In numerous stories that I have read or followed, characters who seek to "take the law into their own hands" are often regarded in a negative manner by the authorities, being labeled as dangerous to society. For example, superheroes, most notably Batman, are frequently pursued by the police as much as they are by the criminals whom they seek.
This has me wondering: what makes the authority of the police and the government legitimate? Why do they have the power to arrest people or make laws? How are they any different from people such as Batman or other superheroes who seek to help the people and fight crime? What can everyone else say about this subject?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
This has me wondering: what makes the authority of the police and the government legitimate? Why do they have the power to arrest people or make laws?
In a democratic society, society does. Society voted lawmakers in. Lawmakers make the laws that empower the police and the rest of the government that isn't directly voted into power.
If you don't like it, vote someone else that represents your ideals, or run yourself.
How are they any different from people such as Batman or other superheroes who seek to help the people and fight crime?
Batman was never voted into position, nor was he appointed nor approved by the people who were voted into position.
He does what he wants. No one, not even society, can tell him what to do directly. That what he does results in a positive result is more of a story telling conceit rather than reality.
In a democratic society, society does. Society voted lawmakers in. Lawmakers make the laws that empower the police and the rest of the government that isn't directly voted into power.
IF you don't like it, vote someone else that represents your ideals, or run yourself.
Does this mean that if enough people approved of Batman or another superhero, that person would be a legitimate authority figure?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Those who would trade their freedoms for security will have neither.”-Benjamin Franklin
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
A mere poll won't do. Remember that society also made laws, so 51% saying "we approve!" isn't enough. The involved laws have to be changed, too. Breaking and entering to gather evidence? Holding a person over a edge of a building until he confesses? Anonymous law enfocers that can't be punished if they screw up? A society would have to first allow these things in order to "approve" of Batman.
If society approves of those things, then they'd empower the police to do those things (duh) rather than some guy they can't control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Batman was never voted into position, nor was he appointed nor approved by the people who were voted into position.
Moreover, there's no means of holding Batman accountable for his actions.
He does what he wants. No one, not even society, can tell him what to do directly. That what he does results in a positive result is more of a story telling conceit rather than reality.
Well, not necessarily. There has been a whole history of citizenry taking matters into their own hands. Heard a story about a recent militia uprising of a town in Mexico against a drug cartel leader.
I would say that the fact that Batman accomplishes good things allows for an interesting philosophical dialogue as to how to accomplish justice in a corrupt society.
He does what he wants. No one, not even society, can tell him what to do directly. That what he does results in a positive result is more of a story telling conceit rather than reality.
Funnily enough, there's actually a fairly major point in the comics that occasionally pop out. It basically states that Batman is facing all these crazy villains BECAUSE he exists. He causes them to pop up. Thus, he is actually doing Gotham no good.
Another point is that Batman is ultimately doing all those things because he's really just an insane man at heart and needs something to keep himself from going insane in the way his villains are (I think the Joker brings this one up fairly often). Which also causes Gotham more harm than good. Think about how many people die every damned time the Joker breaks out of Arkham.
I don't know where those points started to pop out, but it does bring an interesting perspective to it all. I certainly think it's an important theme, and I appreciate the writers for having thought of it in the first place.
The same is true for the whole dialogue Gordon and Batman has at the end of Batman Begins,and the entirety of The Dark Knight at that.
Quote from Highroller »
I would say that the fact that Batman accomplishes good things allows for an interesting philosophical dialogue as to how to accomplish justice in a corrupt society.
Ya, but isn't that also a part of the "story telling conceit" mondu_the fat is talking about?
Gotham, at least in comics that focus purely on Gotham and has no crazy villains like in Batman: Year One, and its leaders are said to be so incredibly corrupt that it is virtually impossible to get any form of justice.
But Gotham for some bizarre reason also exists in a vacuum. That cannot be said for cities in the real world. You have governors, and then the federal state, on top of it all.
In short- You cannot have absolute corruption in the way that Gotham is presented (unless you live in the late 19th/early 20th century America/Mexico or other countries where the national government functionally holds no control over large parts of their territory). They are rather unique cases.
As for Batman accomplishing good things. Besides the fact that I don't think he does (I mean, seriously, everytime the Joker breaks out he kills at least a dozen individuals. Then Batman just beats him up and puts him back in Arkham, only to have him break out again. I get that Joker is insane and thus morally we can't punish him [also a theme that I disagree with], but the entire concept is just... out of whack), there is also the theme that I referred to that comes from the films.
Suppose that vigilantism is accepted in places where there is corruption to the point that you can't rely on anything but yourself (though the point could be made that it isn't even vigilantism at that point since there is no authority to speak of in the first place). All you do is create a situation of extreme escalation, just like in TDK. I feel silly for referring to films, so here's a real life one.
Mexico declared war on the drug cartels after a long period of leaving them alone to virtually dominate parts of the country. Half a decade (iirc) later, Mexico concedes defeat. Why? Because the cartels fought back like hell.
Most U.S. states have statutes for citizen's arrest, which grant private persons (they don't actually have to be citizens) limited powers to arrest bad guys. You're held to much stricter liability than a cop when you do it, though. I expect most lawyers would advise you not to try it unless you know exactly what you're doing. But the basic idea - that private persons should not be completely helpless against lawlessness when the police aren't around - is laudable.
Batman, though, breaks the laws. Like, all of them. Hell, even before he gets to the actual crimefighting... do you really think the Batmobile is licensed? And, as others have noted, his own psychological issues are frequently implied to mean he's doing more harm than good - it's only writer favoritism that ensures he always ends up being right in the end. So Superman, as outlandish as his powers are, may actually be a more interesting example: he's a mentally well-adjusted citizen (although possibly an illegal alien) who is trying to do the right thing and is actually pretty good, as I understand it, at doing so within the boundaries of the law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Impossibility of regulation of citizenry law enforcement. There's a huge bureaucracy set up to guarantee the police's actions are aligned to the civil laws and such system can't be easily extended to everyone. In other words, there's no way we can judge if a vigilant is enforcing the commonly agreed law or not, among other issues, such as following security protocols.
Note that private law enforcement is allowed when it's easier to regulate and harder to exploit, such as protection of private property.
And, as others have noted, his own psychological issues are frequently implied to mean he's doing more harm than good - it's only writer favoritism that ensures he always ends up being right in the end.
Batman is an interesting example of whether it is the intention or the result that determines the morality of the action. He means good, but he's causing more harm than good.
So Superman, as outlandish as his powers are, may actually be a more interesting example: he's a mentally well-adjusted citizen (although possibly an illegal alien) who is trying to do the right thing and is actually pretty good, as I understand it, at doing so within the boundaries of the law.
There was a Comic about that one. In fact, Superman is incredibly inefficient at what he does, given his relative power level. Of course, efficiency would make for a pretty boring story, so..
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I'm just curious if you refuse to succumb to the citizen arrest could you then be charged with resisting arrest? Or is that limited to arrest by actual law enforcement agents?
I'm just curious if you refuse to succumb to the citizen arrest could you then be charged with resisting arrest? Or is that limited to arrest by actual law enforcement agents?
Depends on whether or not there's a legal basis for them trying to arrest you. If you're trespassing somewhere you shouldn't legally be, law protects them. If you're just walking around street and someone tries to arrest you at random, law protects you. If you're arrested by a citizen, and found innocent, you can charge them for false imprisonment. If they used force, you can charge them for assault as well. They can argue having done so in good faith, I.E: They actually thought they were in the right, and then things get complex.
At least that's how I think it goes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
There was an episode of Batman:TAS that had Batman put on trial with the various villains by the villains, they had a prosecutor that was to defend him against the villains. The villains charge was that they were created by him, but rather when we consider that people such as Joe Chill onward created Batman instead and caused him to further refine his strengths. In one of the few Batman the Brave and the Bold, Joe Chill said who Batman was and the villains went not to kill Batman, but rather Joe Chill himself because he had demonstrably made Bruce Wayne the rich boy into Batman. As for legitimate power, he has none, however his relationship with Gordon offers an allowance for activities. So he has no de jure authority, he's allowed de facto power so as long as his outcomes are reasonable.
In a more "real world scenario" for Batman and Batman Inc. to realistically exist without any problems would require a weak state and great security risk that would encourage people to turn a blind eye to Batman. It's his relationships that allow for his longevity. Where as a character like Anarky gets caught and is seen as a villain. Both may very well be messed up people, but Batman has friends and effectiveness and the environment to see what he can do. It generally takes all three, place time and people.
Does this mean that if enough people approved of Batman or another superhero, that person would be a legitimate authority figure?
To some extent, this does happen in the comic. Commissioner Gordon (who is a legitimate authority figure) does often work with Batman, and the cops also often give him wide leeway. Often in the storyline you could basically count batman as a PI or specialist that works with the police.
It's only in storylines that he's done something to get people to turn against him in which he becomes hunted by the police.
As BA pointed out, Superman rarely has such problems, and is often thanked or called on by the president. It doesn't get much more legit than that.
They can argue having done so in good faith, I.E: They actually thought they were in the right, and then things get complex.
My understanding is that cops have this defense, but private individuals don't. If you're going to citizen's arrest somebody, you had better be damn sure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
They can argue having done so in good faith, I.E: They actually thought they were in the right, and then things get complex.
My understanding is that cops have this defense, but private individuals don't. If you're going to citizen's arrest somebody, you had better be damn sure.
Your understanding is probably better than mine. I don't think this particular law matters too often, though.
As BA pointed out, Superman rarely has such problems, and is often thanked or called on by the president. It doesn't get much more legit than that.
True, but on the other hand, what would the police/citizens do if they did not trust the superman. Do they have a choice in this matter?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I agree with others, it is writers favoritism (and our own fandom) that makes it work.
I love Batman comics/movies (not so much Superman). But in real life, and not fiction, I would object strongly to anyone who so egregiously skirts the constitutional rights of so many, and I'm often reminded of the "What's the Damage?" cinemasins videos. Who actually destroyed more property? Sometimes, Batman causes the explosions after all.
At least we hired the Police, and voted in their superiors. They answer to us. Super heroes not so much.
Police, like the rest of the government, derives it's power from the will of the governed.
The corruption though, it's a serious problem.
I think a dirty cop is worse than a crook.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Private citizens cannot violate the Bill of Rights.
Not entirely true, and you should know this.
Batman and Superman are BOTH are working in conjunction with Law Enforcement. Batman with Gordon, and Supes often with the police, and/or the President himself.
When the law asks for your help, explicitly, or vicariously, or accepts your help post facto - it creates IMO the duty to protect constitutional rights.
The moment Gordon shines the Bat Signal, or lays the cuffs on a thug captured by Batman, or the moment Superman drops Lex and Otis behind the prison walls, the hands of the law are tied.
That the police "hunt" Batman, or that Superman isn't officially deputized, does not absolve this joint relationship between the heroes and the government.
"The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment. However, Fourth Amendment concerns do arise when those same actions are taken by a law enforcement official or a private person working in conjunction with law enforcement."
Even IF they aren't acting in conjunction (and I'd argue that they are, in fact, acting in conjunction with law enforcement) they are still acting in the pursuit of Justice, and as such, by violating those rights, they will not achieve the justice they seek at all. They are violating the spirit of the law.
I agree with others, it is writers favoritism (and our own fandom) that makes it work.
I love Batman comics/movies (not so much Superman). But in real life, and not fiction, I would object strongly to anyone who so egregiously skirts the constitutional rights of so many, and I'm often reminded of the "What's the Damage?" cinemasins videos. Who actually destroyed more property? Sometimes, Batman causes the explosions after all.
Ha ha. I am always reminded of how Batman just barges in with his tank at the start of TDK, crushing 2-3 cars and then blasting away at a small room with the tank's cannons.
That there is easily 50k+ (depends on how expensive the cars are too) in damages. Plus, the loss of a car is not something you recover easily from. I cannot imagine how I'd be able to do anything right now without my car- everything I do nowadays is at night and so I cannot even rely on the public buses.
So what if he doesn't kill (and even that is questionable, the way Batman beats people up, they're generally either crippled for life or going to face such an enormous medical bill by the end of it that their life is ruined)?
Batman is a bad man. Anyone, outside of little children who don't fully understand, who use him as inspiration is really short-sighted in my opinion.
Batman is a bad man. Anyone, outside of little children who don't fully understand, who use him as inspiration is really short-sighted in my opinion.
Not necessarily. Batman represents absolute, even fanatical, dedication towards a cause. The idea of taking yourself and investing in something you really, truly believe in and want can be a good one.
Not so much the vigilantism.
And Batman definitely kills people, in pretty much every incarnation. Even in the Nolanverse, he directly assists in the killing of Liam Neeson.
Batman is a bad man. Anyone, outside of little children who don't fully understand, who use him as inspiration is really short-sighted in my opinion.
Not necessarily. Batman represents absolute, even fanatical, dedication towards a cause. The idea of taking yourself and investing in something you really, truly believe in and want can be a good one.
Then should the Japanese kamikaze pilots and fanatical suicide bombers also be looked in the light that Batman is?
I'm sorry. I do not believe that absolute dedication towards a cause is a good thing at all. In fact, I'd argue that it's a terrible thing.
It is the very act of absolute dedication, fanaticism in other words, that cause all the bad things, not the cause that they support.
You can find aspects to like out of even the worst of people/characters. Dedication towards a cause can be a good thing if the cause is good and your methods are right, so I am comfortable saying that it can be an inspiration.
I mean, you can look at kamikaze pilots and admire the integrity.
Absolute dedication towards a cause (fanaticism, in other words)=/= dedication towards a cause.
Make up your mind. You wrote "absolute dedication" in your first post. Now you're writing mere "dedication towards a cause". They are two very different things.
The difference is simple. Mere dedication means you're not so focused to the point that you consider everything is expendable to achieve the goal. Absolute dedication means that you DO consider everything expendable to achieve the goal.
And, no, I consider kamikaze pilots to be scum of the Earth. Integrity? What integrity? Integrity would mean that the Japanese recognized when they were beat and surrendered instead of preparing to have their entire country wiped out merely because of honor and worship of their God-Emperor. Integrity would mean that they actually had a sense of morality.
I find the Japanese of WWII utterly despicable because of this.
Even IF they aren't acting in conjunction (and I'd argue that they are, in fact, acting in conjunction with law enforcement) they are still acting in the pursuit of Justice, and as such, by violating those rights, they will not achieve the justice they seek at all. They are violating the spirit of the law.
Law =/= Justice. Spirit of the Law =/= Justice, either.
I'm sorry. I do not believe that absolute dedication towards a cause is a good thing at all. In fact, I'd argue that it's a terrible thing.
It is the very act of absolute dedication, fanaticism in other words, that cause all the bad things, not the cause that they support.
This. Blind belief in a 'great other' of any form, be it a political idea, religion, or a nation, is why we can't have nice things. As people start to identify with an ideal, they automatically begin using it as a justification. This frees them from having to consider the moral implications of what they are doing. They are externalizing the judgement of their own actions to something else, an abstract thing, which legitimizes anything they do as long as it forwards their goal.
Blind ideologies are sociopathy for the masses.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This has me wondering: what makes the authority of the police and the government legitimate? Why do they have the power to arrest people or make laws? How are they any different from people such as Batman or other superheroes who seek to help the people and fight crime? What can everyone else say about this subject?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
In a democratic society, society does. Society voted lawmakers in. Lawmakers make the laws that empower the police and the rest of the government that isn't directly voted into power.
If you don't like it, vote someone else that represents your ideals, or run yourself.
Batman was never voted into position, nor was he appointed nor approved by the people who were voted into position.
He does what he wants. No one, not even society, can tell him what to do directly. That what he does results in a positive result is more of a story telling conceit rather than reality.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Does this mean that if enough people approved of Batman or another superhero, that person would be a legitimate authority figure?
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”-Thomas Jefferson
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of its user.”-Theodore Roosevelt
“Patriotism means to stand by one's country; it does not mean to stand by one's president.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Their ability to enforce that authority.
Batman is fictitious so its unlikely.
A mere poll won't do. Remember that society also made laws, so 51% saying "we approve!" isn't enough. The involved laws have to be changed, too. Breaking and entering to gather evidence? Holding a person over a edge of a building until he confesses? Anonymous law enfocers that can't be punished if they screw up? A society would have to first allow these things in order to "approve" of Batman.
If society approves of those things, then they'd empower the police to do those things (duh) rather than some guy they can't control.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Moreover, there's no means of holding Batman accountable for his actions.
Well, not necessarily. There has been a whole history of citizenry taking matters into their own hands. Heard a story about a recent militia uprising of a town in Mexico against a drug cartel leader.
I would say that the fact that Batman accomplishes good things allows for an interesting philosophical dialogue as to how to accomplish justice in a corrupt society.
Funnily enough, there's actually a fairly major point in the comics that occasionally pop out. It basically states that Batman is facing all these crazy villains BECAUSE he exists. He causes them to pop up. Thus, he is actually doing Gotham no good.
Another point is that Batman is ultimately doing all those things because he's really just an insane man at heart and needs something to keep himself from going insane in the way his villains are (I think the Joker brings this one up fairly often). Which also causes Gotham more harm than good. Think about how many people die every damned time the Joker breaks out of Arkham.
I don't know where those points started to pop out, but it does bring an interesting perspective to it all. I certainly think it's an important theme, and I appreciate the writers for having thought of it in the first place.
The same is true for the whole dialogue Gordon and Batman has at the end of Batman Begins,and the entirety of The Dark Knight at that.
Ya, but isn't that also a part of the "story telling conceit" mondu_the fat is talking about?
Gotham, at least in comics that focus purely on Gotham and has no crazy villains like in Batman: Year One, and its leaders are said to be so incredibly corrupt that it is virtually impossible to get any form of justice.
But Gotham for some bizarre reason also exists in a vacuum. That cannot be said for cities in the real world. You have governors, and then the federal state, on top of it all.
In short- You cannot have absolute corruption in the way that Gotham is presented (unless you live in the late 19th/early 20th century America/Mexico or other countries where the national government functionally holds no control over large parts of their territory). They are rather unique cases.
As for Batman accomplishing good things. Besides the fact that I don't think he does (I mean, seriously, everytime the Joker breaks out he kills at least a dozen individuals. Then Batman just beats him up and puts him back in Arkham, only to have him break out again. I get that Joker is insane and thus morally we can't punish him [also a theme that I disagree with], but the entire concept is just... out of whack), there is also the theme that I referred to that comes from the films.
Suppose that vigilantism is accepted in places where there is corruption to the point that you can't rely on anything but yourself (though the point could be made that it isn't even vigilantism at that point since there is no authority to speak of in the first place). All you do is create a situation of extreme escalation, just like in TDK. I feel silly for referring to films, so here's a real life one.
Mexico declared war on the drug cartels after a long period of leaving them alone to virtually dominate parts of the country. Half a decade (iirc) later, Mexico concedes defeat. Why? Because the cartels fought back like hell.
Batman, though, breaks the laws. Like, all of them. Hell, even before he gets to the actual crimefighting... do you really think the Batmobile is licensed? And, as others have noted, his own psychological issues are frequently implied to mean he's doing more harm than good - it's only writer favoritism that ensures he always ends up being right in the end. So Superman, as outlandish as his powers are, may actually be a more interesting example: he's a mentally well-adjusted citizen (although possibly an illegal alien) who is trying to do the right thing and is actually pretty good, as I understand it, at doing so within the boundaries of the law.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Note that private law enforcement is allowed when it's easier to regulate and harder to exploit, such as protection of private property.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Batman is an interesting example of whether it is the intention or the result that determines the morality of the action. He means good, but he's causing more harm than good.
There was a Comic about that one. In fact, Superman is incredibly inefficient at what he does, given his relative power level. Of course, efficiency would make for a pretty boring story, so..
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Depends on whether or not there's a legal basis for them trying to arrest you. If you're trespassing somewhere you shouldn't legally be, law protects them. If you're just walking around street and someone tries to arrest you at random, law protects you. If you're arrested by a citizen, and found innocent, you can charge them for false imprisonment. If they used force, you can charge them for assault as well. They can argue having done so in good faith, I.E: They actually thought they were in the right, and then things get complex.
At least that's how I think it goes.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
In a more "real world scenario" for Batman and Batman Inc. to realistically exist without any problems would require a weak state and great security risk that would encourage people to turn a blind eye to Batman. It's his relationships that allow for his longevity. Where as a character like Anarky gets caught and is seen as a villain. Both may very well be messed up people, but Batman has friends and effectiveness and the environment to see what he can do. It generally takes all three, place time and people.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To some extent, this does happen in the comic. Commissioner Gordon (who is a legitimate authority figure) does often work with Batman, and the cops also often give him wide leeway. Often in the storyline you could basically count batman as a PI or specialist that works with the police.
It's only in storylines that he's done something to get people to turn against him in which he becomes hunted by the police.
As BA pointed out, Superman rarely has such problems, and is often thanked or called on by the president. It doesn't get much more legit than that.
My understanding is that cops have this defense, but private individuals don't. If you're going to citizen's arrest somebody, you had better be damn sure.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Your understanding is probably better than mine. I don't think this particular law matters too often, though.
True, but on the other hand, what would the police/citizens do if they did not trust the superman. Do they have a choice in this matter?
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Superman as well.
X-Ray vision?
I agree with others, it is writers favoritism (and our own fandom) that makes it work.
I love Batman comics/movies (not so much Superman). But in real life, and not fiction, I would object strongly to anyone who so egregiously skirts the constitutional rights of so many, and I'm often reminded of the "What's the Damage?" cinemasins videos. Who actually destroyed more property? Sometimes, Batman causes the explosions after all.
At least we hired the Police, and voted in their superiors. They answer to us. Super heroes not so much.
Police, like the rest of the government, derives it's power from the will of the governed.
The corruption though, it's a serious problem.
I think a dirty cop is worse than a crook.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not entirely true, and you should know this.
Batman and Superman are BOTH are working in conjunction with Law Enforcement. Batman with Gordon, and Supes often with the police, and/or the President himself.
When the law asks for your help, explicitly, or vicariously, or accepts your help post facto - it creates IMO the duty to protect constitutional rights.
The moment Gordon shines the Bat Signal, or lays the cuffs on a thug captured by Batman, or the moment Superman drops Lex and Otis behind the prison walls, the hands of the law are tied.
That the police "hunt" Batman, or that Superman isn't officially deputized, does not absolve this joint relationship between the heroes and the government.
"The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment. However, Fourth Amendment concerns do arise when those same actions are taken by a law enforcement official or a private person working in conjunction with law enforcement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-the-fourth-amendment-applies.html
http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal
Even IF they aren't acting in conjunction (and I'd argue that they are, in fact, acting in conjunction with law enforcement) they are still acting in the pursuit of Justice, and as such, by violating those rights, they will not achieve the justice they seek at all. They are violating the spirit of the law.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Ha ha. I am always reminded of how Batman just barges in with his tank at the start of TDK, crushing 2-3 cars and then blasting away at a small room with the tank's cannons.
That there is easily 50k+ (depends on how expensive the cars are too) in damages. Plus, the loss of a car is not something you recover easily from. I cannot imagine how I'd be able to do anything right now without my car- everything I do nowadays is at night and so I cannot even rely on the public buses.
So what if he doesn't kill (and even that is questionable, the way Batman beats people up, they're generally either crippled for life or going to face such an enormous medical bill by the end of it that their life is ruined)?
Batman is a bad man. Anyone, outside of little children who don't fully understand, who use him as inspiration is really short-sighted in my opinion.
I'd agree. I think there are few things worse than the betrayal of trust.
Not so much the vigilantism.
And Batman definitely kills people, in pretty much every incarnation. Even in the Nolanverse, he directly assists in the killing of Liam Neeson.
Then should the Japanese kamikaze pilots and fanatical suicide bombers also be looked in the light that Batman is?
I'm sorry. I do not believe that absolute dedication towards a cause is a good thing at all. In fact, I'd argue that it's a terrible thing.
It is the very act of absolute dedication, fanaticism in other words, that cause all the bad things, not the cause that they support.
I mean, you can look at kamikaze pilots and admire the integrity.
Make up your mind. You wrote "absolute dedication" in your first post. Now you're writing mere "dedication towards a cause". They are two very different things.
The difference is simple. Mere dedication means you're not so focused to the point that you consider everything is expendable to achieve the goal. Absolute dedication means that you DO consider everything expendable to achieve the goal.
And, no, I consider kamikaze pilots to be scum of the Earth. Integrity? What integrity? Integrity would mean that the Japanese recognized when they were beat and surrendered instead of preparing to have their entire country wiped out merely because of honor and worship of their God-Emperor. Integrity would mean that they actually had a sense of morality.
I find the Japanese of WWII utterly despicable because of this.
Law =/= Justice. Spirit of the Law =/= Justice, either.
This. Blind belief in a 'great other' of any form, be it a political idea, religion, or a nation, is why we can't have nice things. As people start to identify with an ideal, they automatically begin using it as a justification. This frees them from having to consider the moral implications of what they are doing. They are externalizing the judgement of their own actions to something else, an abstract thing, which legitimizes anything they do as long as it forwards their goal.
Blind ideologies are sociopathy for the masses.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.