Disorderly conduct covers a lot of territory legally. Reckless endangerment covers the rest, I think. No special law is required.
Qapla!
And this was the core problem faced by the SHRA. In terms of "policing", it's redundant, and the other aspects of the law are intrusive at best, with little if any benefit, to anyone, citizen or hero alike.
You don't need a law just to tell superheros they have to follow the law.
(again, The Incredibles... Blows the MU assertion clean out of the water)
It worked in the Incredibles because writer's fiat said it worked. It's not a particularly compelling example because well, I saw that movie, what you're talking about is a plot point used to explain why the authorities are (somewhat) cooperating with mask wearing supers. Also a major plot point was how that went horribly WRONG when there was a rash of lawsuits from people suing supers for various things related to being heroes. Which lead to the government hiding them and their existence from the world. Which went horribly wrong, and the level of horribly wrong is the main plot point of the movie.
Incredibles is actually kinda like a dystopia for supers where the public generally distrusts them and the government had to do something to curb that distrust. But that took the form of an edict banning supers from being heroes.
Disorderly conduct covers a lot of territory legally. Reckless endangerment covers the rest, I think. No special law is required.
Qapla!
And this was the core problem faced by the SHRA. In terms of "policing", it's redundant, and the other aspects of the law are intrusive at best, with little if any benefit, to anyone, citizen or hero alike.
You don't need a law just to tell superheros they have to follow the law.
Like you don't need laws to tell drivers to follow the law?? Or you don't need laws to tell gun owners to follow the law?? Seriously, dude, Supers are above group-relevant legislation?!
It's not a particularly compelling example because well, I saw that movie, what you're talking about is a plot point used to explain why the authorities are (somewhat) cooperating with mask wearing supers. Also a major plot point was how that went horribly WRONG when there was a rash of lawsuits from people suing supers for various things related to being heroes. Which lead to the government hiding them and their existence from the world. Which went horribly wrong, and the level of horribly wrong is the main plot point of the movie.
And as such, is a spoof on the litigious nature of Murican Society... What kind of a55hole sues the person trying to save their life??
The level of 'horribly wrong' is brought about by a disgruntled wannabe, not the government actions toward the Supers...
Incredibles is actually kinda like a dystopia for supers where the public generally distrusts them and the government had to do something to curb that distrust. But that took the form of an edict banning supers from being heroes.
And as I've said, the public has good reason to distrust and be wary of individuals of massive personal power, of questionable levels of training, or personality disorders... Have you taken up my suggestion to go naked shopping or to make some new friends at the playpark? No? You thought it would be a bad idea?? Well shock-horror, society has conventions and standards of behaviour which people comply with, which over-rides an individual's entitled attitude to "I can, so I will..."
You know, in The Incredibles, they didn't actually say supers were outlawed, they were just prohibiting the way superheroes usually work. To quote the lady in the newsreel, "It's time for their *secret* identities to become their *only* identities - time for them to join us, or go away."
So one could suppose that in the intervening decades, the villains were suppressed by those heroes willing to knuckle under to the government, and work only on what they were told to rather than fighting crime and evil in general. So attempts to take over the world go down, armed robberies and muggings go up - it's a tradeoff, really.
And then along came Syndrome, who started off by killing all the heroes he could so that he could appear more awesome when he emerged into the public eye, and thus was not controllable by the new methods - requiring the heroes to come back out of hiding...
Skipping quotes we have all, already seen. I will be intending to post in continuation of the exchange between ... @markhawkman @marcusdkane
and Myself.
I apologize if some of this is vague. I am trying to dance around this in a way that allows me to draw on direct experience, yet not violate any rules of my employment. Sorry.
Just to repeat and clarify, I am not a police officer, but work right beside them, and a Chief of Police signs my check. We are in a jurisdiction with multiple layers of authority, up to and including DHS. Each of us has limits to that authority as fits our role in the system. Our team overlaps at times with Customs, Border Patrol, Secret Service, and State Police, each of whom have their own reason for being involved with us.
Every layer of involvement is a complication, and comes fraught with it's own professional risks. If for example, one of us helps another of us, and by helping out accidentally crosses certain invisible lines, then even though we are on the same side and no matter how good the intention, it can end a career, and result in criminal charges. Again, that is irrespective of criminal intent, and is purely a circumstance of having the 'properly issued authority' or not. I am a fairly small cog in that machine, being near the bottom, only having some seniority over others at my level. I do not seek more clearance due to the risks that come with it.
It is routine to have weapons passing legally into and out of our jurisdiction as private property in the possession of private individuals, and nominally protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. With only rare exceptions, members of our chain of command are sworn to uphold the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. At the same time we are tasked with being observant to the presence of weapons, and alert to the possible dangers. This will only occasionally result in confiscation, and then criminal charges are possible if the reason for the confiscation is sufficiently aggravated. (In one case we had to partially evacuate a building) In most cases weapons will be returned if the requirements of our 'situation' are met, or the individual elects to leave the area we are responsible for.
Strictly speaking, we are walking a legal tightrope, due to the conflicting requirements of the law we have to work with. Morally, and ethically, we are approaching a point where the highest laws of the land, and the lower laws passed later, create a conflict. Oaths of office are ... oaths! Not to be entered into lightly, or ignored in spite of the conflicts that may arise. Rational attempts are made to prioritize, but it isn't easy, and all to often you find that one law requires you to ignore another, and this can't help but strain ethical men and women who are trying their hardest to do the right thing. Those who make the law are seemingly insulated from those implementing it on the ground. Politicians do not have to fit square pegs into round holes, but sometimes because of laws they pass, we are required to.
Here, all government power is supposed to be granted at the consent of the governed, but again, those who pass laws are insulated from the people who give that consent. Many lawmakers are exempt from the restrictions they impose on others because they can make themselves so. To be fair, the governed do little to stay informed about what their employees are doing, and even seem willing to support, or at least tolerate genuine corruption in some cases. I am not making anything more than an observation, when I point out that the recent and surprising election result, is at least partially a response to this reality.
With the trend towards oligarchy in the USA, the governing 'class' is becoming it's own 'special interest group', protecting itself with insufficient regard to those they have sworn to serve. In contrast I know those I work with would lay down their life if required to serve and protect the community. I trust them as individuals.
Every election raises questions about what the governing class want us to do next? We worry out of necessity. We are already asked to do things that run dangerously close to crossing Constitutional lines. How long before the governed consent to grant their power to a government that would require us to cross those lines? how long before there is no honorable direction to go in? How long before every choice, even the choice to do nothing at all, requires you either break a law, or renounce a sacred oath?
As someone who is actually proud to be in the business of trying to keep people safe, I have to ask these questions every day. I see the machine. I know it can be turned against those it is meant to protect. They way to prevent that from ever happening is to guard the power, and not to give to much of it away. When you see rights violated, no matter what rights they are, even if you don't think it should be a right, you pull the leash of government back. If a bad government won't stop when the people say 'stop', what will they do? Say 'stop' again, only louder? Did the great tyrants of the 20th century stop?
I'll recommend readers take a look at this narrow example of law enforcement being directed to violate Constitutional rights, just to have some food for thought.
Now! I am not asking you or any reader to be pro 2nd Amendment, as it is a matter of individual conscience what you think the law should be. If you want to see what the law is, read the Bill of Rights. I am pointing out that the way that law enforcement was used was in direct violation of one of the highest written laws in the land. The US Constitution, and those who conceived it, put forth the concept that the natural rights of the individual are not granted by any government. It is really more of a question of whether a government is properly constructed to recognize those rights and uphold them, or not!
Make sure government respects and honors your consent. Make sure you, the governed, retain enough power to remove consent if needed, and can make the removal stick.
Skipping quotes we have all, already seen. I will be intending to post in continuation of the exchange between ... @markhawkman @marcusdkane
and Myself.
I apologize if some of this is vague. I am trying to dance around this in a way that allows me to draw on direct experience, yet not violate any rules of my employment. Sorry.
Just to repeat and clarify, I am not a police officer, but work right beside them, and a Chief of Police signs my check. We are in a jurisdiction with multiple layers of authority, up to and including DHS. Each of us has limits to that authority as fits our role in the system. Our team overlaps at times with Customs, Border Patrol, Secret Service, and State Police, each of whom have their own reason for being involved with us.
Every layer of involvement is a complication, and comes fraught with it's own professional risks. If for example, one of us helps another of us, and by helping out accidentally crosses certain invisible lines, then even though we are on the same side and no matter how good the intention, it can end a career, and result in criminal charges. Again, that is irrespective of criminal intent, and is purely a circumstance of having the 'properly issued authority' or not. I am a fairly small cog in that machine, being near the bottom, only having some seniority over others at my level. I do not seek more clearance due to the risks that come with it.
It is routine to have weapons passing legally into and out of our jurisdiction as private property in the possession of private individuals, and nominally protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. With only rare exceptions, members of our chain of command are sworn to uphold the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. At the same time we are tasked with being observant to the presence of weapons, and alert to the possible dangers. This will only occasionally result in confiscation, and then criminal charges are possible if the reason for the confiscation is sufficiently aggravated. (In one case we had to partially evacuate a building) In most cases weapons will be returned if the requirements of our 'situation' are met, or the individual elects to leave the area we are responsible for.
Strictly speaking, we are walking a legal tightrope, due to the conflicting requirements of the law we have to work with. Morally, and ethically, we are approaching a point where the highest laws of the land, and the lower laws passed later, create a conflict. Oaths of office are ... oaths! Not to be entered into lightly, or ignored in spite of the conflicts that may arise. Rational attempts are made to prioritize, but it isn't easy, and all to often you find that one law requires you to ignore another, and this can't help but strain ethical men and women who are trying their hardest to do the right thing. Those who make the law are seemingly insulated from those implementing it on the ground. Politicians do not have to fit square pegs into round holes, but sometimes because of laws they pass, we are required to.
Here, all government power is supposed to be granted at the consent of the governed, but again, those who pass laws are insulated from the people who give that consent. Many lawmakers are exempt from the restrictions they impose on others because they can make themselves so. To be fair, the governed do little to stay informed about what their employees are doing, and even seem willing to support, or at least tolerate genuine corruption in some cases. I am not making anything more than an observation, when I point out that the recent and surprising election result, is at least partially a response to this reality.
With the trend towards oligarchy in the USA, the governing 'class' is becoming it's own 'special interest group', protecting itself with insufficient regard to those they have sworn to serve. In contrast I know those I work with would lay down their life if required to serve and protect the community. I trust them as individuals.
Every election raises questions about what the governing class want us to do next? We worry out of necessity. We are already asked to do things that run dangerously close to crossing Constitutional lines. How long before the governed consent to grant their power to a government that would require us to cross those lines? how long before there is no honorable direction to go in? How long before every choice, even the choice to do nothing at all, requires you either break a law, or renounce a sacred oath?
As someone who is actually proud to be in the business of trying to keep people safe, I have to ask these questions every day. I see the machine. I know it can be turned against those it is meant to protect. They way to prevent that from ever happening is to guard the power, and not to give to much of it away. When you see rights violated, no matter what rights they are, even if you don't think it should be a right, you pull the leash of government back. If a bad government won't stop when the people say 'stop', what will they do? Say 'stop' again, only louder? Did the great tyrants of the 20th century stop?
I'll recommend readers take a look at this narrow example of law enforcement being directed to violate Constitutional rights, just to have some food for thought.
Now! I am not asking you or any reader to be pro 2nd Amendment, as it is a matter of individual conscience what you think the law should be. If you want to see what the law is, read the Bill of Rights. I am pointing out that the way that law enforcement was used was in direct violation of one of the highest written laws in the land. The US Constitution, and those who conceived it, put forth the concept that the natural rights of the individual are not granted by any government. It is really more of a question of whether a government is properly constructed to recognize those rights and uphold them, or not!
Make sure government respects and honors your consent. Make sure you, the governed, retain enough power to remove consent if needed, and can make the removal stick.
Qapla!
Thank you for the words 2nd Amendment... Dude, you do not need to convince me of the necessity for the 2nd Amendment, I wish the UK was the 51st State, so I could exercise some 2nd Amendment rights Shooting (especially rifles) is one of the few things which I was instinctively good at... If it wasn't for the change in UK legislation following the Dunblane Massacre, I would be a firearm-owning gun-club member...
Do the authorities always get it right? Unquestionably not. Take, for example, the counsellor who was shot a few months back while lying on the floor with his hands raised... Whoever the fool was who pulled that trigger, should be out of the job, and facing a sentence...
Perhaps the misunderstanding of perspectives is, as patrickngo suggests: A fundamental difference between the American and English psyche... I'm happy to accept that... I don't need someone to agree with me to validate my belief in my own opinion, but what I do need, is to know that my stance on the issue is actually being understood by someone else, even if not necessarily agreed with...
You know, in The Incredibles, they didn't actually say supers were outlawed, they were just prohibiting the way superheroes usually work. To quote the lady in the newsreel, "It's time for their *secret* identities to become their *only* identities - time for them to join us, or go away."
So one could suppose that in the intervening decades, the villains were suppressed by those heroes willing to knuckle under to the government, and work only on what they were told to rather than fighting crime and evil in general. So attempts to take over the world go down, armed robberies and muggings go up - it's a tradeoff, really.
And then along came Syndrome, who started off by killing all the heroes he could so that he could appear more awesome when he emerged into the public eye, and thus was not controllable by the new methods - requiring the heroes to come back out of hiding...
They also weren't rounded up and sent to concentration camps for experimentation and mass execution...
The point I'm trying to make, is that a registration act doesn't have to be the 4th Reich, which Marvel insists via its dialogue... The idea itself is not inherently good or bad, but has more analogies in contemporary laws (driving/guns/clothes/local taxes) which protect everyone (as much as possible) from unregulated, untrained and undisciplined psychos, or entitled a55holes who think "I can, so I will..." I'm reminded of Edgar Friendly's little rant about "because I might just feel the need to..." in Demolition Man*: "Because I might feel the need to," is no justification for any kind of behaviour, and as I said upthread, a reasonable person appreciates that while they might have the legal freedom to do something, consideration for those around them means not doing it. For example, a person might be perfectly entitled to walk round their home stark naked. But if they get a knock at the door, common decency says they put a robe or some pants on before opening the door, rather than subjecting the visitor to a view of their bits and pieces... Someone shouldn't have to point to the court-doll to show what the defendant had uncovered...
*Yes, I do have three seashells on the top of the cistern...
Skipping quotes we have all, already seen. I will be intending to post in continuation of the exchange between ... @markhawkman @marcusdkane
and Myself.
I apologize if some of this is vague. I am trying to dance around this in a way that allows me to draw on direct experience, yet not violate any rules of my employment. Sorry.
Just to repeat and clarify, I am not a police officer, but work right beside them, and a Chief of Police signs my check. We are in a jurisdiction with multiple layers of authority, up to and including DHS. Each of us has limits to that authority as fits our role in the system. Our team overlaps at times with Customs, Border Patrol, Secret Service, and State Police, each of whom have their own reason for being involved with us.
Every layer of involvement is a complication, and comes fraught with it's own professional risks. If for example, one of us helps another of us, and by helping out accidentally crosses certain invisible lines, then even though we are on the same side and no matter how good the intention, it can end a career, and result in criminal charges. Again, that is irrespective of criminal intent, and is purely a circumstance of having the 'properly issued authority' or not. I am a fairly small cog in that machine, being near the bottom, only having some seniority over others at my level. I do not seek more clearance due to the risks that come with it.
It is routine to have weapons passing legally into and out of our jurisdiction as private property in the possession of private individuals, and nominally protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. With only rare exceptions, members of our chain of command are sworn to uphold the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. At the same time we are tasked with being observant to the presence of weapons, and alert to the possible dangers. This will only occasionally result in confiscation, and then criminal charges are possible if the reason for the confiscation is sufficiently aggravated. (In one case we had to partially evacuate a building) In most cases weapons will be returned if the requirements of our 'situation' are met, or the individual elects to leave the area we are responsible for.
Strictly speaking, we are walking a legal tightrope, due to the conflicting requirements of the law we have to work with. Morally, and ethically, we are approaching a point where the highest laws of the land, and the lower laws passed later, create a conflict. Oaths of office are ... oaths! Not to be entered into lightly, or ignored in spite of the conflicts that may arise. Rational attempts are made to prioritize, but it isn't easy, and all to often you find that one law requires you to ignore another, and this can't help but strain ethical men and women who are trying their hardest to do the right thing. Those who make the law are seemingly insulated from those implementing it on the ground. Politicians do not have to fit square pegs into round holes, but sometimes because of laws they pass, we are required to.
Here, all government power is supposed to be granted at the consent of the governed, but again, those who pass laws are insulated from the people who give that consent. Many lawmakers are exempt from the restrictions they impose on others because they can make themselves so. To be fair, the governed do little to stay informed about what their employees are doing, and even seem willing to support, or at least tolerate genuine corruption in some cases. I am not making anything more than an observation, when I point out that the recent and surprising election result, is at least partially a response to this reality.
With the trend towards oligarchy in the USA, the governing 'class' is becoming it's own 'special interest group', protecting itself with insufficient regard to those they have sworn to serve. In contrast I know those I work with would lay down their life if required to serve and protect the community. I trust them as individuals.
Every election raises questions about what the governing class want us to do next? We worry out of necessity. We are already asked to do things that run dangerously close to crossing Constitutional lines. How long before the governed consent to grant their power to a government that would require us to cross those lines? how long before there is no honorable direction to go in? How long before every choice, even the choice to do nothing at all, requires you either break a law, or renounce a sacred oath?
As someone who is actually proud to be in the business of trying to keep people safe, I have to ask these questions every day. I see the machine. I know it can be turned against those it is meant to protect. They way to prevent that from ever happening is to guard the power, and not to give to much of it away. When you see rights violated, no matter what rights they are, even if you don't think it should be a right, you pull the leash of government back. If a bad government won't stop when the people say 'stop', what will they do? Say 'stop' again, only louder? Did the great tyrants of the 20th century stop?
I'll recommend readers take a look at this narrow example of law enforcement being directed to violate Constitutional rights, just to have some food for thought.
Now! I am not asking you or any reader to be pro 2nd Amendment, as it is a matter of individual conscience what you think the law should be. If you want to see what the law is, read the Bill of Rights. I am pointing out that the way that law enforcement was used was in direct violation of one of the highest written laws in the land. The US Constitution, and those who conceived it, put forth the concept that the natural rights of the individual are not granted by any government. It is really more of a question of whether a government is properly constructed to recognize those rights and uphold them, or not!
Make sure government respects and honors your consent. Make sure you, the governed, retain enough power to remove consent if needed, and can make the removal stick.
Qapla!
Thank you for the words 2nd Amendment... Dude, you do not need to convince me of the necessity for the 2nd Amendment, I wish the UK was the 51st State, so I could exercise some 2nd Amendment rights Shooting (especially rifles) is one of the few things which I was instinctively good at... If it wasn't for the change in UK legislation following the Dunblane Massacre, I would be a firearm-owning gun-club member...
Do the authorities always get it right? Unquestionably not. Take, for example, the counsellor who was shot a few months back while lying on the floor with his hands raised... Whoever the fool was who pulled that trigger, should be out of the job, and facing a sentence...
Perhaps the misunderstanding of perspectives is, as patrickngo suggests: A fundamental difference between the American and English psyche... I'm happy to accept that... I don't need someone to agree with me to validate my belief in my own opinion, but what I do need, is to know that my stance on the issue is actually being understood by someone else, even if not necessarily agreed with...
I think I do understand. My right to wave my hands around stops just before I accidentally hit you, and in terms of super powers, or something like that, you appear to feel a greater level of preemption is justified. Is that basically the sum of it?
Disagreement is not bad in itself. It is about how we handle them. Like the recent election here. Clearly there is a lot of disagreement, not just about issues, but about what each of us may be willing to put up with to move forward on the issue(s) that we each feel are most important. You don't have to like either candidate. To top it off, whichever one you pick will leave you open to the offhand venom of people who went the other way. There is a tendency to make sweeping and slanderous generalizations about "those idiots" who voted differently than you did.
I'll say that I don't like either major candidate. I had to pick one. If I told you who, then there would probably be a 'rush to judgement" type of post from someone condemning me for my choice, and assuming my reasons were stupid. I would discourage people from making such judgments. I think all of us were put in a position where we had to try and figure out which of the poisons offered was the least fatal to imbibe. It was apparently not easy for most of us.
What I would wish is that we would give each other more intellectual benefit of the doubt. I have a dear friend who always votes the other way from me. He is not a fool, as easy as it would be for me to unfairly dismiss him as such at times like this. He does however have different priorities. He is willing to tolerate different miseries to achieve them. That is our dilemma as a nation.
So anyway, about legislation. I am confident that you have given it a lot of reasoned thought. I think I understand your point. I do not think I can support it however, and sincerely, no disrespect intended.
Skipping quotes we have all, already seen. I will be intending to post in continuation of the exchange between ... @markhawkman @marcusdkane
and Myself.
I apologize if some of this is vague. I am trying to dance around this in a way that allows me to draw on direct experience, yet not violate any rules of my employment. Sorry.
Just to repeat and clarify, I am not a police officer, but work right beside them, and a Chief of Police signs my check. We are in a jurisdiction with multiple layers of authority, up to and including DHS. Each of us has limits to that authority as fits our role in the system. Our team overlaps at times with Customs, Border Patrol, Secret Service, and State Police, each of whom have their own reason for being involved with us.
Every layer of involvement is a complication, and comes fraught with it's own professional risks. If for example, one of us helps another of us, and by helping out accidentally crosses certain invisible lines, then even though we are on the same side and no matter how good the intention, it can end a career, and result in criminal charges. Again, that is irrespective of criminal intent, and is purely a circumstance of having the 'properly issued authority' or not. I am a fairly small cog in that machine, being near the bottom, only having some seniority over others at my level. I do not seek more clearance due to the risks that come with it.
It is routine to have weapons passing legally into and out of our jurisdiction as private property in the possession of private individuals, and nominally protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. With only rare exceptions, members of our chain of command are sworn to uphold the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. At the same time we are tasked with being observant to the presence of weapons, and alert to the possible dangers. This will only occasionally result in confiscation, and then criminal charges are possible if the reason for the confiscation is sufficiently aggravated. (In one case we had to partially evacuate a building) In most cases weapons will be returned if the requirements of our 'situation' are met, or the individual elects to leave the area we are responsible for.
Strictly speaking, we are walking a legal tightrope, due to the conflicting requirements of the law we have to work with. Morally, and ethically, we are approaching a point where the highest laws of the land, and the lower laws passed later, create a conflict. Oaths of office are ... oaths! Not to be entered into lightly, or ignored in spite of the conflicts that may arise. Rational attempts are made to prioritize, but it isn't easy, and all to often you find that one law requires you to ignore another, and this can't help but strain ethical men and women who are trying their hardest to do the right thing. Those who make the law are seemingly insulated from those implementing it on the ground. Politicians do not have to fit square pegs into round holes, but sometimes because of laws they pass, we are required to.
Here, all government power is supposed to be granted at the consent of the governed, but again, those who pass laws are insulated from the people who give that consent. Many lawmakers are exempt from the restrictions they impose on others because they can make themselves so. To be fair, the governed do little to stay informed about what their employees are doing, and even seem willing to support, or at least tolerate genuine corruption in some cases. I am not making anything more than an observation, when I point out that the recent and surprising election result, is at least partially a response to this reality.
With the trend towards oligarchy in the USA, the governing 'class' is becoming it's own 'special interest group', protecting itself with insufficient regard to those they have sworn to serve. In contrast I know those I work with would lay down their life if required to serve and protect the community. I trust them as individuals.
Every election raises questions about what the governing class want us to do next? We worry out of necessity. We are already asked to do things that run dangerously close to crossing Constitutional lines. How long before the governed consent to grant their power to a government that would require us to cross those lines? how long before there is no honorable direction to go in? How long before every choice, even the choice to do nothing at all, requires you either break a law, or renounce a sacred oath?
As someone who is actually proud to be in the business of trying to keep people safe, I have to ask these questions every day. I see the machine. I know it can be turned against those it is meant to protect. They way to prevent that from ever happening is to guard the power, and not to give to much of it away. When you see rights violated, no matter what rights they are, even if you don't think it should be a right, you pull the leash of government back. If a bad government won't stop when the people say 'stop', what will they do? Say 'stop' again, only louder? Did the great tyrants of the 20th century stop?
I'll recommend readers take a look at this narrow example of law enforcement being directed to violate Constitutional rights, just to have some food for thought.
Now! I am not asking you or any reader to be pro 2nd Amendment, as it is a matter of individual conscience what you think the law should be. If you want to see what the law is, read the Bill of Rights. I am pointing out that the way that law enforcement was used was in direct violation of one of the highest written laws in the land. The US Constitution, and those who conceived it, put forth the concept that the natural rights of the individual are not granted by any government. It is really more of a question of whether a government is properly constructed to recognize those rights and uphold them, or not!
Make sure government respects and honors your consent. Make sure you, the governed, retain enough power to remove consent if needed, and can make the removal stick.
Qapla!
Thank you for the words 2nd Amendment... Dude, you do not need to convince me of the necessity for the 2nd Amendment, I wish the UK was the 51st State, so I could exercise some 2nd Amendment rights Shooting (especially rifles) is one of the few things which I was instinctively good at... If it wasn't for the change in UK legislation following the Dunblane Massacre, I would be a firearm-owning gun-club member...
Do the authorities always get it right? Unquestionably not. Take, for example, the counsellor who was shot a few months back while lying on the floor with his hands raised... Whoever the fool was who pulled that trigger, should be out of the job, and facing a sentence...
Perhaps the misunderstanding of perspectives is, as patrickngo suggests: A fundamental difference between the American and English psyche... I'm happy to accept that... I don't need someone to agree with me to validate my belief in my own opinion, but what I do need, is to know that my stance on the issue is actually being understood by someone else, even if not necessarily agreed with...
I think I do understand. My right to wave my hands around stops just before I accidentally hit you, and in terms of super powers, or something like that, you appear to feel a greater level of preemption is justified. Is that basically the sum of it?
Disagreement is not bad in itself. It is about how we handle them. Like the recent election here. Clearly there is a lot of disagreement, not just about issues, but about what each of us may be willing to put up with to move forward on the issue(s) that we each feel are most important. You don't have to like either candidate. To top it off, whichever one you pick will leave you open to the offhand venom of people who went the other way. There is a tendency to make sweeping and slanderous generalizations about "those idiots" who voted differently than you did.
I'll say that I don't like either major candidate. I had to pick one. If I told you who, then there would probably be a 'rush to judgement" type of post from someone condemning me for my choice, and assuming my reasons were stupid. I would discourage people from making such judgments. I think all of us were put in a position where we had to try and figure out which of the poisons offered was the least fatal to imbibe. It was apparently not easy for most of us.
What I would wish is that we would give each other more intellectual benefit of the doubt. I have a dear friend who always votes the other way from me. He is not a fool, as easy as it would be for me to unfairly dismiss him as such at times like this. He does however have different priorities. He is willing to tolerate different miseries to achieve them. That is our dilemma as a nation.
So anyway, about legislation. I am confident that you have given it a lot of reasoned thought. I think I understand your point. I do not think I can support it however, and sincerely, no disrespect intended.
Qapla!
More along the lines, that I believe, a reasonable person wouldn't wave their hands around and make the other person fear being hit... Yes, you have the right to wave your arms, I have the right to not feel threatened, so my right to feel safe, Donalds ( ) your right to wave your arms 'because you feel like it'... (a person who sincerely believed they are about to be attacked, is justified in striking first...)
And absolutely so, nothing whatsoever wrong with debate and discussion and disagreement on an issue. What is an issue, wis when someone believes that because they think what they think, then the alternate opinion is Absolutely Wrong, and that the other person must be some kind of Moral Defective to even hold such a view... That level of smug disrespect (not from yourself) and intolerance, is precisely why you guys have The Donald as President-elect...
Personally, I would have voted for Jill Stein... I refuse to vote tactically, and only vote for a candidate I actually agree with their stances and policies... I would rather turn in a deliberately spoiled balot, than to vote for a candidate I did not 100% endorse...
And absolutely no disrespect taken. My only concern is to be understood, not agreed with
More along the lines, that I believe, a reasonable person wouldn't wave their hands around and make the other person fear being hit... Yes, you have the right to wave your arms, I have the right to not feel threatened, so my right to feel safe, Donalds ( ) your right to wave your arms 'because you feel like it'... (a person who sincerely believed they are about to be attacked, is justified in striking first...)
And absolutely so, nothing whatsoever wrong with debate and discussion and disagreement on an issue. What is an issue, wis when someone believes that because they think what they think, then the alternate opinion is Absolutely Wrong, and that the other person must be some kind of Moral Defective to even hold such a view... That level of smug disrespect (not from yourself) and intolerance, is precisely why you guys have The Donald as President-elect...
Personally, I would have voted for Jill Stein... I refuse to vote tactically, and only vote for a candidate I actually agree with their stances and policies... I would rather turn in a deliberately spoiled balot, than to vote for a candidate I did not 100% endorse...
And absolutely no disrespect taken. My only concern is to be understood, not agreed with
Yeah, I think outlawing the waving of hands is an overreach. I am totally sure we could have tea and get along. We are not going to agree on a lot though probably.
For instance, I never in my life agreed 100% with any candidate, so I would not have ever voted. However I have had candidates which I would not see elected if my vote might stop them. I am a voter who is willing to play the long game, and take some damage as long as the game is still going. I guess you can say that given extreme choices I am willing to call in an airstrike on my own position if I feel like I'm being overrun and have nothing to lose. Especially if a particular defeat is to damaging. You can always refortify as long as you aren't dead. It maybe a violent metaphor, but really when you get right down to it I think taking short term damage is better than having a situation that can no longer be peacefully resolved.
A historic example was the succession of the southern states after Lincoln was elected. You could make a case that he was the most divisive President in US history, because conversation basically stopped when he won. You could also make the case that he was one of the best examples of inclusive leadership we had in that century. He favored abolition if it could be done while preserving the Union. He favored the Union itself, and he had the band play 'Dixie' after the Confederacy was beaten. All things that can be said to be reaching out. I still think he greatly overstepped his own authority, but he is still held in fairly high regard.
Anyway, as long as our transitions stay peaceful, I am fine with three steps forward, two steps back. I don't need twelve steps forward and then have to deal with bomb threats from people who got pushed to far, to fast. Not with my job.
More along the lines, that I believe, a reasonable person wouldn't wave their hands around and make the other person fear being hit... Yes, you have the right to wave your arms, I have the right to not feel threatened, so my right to feel safe, Donalds ( ) your right to wave your arms 'because you feel like it'... (a person who sincerely believed they are about to be attacked, is justified in striking first...)
And absolutely so, nothing whatsoever wrong with debate and discussion and disagreement on an issue. What is an issue, wis when someone believes that because they think what they think, then the alternate opinion is Absolutely Wrong, and that the other person must be some kind of Moral Defective to even hold such a view... That level of smug disrespect (not from yourself) and intolerance, is precisely why you guys have The Donald as President-elect...
Personally, I would have voted for Jill Stein... I refuse to vote tactically, and only vote for a candidate I actually agree with their stances and policies... I would rather turn in a deliberately spoiled balot, than to vote for a candidate I did not 100% endorse...
And absolutely no disrespect taken. My only concern is to be understood, not agreed with
Yeah, I think outlawing the waving of hands is an overreach. I am totally sure we could have tea and get along. We are not going to agree on a lot though probably.
For instance, I never in my life agreed 100% with any candidate, so I would not have ever voted. However I have had candidates which I would not see elected if my vote might stop them. I am a voter who is willing to play the long game, and take some damage as long as the game is still going. I guess you can say that given extreme choices I am willing to call in an airstrike on my own position if I feel like I'm being overrun and have nothing to lose. Especially if a particular defeat is to damaging. You can always refortify as long as you aren't dead. It maybe a violent metaphor, but really when you get right down to it I think taking short term damage is better than having a situation that can no longer be peacefully resolved.
A historic example was the succession of the southern states after Lincoln was elected. You could make a case that he was the most divisive President in US history, because conversation basically stopped when he won. You could also make the case that he was one of the best examples of inclusive leadership we had in that century. He favored abolition if it could be done while preserving the Union. He favored the Union itself, and he had the band play 'Dixie' after the Confederacy was beaten. All things that can be said to be reaching out. I still think he greatly overstepped his own authority, but he is still held in fairly high regard.
Anyway, as long as our transitions stay peaceful, I am fine with three steps forward, two steps back. I don't need twelve steps forward and then have to deal with bomb threats from people who got pushed to far, to fast. Not with my job.
Gonna drop this for tonight.
Qapla!
Maybe so, but the principle remains, that one person has the right to feel secure in their own safety, rather than someone else having the right to 'act crazy' and maybe offend others, especially when, as per the previous examples, most people go along with those 'rules of society'...
It may have been wrong, but I'm sure I saw a meme the other week, which said that Lincoln was an independant candidate... Its the bipartisan nature of politics which frustrates me, that A or B mentality, when options C, D and E are also available...
Maybe so, but the principle remains, that one person has the right to feel secure in their own safety, rather than someone else having the right to 'act crazy' and maybe offend others, especially when, as per the previous examples, most people go along with those 'rules of society'...
The problem with your thinking is that you have not demonstrated a need for extra laws, or a reason to treat supers differently than others. If something is already considered wrong, why do you need a special law just to cover cases where it was done by a super?
That is where both the system in the Incredibles AND the SHRA fail. It's inherently unfair in both cases due to what is essentially discrimination.
Of course, the part in the Incredibles that was extra dumb is that, reasonably, most of those cases that were such a problem... would not have gone to trial IRL. Suing someone for foiling your suicide attempt? There is no law that allows you to do so. And the train case is covered under existing laws. It's called the "Good Samaritan act" IIRC.
Maybe so, but the principle remains, that one person has the right to feel secure in their own safety, rather than someone else having the right to 'act crazy' and maybe offend others, especially when, as per the previous examples, most people go along with those 'rules of society'...
The problem with your thinking is that you have not demonstrated a need for extra laws, or a reason to treat supers differently than others. If something is already considered wrong, why do you need a special law just to cover cases where it was done by a super?
That is where both the system in the Incredibles AND the SHRA fail. It's inherently unfair in both cases due to what is essentially discrimination.
Of course, the part in the Incredibles that was extra dumb is that, reasonably, most of those cases that were such a problem... would not have gone to trial IRL. Suing someone for foiling your suicide attempt? There is no law that allows you to do so. And the train case is covered under existing laws. It's called the "Good Samaritan act" IIRC.
Yes I have. Several times. You just won't acknowledge the points, because you think 'that's oppression, Man...'
Because the Super's behaviour is of a type beyond what Homo Sapiens are capable of, it requires specific laws to deal specifically with it.
Example: Car drivers are licensed to drive a car. They are educated and trained so their skill to operate a car is of a certain standard. There are also laws specifically associated with driving itself to govern the conduct of drivers. I already gave you the example that if you were to randomly walk across a street 'because you felt like it', you would be cited for jay-walking. Yes? If a driver randomly drifts across lanes, or just decides to drive randomly across a road, or pull a J Turn, 'because they feel like it', they don't get cited for jay-walking, they get cited for dangerous driving... If a pedestrian collides with another pedestrian, they don't get cited for driving with undue care and attention...
It's not discrimination, because it's not treating someone differently due to malice. It's not motivated by prejudice, ergo, it's not discrimination, because it would simply be an example of a specific set of laws, to deal with a specific set of people and their behaviours, as I just illustrated applies to drivers and pedestrians differently, and isn't cross-enforced... The existing set of laws doesn't adequately cover the plethora of possibilities which Supers are capable of, both malevolent and benign, therefore there need to be new/additional lawswhich would be specifically capable of providing a legislative framework should the need arise. Pedestrians and drivers... That's all it is...
Of course they would not have gone to trial IRL, they were exagerated scenarios, but the notion itself, was to cast a light on Murican's litigious nature, and how frivolous some trials can be...
Murder is murder no matter if you're Punisher and do it with mundane guns or you're Carnage who literally eats people. Adding another set of laws doesn't change that. Perhaps I need to rephrase the question? What would the laws DO that the existing ones don't? As has been pointed out repeatedly, the existing laws define what is legal and illegal behavior, what benefit do the new ones provide?
Murder is murder no matter if you're Punisher and do it with mundane guns or you're Carnage who literally eats people. Adding another set of laws doesn't change that. Perhaps I need to rephrase the question? What would the laws DO that the existing ones don't? As has been pointed out repeatedly, the existing laws define what is legal and illegal behavior, what benefit do the new ones provide?
Cover situations and scenarios which existing laws don't...
Again, pedestrians and drivers...
When cars were invented, there was no legislation covering them... The rules for pedestrians, couldn't accomodate the capacity of drivers... Laws and statutes had to be drafted to cover them... Again, Supers are capable of behaviour which Homo Sapiens are not, and which Marvel's narrative facilitates and illustrates via self-indulgent behaviour, such as Cloud 9's flying, or Kitty's wall-walking...
"He can't hit you, and you, you can't be a self-indulgent brat!" - Judy Sheindlin
You know, in The Incredibles, they didn't actually say supers were outlawed, they were just prohibiting the way superheroes usually work. To quote the lady in the newsreel, "It's time for their *secret* identities to become their *only* identities - time for them to join us, or go away."
So one could suppose that in the intervening decades, the villains were suppressed by those heroes willing to knuckle under to the government, and work only on what they were told to rather than fighting crime and evil in general. So attempts to take over the world go down, armed robberies and muggings go up - it's a tradeoff, really.
And then along came Syndrome, who started off by killing all the heroes he could so that he could appear more awesome when he emerged into the public eye, and thus was not controllable by the new methods - requiring the heroes to come back out of hiding...
They also weren't rounded up and sent to concentration camps for experimentation and mass execution...
The point I'm trying to make, is that a registration act doesn't have to be the 4th Reich, which Marvel insists via its dialogue... The idea itself is not inherently good or bad, but has more analogies in contemporary laws (driving/guns/clothes/local taxes) which protect everyone (as much as possible) from unregulated, untrained and undisciplined psychos, or entitled a55holes who think "I can, so I will..." I'm reminded of Edgar Friendly's little rant about "because I might just feel the need to..." in Demolition Man*: "Because I might feel the need to," is no justification for any kind of behaviour, and as I said upthread, a reasonable person appreciates that while they might have the legal freedom to do something, consideration for those around them means not doing it. For example, a person might be perfectly entitled to walk round their home stark naked. But if they get a knock at the door, common decency says they put a robe or some pants on before opening the door, rather than subjecting the visitor to a view of their bits and pieces... Someone shouldn't have to point to the court-doll to show what the defendant had uncovered...
*Yes, I do have three seashells on the top of the cistern...
the problem you face, though, is that a "Fourth Reich" can't happen if the populace aren't disarmed and helpless first. (actually demonstrated many times just in the 20th century). It is, after all, fundamentally easier to abuse power when the bulk of the population has no means to strike back or even endanger your jack booted thugs.
In that aspect, Marvel's dialogue is spot-on. Since humans tend to become abusive when granted (legitimate) power over others by law,
witness: Jim Crow laws, the history of Indian Reservations, the Concentration Camp from Africa to Europe, Japanese american Internment, etc. etc. or even the history of Protestants in Catholic Europe before 1900...and catholics in Protestant Europe during the same time period...) the fundamental check on abuse, is found in concepts like Habeas Corpus where a crime must first be proven to have been committed before anyone is charged, much less imprisoned.
Registration schemes by their very nature are pre-emptive actions, "Precrime" investigation, if you will. when your registry by definition includes birth defects, that creates a second-class tier of citizens ripe for abuse...and power (Particularly POLITICAL power) is inherently both corruptive, and attractive to the corrupt. (how many middle class MP's in Britain have become rich in office, how many formerly middle class Congressmen in the U.S. are now millionaires on less than a tenth that per year?)
Let me put it another way: a guy who can **** lazers at you can certainly kill you-but a vote cast in congress can kill your whole family and everyone you love. which is more dangerous? which needs tighter control-a guy who farts lasers, or the guy who can push a button and in so doing, end all life on earth in thirty minutes or less?
Neither of them are by necessity GOING to do it, both have strong reasons NOT to do it...but, one will have to be registered even if he doesn't do it, and the other? well, they can order the assault cops to storm your house with looser rules than a Marine in Fallujah just on the suspicion you gave material to Wikileaks, or send a drone to make you a smear because you MIGHT have said something harsh about them in the foreign press.
and the second one doesn't even need to know your NAME, or face you to do it.
it's a very dangerous thing, power. but in general, when you're talking 'supers' you're talking about a retail threat that can be countered. when you're talking about Government, you're talking about people with "Sovereign Immunity" who can basically get away with killing you anonymously if they fill out the right forms, or hold high enough office.
I know which one is a bigger threat, and it's not the goofball in spandex whose power is restrained by having to actually be physically present, whose reach is restrained by what he cn actually see with his own eyes.
American driving licences state if someone has to wear glasses while driving, do they not?
Is that insistence that said driver wear their glasses while driving, treating said driver like a second-class citizen?
I don't disagree that power corrupts, there have been countless experiments dealing with the premise which confirm that.
'Power' is not just in the government, but also in the Super. For the third time, the amount of Super Villains, Supers with personality disorders and impulse-control problems, is enough to say, as with driving fatality statistics, that there needs to be Appropriate Legislation, which deals with scenarios which regular legislation can't... For the last time (because I'm now thoroughly sick of the discussion) Pedestrians and Drivers... Pedestrian rules can't deal with bad drivers... Bad drivers need to be dealt with by motoring laws...
As per my quote of Judge Judy (ie a judge, so a valid legal opinion)
A person does not get the right to be a self-indulgent brat 'just because they can'... Freedom of speech and movement, brings with it the personal responsibility to know when not to exercise a right 'just because one can'...
Wearing clothes in public... Not approaching children in a park for conversation... Not free-floating in plain sight... Not walking through other people's/public building walls...
If you don't agree with my view, fine, but I won't repeat myself on this topic again, because things are just going in circles...
The purpose of driving laws in the United States is to make sure that you're doing it reasonably safely, within the bounds of common sense (else we'd be going to the extremes in the story from the '70s whose title I forget, but which inspired the Rush song "Red Barchetta"). The presumption there is that most drivers prefer to drive safely, and that there must be some minimal protection from the ones who do not.
The SHRA, however, and the Mutant Powers Registration Act from Uncanny X-Men on which it was based, assumes that merely having powers means you're going to misuse them, and we must keep a registry of all supers so that we can find them all on a moment's notice. It does not apply only to those who want to use their powers - you have to register just because you have them.
Note further that what inspired the Super Civil War in the comics was the fact that anyone who failed to register, or who did register but did not subsequently report for drafting into their local chapter of the Avengers Initiative, was arrested and sent to Reed Richards' special prison in the Negative Zone - for the crime of having powers, not committing crimes with them.
By way of comparison, I can own a car indefinitely - in fact, this applies to me right now - but it need not have current registration unless I drive it, as that is largely a method by which it can be ensured that the vehicle meets certain minimum safety standards, and can be identified easily if it is involved in illegal acts. Similarly, if I had telekinetic powers, I'd probably use them mostly to do housework without getting out of my chair - but the SHRA would require me to register, and keep the government apprised of my whereabouts at all times, anyway. I would receive precisely the same treatment as, say, the Goblin Queen or Magneto. I mean, my mere ownership of a car doesn't mean that I'm subject to arrest if a car is used in a crime...
Murder is murder no matter if you're Punisher and do it with mundane guns or you're Carnage who literally eats people. Adding another set of laws doesn't change that. Perhaps I need to rephrase the question? What would the laws DO that the existing ones don't? As has been pointed out repeatedly, the existing laws define what is legal and illegal behavior, what benefit do the new ones provide?
Cover situations and scenarios which existing laws don't...
No, YOUR example doesn't require a new law! How is there a difference between Punisher strangling someone and Colossus? None. Sure you can say "But Colossus has super strength!" But the reality is that all that really means is that he can strangle other people with super strength.
You still haven't managed to invent a scenario that ISN'T covered by real-world laws. The Cloud 9 example, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is covered by existing laws... you know the same ones that make it illegal to fly remote controlled aircraft, or release helium balloons in controlled airspace?
The Kitty example is laughable simply because it's such a minor offense that, in the US, that level of offense is not POLICE jurisdiction but the sole jurisdiction of the property owner. Yeah police would only get involved if the perpetrator caused a big enough issue for the owner to want to kick them out and they refused to comply(at which point they're now trespassing).
The purpose of driving laws in the United States is to make sure that you're doing it reasonably safely, within the bounds of common sense (else we'd be going to the extremes in the story from the '70s whose title I forget, but which inspired the Rush song "Red Barchetta"). The presumption there is that most drivers prefer to drive safely, and that there must be some minimal protection from the ones who do not.
The SHRA, however, and the Mutant Powers Registration Act from Uncanny X-Men on which it was based, assumes that merely having powers means you're going to misuse them, and we must keep a registry of all supers so that we can find them all on a moment's notice. It does not apply only to those who want to use their powers - you have to register just because you have them.
Note further that what inspired the Super Civil War in the comics was the fact that anyone who failed to register, or who did register but did not subsequently report for drafting into their local chapter of the Avengers Initiative, was arrested and sent to Reed Richards' special prison in the Negative Zone - for the crime of having powers, not committing crimes with them.
By way of comparison, I can own a car indefinitely - in fact, this applies to me right now - but it need not have current registration unless I drive it, as that is largely a method by which it can be ensured that the vehicle meets certain minimum safety standards, and can be identified easily if it is involved in illegal acts. Similarly, if I had telekinetic powers, I'd probably use them mostly to do housework without getting out of my chair - but the SHRA would require me to register, and keep the government apprised of my whereabouts at all times, anyway. I would receive precisely the same treatment as, say, the Goblin Queen or Magneto. I mean, my mere ownership of a car doesn't mean that I'm subject to arrest if a car is used in a crime...
And as I said before, Marvel's narrative is only One Side Of The Coin, written by massively biassed writers... It cannot be taken as the only implementation of such an Act...
If someone took your car without your knowledge and used it to commit a crime, if the car was identified, it is You who the police would first come and talk to... It is You who the police would issue a warrant for, and You would be the one answering questions until you satisfy them that the car was taken without your knowledge...
Murder is murder no matter if you're Punisher and do it with mundane guns or you're Carnage who literally eats people. Adding another set of laws doesn't change that. Perhaps I need to rephrase the question? What would the laws DO that the existing ones don't? As has been pointed out repeatedly, the existing laws define what is legal and illegal behavior, what benefit do the new ones provide?
Cover situations and scenarios which existing laws don't...
No, YOUR example doesn't require a new law! How is there a difference between Punisher strangling someone and Colossus? None. Sure you can say "But Colossus has super strength!" But the reality is that all that really means is that he can strangle other people with super strength.
You still haven't managed to invent a scenario that ISN'T covered by real-world laws. The Cloud 9 example, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is covered by existing laws... you know the same ones that make it illegal to fly remote controlled aircraft, or release helium balloons in controlled airspace?
The Kitty example is laughable simply because it's such a minor offense that, in the US, that level of offense is not POLICE jurisdiction but the sole jurisdiction of the property owner. Yeah police would only get involved if the perpetrator caused a big enough issue for the owner to want to kick them out and they refused to comply(at which point they're now trespassing).
What part of "I'm thoroughly sick of this discussion" didn't register? I'm not wasting more time discussing the issue further, because you are never going to accept or acknowledge the points I make, no matter how accurate or valid they may be... This echo-chamber mentality and approach to 'debating' is precisely why Trump was elected... Sorry, but I'm not arguing about it further...
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Marcus, we were discussing the Superhuman Registration Act, something which occurred in Marvel Comics, not some hypothetical alternative version which exists only in your head. We cannot discuss your version, as we have not seen what permutations might be wrought; we have seen how the one that was presented to us worked out. And as superpowers only exist in fiction, we can only discuss them through the lens of "writer's fiat"; the only question is whether such fiat is reasonable, given the people involved.
This is starting to remind me of the discussions we used to have about Worffan's fics, where half the details were things that happened only in the background he constructed in his own mind and never shared with us, yet somehow we were at fault for not knowing about them. As I recall, those discussions generally proved unfruitful as well.
Marcus, we were discussing the Superhuman Registration Act, something which occurred in Marvel Comics, not some hypothetical alternative version which exists only in your head. We cannot discuss your version, as we have not seen what permutations might be wrought; we have seen how the one that was presented to us worked out. And as superpowers only exist in fiction, we can only discuss them through the lens of "writer's fiat"; the only question is whether such fiat is reasonable, given the people involved.
This is starting to remind me of the discussions we used to have about Worffan's fics, where half the details were things that happened only in the background he constructed in his own mind and never shared with us, yet somehow we were at fault for not knowing about them. As I recall, those discussions generally proved unfruitful as well.
Excuse me, but the Incredibles does not solely exist in my head... I was not discussing a hypothetical SHRA which only I know the criteria and conditions of, I was:
-Pointing out that the Incredibles shows an equally valid alternate to Marvel's spin on a SHRA, which does not summon 4th Reich imagery...
-Making completely valid examples that society not only has codes of conduct which the polite individual adheres to, but also used the direct comparison between pedestrian and motorist laws as a non-discriminatory example of one set of laws applying exclusively to one set of people, and another set of laws applying exclusively to another set of people, due to a marked difference in capability and inherent dangers.
Please note the past tense, because I am not taking part in the discussion further, because it is a pointless exercise when others are not prepared to consider the points made, but are simply trying to think up ways to disprove their validity or counter them... The fact you have not even addressed the point I made about responsibility of car ownership if it was taken without your consent and used in a crime, proves this point about a lack of constructive dialogue, so I'd rather not participate further
Oh I acknowledged them... then told you why they're wrong.... which you seem unable to accept.
So there's not a different set of laws for motorists and pedestrians? Walking into a shopping mall naked won't get you arrested? Approaching children at a play park won't get you beaten up by an concerned parent and signing a sex offenders register? American law does not protect 'entitled behaviour' once it impacts the life of another person... These examples, which give real-life counter the entitled wierdness which Marvel's narrative promotes, are not wrong, and you are wrong to dismiss them, but as I just said to jonsills, I am not participating in this discussion further...
"Equally valid"? More like equally horrible. It was presented in the movie as the superhero version of a dystopian future where superheroing was effectively banned and all supers were essentially under house arrest.
So, tell me, in what way was your discussion of Kitty Pryde and Abigail Boylen related to the Incredibles? Because none of what you said in relation to them seems to have any earing on the version of SHRA from that movie.
"Equally valid"? More like equally horrible. It was presented in the movie as the superhero version of a dystopian future where superheroing was effectively banned and all supers were essentially under house arrest.
So, tell me, in what way was your discussion of Kitty Pryde and Abigail Boylen related to the Incredibles? Because none of what you said in relation to them seems to have any earing on the version of SHRA from that movie.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Comments
You don't need a law just to tell superheros they have to follow the law. It worked in the Incredibles because writer's fiat said it worked.
Incredibles is actually kinda like a dystopia for supers where the public generally distrusts them and the government had to do something to curb that distrust. But that took the form of an edict banning supers from being heroes.
My character Tsin'xing
Yes it is, but it's also proof of the other side of the coin, rather than just one tunnel-vision echo-chamber answer to the question
And as such, is a spoof on the litigious nature of Murican Society...
The level of 'horribly wrong' is brought about by a disgruntled wannabe, not the government actions toward the Supers...
And as I've said, the public has good reason to distrust and be wary of individuals of massive personal power, of questionable levels of training, or personality disorders... Have you taken up my suggestion to go naked shopping or to make some new friends at the playpark? No? You thought it would be a bad idea??
So one could suppose that in the intervening decades, the villains were suppressed by those heroes willing to knuckle under to the government, and work only on what they were told to rather than fighting crime and evil in general. So attempts to take over the world go down, armed robberies and muggings go up - it's a tradeoff, really.
And then along came Syndrome, who started off by killing all the heroes he could so that he could appear more awesome when he emerged into the public eye, and thus was not controllable by the new methods - requiring the heroes to come back out of hiding...
Skipping quotes we have all, already seen. I will be intending to post in continuation of the exchange between ...
@markhawkman
@marcusdkane
and Myself.
I apologize if some of this is vague. I am trying to dance around this in a way that allows me to draw on direct experience, yet not violate any rules of my employment. Sorry.
Just to repeat and clarify, I am not a police officer, but work right beside them, and a Chief of Police signs my check. We are in a jurisdiction with multiple layers of authority, up to and including DHS. Each of us has limits to that authority as fits our role in the system. Our team overlaps at times with Customs, Border Patrol, Secret Service, and State Police, each of whom have their own reason for being involved with us.
Every layer of involvement is a complication, and comes fraught with it's own professional risks. If for example, one of us helps another of us, and by helping out accidentally crosses certain invisible lines, then even though we are on the same side and no matter how good the intention, it can end a career, and result in criminal charges. Again, that is irrespective of criminal intent, and is purely a circumstance of having the 'properly issued authority' or not. I am a fairly small cog in that machine, being near the bottom, only having some seniority over others at my level. I do not seek more clearance due to the risks that come with it.
It is routine to have weapons passing legally into and out of our jurisdiction as private property in the possession of private individuals, and nominally protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. With only rare exceptions, members of our chain of command are sworn to uphold the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. At the same time we are tasked with being observant to the presence of weapons, and alert to the possible dangers. This will only occasionally result in confiscation, and then criminal charges are possible if the reason for the confiscation is sufficiently aggravated. (In one case we had to partially evacuate a building) In most cases weapons will be returned if the requirements of our 'situation' are met, or the individual elects to leave the area we are responsible for.
Strictly speaking, we are walking a legal tightrope, due to the conflicting requirements of the law we have to work with. Morally, and ethically, we are approaching a point where the highest laws of the land, and the lower laws passed later, create a conflict. Oaths of office are ... oaths! Not to be entered into lightly, or ignored in spite of the conflicts that may arise. Rational attempts are made to prioritize, but it isn't easy, and all to often you find that one law requires you to ignore another, and this can't help but strain ethical men and women who are trying their hardest to do the right thing. Those who make the law are seemingly insulated from those implementing it on the ground. Politicians do not have to fit square pegs into round holes, but sometimes because of laws they pass, we are required to.
Here, all government power is supposed to be granted at the consent of the governed, but again, those who pass laws are insulated from the people who give that consent. Many lawmakers are exempt from the restrictions they impose on others because they can make themselves so. To be fair, the governed do little to stay informed about what their employees are doing, and even seem willing to support, or at least tolerate genuine corruption in some cases. I am not making anything more than an observation, when I point out that the recent and surprising election result, is at least partially a response to this reality.
With the trend towards oligarchy in the USA, the governing 'class' is becoming it's own 'special interest group', protecting itself with insufficient regard to those they have sworn to serve. In contrast I know those I work with would lay down their life if required to serve and protect the community. I trust them as individuals.
Every election raises questions about what the governing class want us to do next? We worry out of necessity. We are already asked to do things that run dangerously close to crossing Constitutional lines. How long before the governed consent to grant their power to a government that would require us to cross those lines? how long before there is no honorable direction to go in? How long before every choice, even the choice to do nothing at all, requires you either break a law, or renounce a sacred oath?
As someone who is actually proud to be in the business of trying to keep people safe, I have to ask these questions every day. I see the machine. I know it can be turned against those it is meant to protect. They way to prevent that from ever happening is to guard the power, and not to give to much of it away. When you see rights violated, no matter what rights they are, even if you don't think it should be a right, you pull the leash of government back. If a bad government won't stop when the people say 'stop', what will they do? Say 'stop' again, only louder? Did the great tyrants of the 20th century stop?
I'll recommend readers take a look at this narrow example of law enforcement being directed to violate Constitutional rights, just to have some food for thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms
Now! I am not asking you or any reader to be pro 2nd Amendment, as it is a matter of individual conscience what you think the law should be. If you want to see what the law is, read the Bill of Rights. I am pointing out that the way that law enforcement was used was in direct violation of one of the highest written laws in the land. The US Constitution, and those who conceived it, put forth the concept that the natural rights of the individual are not granted by any government. It is really more of a question of whether a government is properly constructed to recognize those rights and uphold them, or not!
Make sure government respects and honors your consent. Make sure you, the governed, retain enough power to remove consent if needed, and can make the removal stick.
Qapla!
Do the authorities always get it right? Unquestionably not. Take, for example, the counsellor who was shot a few months back while lying on the floor with his hands raised... Whoever the fool was who pulled that trigger, should be out of the job, and facing a sentence...
Perhaps the misunderstanding of perspectives is, as patrickngo suggests: A fundamental difference between the American and English psyche... I'm happy to accept that... I don't need someone to agree with me to validate my belief in my own opinion, but what I do need, is to know that my stance on the issue is actually being understood by someone else, even if not necessarily agreed with...
The point I'm trying to make, is that a registration act doesn't have to be the 4th Reich, which Marvel insists via its dialogue... The idea itself is not inherently good or bad, but has more analogies in contemporary laws (driving/guns/clothes/local taxes) which protect everyone (as much as possible) from unregulated, untrained and undisciplined psychos, or entitled a55holes who think "I can, so I will..." I'm reminded of Edgar Friendly's little rant about "because I might just feel the need to..." in Demolition Man*: "Because I might feel the need to," is no justification for any kind of behaviour, and as I said upthread, a reasonable person appreciates that while they might have the legal freedom to do something, consideration for those around them means not doing it. For example, a person might be perfectly entitled to walk round their home stark naked. But if they get a knock at the door, common decency says they put a robe or some pants on before opening the door, rather than subjecting the visitor to a view of their bits and pieces... Someone shouldn't have to point to the court-doll to show what the defendant had uncovered...
*Yes, I do have three seashells on the top of the cistern...
I think I do understand. My right to wave my hands around stops just before I accidentally hit you, and in terms of super powers, or something like that, you appear to feel a greater level of preemption is justified. Is that basically the sum of it?
Disagreement is not bad in itself. It is about how we handle them. Like the recent election here. Clearly there is a lot of disagreement, not just about issues, but about what each of us may be willing to put up with to move forward on the issue(s) that we each feel are most important. You don't have to like either candidate. To top it off, whichever one you pick will leave you open to the offhand venom of people who went the other way. There is a tendency to make sweeping and slanderous generalizations about "those idiots" who voted differently than you did.
I'll say that I don't like either major candidate. I had to pick one. If I told you who, then there would probably be a 'rush to judgement" type of post from someone condemning me for my choice, and assuming my reasons were stupid. I would discourage people from making such judgments. I think all of us were put in a position where we had to try and figure out which of the poisons offered was the least fatal to imbibe. It was apparently not easy for most of us.
What I would wish is that we would give each other more intellectual benefit of the doubt. I have a dear friend who always votes the other way from me. He is not a fool, as easy as it would be for me to unfairly dismiss him as such at times like this. He does however have different priorities. He is willing to tolerate different miseries to achieve them. That is our dilemma as a nation.
So anyway, about legislation. I am confident that you have given it a lot of reasoned thought. I think I understand your point. I do not think I can support it however, and sincerely, no disrespect intended.
Qapla!
And absolutely so, nothing whatsoever wrong with debate and discussion and disagreement on an issue. What is an issue, wis when someone believes that because they think what they think, then the alternate opinion is Absolutely Wrong, and that the other person must be some kind of Moral Defective to even hold such a view... That level of smug disrespect (not from yourself) and intolerance, is precisely why you guys have The Donald as President-elect...
Personally, I would have voted for Jill Stein... I refuse to vote tactically, and only vote for a candidate I actually agree with their stances and policies... I would rather turn in a deliberately spoiled balot, than to vote for a candidate I did not 100% endorse...
And absolutely no disrespect taken. My only concern is to be understood, not agreed with
Yeah, I think outlawing the waving of hands is an overreach. I am totally sure we could have tea and get along. We are not going to agree on a lot though probably.
For instance, I never in my life agreed 100% with any candidate, so I would not have ever voted. However I have had candidates which I would not see elected if my vote might stop them. I am a voter who is willing to play the long game, and take some damage as long as the game is still going. I guess you can say that given extreme choices I am willing to call in an airstrike on my own position if I feel like I'm being overrun and have nothing to lose. Especially if a particular defeat is to damaging. You can always refortify as long as you aren't dead. It maybe a violent metaphor, but really when you get right down to it I think taking short term damage is better than having a situation that can no longer be peacefully resolved.
A historic example was the succession of the southern states after Lincoln was elected. You could make a case that he was the most divisive President in US history, because conversation basically stopped when he won. You could also make the case that he was one of the best examples of inclusive leadership we had in that century. He favored abolition if it could be done while preserving the Union. He favored the Union itself, and he had the band play 'Dixie' after the Confederacy was beaten. All things that can be said to be reaching out. I still think he greatly overstepped his own authority, but he is still held in fairly high regard.
Anyway, as long as our transitions stay peaceful, I am fine with three steps forward, two steps back. I don't need twelve steps forward and then have to deal with bomb threats from people who got pushed to far, to fast. Not with my job.
Gonna drop this for tonight.
Qapla!
It may have been wrong, but I'm sure I saw a meme the other week, which said that Lincoln was an independant candidate... Its the bipartisan nature of politics which frustrates me, that A or B mentality, when options C, D and E are also available...
No worries
That is where both the system in the Incredibles AND the SHRA fail. It's inherently unfair in both cases due to what is essentially discrimination.
Of course, the part in the Incredibles that was extra dumb is that, reasonably, most of those cases that were such a problem... would not have gone to trial IRL. Suing someone for foiling your suicide attempt? There is no law that allows you to do so. And the train case is covered under existing laws. It's called the "Good Samaritan act" IIRC.
My character Tsin'xing
Because the Super's behaviour is of a type beyond what Homo Sapiens are capable of, it requires specific laws to deal specifically with it.
Example: Car drivers are licensed to drive a car. They are educated and trained so their skill to operate a car is of a certain standard. There are also laws specifically associated with driving itself to govern the conduct of drivers. I already gave you the example that if you were to randomly walk across a street 'because you felt like it', you would be cited for jay-walking. Yes? If a driver randomly drifts across lanes, or just decides to drive randomly across a road, or pull a J Turn, 'because they feel like it', they don't get cited for jay-walking, they get cited for dangerous driving... If a pedestrian collides with another pedestrian, they don't get cited for driving with undue care and attention...
It's not discrimination, because it's not treating someone differently due to malice. It's not motivated by prejudice, ergo, it's not discrimination, because it would simply be an example of a specific set of laws, to deal with a specific set of people and their behaviours, as I just illustrated applies to drivers and pedestrians differently, and isn't cross-enforced... The existing set of laws doesn't adequately cover the plethora of possibilities which Supers are capable of, both malevolent and benign, therefore there need to be new/additional lawswhich would be specifically capable of providing a legislative framework should the need arise. Pedestrians and drivers... That's all it is...
Of course they would not have gone to trial IRL, they were exagerated scenarios, but the notion itself, was to cast a light on Murican's litigious nature, and how frivolous some trials can be...
My character Tsin'xing
Again, pedestrians and drivers...
When cars were invented, there was no legislation covering them... The rules for pedestrians, couldn't accomodate the capacity of drivers... Laws and statutes had to be drafted to cover them... Again, Supers are capable of behaviour which Homo Sapiens are not, and which Marvel's narrative facilitates and illustrates via self-indulgent behaviour, such as Cloud 9's flying, or Kitty's wall-walking...
"He can't hit you, and you, you can't be a self-indulgent brat!" - Judy Sheindlin
Is that insistence that said driver wear their glasses while driving, treating said driver like a second-class citizen?
I don't disagree that power corrupts, there have been countless experiments dealing with the premise which confirm that.
'Power' is not just in the government, but also in the Super. For the third time, the amount of Super Villains, Supers with personality disorders and impulse-control problems, is enough to say, as with driving fatality statistics, that there needs to be Appropriate Legislation, which deals with scenarios which regular legislation can't... For the last time (because I'm now thoroughly sick of the discussion) Pedestrians and Drivers... Pedestrian rules can't deal with bad drivers... Bad drivers need to be dealt with by motoring laws...
As per my quote of Judge Judy (ie a judge, so a valid legal opinion)
A person does not get the right to be a self-indulgent brat 'just because they can'... Freedom of speech and movement, brings with it the personal responsibility to know when not to exercise a right 'just because one can'...
Wearing clothes in public... Not approaching children in a park for conversation... Not free-floating in plain sight... Not walking through other people's/public building walls...
If you don't agree with my view, fine, but I won't repeat myself on this topic again, because things are just going in circles...
The SHRA, however, and the Mutant Powers Registration Act from Uncanny X-Men on which it was based, assumes that merely having powers means you're going to misuse them, and we must keep a registry of all supers so that we can find them all on a moment's notice. It does not apply only to those who want to use their powers - you have to register just because you have them.
Note further that what inspired the Super Civil War in the comics was the fact that anyone who failed to register, or who did register but did not subsequently report for drafting into their local chapter of the Avengers Initiative, was arrested and sent to Reed Richards' special prison in the Negative Zone - for the crime of having powers, not committing crimes with them.
By way of comparison, I can own a car indefinitely - in fact, this applies to me right now - but it need not have current registration unless I drive it, as that is largely a method by which it can be ensured that the vehicle meets certain minimum safety standards, and can be identified easily if it is involved in illegal acts. Similarly, if I had telekinetic powers, I'd probably use them mostly to do housework without getting out of my chair - but the SHRA would require me to register, and keep the government apprised of my whereabouts at all times, anyway. I would receive precisely the same treatment as, say, the Goblin Queen or Magneto. I mean, my mere ownership of a car doesn't mean that I'm subject to arrest if a car is used in a crime...
You still haven't managed to invent a scenario that ISN'T covered by real-world laws. The Cloud 9 example, as I've pointed out repeatedly, is covered by existing laws... you know the same ones that make it illegal to fly remote controlled aircraft, or release helium balloons in controlled airspace?
The Kitty example is laughable simply because it's such a minor offense that, in the US, that level of offense is not POLICE jurisdiction but the sole jurisdiction of the property owner. Yeah police would only get involved if the perpetrator caused a big enough issue for the owner to want to kick them out and they refused to comply(at which point they're now trespassing).
My character Tsin'xing
And as I said before, Marvel's narrative is only One Side Of The Coin, written by massively biassed writers... It cannot be taken as the only implementation of such an Act...
If someone took your car without your knowledge and used it to commit a crime, if the car was identified, it is You who the police would first come and talk to... It is You who the police would issue a warrant for, and You would be the one answering questions until you satisfy them that the car was taken without your knowledge... What part of "I'm thoroughly sick of this discussion" didn't register? I'm not wasting more time discussing the issue further, because you are never going to accept or acknowledge the points I make, no matter how accurate or valid they may be... This echo-chamber mentality and approach to 'debating' is precisely why Trump was elected... Sorry, but I'm not arguing about it further...
My character Tsin'xing
Oh is this a different wild ramble?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is starting to remind me of the discussions we used to have about Worffan's fics, where half the details were things that happened only in the background he constructed in his own mind and never shared with us, yet somehow we were at fault for not knowing about them. As I recall, those discussions generally proved unfruitful as well.
My character Tsin'xing
-Pointing out that the Incredibles shows an equally valid alternate to Marvel's spin on a SHRA, which does not summon 4th Reich imagery...
-Making completely valid examples that society not only has codes of conduct which the polite individual adheres to, but also used the direct comparison between pedestrian and motorist laws as a non-discriminatory example of one set of laws applying exclusively to one set of people, and another set of laws applying exclusively to another set of people, due to a marked difference in capability and inherent dangers.
Please note the past tense, because I am not taking part in the discussion further, because it is a pointless exercise when others are not prepared to consider the points made, but are simply trying to think up ways to disprove their validity or counter them... The fact you have not even addressed the point I made about responsibility of car ownership if it was taken without your consent and used in a crime, proves this point about a lack of constructive dialogue, so I'd rather not participate further
Please do not compare me to worffan...
So, tell me, in what way was your discussion of Kitty Pryde and Abigail Boylen related to the Incredibles? Because none of what you said in relation to them seems to have any earing on the version of SHRA from that movie.
My character Tsin'xing
LALALALALALALALAMARKKEEPSTALKINGBUTIAMNOTLISTENINGLALALALALALALALALA
@jodarkrider @askray @midniteshadow7
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"