Did Frostfire get a raw deal?
By
Acyl,
Posted on: 2006-06-28 15:10 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
In another thread I saw a post by Shyster that led to this bio of Frostfire .
After reading it, I'm not so sure that Frostfire didn't get railroaded a bit.
Frosty was acting in a Good Samaritan manner and things went kablooey on him ... and he was going to get jail time for that? Is that kosher?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, there are some laws that cover Good Samaritan stuff, but maybe not in this case. Either way, sounds like he had a bad lawyer. Unfortunately, he eventually went bad anyway. Self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess.
I guess now I'll feel fairly sorry for the guy...each of the 37 times a week I defeat him...
Troy Hickman - So proud to have contributed to and played in this wonderful CoH universe
I rather thought this was a topic about the number of times per hour the guy gets trounced.
Sure, he had the right intentions, but he was pretty damn careless, and it didn't take much to push him from hero to villain. I'm not sure how raw a deal that is.
I'm surprised that Antonio Nash, fierce fighter of mutant gangs, gave up on Calhoun that easily.
He was acting as an actual vigilante.
Heroes in Paragon are supposed to register their powers and operate with governmental oversight. He didn't do so and reaped the consequences.
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Lord Vetinari, Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett.
I believe the quote is:
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
He had a chance, he blew it. Now it's up to me and a few hundred thousand other heroes to shove his face in it.
[ QUOTE ]
He was acting as an actual vigilante.
Heroes in Paragon are supposed to register their powers and operate with governmental oversight. He didn't do so and reaped the consequences.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you're saying your hero would have just let the robbery take place if he hadn't gotten his license yet?
My COX Fanfiction:
Blue's Assembled Story Links
No, I didn't say that. In fact *I* didn't say anything about my hero at all. That was you.
Edit:
My hero would have attempted to stop the robbery. However, he also would have accepted the consequences of his actions if it had gone bad.
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Lord Vetinari, Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He was acting as an actual vigilante.
Heroes in Paragon are supposed to register their powers and operate with governmental oversight. He didn't do so and reaped the consequences.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you're saying your hero would have just let the robbery take place if he hadn't gotten his license yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the part about "His fire powers ignited the building, and the ensuing inferno destroyed the building. Although Calhoun escaped unharmed, several people were killed in the blaze, including the clerk and the robber." may have influenced his sentancing. I'd imagine he'd have either been sentanced to a youth outreach center if there'd been minimal damage and no loss of life or parole or something for just property damage.
He killed several people. That had to be why he got a harsh sentance.
he also refused the deal for a lighter sentence - if they offer a deal like that the chances are the odds are against you
[ QUOTE ]
he also refused the deal for a lighter sentence - if they offer a deal like that the chances are the odds are against you
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, they offered him 5 years but he didn't think he should get any punishment at all and went for a jury trial thinking he was innocent. The conviction, the moment the forperson stood up and said "Guilty" may have been his breaking point more than the sentance itself.
1) Arson requires the specific intent to cause harm. If the prosecutor and judge knew that he had no intent to cause harm he had no business being prosecuted for Arson. Both the prosecutor and judge were in derogation of their oath.
2) This case should have been brought as a reckless homicide. However even there, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knew that his actions were likely to cause the harm inflicted. This is necessary when the government alleges reckless conduct. The defendant was a teenager and there is no evidence that he knew the extent of his powers.
3) As a juvenile who should not have been charged with an intentional crime, he should have been charged as a juvenile. Even assuming conviction, he should have been remanded to juvenile custody until 21.
He got railroaded.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Actually, at common law, arson could be proven without specific intent.
It was enough to show that the fire was caused with reckless disregard of the risk that the structure was burned.
If we accept the charge of arson under reckless disregard, then we can charge Frosty with felony murder.
He got lucky.
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Lord Vetinari, Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett.
[ QUOTE ]
1) Arson requires the specific intent to cause harm. If the prosecutor and judge knew that he had no intent to cause harm he had no business being prosecuted for Arson. Both the prosecutor and judge were in derogation of their oath.
2) This case should have been brought as a reckless homicide. However even there, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knew that his actions were likely to cause the harm inflicted. This is necessary when the government alleges reckless conduct. The defendant was a teenager and there is no evidence that he knew the extent of his powers.
3) As a juvenile who should not have been charged with an intentional crime, he should have been charged as a juvenile. Even assuming conviction, he should have been remanded to juvenile custody until 21.
He got railroaded.
[/ QUOTE ]
I respect your opinion EG, but what if Paragon City has a few special laws with regard to causing bodily injury and/or death by means of super powers?
If anything, Hero Corps, or perhaps some individual Hero, should have taken him under their wing and taught himhow to actually use his powers.
Heck, I feel sorry for the guy. A heartless justice system, overzealous and/or incompetent lawyers, an organization that turned either its back or a deaf ear or a blind eye, and no one willing to step up and act as a mentor. His only sympathizer was a judge whose hands were tied.
Of course, people also died, so SOME punishment should have been meted out. In this case, I'm agreeing with EG that some years in a YDC might have been in order.
Sad though. Kinda gets ya right here.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, at common law, arson could be proven without specific intent.
It was enough to show that the fire was caused with reckless disregard of the risk that the structure was burned.
If we accept the charge of arson under reckless disregard, then we can charge Frosty with felony murder.
He got lucky.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I don't think recklessness was shown. Recklessness requires indifference to the potential harm. Frostfire had no such indifference. He just didn't know how powerful he was.
And most states have replaced all common law offenses with statutory offenses.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Arson 1, per R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-4-2:
[ QUOTE ]
Any person who knowingly causes, procures, aids, counsels or creates by means of fire or explosion a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or damage to any building the property of that person or another, whether or not used for residential purposes, which is occupied or in use for any purpose or which has been occupied or in use for any purpose during the six (6) months preceding the offense or to any other residential structure, shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than five (5) years and may be imprisoned for life, or shall be fined not less than three thousand dollars ($ 3,000) nor more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($ 25,000), or both; provided, further, that whenever a death occurs to a person as a direct result of the fire or explosion or to a person who is directly involved in fighting the fire or explosion, imprisonment shall be for not less than twenty (20) years. In all such cases, the justice may only impose a sentence less than the minimum if he or she finds that substantial and compelling circumstances exist which justify imposition of the alternative sentence. That finding may be based upon the character and background of the defendant, the cooperation of the defendant with law enforcement authorities, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and/or the nature and quality of the evidence presented at trial. If a sentence which is less than imprisonment for the minimum term is imposed, the trial justice shall set forth on the record the circumstances which he or she found as justification for imposition of the lesser sentence.
[/ QUOTE ]
And, per R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-1, any death involved in an arson as defined under 11-4-2 (above) is murder 1.
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Lord Vetinari, Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Arson requires the specific intent to cause harm. If the prosecutor and judge knew that he had no intent to cause harm he had no business being prosecuted for Arson. Both the prosecutor and judge were in derogation of their oath.
2) This case should have been brought as a reckless homicide. However even there, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knew that his actions were likely to cause the harm inflicted. This is necessary when the government alleges reckless conduct. The defendant was a teenager and there is no evidence that he knew the extent of his powers.
3) As a juvenile who should not have been charged with an intentional crime, he should have been charged as a juvenile. Even assuming conviction, he should have been remanded to juvenile custody until 21.
He got railroaded.
[/ QUOTE ]
I respect your opinion EG, but what if Paragon City has a few special laws with regard to causing bodily injury and/or death by means of super powers?
[/ QUOTE ]
In criminal law there are two primary elements: mens rea and actus rea. In English the "state of mind" (mens rea) and the act (actus rea).
A law regarding the use of super powers to cause bodily harm would probably require either: recklessness, knowledge or intent as mental states. Intent and Knowledge simply aren't present here. Recklessness probably is, but juvenile recklessness, not adult.
There's no question that the act (homicide) was present, but the mental state is actually more important.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Yeah, but first you'd have to prove he was guilty of arson. Intent is everything there.
Of course, intent is a VERY thorny issue....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Arson requires the specific intent to cause harm. If the prosecutor and judge knew that he had no intent to cause harm he had no business being prosecuted for Arson. Both the prosecutor and judge were in derogation of their oath.
2) This case should have been brought as a reckless homicide. However even there, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knew that his actions were likely to cause the harm inflicted. This is necessary when the government alleges reckless conduct. The defendant was a teenager and there is no evidence that he knew the extent of his powers.
3) As a juvenile who should not have been charged with an intentional crime, he should have been charged as a juvenile. Even assuming conviction, he should have been remanded to juvenile custody until 21.
He got railroaded.
[/ QUOTE ]
I respect your opinion EG, but what if Paragon City has a few special laws with regard to causing bodily injury and/or death by means of super powers?
[/ QUOTE ]
In criminal law there are two primary elements: mens rea and actus rea. In English the "state of mind" (mens rea) and the act (actus rea).
A law regarding the use of super powers to cause bodily harm would probably require either: recklessness, knowledge or intent as mental states. Intent and Knowledge simply aren't present here. Recklessness probably is, but juvenile recklessness, not adult.
There's no question that the act (homicide) was present, but the mental state is actually more important.
[/ QUOTE ]
When they offered him 5 years and he wanted no punishment at all for deaths, could that have been construed as recklessness or even a total disreguard for life?
[ QUOTE ]
Arson 1, per R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-4-2:
[ QUOTE ]
Any person who knowingly causes, procures, aids, counsels or creates by means of fire or explosion a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or damage to any building the property of that person or another, whether or not used for residential purposes, which is occupied or in use for any purpose or which has been occupied or in use for any purpose during the six (6) months preceding the offense or to any other residential structure, shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than five (5) years and may be imprisoned for life, or shall be fined not less than three thousand dollars ($ 3,000) nor more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($ 25,000), or both; provided, further, that whenever a death occurs to a person as a direct result of the fire or explosion or to a person who is directly involved in fighting the fire or explosion, imprisonment shall be for not less than twenty (20) years. In all such cases, the justice may only impose a sentence less than the minimum if he or she finds that substantial and compelling circumstances exist which justify imposition of the alternative sentence. That finding may be based upon the character and background of the defendant, the cooperation of the defendant with law enforcement authorities, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and/or the nature and quality of the evidence presented at trial. If a sentence which is less than imprisonment for the minimum term is imposed, the trial justice shall set forth on the record the circumstances which he or she found as justification for imposition of the lesser sentence.
[/ QUOTE ]
And, per R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-1, any death involved in an arson as defined under 11-4-2 (above) is murder 1.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then what the prosecutor had to prove was that FF:
Caused the fire with knowledge that he was subjecting the inhabitants to SUBSTANTIAL risk of SERIOUS physical harm.
The facts don't show that. The facts show that the kid was trying to thaw out the shopkeep and his powers went wild. There is NO evidence that he knew that would happen.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
When they offered him 5 years and he wanted no punishment at all for deaths, could that have been construed as recklessness or even a total disreguard for life?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. You have to examine those issues at the time of the act, not after the fact. And certainly not during plea negotiations, which are not admissable as evidence.
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Lord Vetinari, Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett.
Ok then, he was railroaded. Shoulda joined Big Brothers or YMCA or something...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Arson requires the specific intent to cause harm. If the prosecutor and judge knew that he had no intent to cause harm he had no business being prosecuted for Arson. Both the prosecutor and judge were in derogation of their oath.
2) This case should have been brought as a reckless homicide. However even there, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knew that his actions were likely to cause the harm inflicted. This is necessary when the government alleges reckless conduct. The defendant was a teenager and there is no evidence that he knew the extent of his powers.
3) As a juvenile who should not have been charged with an intentional crime, he should have been charged as a juvenile. Even assuming conviction, he should have been remanded to juvenile custody until 21.
He got railroaded.
[/ QUOTE ]
I respect your opinion EG, but what if Paragon City has a few special laws with regard to causing bodily injury and/or death by means of super powers?
[/ QUOTE ]
In criminal law there are two primary elements: mens rea and actus rea. In English the "state of mind" (mens rea) and the act (actus rea).
A law regarding the use of super powers to cause bodily harm would probably require either: recklessness, knowledge or intent as mental states. Intent and Knowledge simply aren't present here. Recklessness probably is, but juvenile recklessness, not adult.
There's no question that the act (homicide) was present, but the mental state is actually more important.
[/ QUOTE ]
When they offered him 5 years and he wanted no punishment at all for deaths, could that have been construed as recklessness or even a total disreguard for life?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, not at all. In fact, the circumstances of any plea negotiations could not be used for in purpose in determining guilt. The law treats settlement negotiations as irrelevant to guilt. The reason is to encourage settlements (which a plea bargain is). Plea bargains save judicial resources and ensure that some penalty would be paid.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
I concede the point to the extent of the facts we have available.
We have an incomplete record, though, and I'd like to think that the prosecutor didn't charge FF without sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment.
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Lord Vetinari, Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett.
In another thread I saw a post by Shyster that led to this bio of Frostfire .
After reading it, I'm not so sure that Frostfire didn't get railroaded a bit.
Frosty was acting in a Good Samaritan manner and things went kablooey on him ... and he was going to get jail time for that? Is that kosher?
My COX Fanfiction:
Blue's Assembled Story Links