Chase_Arcanum

I hate to barge in, but canoe really keep these puns going much longer?

Taking all this back to the original thread:


If you WERE a superhero engaging a foe, would you use a different level of force on an adversary because it was:

- obviously a non-biological machine? (example: rip off a robot's arms vs ripping off a human being's arms)

- biological, but nonhuman in appearance? (example: it looks like a giant mosquito vs looking like a green-skinned supermodel)

- so alien you can't identify what would be vital or not? (example: you can't tell whether you'd do the equivalent of a gut-punch or a larynx-crushing throat smash)

7-8 for me.

I'm largely happy with the dev development priorities to date, but I'd get a LOT more out of customizing all my characters than playing even solo incarnate stuff with my few 50's (the task forces? I've never done one, so I'm sure not gonna start with the high level ones when I do!)

Answered the survey, but as usual, my responses and rationale would have killed the "other" text boxes

1. "Acceptable to kill a criminal"

When it comes to using lethal force, I look toward my faith's "just war" reasonings, which I've had to study in my time as a soldier, and then look at how that applies to law enforcement and society in general. In that philosophy, all people should strive for peace and never act out of hatred, but evil should not remain unchecked. There will be a time to kill.

The "just war" rationale isn't a blanket statement. Even if the cause is just and evil needs checked, the "just war" doctrine requires me to also limit my actions by the governing authority's right to define the rules of engagement. Applying that to law enforcement it means that my decision to kill would be based on my belief in the justice cause and curbed by the local laws' use of lethal force.

For example, Most US states that I'm familiar with give the person the right to use lethal force in self defense under certain conditions (usually under the threat of loss of life, sexual assault, kidnapping, and serious bodily injury). They also usually allow others to act on behalf of a person in a situation that would give them that right. If the cause is just and the incident allows, I would not hesitate to use lethal force.

Some US states allow lethal force for things more minor-- like property offenses (home intrusion or even home vandalism in Texas). While the local laws would permit lethal force in something as minor as a property offense, I would not, as property offenses do not constitute a "just cause" in my belief. Property can be replaced, a human life cannot. Similarly, while I know what the survey-writer meant by "sexual crime." there are states that still have unchallenged laws on the books defined in ways that impact two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes (often directed toward people of a minority sexual orientation) as sexual crimes.... which obviously should not constitute lethal force if acted against at all.

In a state where no lethal force is ever allowed by a non-sanctioned entity, I would like to comply, but would also consider the legitimacy of the governing authority (does it reflect the will of the people, respect human rights, etc) and whether another authority exists. If, for example, a local warlord made such a prohibition, but another country's "peacekeepers" were there- or another rebel force that better represents a legitimate claim- I would seek to work under their consideration.

Then again, If I *absolutely* believed that a gross injustice would be done if I didn't act, and I the governing authority was truly legitimate, I'd probably act and either exile myself from the nation or use the incident to crusade for changes to the law- as inflexible laws that permit gross injustice are as worthy of a heroic crusade as beating up baddies in an alleyway.


---------------------

4. Essentially "Would you be willing to die to prevent a tragedy?"

Coming up with a "number" is a bit challenging. While my first response would be "yes, no matter the size..." I have to wonder-- if I was investigating... say... a possible bombing plot... that may or may not happen, but could affect thousands, and on the way there I encounter a moment where my sacrifice would CERTAINLY save a dozen lives- would I save those few at the risk of letting a possible but not certain bombing go forward? What if that person that I could save was someone notable-- someone who, by his deed and celebrity, would better the lives of tens of thousands if he lived?

I remember an old Marvel "What if..." comic (What if Doom had become a hero) where Mephisto offers to free Doom's town in exchange for either his own soul, or the soul of his beloved. Doom's ambition and belief that the world should not be deprived the good that he could bring leads him to lose his wife. He spends much of the rest of his life obsessed with saving her soul due to his moment of weakness. If you ARE going to let others die in your stead, be sure you can really LIVE with that knowledge... It isn't something I can put a number on...

Of course, keep in mind that this IS merely a more absolute version of what we ask of our soldiers, police, and many other public servants all the time. Sure, they don't KNOW when or if a lethal round is incoming, but they also don't KNOW with any certainty that their action will actually save or better the lives of others. You hope it won't be in vain and that your leaders have asked you to take the risk for grave and virtuous reasons, but you have no certainty. Which is harder: acting with the certainty that your sacrifice has will benefit others or acting with very real risk that your loss will bring no tangible benefit to anyone. You just HOPE it will.




-----------------------------

6. Dangerous Criminal that's often escapes.

My "other" answer here was rather elaborate, but here goes:

- In some states, law enforcement officers are allowed to use lethal force on someone without waiting to actually witness them using lethal force, if that person is considered armed and a substantial risk to the public (often the "armed and dangerous" term that's overused on TV). The rationale is that this person poses a greater immediate threat to society than the risk of killing a person that's still presumed innocent. They don't need to wait to see the gun or see some dangerous action. If they see him, and see the clean shot, they can opt to take it. There's no need for them to risk their own lives further to preseve the target's life, though they certainly can.

The iconic "especially dangerous criminal" is easily categorized this way. Thus, killing such an "especially dangerous criminal" while he's a fugitive would be legal and forgivable.

- HOWEVER- this is when the guy's a fugitive, an escapee, or hasn't been caught yet. When you arrest someone, you assume responsibility for him and his well-being... or some other legal agency has. There are very potent reasons why society would want that protective custody and extemely harmful ramifications if society should ever begin to lose faith in the safety of detention prior to conviction. I would never condone killing a prisoner... no matter how likely it is that he'd break out. (This would also prohibit me from forced chemical/physical/psychic programming or torture)

I'd put rather lethal mechanics in place to help pursue him, should he escape... I'd make the prisoner believe that the only reason he's alive is because of that protective cover-- and that, should he opt to leave it-- he wouldn't be granted it ever again, and would never escape his pursuers. He would be hunted. If he opts to leave that protection, there would be no leave granted. If he stays in that protective custody, and society judges him and doesn not sentence him to the penalty of death while under their custody, neither should I.

...whether I'd go so far as give him "opportunities to escape" that were nothing more than lethal traps... well... gray areas get dark quickly.