She didn’t exactly try to murder Allison if she knew that her attack could actually hurt Al. She just tried to stop Al from saving Furnace.

Of course, this all depends on one’s definition of murder . . . .

So a homeowner killing a burglar s/he finds breaking into his/her house is guilty of murder, QED. Whether or not the homeowner was genuinely afraid for his/her life at the time, the burglar made no directly threatening action, etc.

Then there’s BGB’s point: Moonshadow knew she couldn’t hurt Alison. It’s kind of like charging a person with attempted murder or destruction of property for firing lead shot from a sling at a tank.

I note you say “generally”.

I’m curious to hear what our technical expert has to say about the legality of killing a burglar for no other reason that the individual had broken in as well as this points’ use in actual case law.

Thanks! That’s instructive (and further proof the US is a seriously violent place, especially where the Right can egg it on).

As… opposed to places like the United Kingdom, where home invasion robberies take place an average of 176 times a day in 2010?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html

Or perhaps the glorious country of Brazil?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-violence-rio-idUSKBN1802K8

Or perhaps Russia, where domestic violence has been decriminalized?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/27/russian-parliament-decrimiinalizes-domestic-violence/97129912/

The United States has its problems… but other countries aren’t perfect either.

Make that 4.5%, not 0.045%, forgot to convert to %age, but still far better than 71%.

You seem to be taking the concept that the US is not the devil among the world and other nations have many problems as well, equal or greater than the US, as some sort of personal insult. He’s not even saying that the US does NOT have a lot of violence and violent crime. He’s just taking apart your characterization that this is especially the case in the US.

Did you misread my post or something? Might want to read it again.

Hey, if you’re going to make it that easy, then I don’t need to reach for the high branches.

“if you are to bring it up, you have to explain why the statistics don’t meet up with the rhetoric you just made about ‘the US is a seriously violent place, especially where the Right can egg it on.”

You really want to get into this with me? Thread-drift notwithstanding?

Aside from speciously trying to link high rates of murder with a party you happen to oppose (I think I read somewhere you’re a libertarian), what was the point of your list?

Yes, I’m sure an argument can be made by some people.

I see no reason why the list has to be false: it takes more than local authorities to create an environment where violence of all kinds can flourish and/or be condoned and/or ignored; state and federal ones can get into the act (not to mention private citizens).

“Dangerously violent?” Not quite what I wrote, eh? Let’s stick with that.

It’s a big topic; I’ve been sitting here thinking about how to go about explaining sight to a blind person, and I’m somewhat at a loss as to method.

We can start with economic violence. Certainly, within the past 40-some-odd years, various “reforms” have been made to make to attack welfare (making it much harder to get), make it easier for owners to dismiss workers, and make it more difficult to unionize. There have also been stigmatizing attitudes towards people on welfare that have been condoned and used by US governments eg Willie Horton ad. Poverty has been slowly becoming criminalized as poorer people, unable to pay fines, appear in court, etc, have been incarcerated (which makes it even harder to get good paying jobs). The political Right has been working on that for even longer than 40 years, but it’s succeeded quite well since then (even managing to convince the Dems it’s something that needed to be done to look “respectable”).

Racial violence (very often overlapping fairly well with economic violence eg Willie Horton again). Disproportionate imprisonment of darker-skinned men (who are more often than not poorer than average). The legacy of slavery still lives on and has often been used openly or more coded by the Right to stigmatize blacks and maintain white power over them eg . This has morphed recently into violence against Arabic citizenry (stigmatization, police action, etc.). Border vigilantism at the southern border vs Mexicans. Police shootings of blacks.

Gun violence (used to kill others as well as oneself). Carry laws, “stand-your-ground”, castle defense laws (from MechWarrior’s link). “Gun rights” is almost exclusively a Right project.

Militias like the Posse Comitatus.

Homegrown terrorism eg McVeigh, Roof, KKK.

“War Against Drugs” leading to more police violence that is often racially coded.

It’s late; that’s all I can think of at the moment.

“”Dangerously violent?” Not quite what I wrote, eh? Let’s stick with that.”

‘the US is a seriously violent place, especially where the Right can egg it on.’ – your exact words.

“I’ve been sitting here thinking about how to go about explaining sight to a blind person, and I’m somewhat at a loss as to method.”

More rhetoric (with a little insult, implying I’m blind) rather than using any sort of facts. Because the facts are not on your side.

“We can start with economic violence.”

Economic ‘violence’? Uh… no. You were referring to violence. Don’t try to change the definition again. You tend to do that. You find you’re wrong, so you try to make up a new definition for words. Words that have distinct definitions already, like ‘murder’ or ‘violence.’

Poverty isn’t ‘economic violence’ by the way. It’s a byproduct of any society that uses money. Which is pretty much every society that exists since any significant civilization began.

After this, you talk about how it’s HARDER to get welfare. Which it’s not. It’s actually FAR FAR easier, but you don’t bother giving any way to support your argument that it’s harder to get welfare. If anything, the welfare state has massively increased in the past 40 years, as all welfare state schemes do.

“Poverty has been slowly becoming criminalized as poorer people, unable to pay fines, appear in court, etc, have been incarcerated”

Actually, what mkes people go to jail is when they commit crimes, not when they’re poor. Your entire argument is false and based on no facts whatsoever, and I notice that you arent even going to TRY to debate my points. Hell, you arent even debating your own single point that you initially made. That the right creates violence by egging it on in the US.

“The political Right has been working on that for even longer than 40 years, but it’s succeeded quite well since then (even managing to convince the Dems it’s something that needed to be done to look “respectable”).”

Actually, as the welfare state has increased and people become more dependent on government to take care of them, it’s gotten WORSE for those people. Look at the 10 cities I mentioned. All run by Democrats. All with massive payouts to the poor, all hemmorhaging cash, some more than others like Detroit, which had to declare bankruptcy as an entire CITY. Guess what, it didnt have to do that because of Republicans, because there are no republicans there. And havent been for decades. It’s all under the Left’s rules that its gone down the drain, if you’re so ready to change things from ‘violence’ to ‘poverty’ being the fault of the Right (since you don’t seem to want to stick to your own initial talking point).

“Racial violence (very often overlapping fairly well with economic violence eg Willie Horton again).”

Uh… not wanting to make this a racial thing, but you’re bringing this up…. but statistically speaking, 50 percent of all murders are with a PoC perpetrator (while the census population is between 12 and 13 percent), and 95 percent of PoC murder victims are killed by other PoCs.

“Disproportionate imprisonment of darker-skinned men (who are more often than not poorer than average).”

Yes. When the Left creates a welfare state, it does hurt the poorest who become dependent on it, and that has especially hurt PoC. If you’d like a chart of the poorest cities in the country, and who runs those cities, and a racial breakdown of that, I can provide that as well. You’ll find a lot of overlap though with the violence cities though, because the one thing you’ve said that’s accurate is that violent crimes and poverty are linked – just not for the reasons you’re claiming (that there’s some Right wing boogyman keeping PoC down, but rather the Left tends to treat PoC as important only during elections then forgets about them afterwards except to throw handouts in the form of government dependence, instead of actual job creation … in cities which they’ve run uncontested for decades).

“The legacy of slavery still lives on and has often been used openly or more coded by the Right to stigmatize blacks and maintain white power over them”

…. you do realize that the states that had slavery were overwhelming run by Democrats, right? And that the Republicans were initially created as an anti-slavery party?

“Border vigilantism at the southern border vs Mexicans.”

Do you bother with ANY statistics at all in your argument? Anything beyond anecdotal hyperbole?

“Police shootings of blacks.”

So you’re claiming now that this massive coincidence of all the cities run exclusively by the Left being also the cities with the highest rates of violent crime is because of police shootings of black people? See… I think the reason for the amount of violent crime in those areas is because of not enough of a police presence to protect the PoC who LIVE there and are victims of murder by (for the overwhelming majority) other PoC. Plus again, I can back it up with stats.

“Gun violence (used to kill others as well as oneself).”

Um… almost all the cities I mentioned have significant gun control laws actually, and has been used by the Left and the Right sides of the political spectrum as far back as 1888

“”stand-your-ground”, castle defense laws (from MechWarrior’s link).”

Actually the Castle Doctrine goes back to before the US even existed. The 1300s in fact. It was taken by the US in the Commentaries on hte Laws of England, written by Blackstone, which was a cornerstone of our US law and the Constitution .

Quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium?

For what is holy, what is fenced round with every form of religion, which they of the house of everybody of our countrymen?

It’s also the reason for the 4th Amendment and why doors cannot jsut be broken into to execute any civil process, why warrants are needed, why there’s a Right to Assembly in the 1st amendment, and why the army can’t just take over our homes (also written specifically into the Constitution, because of the Castle Doctrine concept).

A Supreme Court justice wrote in 1877:

“Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed.”

Btw…. not ‘Right Wing.’ The idea was if someone’s breaking into your place to try to kill you, you don’t have to flee from them and let them do whatever they want. That’s REASONABLE. You know what’s not reasonable? The people trying to break into your house to kill you and/or steal your stuff.

“”Gun rights” is almost exclusively a Right project.”

I’d argue gun rights is an exclusively US Constitution 2nd Amendment project, actually.

“Militias like the Posse Comitatus.”

Um… posse comitatus, since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, means that the US Army and all other armed forces (except the Coast Guard) cannot be used for internal law enforcement.

“Homegrown terrorism eg McVeigh”

So…. wait, all violence in those cities were caused by Timothy McVeigh? What?

Also… since when is Timothy McVeigh ‘the Right’ ??? He was a registered Democrat, and HATED the US government.

“KKK.”

Um… hate to break it to you but the KKK was almost exclusively Democrats, supported by Democrats, formed by Democrats, and in order to get elected in most Democratic districts as late as the 50s, Democrats actually sought the KKK’s support. Some of whom remained in office until 2010, like Robert Byrd.

Plus the KKK is pretty much dead today, with less than 4000 members left I believe. They’re thankfully going the way of the dodo.

“”War Against Drugs” leading to more police violence that is often racially coded.”

Citation needed. Actually no, it doesn’t. It leads to arresting drug users and dealers, although honestly it should have focused exclusively on dealers, not people simply holding onto more than x amount of drugs. As for the ‘police arrest people for crack, but not as many for cocaine, because cocaine users are more likely white while crack users are more likely black, that’s actually because of wealth, not because of race. If you look in the poor white areas, where meth was the drug of choice (because it was cheaper, easily transferred, easier to make in a potent form, and more addictive), the arrest rates are identical to that of black users of crack-cocaine (because it was cheaper, easily transferred, eaier to make in a potent form, and more addictive).

“It’s late; that’s all I can think of at the moment.”

Then you’ve literally thought of nothing and have disputed nothing :/

“Yes, “seriously violent” does not equal “dangerously violent”. Overlap? Sure. Synonymous? No.”

Oh for the love of god. Five times I wrote down exactly what you wrote. Seriously violent. Once I write down dangerously violent, which means the same thing in the CONTEXT of how you were talking (see, that’s how you actually use the word context in a sentence) and now you’re trying (BADLY) to argue semantics which doesnt even change what you said in the first place.

Arguing with you is rather annoying because you don’t bother actually reading what the other person writes at all, then use one word sentences when you can’t think out a coherent argument, which is often. And most of the rest of the time your posts make no sense until it’s been read and re-read 3-4 times, usually dripping with insults and ad hominem attacks because you can’t seem to stay on point of the thread.

“Facts aren’t always the problem, Counsel: interpretation matters, too (which is the crux of our arguments).”

Yes I’ve come to realize that for you, facts don’t seem to measure into an argument very much, if at all. And your interpretation seems to have no coherence except your feelings, fake anecdotes, and a Hollywood TV show understanding of the law and justice. And by the way, what the courts do IS interpret the law. That’s literally what the judicial branch of government is for. Interpreting the law. But you have to use some semblance of logic and consistency when interpreting it, which I do use, and you don’t.

“Re. blindness: Yes, from what I can tell by our interplay, you’re quite ideologically blind.”

This is sort of hilarious that you’d be calling me ideologically blind, when I base my opinions on the law and you base yours on pure ideology and shifting emotional opinions based on anecdotes that you or others have made up.

“As is proven by the fixed ideas you harbor for such notions as “violence” or “murder”.”

…. understanding the actual definitions of words is ideologically blind? To quote Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wujVMIYzYXg

That’s called the springloaded shotgun (spring-gun) example. It’s taught to everyone in criminal law in law school. The case most often cited for this nowadays is Katko v Briney, but there are many others which go back as far as 1775 in the US.

I’m assuming that the UK case that you’re referring to, btw, is Bird v Holbrook which happened in 1825 (a man set up a spring-gun in his garden to protect it from birds and it wound up shooting a person instead).

I’m not British but I’m passingly familiar with british cases – although most of the cases I’m familiar with tend to be from longer ago (since most of the cases in English law are ones which the colonies had adopted when forming US law). Also the UK has different laws when it comes to self-defense, defense of others, diminished capacity, etc. so I wouldn’t want to debate this as any sort of authority on the subject in modern UK law.

Correction: _manslaughter_ on the grounds of diminished responsibility

*sigh* UNLAWFUL …. PREMEDITATED killing.

Not just any killing. Unlawful is the first damn word in the definition (not taking into account that self-defense is an affirmative defense against the charge, an affirmative defense doesn’t erase the definition, just like it wouldn’t if Moonshadow were legally insane – she’d still be a murderer).

Also Moonshadow outright stated that she wasn’t sure if she could kill Alison but it couldnt hurt to try. That means BGB’s point is incorrect since she thought there was a chance that she could. She thought there was a chance she could kill Alison (maybe Alison’s being weakened would make her vulnerable – Alison’s been injured before, maybe Moonshadow thought that Alison’s invulnerability is based on knowing that an attack is coming), and so she tried to kill her. That’s attempted murder and more likely attempted felony murder since it was done during the commission of a violent or enumerated crime.

“So it IS lawful for a homeowner to murder a burglar no matter what the circumstances?”

I need to explain briefly what an affirmative defense is,since I think that this is the point where you’re getting confused. An affirmative defense is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant’s otherwise unlawful conduct. Self Defense and Defense of Others are affirmative defenses, so if a burglar broke into your house and you kill them because you fear for your life or the life of others in the house, that is an affirmative defense against a charge of murder. Protection of property is NOT an affirmative defense against a charge of murder though, so if you set a springloaded shotgun and you were not even home, so that when someone breaks into your house they get shot in the face, then yes, the homeowner would be guilty of murder, because they’d have no affirmative defense.

The very fact that you are IN the house when a burglar breaks in creates the grounds for using self defense as your defense. Which means the killing is not unlawful, where it otherwise would have been. Does this clear things up for you? Moonshadow never had ANY affirmative defenses for her killings, and what she did was murder every single time – both to the people who were actually rapists, the people who she thought were rapists but had no proof, the people who she thought may beat their wives but she had no proof, the people who she thought might be rapists in the future, the mercenaries, Furnace, and the attempted murder of Alison and the attack on Klevin, which could have been seen as an attempted murder as well given that the femoral artery is near where she slashed Klevin, which can cause death within minutes from blood loss.

I’ve read over this post three times and still have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

Nope, ‘fraid not.

who then went out of his way to commit suicide quite explosively.

THANK YOU. We’ve had our disagreements on other threads, but it’s a relief to finally find someone else in the comments section for this comic who understands the concept of “negligent homicide.”

I’m sure her defense lawyer would try to get a plea bargain for negligent homicide. But if I were the DA I’d be pushing for Murder 1, as well as kidnapping, unlawful restraint, assault and battery (drugging) and depending on the state, violating any statute prohibiting the introduction of a controlled substance into another person’s body without their knowledge and consent. Also, likely a dozen or more crimes related to the destruction of the dam.

She strapped a bomb to his chest. Negligent homicide applies to deaths caused by, well, negligence, like if she kidnapped him but didn’t feed him and he went into a diabetic coma. If she’d kept him prisoner and next door to his room were improperly stored explosives that he accidentally triggered while attempting escape, she *might* get negligent homicide. But it would take one hell of an attorney.

It’s not important because of its contribution to his death, it’s important because after doing something like that you can’t play the “I didn’t actually mean to kill him” card.

As I said before, the fact that she changed her mind fails to make a difference for the same reason it makes him less dead. She kidnapped and drugged him, then he died trying to (from his perspective) defend himself.

Do her principles actually matter in the discussion of whether or not she murdered him? No.

I decided to check, and it appears that in most of the US, if you commit a felony and a death occurs as a result of that felony, it’s automatically considered murder. So legally, at least, there’s no wiggle room.

She violently assaulted and injured him, placed him in the situation, drugged him, was probably going to use the same knife she attempted to use against Alison… the bomb not being the actual method by which she murdered him is a rather trivial and irrelevant detail…

From the whole kidnapping him, strapping a bomb to his chest, and putting him through a mock-trial. Any competent DA would have an easy time convincing a jury that her actions demonstrated a premeditated decision to kill him. The fact that she changed her mind doesn’t make her less culpable anymore than it makes him less dead.

She had the intent when she stuck a bomb on him. Legally, no, the fact that she changed her mind wouldn’t matter. From a moral standpoint, it also doesn’t matter because “oops, I didn’t actually *intend* to kill him after drugging him and putting him in a highly dangerous situation where his death was a likely outcome” isn’t a defense.

The only way Moonshadow could morally not be responsible for Furnace’s death is if she hadn’t realized she was strapping a bomb to him in the first place. She knew it was a bomb, it was *intended* to be lethal to him, she put him into the situation and the location, every single event leading up to his death was because of actions she took. Morally, the fact that he’s dead rests entirely on her.

Note: Lisa Izo, the attorney whose profession you’re assuming to be inherently suspect (and if you demand “where did I say that?” I won’t even answer, because you just made another comment in a different thread about exactly that) can tell you exactly how incorrect your argument is. Hell, she already has in other posts.

Setting aside the fact that you’re insisting “it’s his fault because he should have acted rationally after waking up while still feeling the effects of drugs and violence (at the very least, she gave him a concussion when she knocked him out at the grave he was visiting), and confronted by two people who he knew to be hostile towards him and one of whom had attacked him,” you’re ignoring the fact that she put a murder weapon on him (the bomb) and even if she reconsidered, that’s like aiming a gun at a victim, changing your mind… and then having an accidental discharge. You’re still guilty of murder.

But… I’m guessing you’re going to ignore that and continue to blame the victim?

As opposed to what, guilt by association? Guilt by accusation?

Please don’t give me the quotes on legality. There’s no question there. You divided your statement into legal point and a moral point, and I disagree with you on the moral point, ceding the legal point.

I’m not arguing that Moonshadow is utterly blameless. I’m pointing out that Furnace wasn’t either.

Your first para points out that he was still drugged; let’s take that as given. He, therefore, couldn’t have been capable of, at the very least, clear reasoning. No clear reasoning, the first thing I would expect would be panic, most likely to run away. He didn’t look panicked in the slightest; he looked supremely pissed, maybe like an angry drunk, looking for an ass to kick. You can bet that anger wouldn’t be from a vacuum; it would come from his character (it seems reasonable enough to assume an angry-drunk bigot would lash out towards some racial minority or make some bigoted remark instead of just some random act that has nothing to do with his character instead ie in vino veritas.

If he had been clear-headed enough (ie being able to come to a reasonable conclusion), why didn’t he recognize the spot he was in and, at the very least, wait for a better opportunity to cut loose? Because his character (which we’ve already seen), not his will or his sense of self-preservation, demanded that he act the macho man and annihilate the woman (the WOMAN!) who had humiliated him.

We don’t normally hold drunks blameless for attacking someone; we can look at the circumstances and go from there with a (moral) judgement. The legality of it all is a bit simpler.

No, he didn’t choose to be drugged. Yes, we hold drunks accountable (sometimes this is good eg a drunk starting a fight; sometimes this is bad eg a drunk woman getting raped). My point was that, if he was still drugged, in vino veritas; if he wasn’t, he allowed his macho pride to get the better of him.

Now that you mention it, isn’t that the same double standard that Alison applied when she was throttling that guy at the party? “Well, they’re both drunk and therefore she’s not culpable but he’s obviously a rapist?”

You don’t seem to recognize the hypocrisy of saying that a man who is drugged against his will should be held partially responsible, but a woman who gets drugged against her will should not be.

As for the drugged woman… lets take it a DIFFERENT way. A male character slips a mickey into a woman’s drink. She gets knocked out and he takes he attempts to rape her (but is stopped because she comes to in time to fight back). She dies in the ensuing struggle.

According to you, based on your flawed logic, she’s partially at fault for her death because she fought back.

Context: She died because she woke up and tried to defend herself from an unprovoked assault.

She couldn’t legally expect him to act rationally. This is Furnace we’re talking about, who has a demonstrated history of irrationally aggressive behaviour. And Furnace going Flame On! the moment he regained consciousness and knew he was under threat but before realizing the bomb was there would actually be rational.

Nothing Furnace does matters, it’s whether Moonshadow created the situation that led to his death.

I was using ‘rationally’ to imply ‘meeting Moonshadow’s threat in the way she clearly expected’. Which is sloppy as Furnace going immediately flame-on would have been rational from his point of view, just not wise.

Irrational is a term I try to avoid, because I think it tends to be used in a way that reinforces stigma around MH. For clarity here, I’d draw the distinction that irrational can involve considered thought that happens to include factors that may be at variance with physical reality, while ‘not wise’ only deals with physical reality, but decisions may be flawed by lack of appropriate experience.

No. Simply that Furnace’s observed behavior was violence first, think later, no matter the circumstances. And Moonshadow’s plan relied on the opposite. Not wise.

Wow, you’re citing that? It’s a clear example of Furnace getting his flame off (cf MI:2 and ‘getting your gun off’) no matter the immediate risk to the people he should have been protecting. Pretty much every appearance of Furnace was him looking for a fight and being told he’s an aggressive idiot who endangers more people than he protects.

My comment to MechWarrior was concerning the logic of the legality of intent (or at least how he explained it), not his mental state.

(Sorry if you thought that, MechWarrior!)

Why are you trying to egg on a fight between me and MechWarrior?

I’m sorry you made the mistake of assuming this was clear to you.

Todd. It’s very clearly felony murder (first degree murder).

At BEST, it might get pled down to 2nd degree murder (ie, murder without premeditation, if you ignore that she kidnapped him in the first place).

Well, know what, Counsel? You can quote law all you like; I can’t really argue against it because, well, you know, it’s there. If the legal definition of murder is X, there’s no point in arguing against it. However, that does not mean the argument is axiomatically ended and no further discussion is permitted.

I do not believe that Moonshadow had to intent to kill for the reasons I gave above.

You know what, non-counsel? You can be as arrogant and condescending as you like, using patronizing forms of address to mock the people you’re arguing with for having eight years of schooling as a prelude to passing the Bar exam, but it doesn’t make you any less incorrect. However, that does not mean the argument is ended because you have clearly decided that your opinion is just as valid as facts.

Unfortunately for you… the rest of the universe disagrees.

Actually you’ve been arrogant and condescending from the beginning. I just tend to not care about people calling me names or being rude. Doesn’t stop me from making my argument. I don’t really care if you keep calling me Counsel, which it seems like you’re doing in a mocking way (don’t care, doesn’t bother me).

Yes, you repeat the point ad nauseam: you know more about The Law than probably anyone here. Unfortunately, you apparently can’t see beyond that. Play to your strengths, right?

Ah. I think you’ve just revealed the issue: worship. You couldn’t care less why or how a law comes into being; all you know is that Law Must Be Obeyed. I’m sure you’ll do well if you happen to run into the Kochs. You certainly would’ve done well in the Antebellum South.

Oh! I thought you were Counsel; you sound so much alike (you just don’t quote chapter and verse as Holy Writ like she does), and I was pretty tired.

Well, since you seem to be so close to her, you can forward that stuff.

Who, besides Counsel, is claiming to be final arbiter of anything? I point out the flies in the ointment is all. When someone keeps misunderstanding me, I keep trying to explain, but my patience wears thin when someone gets mouthy with me.

My beliefs? Just what, out of curiosity, do you think they are?

“You’ve made it fairly clear that you believe that justice is a great and wonderful thing (which, in fact… it is) and that the law is nothing more than an impediment to justice”

Notice I keep repeating over and over the word “context”. I have been clearer, once, where I said I could applaud and agree with much that Lisa has written in the appropriate context eg if there had been argument about the legality of what Moonshadow had done, what laws she had broken, etc. However, there are times where law is an impediment (at least sometimes deliberately created to be one), absent, or the direct opposite of what many if not most people would call “justice”. Sometimes, vigilante justice, loosely defined, can be accepted by enough people as the only alternative to continuing the status quo, and it can help.

That being said, I think I’ve been arguing the whole time that Moonshadow isn’t some insane killer nor that she’s a flat-out villain; at the very least, I’ve been pointing out flaws in reasoning or showing how, viewed another way, what we know about Moonshadow can be interpreted differently.

Would I egg Moonshadow on? No. Would I condemn her? No. Would I tell her to turn herself in? Maybe. Egging her on, for all that her continuing might stop a man from otherwise raping or physically assaulting a woman, isn’t, at its most basic, the most efficient way to deal with an entirely societal problem ie the irrational denigration of women by men for being women. Condemning her would simply ignore the problem entirely at best or, at worst, help in making the problem worse. Telling her to turn herself would really depend on what the state of the situation was like.

I suspect you’ve known Izo longer than I have, so maybe you can remember times when she wrote what you’re attributing to her; since first reading her, I can’t recall her indicating anything about the law being a tool (I know I wrote that).

As for presumption of innocence, keeping it entirely within the realm of this comic, our information on Moonshadow’s murder victims is admittedly imperfect; however, from the information we have been given in the comic, it is highly unlikely that any of them were, in fact, innocent of rape and/or assault. Maybe, at some future date, the comic’s creators will open up and reveal that, in fact, those victims were all innocent, that the girl and her family we see at the beginning of Ch. 5 were lying, that the wife of the judge was just clumsy and their children were just ungrateful, that what had been said about Clevin’s room-mate was all lies, that the female soldier who had accused the murdered mercs of rape was just lying, etc. It’s entirely possible that things might go this way. I just think it unlikely, given what I know.

Proof?

No, no: kick away, really.

Just be careful or aware about how you do it.

Nah, i like legal and morality discussions.

It worries me a little when people don’t seem to understand that the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a good one (although they sure seem to think so if they’re the ones being accused of a crime), or when people seem to think that being a lawyer is like being a psychotic serial killer, but I like legal discussions in general.