Batman/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 376:
** I think the question of why private citizens aren't itching to take on a man who has killed scores of innocents and evaded justice countless times speaks for itself. But as for why they don't bend the laws to permit the slaying of supervillains -- I have a hard time imagining how that could get through the courts. Just what, under the law, is a supervillain?
** Exactly. 'Kill on sight' simply can't be done under US law<ref>Outside of war, that is, but 'war' isn't something we can declare on our own citizens around here.</ref>, and it would take either amending the Constitution or declaring martial law to even try. Law enforcement personnel can only use lethal force to respond to situations that involve an immediate threat to human life. Now, you ''can'' ask yourself why the GCPD doesn't just shoot the Joker fifteen dozen times as soon as they see him holding a gun (as that fits the 'immediate threat' criteria) instead of going out of their way to take him alive when they don't have to.
** Historically speaking, giving law enforcement the power to kill people arbitrarily without strict accountability and without immediate threat doesn't end well.
* Where did Batman begin his training at?
| |||