Frank Miller's Holy Terror
- Thread starter Drz
- Start date
"I do not like the homosexual (and perhaps homophobic) way that both Miller and Alan Davis portray The Joker".
As I recall in Amazing Heroes#189 interivew with Miller, actually a reprint from a book whose title I do not recall, but which seems to have come out around 1990 or 1991), Miller indicates that the wrote the scoundrel with this in mind or at least to evoke it.
Regarding testifying in court, mentioned upthread, Robert Ingersoll writes up another instance.
http://www.worldfamouscomics.com/law/back19990713.shtml
Ingersoll indicates that he feels this would require some at least tacit official recognition.
The Batman is on patrol and finds Anton Knight, the Night-Thief, committing a burglary. No one else sees the event, only the Batman........... Eventually, the Batman does capture Knight, but again no one else sees it. Finally, in Detective # 530, Knight stands trial for his malefactions.
Now, as the Batman was the only person who saw Knight committing any crime, the Batman's testimony would be needed in order to convict Knight. Needed? Try essential. Without the Batman, there would literally be no case against Knight. And sure enough, in Detective # 530, the Batman-in full cape and cowl-testifies against Knight.
Anyone out there care to explain to me exactly how the Batman accomplished this little feat?
He couldn't just swing into the courtroom and testify, you know.
I mean, how did the Batman prove he was the Batman?
If I were Anton Knight facing trial and I knew the only witness who could convict me was a man dressed in a gray and blue costume complete with mask and earpieces suitable for playing ring toss on; I'd want to keep that person from testifying. And, unless the witness could prove that he was the same man dressed in a gray and blue costume complete with mask and earpieces suitable for playing ring toss on who caught me, that person would never testify against me.
Before super-heroes whose real identities were unknown could testify in a court, they would have to prove they were really the hero they claimed to be and not some imposter in a costume. For all the judge knows the costumed witness could be a flunky hired by the defendant to lie and get the defendant acquitted.
...................................................................
Bernie Goetz came up on this issue. Someone pointed out that they had considered having him testify. Goetz, however, appeared as himself, not in some alternate identity, and had to answer for illegal gun ownership charges. He did not just testify to a crime he saw in progress.
As I recall in Amazing Heroes#189 interivew with Miller, actually a reprint from a book whose title I do not recall, but which seems to have come out around 1990 or 1991), Miller indicates that the wrote the scoundrel with this in mind or at least to evoke it.
Regarding testifying in court, mentioned upthread, Robert Ingersoll writes up another instance.
http://www.worldfamouscomics.com/law/back19990713.shtml
Ingersoll indicates that he feels this would require some at least tacit official recognition.
The Batman is on patrol and finds Anton Knight, the Night-Thief, committing a burglary. No one else sees the event, only the Batman........... Eventually, the Batman does capture Knight, but again no one else sees it. Finally, in Detective # 530, Knight stands trial for his malefactions.
Now, as the Batman was the only person who saw Knight committing any crime, the Batman's testimony would be needed in order to convict Knight. Needed? Try essential. Without the Batman, there would literally be no case against Knight. And sure enough, in Detective # 530, the Batman-in full cape and cowl-testifies against Knight.
Anyone out there care to explain to me exactly how the Batman accomplished this little feat?
He couldn't just swing into the courtroom and testify, you know.
I mean, how did the Batman prove he was the Batman?
If I were Anton Knight facing trial and I knew the only witness who could convict me was a man dressed in a gray and blue costume complete with mask and earpieces suitable for playing ring toss on; I'd want to keep that person from testifying. And, unless the witness could prove that he was the same man dressed in a gray and blue costume complete with mask and earpieces suitable for playing ring toss on who caught me, that person would never testify against me.
Before super-heroes whose real identities were unknown could testify in a court, they would have to prove they were really the hero they claimed to be and not some imposter in a costume. For all the judge knows the costumed witness could be a flunky hired by the defendant to lie and get the defendant acquitted.
...................................................................
Bernie Goetz came up on this issue. Someone pointed out that they had considered having him testify. Goetz, however, appeared as himself, not in some alternate identity, and had to answer for illegal gun ownership charges. He did not just testify to a crime he saw in progress.
"Batman in Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns is shown being allies with Gordon, and they have the Bat-Signal on the roof of police headquarters, the Bat-Phone, and Batman is a vigilante".
_____________________________________________________________________________
I would not rely on Frank Miller as a legal scholar. If he thinks police departments may brazenly summon vigilantes, I would not trust him on any other legal matter. The defense would have an easy time at a trial, pointing to the police having enlisted a self-avowed vigilante. People might as well hire a convicted sex offender with a poster at the local police station as a governess and/or nanny.
Miller once either incurred amnesia, insinuated incorrectly, or dissembled on the '60's television show deputizing the hero for the first time.
Further Corrections/Updates to Various Articles
Circa the 1970's:
A displaying of the badge to demonstrate deputy status occurs in Brave and the Bold#102, with a mention in #148.
Batman Vol 1 295 | DC Database | Fandom
Refer to the dialogue in the following scan:
CollectedEditions.com-Bat Tales: Collected Tales
_____________________________________________________________________________
I would not rely on Frank Miller as a legal scholar. If he thinks police departments may brazenly summon vigilantes, I would not trust him on any other legal matter. The defense would have an easy time at a trial, pointing to the police having enlisted a self-avowed vigilante. People might as well hire a convicted sex offender with a poster at the local police station as a governess and/or nanny.
Miller once either incurred amnesia, insinuated incorrectly, or dissembled on the '60's television show deputizing the hero for the first time.
Further Corrections/Updates to Various Articles
Circa the 1970's:
A displaying of the badge to demonstrate deputy status occurs in Brave and the Bold#102, with a mention in #148.
Batman Vol 1 295 | DC Database | Fandom
Refer to the dialogue in the following scan:
CollectedEditions.com-Bat Tales: Collected Tales
I found JLA I#192, so with a primary source verification occurs of the following:
Comics Reviews: JLA 192, Legion of Super-Heroes 277, New Teen Titans 9
Justice League of America #192 – “Quest for Genesis” – Gerry Conway/George Perez/John Beatty This one starts with a meeting of the JLA on the Satellite. They’re discussing their United …
eruditegorilla.com
This one starts with a meeting of the JLA on the Satellite. They’re discussing their United Nations mandate and whether they might get in trouble for having too many members (currently, they have 14),
If police officials solicit the aid of others, these individuals proceed as agents of government. If the police clandestinely availed of the aid of the vigilantes, then perforce the status as vigilante remains. Publicly soliciting aid, by contrast, endows agent of government status. Therefore, Night Raven remained a vigilante if the authorities never endorsed his escapades and explicitly sought to arrest him.
Definition of a Government Agent Under the 4th Amendment (MP3) | Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers
TranscriptHi, I’m Tim Miller. I’m back again with Ms. Solari.
Miller: All right. Well, what about my disgruntled wife or girlfriend, she comes inside my house looking for, maybe, I don’t know -- any type of evidence that I might have inside the house. Would that disgruntled wife or girlfriend – would she trigger the 4th Amendment?
Solari: Normally, no. As long as she is not acting at the behest of the government or on behalf of the government – if she is just acting out of her own private interest and in her own personal capacity, then she would not be considered a government agent.
Miller: Okay, United Parcel Service and FedEx. Those are both private corporations. Do you agree?
Solari: Yes, sir.
Miller: So, if a United Parcel Service employee looks inside a package that I’m delivering– of course he is going inside a place where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy; but, again that UPS employee, he’s a private employee. Right?
Solari: Yes.
Miller: And, I would agree now, I would assume now that there would be no government intrusion...correct?
Solari: No sir, unless he was for some reason acting on behalf of the government or had been asked by a government agent to do that. Unless that were the case then if that person was acting in his own private capacity as a UPS or FedEx employee then he would not be a government agent for 4th Amendment purposes.
Miller: Can private parties ever trigger the 4th Amendment?
Solari: Yes, as we discussed, if a private party were to be acting at the behest of the government -- if a government agent were to ask that FedEx person to open up a package and look inside, or to ask someone’s girlfriend to go through their things looking for evidence to turn over to the police, then that would be government activity. That would be the actions of a government agent because government agents can’t ask private parties to do something they themselves couldn’t do under the 4th Amendment, so in that type of instance it would be extended to that private party.
Further the Timothy Bass case serves amongst the helpful examples for this situation.
law.justia.com
The police perforce seem to have never deputized the individual who provided the item, and this lack of deputization did not affect the deliberations.
State Of Washington, Respondent V. Timothy Forrest Bass, Appellant (Majority and Order)
State Of Washington, Respondent V. Timothy Forrest Bass, Appellant
law.justia.com
The police perforce seem to have never deputized the individual who provided the item, and this lack of deputization did not affect the deliberations.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
SwordOfMorningSuper Moderator -
Lily Adler🥂 Happy New Year 🎊 -
Hunter RiderRonin
