[2623] "Here goes!"

[csj]

watching himself die while still being alive

coyote might be jealous

[quinnr]

There's a certain sadness to this page for me as a long-time follower of the comic. One of the pillars of Gunnerkrigg to me has always been the main characters' drive to approach things diplomatically or creatively to avoid head-on violence, from the beginning. As other posters have pointed out this trap looks downright cruel.

I can't recall how much of the history of the arrow Annie and Kat are aware of, but I guess the gloves are off now. Curious to see where this goes.

[crater]

"He sold?"

".... Pump it"

[Per]

In some scenarios it's good and proper to collect the magazines from the space marines. In others, it really, really isn't. You just need to know what type of story you're in, or which stage of the story you're in.

In the case of the invading murderous chaos god, I would probably be voting to deploy all of the traps.

[todd]

I think it's possible that Tom was simply unaware of real-life regulations against booby traps when he wrote and drew this page.

[netherdan]

May 13, 2022 15:55:04 GMT Gemini Jim said:

It's still possible that Annie suspects, even if she hasn't told Kat or the others ("to fool your enemies, first fool your friends"). Trap "Loup" and see how Jerrek reacts.

Well if she does know, then this is probably when she noticed and this is when she spoke to the Ysengrin inside him

[mturtle7]

May 14, 2022 1:34:34 GMT maxptc said:

May 14, 2022 1:19:16 GMT warrl said:

From your Wikipedia quote: "It is triggered by the presence or actions of the victim"

This trap was triggered by Kat pushing a button. Kat is not the victim of the trap.

As for war crimes: 164 nations have signed on to a treaty banning land mines - but not necessarily all forms of booby trap - in warfare. There are somewhere between 193 and 210 nations depending on how and whom you count, so at least 29 nations have NOT signed that treaty - including China, Russia, and the US.

But it is triggered by the presence of Loup, his entering the area is why it was triggered. I'm willing to accept I could be mistaken about that interpretation, maybe it only means the direct actions or presence, and not that the presence or actions caused someone to activate a trap.

Even in that case, I'd still say that using this technology to trap Loup is essentially the same thing the Court did, if to a more deserving victim.


Of course, i dont think this is really working, I still believe Loup is control of this situation because none of them suspect he is Jerrek.

OK, so this is probably (almost certainly) kind of beating a dead horse...but as others have pointed out, by the logic you're using, waiting in ambush for someone with a sniper rifle is a booby trap. Actually, I'm pretty sure you could argue that literally any form of deliberate, pre-meditated violence is a "booby trap" by this definition, since you have to wait for your intended victim to be within range, and therefore it's "triggered" by their presence, or their "action" of moving within range. As you have tentatively acknowledged the possibility of, "triggered" actually implies that it's the direct actions or presence of the victim, not someone's personal motivations that begin with the victim's actions or presence.

Anyway!!! Now that that bit of outraged pedantry is out of my system...HOOOOO BOY THIS DEVELOPEMNT IS EXTREMELY WORRYING ON SO MANY LEVELS. Over and over again, the comic has emphasized that using the arrow as a weapon is Very Bad News, that Kat was only entrusted with it because she would use it for research and not violence...and here she is now, not only using it for violence, but doing so in an upgraded capacity! No longer a single arrow that requires a skilled archer to make it fly true,  we now have a manufactured, reproducible, LASER ARROW that can just appear out of nowhere and impale your soul from 50 yards away. I suppose it's possible that the effects of the laser arrows aren't quite as terrifyingly thorough as the original arrow, but that's not saying much - if it's even half as effective as the original, that's still  terrifying as hell! And what's worse, as maxptc said, is that this isn't even going to work...best case scenario, they manage to trap a significant portion of Loup, while Jerrek-Loup is still on the outside and fully capable of wreaking havoc. Which might lead Kat to resort to even more desperate measures, later on...

[warrl]

But it is triggered by the presence of Loup, his entering the area is why it was triggered.

No, it was triggered by Kat pushing a button. The reason she pushed the button is Loup entering the area, but if she had not pushed the button then Loup's location would not have mattered.

By the standard you're trying to apply, if a drunk tries to punch a cop and the cops respond by putting the drunk on the ground, the cops set a booby trap - it was "triggered" by what the drunk did, and the drunk is the one who has facial road-rash.

[maxptc]

So if I'm understanding correctly, the a button being pressed vs independently triggered is what counts. Like if the bombs at the end of Hunger Games are on a timer it's a bobby trap, but if someone triggered it after everyone was in place, it's just a regular trap?

I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong, just doesn't seem like a meaningful difference to me, more a technical one. Its luring someone into a trap with the intent to imprison permanently or kill. Almost the exact same thing the Court did, just not targeted at innocent people.

[warrl]

The issue with booby traps (such as land mines) not the interaction with the intended target...

... it's the interaction with unintended targets.

You expect an enemy tank to come down this road soon, so you set up to destroy it - and then the next vehicle to come down this road is an ambulance from your local hospital.

The soldier with an anti-tank weapon can decide NOT to fire at the ambulance.

The land mine can't.

[maxptc]

"Any device or material designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless objects or performs an apparently safe act.


Booby-traps also include manually-emplaced devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time. Their use is prohibited by precise rules.

See also Mines; Explosive remnants of war

OUTLINE
Chapter 9, aa) mines
LEGAL SOURCE
CIHL, 80
DOCUMENT
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby–Traps and Other Devices, as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II to the 1980 Convention)

CASES
ICRC, IHL and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts

United States, War Crimes Act

Iran/Iraq, UN Security Council Assessing Violations of International Humanitarian Law

UN, Guidelines for UN Forces

Israel, House Demolitions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Conflict in 2006

ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law "


The more I look into it, the less convinced I am that I'm wrong. Still possible I am, with the internet being what it is and all. Like I said, I'm no expert. But again, seems like a semantics thing to me, so I'll fully rephrase.


What Kat is doing is super unethical and is on or almost on par with what the old court did with the arrow. It's one of the most "evil" acts we've seen in the comic.

[warrl]

So you're saying that it was unethical for Kat to push a button and make something on the ground shoot light-arrows through Loup, but it would be more ethical for Kat to push a button and make a device in her hand shoot light-arrows through Loup.

Personally I'm not seeing it.

[maxptc]

May 15, 2022 2:40:23 GMT warrl said:

So you're saying that it was unethical for Kat to push a button and make something on the ground shoot light-arrows through Loup, but it would be more ethical for Kat to push a button and make a device in her hand shoot light-arrows through Loup.

Personally I'm not seeing it.

No, if she shot Loup I'd also have issue with that, even with a normal gun. Wouldn't be a booby trap, just shooting. If she lured him into an ambush and then shot him, that would also be pretty messed up and probably the worst thing someone did in this comic. More legal in some parts of the world, but again that doesn't make it better. But by definition, she wouldn't be a war criminal if she shot him.

[Karretch]

maxptc Let me take a crack at this to help you understand.

Booby traps are laid and forgotten about by the person that sets them. Then something else comes along and triggers the trap. This trigger isn't activated by the person who laid the trap but by the victim.

This trap in the comic is an ambush, Kat is the person who laid it and Kat is the person who is triggering it to happen. As others have said, Loup could be standing in that exact spot for hours, or moving back and forth across the area, and nothing would happen unless and until Kat pushes the button. The button is needed to activate the trap.

To really, really dumb down and go archaic with an example, this situation that is happening in the comic is like a group of ancient humans of the stone age waiting on top of a cliff overlooking a valley trackway. If an animal comes through, the humans would then push boulders off the cliff and onto the animals. This is a trap. But if the humans don't push the boulders, the boulders don't fall.

However, if the ancient humans were to make it so that when an animal crossing over the trackway were to step on a stick or snag a vine that then removed a rock or stick holding the boulders in place, this then makes it a booby trap.

Not all traps are booby traps, but all booby traps are traps. It's a subset, like a diagram of one circle labeled "traps" and a smaller circle inside labeled "booby traps", booby trap being defined as basically automatically happening without the knowledge or presence of the person whom laid the trap.

[maxptc]

May 15, 2022 10:53:55 GMT Karretch said:

maxptc Let me take a crack at this to help you understand.

Booby traps are laid and forgotten about by the person that sets them. Then something else comes along and triggers the trap. This trigger isn't activated by the person who laid the trap but by the victim.

By the legal definitions I've found, this is not the case. Booby traps are a specific set of traps, an automated activation method not being a defining characteristic.

This trap in the comic is an ambush, Kat is the person who laid it and Kat is the person who is triggering it to happen. As others have said, Loup could be standing in that exact spot for hours, or moving back and forth across the area, and nothing would happen unless and until Kat pushes the button. The button is needed to activate the trap.

So were I to lay a spike pit with a collapsible door outside your bedroom, it would be booby trap if it opened by you walking over it, but only a trap if it only opened when I pressed a button as I saw you walk over it? I don't agree.

To really, really dumb down and go archaic with an example, this situation that is happening in the comic is like a group of ancient humans of the stone age waiting on top of a cliff overlooking a valley trackway. If an animal comes through, the humans would then push boulders off the cliff and onto the animals. This is a trap. But if the humans don't push the boulders, the boulders don't fall.

However, if the ancient humans were to make it so that when an animal crossing over the trackway were to step on a stick or snag a vine that then removed a rock or stick holding the boulders in place, this then makes it a booby trap.

In this instance, if one wanted to argue, you could still make that a booby trap, as long as the boulder were positioned by the humans and not naturally occurring. Also I think the animals should be to changed to humans or at least magic talking Buffalo for the situations to be more comparable.

Not all traps are booby traps, but all booby traps are traps. It's a subset, like a diagram of one circle labeled "traps" and a smaller circle inside labeled "booby traps",

So far yeah I toats agree.

booby trap being defined as basically automatically happening without the knowledge or presence of the person whom laid the trap.

Shoot, I disagree again. This would mean mouse traps are booby traps, but a remote controlled snake pit placed under a bed isn't.

[warrl]

This is exactly the distinction that the term "booby trap" was created to encapsulate.

By your definition, please describe a situation where a person, with premeditation, deliberately hurts another person, that is NOT a booby trap.

[maxptc]

May 15, 2022 18:24:34 GMT warrl said:

This is exactly the distinction that the term "booby trap" was created to encapsulate.

By your definition, please describe a situation where a person, with premeditation, deliberately hurts another person, that is NOT a booby trap.

A shooting? A stabing? A poisoning? A punching? Casting a spell? Doing those could also inculde an ambush and still not be a booby trap, but the moral ambiguity appears depending on if you lured the target or not. Setting a non lethal/non violent trap, such a cage or trap wall would be a trap, since the bigger distinction is the violent/physically disabling quality of the booby trap, in addition to the deceptive/bait quality. Target as well, you booby trap humans not animals, but I make the distinction for magic talking animals. Obviously the legal rights of magical animals is super debatable, probably a more interesting debate then technical terminology for violence. Things like like glue pads and or a pit of quicksand are a more grey area, I feel like the situational usage matters in some instances. Both at the same time, probably a booby trap.


The situation as I see it is a modified techmagic spike floor being remotely triggered after baiting a target to a designated location. That says booby trap to me, but seeing it as an ambush or regular trap is understandable. These are very arbitrary distinctions. Good news, im not a cop or lawyer or judge or arbitrator so Kat isn't going to be tried for a war crime despite what I think. I just don't think her not being present or the trap being triggered by a trip wire would change the nature of what is happening here. But I've already conceded I could be wrong about the actual technical definition.

[warrl]

That says booby trap to me, but seeing it as an ambush or regular trap is understandable. These are very arbitrary distinctions.

No, they are not. The booby trap has the distinctive characteristic that it goes off when *someone/thing sort of resembling* the intended target gets in range. The others have a person involved who can go "nope, that's not actually the target we want, let's wait."

(And "sort of resembling" has a very loose definition - it can consist of, say, bumping a door hard.)

[maxptc]

May 16, 2022 0:56:03 GMT warrl said:

That says booby trap to me, but seeing it as an ambush or regular trap is understandable. These are very arbitrary distinctions.

No, they are not. The booby trap has the distinctive characteristic that it goes off when *someone/thing sort of resembling* the intended target gets in range. The others have a person involved who can go "nope, that's not actually the target we want, let's wait."

That's not true to my understanding of the legal writings a 15 minute google search resulted in, which as I said may not be reliable. But that's what I got. Let's use a real world example, be it a hypothetical one.

A bomb is placed in a church hiden under an alter. It is meant to go off when a priest dressed in full priest attire starts his 7 am sermon. Regardless of if it is set to go off 15 minutes after 7 or when an agent placed across the way on a roof sees a priest enter and flips a switch, it has a chance to hit the wrong target. The agent could have misidentified the target, or people unknown could be in range of the blast and the preist taking a break the bathroom. Either way booby trap, at least arguably from a legal mindset. The triggering method, while a relevant factor, is not a black and white determining one.

[liminal]

May 16, 2022 1:54:39 GMT maxptc said:

May 16, 2022 0:56:03 GMT warrl said:

No, they are not. The booby trap has the distinctive characteristic that it goes off when *someone/thing sort of resembling* the intended target gets in range. The others have a person involved who can go "nope, that's not actually the target we want, let's wait."

That's not true to my understanding of the legal writings a 15 minute google search resulted in, which as I said may not be reliable. But that's what I got. Let's use a real world example, be it a hypothetical one.

A bomb is placed in a church hiden under an alter. It is meant to go off when a priest dressed in full priest attire starts his 7 am sermon. Regardless of if it is set to go off 15 minutes after 7 or when an agent placed across the way on a roof sees a priest enter and flips a switch, it has a chance to hit the wrong target. The agent could have misidentified the target, or people unknown could be in range of the blast and the preist taking a break the bathroom. Either way booby trap, at least arguably from a legal mindset. The triggering method, while a relevant factor, is not a black and white determining one.

This UN document should clear things up if nothing else does. Under "Article 2 - Definitions":

4."Booby-trap" means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.


5."Other devices" means manually-emplaced munitions and devices including improvised explosive devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated manually, by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.

13. "Remote control" means control by commands from a distance.

Kat's device falls firmly in "Other Devices". Any hypotheticals and legal questions you have should be covered in that document

[pyradonis]

May 14, 2022 11:21:53 GMT quinnr said:

There's a certain sadness to this page for me as a long-time follower of the comic. One of the pillars of Gunnerkrigg to me has always been the main characters' drive to approach things diplomatically or creatively to avoid head-on violence, from the beginning.

I disagree:

Annie attacking with fire powers immediately.

From the same chapter, a trap not dissimilar to the one from the current chapter, this time used against sentient robots.

Casually cutting a Bound Dog apart, while passengers are napping.

I thought about adding Renard killing Hetty - his attack was quite the sucker punch - but I think we can say he *did* try to talk to her beforehand and determined talking would not help in this case.

[maxptc]

May 16, 2022 5:57:13 GMT liminal said:

May 16, 2022 1:54:39 GMT maxptc said:

That's not true to my understanding of the legal writings a 15 minute google search resulted in, which as I said may not be reliable. But that's what I got. Let's use a real world example, be it a hypothetical one.

A bomb is placed in a church hiden under an alter. It is meant to go off when a priest dressed in full priest attire starts his 7 am sermon. Regardless of if it is set to go off 15 minutes after 7 or when an agent placed across the way on a roof sees a priest enter and flips a switch, it has a chance to hit the wrong target. The agent could have misidentified the target, or people unknown could be in range of the blast and the preist taking a break the bathroom. Either way booby trap, at least arguably from a legal mindset. The triggering method, while a relevant factor, is not a black and white determining one.

This UN document should clear things up if nothing else does. Under "Article 2 - Definitions":

4."Booby-trap" means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure, and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.


5."Other devices" means manually-emplaced munitions and devices including improvised explosive devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated manually, by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.

13. "Remote control" means control by commands from a distance.

Kat's device falls firmly in "Other Devices". Any hypotheticals and legal questions you have should be covered in that document

That's similar to the thing I read and posted, but I understood the "other devices" part to be part of the general description of booby traps due to how the page I found was formatted and edited. The formatting on the article I found somehow missed the numbers and had bad paragraph breaks, and diffent wording in the description, which led me down a dark path.

[bedinsis]

May 16, 2022 12:27:55 GMT pyradonis said:

May 14, 2022 11:21:53 GMT quinnr said:

There's a certain sadness to this page for me as a long-time follower of the comic. One of the pillars of Gunnerkrigg to me has always been the main characters' drive to approach things diplomatically or creatively to avoid head-on violence, from the beginning.

I disagree:

Annie attacking with fire powers immediately.

From the same chapter, a trap not dissimilar to the one from the current chapter, this time used against sentient robots.

Casually cutting a Bound Dog apart, while passengers are napping.

I thought about adding Renard killing Hetty - his attack was quite the sucker punch - but I think we can say he *did* try to talk to her beforehand and determined talking would not help in this case.

And you have managed to pinpoint why in particular I do not care for that chapter. Gunnerkrigg Court embodies the fantasy "what if I had superpowers" to a certain extent, since everyone has superpowers or are otherwise special in some way. Unlike pretty much every other one it doesn't turns into "and how can this super power defeat this super power", i.e. it doesn't focus on super powers as a means of violence, it remains having a scientific view on the whole ordeal without having it turn to violence.

That chapter is an exception since suddenly the whole plot turns into a series of one on one battles, where what is important is the ability to inflict violence.

The fact that Kat's NP project is brought to the attention of everyone and the robot uprising is highlighted in front of everyone and lots of people entered the Zimmiverse and nothing comes of this(shouldn't the parents of some students or the headmaster have a thing or two to say about this?) makes it stick out like a pinecone in a fruit salad.

Oh, and the moment where Annie casually kills a Bound Dog? That is our introduction to the setting after 6 months, where forest creature attacks are such a daily occurrence that the leads don't break a sweat, and to highlight that this is the new status quo. i.e. it is intended as an upset.

[todd]

May 16, 2022 18:59:19 GMT bedinsis said:

The fact that Kat's NP project is brought to the attention of everyone and the robot uprising is highlighted in front of everyone and lots of people entered the Zimmiverse and nothing comes of this(shouldn't the parents of some students or the headmaster have a thing or two to say about this?) makes it stick out like a pinecone in a fruit salad.

Yes, I remember a lot of debate over that - with many readers being convinced that the Court was allowing it to happen just to see what would happen - and never mind that they endangered an entire year's worth of students. I wonder whether Tom simply didn't want to get stuck dealing with the consequences (especially when he had Antony's return to focus the strip's attention on).

[pyradonis]

May 16, 2022 18:59:19 GMT bedinsis said:

The fact that Kat's NP project is brought to the attention of everyone and the robot uprising is highlighted in front of everyone and lots of people entered the Zimmiverse and nothing comes of this(shouldn't the parents of some students or the headmaster have a thing or two to say about this?) makes it stick out like a pinecone in a fruit salad.

I absolutely agree with you here - I have complained about it myself many times... Didn't care to this time. ^^°

Oh, and the moment where Annie casually kills a Bound Dog? That is our introduction to the setting after 6 months, where forest creature attacks are such a daily occurrence that the leads don't break a sweat, and to highlight that this is the new status quo. i.e. it is intended as an upset.

Hmm, granted. But then it shouldn't come as a surprise either if they resort to violence now. If! Because while the snare looked violent, we don't know how it actually works and how being ensnared by it feels.