately. A crime-fighter who chooses to bypass that process, because they're unhappy with the results, has now eliminated a key distinction between themselves and the criminal--they have chosen to break the law, not inadvertently, but intentionally and with the intention of inflicting harm on another human being. In essence they become "theme criminals"--in this case, murdering only those "deserving" of it.

4. Super-prisons and super-asylums aren't generally perfectly escape-proof, but they don't necessarily need to be a "revolving door", either. A repeat escapee is likely to face increasingly stringent measures to keep them in, and also likely to face increasingly aggressive efforts to capture them before they commit more mayhem. The Joker escapes all the time, in defiance of this logic, mainly because comic book writers want to write Joker stories, and comic book fans want to read Joker stories. If for some reason superhuman detention facilities were sorely lacking to begin with, and remained so for some time to come, there probably would be more than a few massacres (and vigilante retribution) before a public outcry boosted spending on them.

5. Superheroes treasure life, and have profoundly strong consciences. Taking a life is often antithetical to their very nature. Sometimes they themselves are former criminals, and believe everyone deserves a chance at redemption. Sometimes they have broken the law themselves and know the pitfalls of doing so again. Sometimes they have taken the law into their own hands and didn't like what they were becoming.

6. Only sociopaths truly enjoy killing people. A superhero who enjoys killing supervillains and common criminals isn't just a vigilante. They're a supervillain, too.

7. The Joker is basically a "worst case scenario" kind of supervillain. He frequently escapes, he's considered "insane" so the justice system won't deal with him as harshly as it does others(at least in the DCU), and he almost always commits murder and mayhem(at least since the 80s) when he's on the loose. Most supervillains don't fall into this category. Either they aren't murderers, or they only kill as they determine "necessary" for them to commit their crimes. They aren't legally insane, so they get thrown into super-prison instead of a super-asylum. They aren't necessarily "writer/fan faves", so they are likely to stay in prison a much longer time.

8. There's also the slippery-slope argument--if heroes start making exceptions here and there to outright kill villains, villains will respond accordingly. They may band together to bump off particularly bloodthirsty heroes, they may escalate and retaliate for the deaths of comrades(up to and including the kidnap/torture/murder of heroes' DNPCs, sidekicks, teammates, etc.), and they may form unlikely alliances in the name of dominance/survival. Once heroes start killing villains, villains start killing heroes, the cycle of violence steadily escalates until the superhuman world begins to depopulate. Oh yeah, and the "real world" will freak out, because all these killing sprees are going to be massively destabilizing to social order. At that point, they may not see much difference between heroes and villains.

9. "It just isn't cricket, old chum." There may be an unwritten, unspoken "etiquette" regarding how the "game" is played, being mindful particularly of number 8, above. This may be something worked out in secret between major heroes and villains some time ago, in response to such an escalating cycle of violence.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

I don't think that you'd have to worry about killing civilians where the Death Star is concerned... It's a given that there's no way in hell that there'd be civilians serving in any capacity aboard that monstrosity.

 

On what basis is that 'a given'?

 

As for the hypothetical case of the Red Army private popping a cap in Herr Hitler, I think that it would be

considered more a case of that soldier having cheated the war-crimes court and the hangman of the opportunity to see that justice was well and truly done, and that that genocidal psychopath had had his day in court to answer for his crimes.

 

That's not the way the death of Osama bin Laden was received in the United States, broadly speaking.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

I have no reason to think that there were in fact 6 month old babies on board the Death Star.

 

Debating whether there were 6 month old babies on the Death Star is beneath us both.

 

 

You don't get that military personnel in wartime can and must do things that could not be allowed to civilians?

 

No, I definitely understand that. A lack of that understanding did not in any contribute to my inability to understand your point as you expressed it.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Defense Attorney: "...and as numerous witnesses testified, Doctor Apocalypse has been captured and jailed repeatedly. And he has escaped repeatedly, often killing prison guards, other prisoners, and innocent bystanders along the way. And he has tried repeatedly to destroy major cities from Los Angeles to New York, and in one case, had he not been stopped, he would have destroyed the world. We've been lucky. Doctor Apocalypse's victims number in the hundred, not the millions--or billions. But how long can we expect our luck to hold? Captain Righteous may have acted rashly but...."

 

Jury: "Not guilty." (What they won't say, if they're smart, is that yes Captain Righteous violated the law, but they're all going to sleep a lot better at night from now on because a criminal lunatic won't be threatening their lives--and the lives of millions of others--ever again.)

 

Exactly.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

This seems like a variation of the "why don't superheroes just kill supervillains?" perennial question.

 

I agree entirely. And I will clarify here again that, whenever I've played Champions or other pen-and-paper super hero RPGs I (and all my friends) adopted the 'no killing' convention as well. I found it more enjoyable to play this way, personally. And, being children of the 1970s and 1980s, this was our 'normal' because of the restrictions imposed by the Comics Code Authority.

 

That being said, my preferred RPG playing style is a different issue than whether, philosophically-speaking, killing a prone super-villain might still be considered 'heroic.'

[Lucius]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

On what basis is that a 'given'?

 

Because it is reasonable to suppose that there are no civillians nor family members of military personnel aboard, just as such persons are not to be found on a modern aircraft carrier or submarine or bomber when such weapons platforms are on a military mission. There is no reason for them to be there and every reason for them not to be. It is not reasonable to suppose the opposite, in the absence of any reason for thinking so.

 

EDIT:

 

Debating whether there were 6 month old babies on the Death Star is beneath us both.

 

I agree, it's beneath all of us. You know they weren't there, I know they weren't there, everyone knows they weren't there. So, what was the point again?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

There is no reason to think there was a herd of palindromedaries aboard the Death Star, but if you want to believe that there were, I can't stop you.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Considering the war angle in supers campaign, if I were running an alien invasion adventure and the heroes managed to disable an alien warship causing it to plummet into the ocean, I would not make the players responsible for every alien being on the ship; however, if alien crewman do manage to make it to the surface, I would expect the players to make reasonable rescue attempt and would punish them if they happen to start shooting helpless survivors as they bobbed in the ocean (by punish I would severely limit the amount of XP offered.) In the case of repressing a land invasion, I would not expect the players to keep on the kid gloves as they repress hoard after hoard of swarming invaders but would penalize them if they started offing wounded and surrendering invaders, but this is for war.

 

In most anti-criminal adventures, I would expect them to avoid causing even accidental deaths and would penalize them for obviously egregious uses of violence.

 

In the original scenario, the second circumstance applied, and besides any social and legal ramifications for offing downed opponents, I would penalize a part or all of the adventuring reward, at least for the robot character that did the deed.

[Tasha]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

This is one of those statements that seems axiomatic initially, but which is actually subject to many fact-specific exceptions when given more scrutiny.

 

One fictional example of such an exception would be Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star at the conclusion of Star Wars. That act was presented as heroic in the film. But, as been pointed out endlessly over the years, Luke doubtlessly would've killed many "unconscious" (if only sleeping) and "defenseless" people as well in the process. Maybe tens of thousands of them.

 

I suspect that citing real world examples would only engender tangential debate about the perceived morality of various historical events. So I won't do that here. But if Hitler had not committed suicide in April 1945, and instead a scout from the Red Army had snuck into the Fuhrer Bunker and killed Hitler in his sleep with a singe pistol shot to the head, wouldn't that've been deemed "heroic," despite Hitler being "unconscious" and "defenseless" at the time?

 

Our culture makes a huge distinction between killing people in cold blood, Killing people while trying to subdue them and Killing people during wars.

 

So going back in time and Killing Hitler before he joined the Nazi party would been seen as cowardly and unjust (he hasn't committed a crime yet). If we send assassins to kill him during the way would also be cowardly and possibly a warcrime. As we don't want to set a precedent where it's seen as ok to assassinate leaders of countries we don't like (in this case he hasn't appeared before a judge and jury and been convicted of any crime). The best thing would have been if the Allies had apprehended him and made him stand trial for his crimes like the other Nazi's. That would have been justice.

 

About the DeathStar. That was a weapon of mass destruction and everyone on that ship was part of the Imperial Military. To give him grief for torpedoing that ship during the war would be unjust. Now Bringing up Grand Moff Tarkin and Anakin Skywalker (AKA Darth Vader) before an interplanetary court for their crimes vs the Peoples of Alderaan would be just. The Difference being that Luke and the Alliance military had destroyed a military target with 0 to few civilian casualties. Tarkin and Vader Destroyed hundreds of Millions of Civilians just to make a point to Princess Leia. They killed indiscriminately killing civilian and military personnel alike(some were probably Imperial loyalists)

 

PS I really don't mean to offend anyone with the Nazi/ Hitler examples. I just wanted to speak to the same examples given in the post I quoted.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Because it is reasonable to suppose that there are no civillians nor family members of military personnel aboard' date=' just as such persons are not to be found on a modern aircraft carrier or submarine or bomber when such weapons platforms are on a military mission. [/quote']

 

But the Death Star was purportedly much bigger than an aircraft carrier or a submarine or a bomber. Indeed, it was moon-sized. So those analogies are highly imperfect, at best. There were civilians stationed in the Green Zone in Iraq during the worst of the fighting there a few years ago. In light of that, why would it be so "reasonable" to assume there would be no civilians on an artificial moon like the Death Star?

 

 

I agree, it's beneath all of us. You know they weren't there, I know they weren't there, everyone knows they weren't there.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Since it's fictional, how can 'everyone' know anything about it with certainty.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Our culture makes a huge distinction between killing people in cold blood' date=' Killing people while trying to subdue them and Killing people during wars. [/quote']

 

To my mind, Osama bin Laden is the closest real-world equivalent to a super villain in my lifetime. Most Americans felt themselves to be 'at war' with him (and al Qaeda) for a decade following 9/11, despite the fact that he never succeeded in masterminding another attack. If a very powerful super villain kept terrorizing the USA or the world, why, in light of our perception about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden over the last decade, would we not be expected to presume ourselves to be 'at war' with such a recurrently-problematic (and powerful) super villain, as well?

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

The best thing would have been if the Allies had apprehended him and made him stand trial for his crimes like the other Nazi's. That would have been justice.

 

Not to get off on too much of a tangent, but I'm not at all sure that most historians think Albert Speer and Hermann Goring, who did sit through their own Nuremberg trials, got 'justice' in the end.

[Tasha]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

To my mind' date=' Osama bin Laden is the closest real-world equivalent to a super villain in my lifetime. Most Americans felt themselves to be 'at war' with him (and al Qaeda) for a decade following 9/11, despite the fact that he never succeeded in masterminding another attack. If a very powerful super villain kept terrorizing the USA or the world, why, in light of our perception about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden over the last decade, would we not be expected to presume ourselves to be 'at war' with such a recurrently-problematic (and powerful) super villain, as well?[/quote']

 

Honestly I feel kind of uneasy with the way that we handled him. We SHOULD have apprehended him and made him stand trial (which WAS the original plan according to the things I read). Having said that, I wasn't there and only the members of the SEAL team really knew what happened and IF it was really necessary to kill him. In either case he was killed during the apprehension of a criminal. Such things DO happen (AKA sometimes the target dies while the apprehension operation).

 

Like others pointed out. Police and Soldiers operate under a different set of rules than Vigilantes and Civilians. There are Specific rules for Civilians apprehending criminals. It is usually seen as being ok if a Civilian kills a criminal as long as the Civilian was "defending themselves". Though a Civilian actively persuing a perceived (alleged) criminal and killing the alleged criminal during an altercation during the act of apprehending the alleged criminal (alleged because US law assumes that a person is innocent until they are proven guilty). It would be very much worse if it became known that the Civilian killed the alleged criminal after the criminal was subdued.

 

Again, Until a criminal is brought before a court and faces a Jury of their peers. That person is assumed to be innocent. So a Police person executing a criminal that has been subdued would be seen as a crime. A civilian (someone without Police Powers and not executing a lawful order in a warzone as part of their Military service) would be seen as a criminal and would have to face a charge of Murder.

 

The US does not declare war against individuals. We declare war against foreign states. So there would never be a declaration of war against Dr Destroyer. If Dr D ever came to rule a foreign country that then committed an act of war against the US, we would declare war against that state. In every case whether he was the ruler of another state or not the US would be VERY interested in the apprehension of him and any who aided him in the execution of a crime (in Dr D's case it would be the Murder of hundreds of thousands of people of Detroit, and also probably a charge of Domestic terrorism).

[Tasha]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Not to get off on too much of a tangent' date=' but I'm not at all sure that most historians think Albert Speer and Hermann Goring, who did sit through their own Nuremberg trials, got 'justice' in the end.[/quote']

 

They got justice. People just didn't get revenge for the heinous crimes that both of those men helped plan and execute. Revenge can be a form of justice for the Victim's families, but it's better to settle for what the law allows.

[sinanju]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Honestly I feel kind of uneasy with the way that we handled him. We SHOULD have apprehended him and made him stand trial (which WAS the original plan according to the things I read). Having said that' date=' I wasn't there and only the members of the SEAL team really knew what happened and IF it was really necessary to kill him. In either case he was killed during the apprehension of a criminal. Such things DO happen (AKA sometimes the target dies while the apprehension operation). [/quote']

 

I know we're going off topic, but...I disagree. I don't believe in turning war into a law-enforcement proceeding. An indiscriminate attack on a civilian target, killing thousands in the process, in furtherance of a declared offensive against the USA strikes me as an act of war. Carrying the war to said declared enemy is also war. Not law-enforcement.

 

But back on topic (sort of): I think the analogy to Bin Laden is a good one. Some people decried his death, but many if not most Americans (at least among those I know) were, if not actively pleased by his demise, at least felt it was justified. And that's after one--count it, one--act of "supervillainy". If he'd been captured, tried, convicted, imprisoned, and then escaped to plot even more such crimes, especially if it happened more than once, I don't think many people would object if he was summarily shot the next time he was cornered.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

No need' date=' Balabanto, I'm an attorney. [/quote']

 

Jerome Ersland's attorney by any chance?

[Tasha]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

I know we're going off topic, but...I disagree. I don't believe in turning war into a law-enforcement proceeding. An indiscriminate attack on a civilian target, killing thousands in the process, in furtherance of a declared offensive against the USA strikes me as an act of war. Carrying the war to said declared enemy is also war. Not law-enforcement.

 

The problem with executing him no matter how cathartic is that how to do we KNOW that he did what he was accused of? He was never put on trial, we the American People never saw the evidence of his guilt. I would have loved to see all of the evidence come out in trial with good attorneys arguing both sides of the case. There's plenty of damning Video of him bragging to his followers, beyond those I would love to see the evidence. Before we go out and kill someone it would be nice if we used our laws(or at least international law) to prosecute the target in public court first.

 

I shed no tears over his death, I just kind of feel that we are diminished as a people when we don't use our laws. When we take shortcuts to "justice". It makes us as a people look bad when we don't believe in out system of justice enough to actually use it.

 

Again, it wasn't war. We don't wage war on individuals. Individuals are captured and prosecuted as criminals. That's the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

 

Yes, if a Superpowered Murderous Criminal escaped more than once and killed more people. Then the American People would be wanting blood. It wouldn't mean that it would be the right thing to do. It's similar to a criminal that serves their time and then commits the same crime again. Do we have the right to execute that person without trial? Perhaps it wasn't that person doing the crime, in a case of mistaken identity, or police mistakes or misconduct. Once the person is dead you can't bring them back to life. Also, I am not sure that I am comfortable giving our police the power over life and death (ie Judge, jury and executioner).