BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 295

[Gianakin_]

No, he didn't. He made inspiring others to act the entire purpose oft he existence of Batman. That's made unbelievably explicit in the films.

"Don't let me catch you out here again" - The Dark Knight

"What's the difference between you and us?"
"I don't wear hockey pads" - The Dark Knight

/unbelievably explicit

 

[jae7702]

That doesn't answer the question I asked. Try again

Yes it does.

If a guy on meth threatens a cop with a knife and the cop shoots him within a reasonable distance, (15-20 feet or under), the officer is not at fault for shooting the guy and would not be charged with a crime.

In police training exercises they have found that a man with a knife can cover 21 feet and lethally stab an officer before he is able to unholster his weapon, aim and fire.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Maybe you need to take a walk and think about what you are saying about victims.

Look up Mens Rea and get back to me

 

[jae7702]

Wrong. The cop IS at fault. Just like in court Thomas' escalation would be used in the mugger's defense.

You have no idea how the law works do you?

 

[Lucellit]

And that's where the notion of "good" or "bad" fiction comes in.

Well, as I said, all of 'if onlys' will impact Bruce anyway.
Every members' idea and scenario here would work. Bruce will still become Batman. Story will spin around it.

If Thomas cooperated and killed, Bruce might would hope if only his father reacted differently. If Thomas fight back, Bruce would hope his father to just cooperated instead.
Either way, we got both scenario in Batman Begins and BvS (or TDKR).
Which one we prefer would not cancel each other.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yes it does.

If a guy on meth threatens a cop with a knife and the cop shoots him within a reasonable distance, (15-20 feet or under), the officer is not at fault for shooting the guy and would not be charged with a crime.

In police training exercises they have found that a man with a knife can cover 21 feet and lethally stab an officer before he is able to unholster his weapon, aim and fire.

You're talking about the Tueller Drill. Which has been proven to be AGAINST using lethal force in that situation. In this case the mugger was brandishing a firearm. Which is a assault with a deadly weapon. You have to prove his intent to negate his defense. Which goes out the window when a person escalates the situation.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You have no idea how the law works do you?

Not at all. I was only a cop for ten years.

 

[titansupes]

No, he didn't. He made inspiring others to act the entire purpose oft he existence of Batman. That's made unbelievably explicit in the films.

Wrong again. Act does not mean "go punch someone", he means it on a fundamental political and societal level, a "don't accept corruption/take care of your neighbor" kind of way. Otherwise, he would have supported the copycats in TDK ("That's not exactly what I meant when I said I wanted to inspire people"). The only people he approved of actually physically fighting were himself, cops and Blake (who was in fact still a cop at that point).

 

[Poni_Boy]

Most muggers/junkies have some sort of weapon because they're not just gonna come up to you and say "Gimme your money", expecting the victim to comply. They have a gun as an insurance that the victim will do as they're told.

Most of the times there is NO intent to kill. They're criminals, but not necessarily of the murdering kind. For that reason, there's a huge possibility that they'll take your money and pearl necklace and leave. In which case, you have to ask yourself: "My money or my life?", because if there's intent to kill and you're not sure... you're risking your life when there's no guarantee it was at risk in the first place.

Bingo

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's 100% not true. I'm a fairly accomplished martial artist so I've been invited by the local police to help with some self-defense seminars and a very general rule is not to provoke violence from someone threatening you. Especially when weapons are involved. If you want to keep yourself and others safe, avoid confrontation as much as possible. You try to learn self-defense for when you're being attacked, not for when you're being threatened.

The mugger is of course guilty of the crime if he shoots someone, but if your actions were what provoked violence from him then you'll have that on your conscience and it can be used in the muggers defense.

Nailed it

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, as I said, all of 'if onlys' will impact Bruce anyway.
Every members' idea and scenario here would work. Bruce will still become Batman. Story will spin around it.

If Thomas cooperated and killed, Bruce might would hope if only his father reacted differently. If Thomas fight back, Bruce would hope his father to just cooperated instead.
Either way, we got both scenario in Batman Begins and BvS (or TDKR).
Which one we prefer would not cancel each other.

The bold part is just not true. There needs to be a "B happens because A happened" mentality and not a "A happened and then B happened" one, which is the BvS Bat-origin.

 

[Gianakin_]

Not at all. I was only a cop for ten years.

An "erroneous" cop

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Moving on, fellas...

 

[jae7702]

Not at all. I was only a cop for ten years.

Really? What country? You're seriously telling me if a guy high on meth threatened a cop with a knife, like actually took out a knife. And the cop shot him, the cop is at fault? Is this what you are saying?

Can you cite me any prior cases in similar scenarios where the cop was charged with a crime?

You would get some funny looks at the precinct if you defended the meth addict in this case and advocated for charges against the officer.

 

[Poni_Boy]

The bold part is just not true. There needs to be a "B happens because A happened" not "A happened and then B happened", which is the BvS Bat-origin.

Which goes back to logic. For example:

In Batman Begins - Mugger threatens the Waynes, mugger accidentally shoots the Waynes, the Waynes die solely because of the mugger's actions

In BvS - Mugger threatens the Waynes, mugger shoots the Waynes because Thomas attacked him, the Waynes die because of the mugger and Thomas' actions

 

[C. Lee]

People need to calm down and think a bit before they post stuff that get them in trouble.

 

[jae7702]

You're talking about the Tueller Drill. Which has been proven to be AGAINST using lethal force in that situation. In this case the mugger was brandishing a firearm. Which is a assault with a deadly weapon. You have to prove his intent to negate his defense. Which goes out the window when a person escalates the situation.

and what does that have to do with a meth addict threatening a cop with a knife?

 

[jae7702]

But the WHOLE point of this was to sell us that a man would become Batman. So maybe don't write it like that then?

I've said this a dozen times if there are 100 ways to do something right or right enough and only 1 way to absolutely mess it up Snyder never fails to go with that one wrong way.

Yes people also react impulsively and escalate an already dangerous situation, thats true.

Some people **** and piss themselves when a gun is stuck in their face, some people use their wife and child as a human shield.

The point is for Bruce journey to be somewhat believable we needed Thomas Wayne to be none of all that.

A 10 year old boy just witnessed his mothers face being blown off 2 feet away from him. After the mugger left the boy is still there in shock, looking at the gruesome details and visuals of his parents and his mom with a hole for a face.

Think about man, thats motivation enough.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Really? What country? You're seriously telling me if a guy high on meth threatened a cop with a knife, like actually took out a knife. And the cop shot him, the cop is at fault? Is this what you are saying?

Can you cite me any prior cases in similar scenarios where the cop was charged with a crime?

You would get some funny looks at the precinct if you defended the meth addict in this case and advocated for charges against the officer.

I was an Army and Air Force cop all around the US (seven states) with concurrent jurisdiction in 9 municipalities and cities. I was also a CBP agent with Federal jurisdiction nationwide.

Look up Graham v. Connor. Here are similar cases where the Use of Force continuum was improperly applied and caused cases to either be dismissed or officers to share blame:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ion_shows_that_we_give_police_too_wide_a.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/james-forcillo-sammy-yatim-shooting-trial-1.3339676

And here's some info on deescalation and why it is important for both police and civilians to know: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-police-training-las-vegas-chicago-met-20160324-story.html

Bottom line in terms of BvS: Thomas acted as an active aggressor, not a passive resister, which changes the dynamic of how Bruce should view criminals.

 

[Poni_Boy]

and what does that have to do with a meth addict threatening a cop with a knife?

You're in such a rush to answer you're not reading what I write. Read my last post about logical analysis of the BvS vs the Begins origin.

 

[Lucellit]

Actually, both scenario happened mainly because the mugger threatened the Waynes. He was the catalyst.
IMHO that's the A point. It is not how Thomas Wayne reacted because he will die and Bruce will be Batman either way.
I still think every members' idea here would work.
Once again, it is only in my personal opinion, Sir.

Moving on, fellas...

Yes, Sir!

 

[Gianakin_]

Bottom line in terms of BvS: Thomas acted as an active aggressor, not a passive resister, which changes the dynamic of how Bruce should view criminals.

You know what the most hilarious part is, now that you've mentioned those terms? Nolan's Thomas WAS a passive resister, because when Chill went for Martha's necklace, it was 100% logical (or realistic when under stress as some people say here) to not be sure whether he was going for the necklace or Martha. And EVEN THEN, he tried to get in the way, not charge.

 

[Gianakin_]

Actually, both scenario happened mainly because the mugger threatened the Waynes. He was the catalyst.
IMHO that's the A point. It is not how Thomas Wayne reacted because he will die and Bruce will be Batman either way.
I still think every members' idea here would work.
Once again, it is only in my personal opinion, Sir.

Look, I don't intend to bust your balls here, but do you not see that your "he will die and Bruce will be Batman either way" argument ignores a work of fiction's internal logic and opens a whole can of worms for writers to do anything they want, just because?

Anyone will start writing the Bat-origin with the "well, as long as the Waynes die" notion in mind.

 

[Poni_Boy]

You know what the most hilarious part is, now that you've mentioned those terms? Nolan's Thomas WAS a passive resister, because when Chill went for Martha's necklace, it was 100% logical (or realistic when under stress as some people say here) to not be sure whether he was going for the necklace or Martha. And EVEN THEN, he tried to get in the way, not charge.

Yep. There's s huge difference between being a passive resister and passive aggressor in terms of escalation in the eyes of the law. There's not way around it, in BvS Thomas was the catalyst that cause his and Martha's deaths. That's how it was written. Probably just because it "looked cooler" to have Jeffery Dean Morgan go all Comedian on the mugger.

 

[jae7702]

I was an Army and Air Force cop all around the US (seven states) with concurrent jurisdiction in 9 municipalities and cities. I was also a CBP agent with Federal jurisdiction nationwide.

Look up Graham v. Connor. Here are similar cases where the Use of Force continuum was improperly applied and caused cases to either be dismissed or officers to share blame:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ion_shows_that_we_give_police_too_wide_a.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/james-forcillo-sammy-yatim-shooting-trial-1.3339676

And here's some info on deescalation and why it is important for both police and civilians to know: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-police-training-las-vegas-chicago-met-20160324-story.html

Bottom line in terms of BvS: Thomas acted as an active aggressor, not a passive resister, which changes the dynamic of how Bruce should view criminals.

As far as I know the officers in the Tamir Rice case were never charged with a crime, they were called in because there were reports of a boy pointing a firearm at people. Those officers handled the situation very poorly imo, but no charges were laid iirc.

I live in Toronto and am very familiar with the Forcillo case, Forcillo shot the man 9 times, he was only charged due to the last 3 shots which he fired well after the man was down and no longer a viable threat. The man was already incapacitated at that time and the additional 3 shots are what lead to the manslaughter conviction.


I'm still waiting on those prior examples...