Could Batman be jailed?
By
BlackArachnia,
Posted on: 2010-08-18 14:45 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Pretending to be a superhero.
Batman has only used an actual gun sparingly. The "time" when he has used a gun has all been removed from canon. Only 1 point that I have come across has Batman picking up a gun and was used in a non-lethal way and is about the only point Batman uses a gun in modern age.
There is a funny thing that happens in Catwoman Year 2. Joker, Penguin, and Two-face try to say that the involvement of Batman is grounds for them to get some sort of mistrial to which the judge says, even without the batman's interference they'd still be where they are, and as far as If the batman is real they may take it up in civil court so it seems in DCU that assault and battery and maybe vigilantism is a civil issue rather than a criminal issue.
The movie version of Batman has caused enough property damage to bankrupt Bruce Wayne. Proving it isn't difficult -- there were helicopters with cameras when the Batmobile went on that rooftop chase.
And if I recall, some of those batarangs contain explosives. Hello, terrorism charges.
...
New Webcomic -- Genocide Man
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
Quote:
Unfortunately most people have no clear understanding or desire to understand the entire process. The judge gives Lohan 90 days but then the system moves her out to rehab earlier than the 90 days. People just see the system as a whole not as its parts despite a gillion silly Law & Orders on television telling them the separations.
|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
Correct, but those types of cartoons still rub me the wrong way. They give people false impressions of how courtrooms work, how justice works in this country. It's why people still (wrongly) trot out that woman who won the suit over McDonald's coffee as a frivolous lawsuit.
Surely celebrities and the rich have an easier time of it. But for the most part out courts are deliberative and seek to resolve conflicts in a just manner. |
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
Quote:
But in this country, we can be sued and found guilty of murder or assault for defending our homes from an intruder. If they fail to kill Batman, he can turn around and file charges against them.|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
Except for the fact that he usually instigated the contact with the criminals. Sometimes Bats is in THEIR homes, giving them perfect license to open fire on Bats.
|
It's idiotic.
I mean, if I shoot/run someone through because they are in my house attempting to rob and/or kill me, they have no right to sue me if they live. God forbid they break a leg tripping over a floor fan.
Yet in this country, the victims can be sued for defending themselves.
Depends on who was arresting him and how determined they were to keep him. If he was arrested in China the perhaps.
In the USA no way. Even if Batman was shot in the head when arrested and rendered a glibbering idiot he has to many allies whom have serious legal tools at their disposal such as being rulers of their own nations (to say nothing of those who can physically do things like alter time to avoid the problem all together). He would almost certainly get a quick presidental pardon for past actions to save face even if somehow taken to trial. He would however be sued to the ends of the earth and back pretty much by everyone for all time and the government would likely be watching him like hawk to make sure he didn't cause anymore public relations disasters for said pardoning president.
I think they would have a pretty difficult time jailing any memeber of the Justice League.
Well, one of the biggest hurdles that everyone seems to be going at in this thread is trying to answer the wrong question.
The question is "Could Batman be jailed?"
The question is not "Would Batman be jailed?" Which is a much more difficult and interesting one to answer for all the reasons people have trotted out here.
Could he? Oh hell yeah.
Would he? Probably not.
Head of TRICK, the all Trick Arrow and Traps SG
Part of the Repeat Offenders
Still waiting for his Official BackAlleyBrawler No-Prize
Quote:
It's not that simple, alas. There are a ton of legal considerations which may tilt the balance one way or another. The big question for starters is how much danger someone was really in and how they reacted to it. Batman eats mooks with baseball bats for breakfast. It's fine as long as he just knocks them out, with or without the use of a weapon, but starting to cause lasting physical harm would get him in trouble. Not because a baseball bat isn't a dangerous instrument, but because he's a highly trained combatant.|
Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
Just wanted to point out this statement. Self defense does. Many of the criminals fighting him are using guns or equally restricted weapons. The fact that Batman does not resort to that, (Anymore), aids in his defense.
|
Seen Con Air? What happens to Nic Cage's character isn't terribly far from the truth. Someone who's far more highly skilled than the other side usually gets burdened with maintaining control of the situation, no matter who the attacker was.
"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Quote:
Not sure where you're at, but in the US, this is handled by STATE law, and it differs significantly:|
Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
But in this country, we can be sued and found guilty of murder or assault for defending our homes from an intruder. If they fail to kill Batman, he can turn around and file charges against them.
It's idiotic. I mean, if I shoot/run someone through because they are in my house attempting to rob and/or kill me, they have no right to sue me if they live. God forbid they break a leg tripping over a floor fan. Yet in this country, the victims can be sued for defending themselves. |
In Pennsylvania, for example, you can never use LETHAL force to defend PROPERTY (under the idea that property can be replaced, lives cannot). You must attempt flight first. If at any point you reasonably believe that you, yourself are in danger of anything that justifies lethal force in self defense (kidnapping, murder, ****, serious bodily injury) you're free to use lethal force in self defense. If you have kids in the home and are afraid that THEY might be similarly at risk or be unable to flee, the same goes.
Compare that to Texas where homeowners are able to justify lethal force against property damage. One very public case had a man justified in shooting teens that were "decorating" his house with rolls of toilet paper.
-------
You also bring up a commonly used outrageous suit of a burglar suing a homeowner for his injuries. This is a little murkier, but I've seen the trend before, and it gets a little messier as things go on. The classic citation is the "Bodine" lawsuit where a teen vandal steals a floodlight off the school roof, and then fell through the gym skylight, resulting in becoming a spastic quadriplegic. Bodine sued the school, asking for 8 million, then settled for a lesser payout.
I can speak better from my experience, though: knew a kid about a decade ago that was sleeping in the back of his dad's pickup (legal at the time) as his dad drove back home from hunting camp- drunk. Dad went down a winding, narrow, one-way street the wrong way, and all the reflective street signs warning of the sharp turn ahead were, obviously, not pointing in the direction that CARS WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO GO.
Dad missed the curve, car wrecked, kid went flying. Broke his back. Dad's dead. Kid's in a chair for life. As a normal part of the process of getting any insurance payout, he signed an agreement to let them pursue any other responsible parties on his behalf. He didn't even KNOW that he was suing the PA Department of Transportation or the property owner of the tree he broke his back against until it broke the news. He had to testify to continue getting the insurance payments that were keeping his medical bills paid, and he was shocked to get a settlement offer right after he gave testimony in front of a jury.
Don't recall the payout, but essentially the whole ordeal was the insurance company responsible for paying out his claim trying to get other parties' insurers to share some of the cost or risk the sympathies of a 12-man jury toward a kid who's facing a lifetime of medical bills.
People are VERY generous to sympathetic characters like that... particularly when they're juries giving away someone ELSE's money.
Would Batman even stand trial? Or would he bail out the first chance he had. Breaking the law and standing trial only applies to the people he puts in traction. He will fight for justice aslong as it applies to the little people.
Way to many alts.
Quote:
he could probably be tried in absentia if he refused to show.
|
Originally Posted by Scarlet_Phantom
Would Batman even stand trial? Or would he bail out the first chance he had. Breaking the law and standing trial only applies to the people he puts in traction. He will fight for justice aslong as it applies to the little people.
|
Quote:
If Batman lived in Texas, I think a grand jury would "no bill" (not indict) him. In Texas, citizens can carry licenses to carry concealed firearms, and there have been incidents where citizens have used deadly force to protect others from criminal activity and they generally are not indicted.
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Not sure where you're at, but in the US, this is handled by STATE law, and it differs significantly:
In Pennsylvania, for example, you can never use LETHAL force to defend PROPERTY (under the idea that property can be replaced, lives cannot). You must attempt flight first. If at any point you reasonably believe that you, yourself are in danger of anything that justifies lethal force in self defense (kidnapping, murder, ****, serious bodily injury) you're free to use lethal force in self defense. If you have kids in the home and are afraid that THEY might be similarly at risk or be unable to flee, the same goes. Compare that to Texas where homeowners are able to justify lethal force against property damage. One very public case had a man justified in shooting teens that were "decorating" his house with rolls of toilet paper. |
Quote:
Yeah, growing up around PA, the worst you could encounter while out tick-tacking houses was possibly someone shooting rocksalt at ya... and even that was excessive (and painful).|
Originally Posted by Pouncer
If Batman lived in Texas, I think a grand jury would "no bill" (not indict) him. In Texas, citizens can carry licenses to carry conceal firearms, and there have been incidents where citizens have used deadly force to protect others from criminal activity and they generally are not indicted.
|
Doing the same thing in Texas... well... it's amazing anyone makes it through their rebellious teen years in one piece in that state.
Quote:
In Texas, your home is your castle. If someone is skulking around your house in the dead of night, the presumption is that they're up to no good and they're pretty much open season.
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Yeah, growing up around PA, the worst you could encounter while out tick-tacking houses was possibly someone shooting rocksalt at ya... and even that was excessive (and painful).
Doing the same thing in Texas... well... it's amazing anyone makes it through their rebellious teen years in one piece in that state. |
Quote:
Not even just sympathetic. Juries are notorious for sticking it to the person they see as the richer of 2 people. Because hey, they gots the money.
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
People are VERY generous to sympathetic characters like that... particularly when they're juries giving away someone ELSE's money.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
But in this country, we can be sued and found guilty of murder or assault for defending our homes from an intruder. If they fail to kill Batman, he can turn around and file charges against them.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Not sure where you're at, but in the US, this is handled by STATE law, and it differs significantly:
In Pennsylvania, for example, you can never use LETHAL force to defend PROPERTY (under the idea that property can be replaced, lives cannot). You must attempt flight first. If at any point you reasonably believe that you, yourself are in danger of anything that justifies lethal force in self defense (kidnapping, murder, ****, serious bodily injury) you're free to use lethal force in self defense. If you have kids in the home and are afraid that THEY might be similarly at risk or be unable to flee, the same goes. Compare that to Texas where homeowners are able to justify lethal force against property damage. One very public case had a man justified in shooting teens that were "decorating" his house with rolls of toilet paper. |
Also according to the wiki, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington are considering adopting their own castle laws.
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt
Quote:
an entirely different question, but not a bad one. |
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
I thnik the word should be "should", not "could"
 |
my own thoughts, no.
Quote:
I live in California, and the advice I received from several people working in the law enforcement sector is that if I shoot someone that is not quite in the house, to drag their body inside. That still does not stop civil court from prosecuting you for the wroongful death. Look at OJ SImpson. He was found innocent in the federal case, yet a civil jury found him guilty of the same crime.
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Not sure where you're at, but in the US, this is handled by STATE law, and it differs significantly:
In Pennsylvania, for example, you can never use LETHAL force to defend PROPERTY (under the idea that property can be replaced, lives cannot). You must attempt flight first. If at any point you reasonably believe that you, yourself are in danger of anything that justifies lethal force in self defense (kidnapping, murder, ****, serious bodily injury) you're free to use lethal force in self defense. If you have kids in the home and are afraid that THEY might be similarly at risk or be unable to flee, the same goes. Compare that to Texas where homeowners are able to justify lethal force against property damage. One very public case had a man justified in shooting teens that were "decorating" his house with rolls of toilet paper. ------- . |
Quote:
Some states have "make my day" laws that protect you from civil suits if you use deadly force against home invaders.
|
Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
That still does not stop civil court from prosecuting you for the wroongful death. Look at OJ SImpson. He was found innocent in the federal case, yet a civil jury found him guilty of the same crime.
|
Quote:
Dragging the body inside is good advice to follow, if you want to spend time in jail. Modern forensics isn't as good as CSI makes out, but it is good enough to show a body has been moved. Move the body and you are guilty of altering/destroying evidence at the very least. Plus you make yourself look guilty. If you shoot someone make two calls, one to your lawyer and one to 911. DO NOT talk to the cops. The cops are not your friends and anything you say will be used against you in court. This video is long, but well worth your time to watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
|
Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
I live in California, and the advice I received from several people working in the law enforcement sector is that if I shoot someone that is not quite in the house, to drag their body inside.
|
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.