>>> Shoot or not? [POLL] <<<

[imaginaryfriend]

Suppose you are on vacation at a big national park when a hurricane decides to visit. Potentially-lethal flash floods and mudslides are almost certainly happening farther in. People are unaccounted for, including an unknown number of hikers in the wilderness, and in the absence of authorities a collection of tourists and locals band together to see if they can provide aid. Mingling in with the crowd is one person who's behaving strangely, seemingly enjoying the situation to such an extent that you and a friend decide to confront them. At first they won't give their name or an explanation of who they are and what they're doing. It looks like they're looking around for a way to escape the situation. Then another person runs up and begins talking about a different friend who needs immediate medical aid. There's a brief scuffle for reasons that aren't clear but eventually the suspect offers to help. You, your two friends and the suspect get in the suspect's boat and locate the person who needs aid, and the person is saved. You thank the suspect and she starts to open up. It turns out she has some importance with local government though holds no elected office, and she has a serious medical condition. She tells you that she knows your dad, who also works with local government, and says she's a big fan of both of you. She offers to take you to see your dad and you agree. You, your friend, and the suspect travel upriver to your dad's house. Luckily, he's fine, his house is on high ground so he's in no danger where he's at. He invites everyone in, so in they go. At first the discussion centers around helping the remaining lost hikers under the assumption that everyone there would participate but the suspect asks why she would want to. As an explanation, the suspect continues to talk about her situation. She has a rare disorder that greatly reduced her quality of life since childhood; in her late teens she volunteered for an experimental gene therapy that greatly helped but made her dependent on expensive regular treatments. It just so happens that one of the missing hikers is the suspect's distant wealthy relative; she agreed to help the suspect out by paying her medical bills, making the suspect an authorized user on her credit cards, but they recently had a falling out and the benefactor assured the suspect that she would be cut off as soon as she returned from her hike. Moreover, if the benefactor should die the local government would see a nice death tax benefit, which would help a lot of downtrodden people and a lot of important politicians. When questioned on the morality of this position, the suspect says, "They're just one person." If the benefactor suffers and expires then it's useful for lots of people, but if she doesn't then it's only useful for her, so leaving her is the right choice. She suggests that the other missing hikers can get by well enough long enough if they choose to and challenges you to demonstrate that the benefactor is actually suffering or in danger. You don't know that she isn't having the time of her life right now, she says. Then, when it looks like nobody agrees with her, the suspect says that she respects that you're going to do what you think is right, and everyone goes back to the boat... but while on the pier she grabs your father, says that she just wants to keep living and she's going to make him help her, and shoves him into the boat, unties the line and prepares to take off with him.

There's a lot of mud and high water around the pier. Trying to restrain the suspect would be hazardous, and even if you can safely subdue her you don't have handcuffs, zipties, duct tape, or anything to bind her with, and nowhere to imprison her. However, you are carrying. You have a revolver for protection against bears. The way the suspect is smirking it looks like just the threat of lethal force isn't going to be enough; she doesn't think you will pull the trigger. The legality of lethal force may vary from region to region, but is probably justified here under these circumstances, and additionally if you don't report the incident her body will probably never be found.

Shoot or not?

I'd sort-of like to add a bunch of options to the poll such as:

Yes I would shoot, it's clearly justified.
I'd probably shoot but wouldn't know unless I was in that exact same situation.
I probably wouldn't shoot but wouldn't know unless I was in that exact same situation.
It may be justified but I wouldn't take a life unless I had no other choice.
No, my father and my friend and I aren't in any danger ourselves. Other people are not our responsibility.
No, I don't have enough information to act.
No, I wouldn't kill under any circumstances.

...however in the end the choices are only shoot or not so that's how I set up the poll. Feel free to elaborate in the comments if you wish, genteel forum-goers. The poll locks in two weeks.

[laaaa]

Haha, that's a good take.
Definitely NOT shoot. If I had a stun gun or something else non lethal, then, yes, I'd fire it, but a gun is quite likely to be lethal. And it's not like the suspect is about to kill my dad, or that killing her would stop the floods or save her rich relative.
Considering she needs my dad I presume he's safe-ish. Should probably call the police on the kidnapping, though.

In the comic example, I think Annie should focus on finding Zimmy. THEN she can assess what needs to be done. I mean, what if Zimmy really is fine?

[hoob]

How does a hurricane have a "suspect?" Damn, I just hate that they're "looking for a way to escape" a disaster zone.

Questions like this easily slip into self-insert fantasies in which the writer has clearly stated at what point they'd be comfortable (or at least feel in the 'right' about) taking a life.

In this post, Omega has been abjectified and deemed unmournable. The comic is clearly against fatal violence. Jerrek recognizes his faults and attempts to redeem himself. Furthermore, he places the terms of forgiveness in the hands of the people he hurt. It's the right thing to do, and it's only coyote's post-death meddling that caused the escalation.

This comic isn't about using violence or coersion to solve problems or disagreements. Compassion has always been the guiding voice. Annie and Renard, Annie and Tony, Annie and Kat. Renard and Eglamore, Ysengrin and Annie. Annie and Mort.

[rabbit]

This is a tough one.

hoob is right, the comic has generally been against fatal violence - but imaginaryfriend is asking us, not a character, so...

If rabbit were the only individual under threat, he would most likely try to talk, joke, or run his way out of the situation, even if he were armed.

However, if someone should try to take someone rabbit loved to parts unknown against their will [to be fair, Tony hasn't said he does not want to go], rabbit would use lethal force to stop the perceived threat.

Full disclosure:

1. "Good guy with a gun" fantasies are just that: fantasies

2. rabbit sincerely hopes to get to the end of his life without taking anyone else's

3. rabbit believes he could bear having killed or wounded someone better that seeing a loved one victimized, if those are the only two choices

rabbit was uncomfortable answering this, and will probably be thinking about it the rest of the weekend.

[imaginaryfriend]

I should add that in the above scenario it is at least potentially possible to rescue the missing hikers without greatly increasing the risk to those searching, and that those who are not participating aren't guaranteed safety from the storm either.

I should also mention that in real life you should not generally place your safety at risk to rescue people unless you are a first responder and in some cases not even then.

Jul 12, 2024 16:52:05 GMT hoob said:

How does a hurricane have a "suspect?"

In the beginning the person in question is unnamed, but behaving suspiciously, so I used "suspect." I continued to refer to her as a suspect to differentiate her from the unnamed benefactor or friends. People should assume that the main character in the scenario thinks that she (the stand-in for Omega) might have tried to interfere with the rescue operations if not challenged but it is not absolutely certain she would.

Jul 12, 2024 17:35:15 GMT rabbit said:

This is a tough one.

I did the best I could to try to force the speculative-fantasy situation into something from real life. There's a lot of etheric stuff going on that doesn't translate well. It required a lot of thought and shoe-horning. It's far from perfect but I think I finagled the beats more or less right.

Jul 12, 2024 17:35:15 GMT rabbit said:

rabbit was uncomfortable answering this, and will probably be thinking about it the rest of the weekend.

Bless you! It's good to think of ethical situations that are tough now and then, it helps guide us through sticky situations when the sometimes happen (here's hoping they never do).



By The Way: Of people I spoke to In Real Life one said that they would shoot but would try to incapacitate the suspect without killing her even though circumstances would make that almost impossible. Just because something is almost impossible doesn't prevent one from trying it anyway.

[Hatredman]

I'd shoot the boat engine. I'm a very good shooter.

[EDIT]Also, my dad is a black belt tae Kwon Do fighter, and is also versed in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Krav Maga.

[imaginaryfriend]

Jul 12, 2024 17:42:16 GMT Hatredman said:

I'd shoot the boat engine. I'm a very good shooter.

[EDIT]Also, my dad is a black belt tae Kwon Do fighter, and is also versed in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Krav Maga.

Interesting! The boat is unmoored from the dock, though. If the boat is without power it's going downstream in a less-than-controlled fashion with the suspect and the dad in it.

Jumping into the boat to grapple with the suspect (or alternatively, wrestling with the suspect before she gets in the boat) is potentially very hazardous but theoretically possible. Assume the dock is wet and muddy, and the water level is nearly overtaking it. Wrestling people are likely to wind up in the river. [edit] There's a hurricane going on and there's a lot of runoff. Winding up in the river, either by slipping off the dock, falling out of the boat, or the boat capsizing, is also potentially lethal in these circumstances. If it is more or less lethal than getting shot is a question mark. [/edit]

[imaginaryfriend]

Double-post for bonus points!

I should further mention that there may be more uncertainty in the scenario than a first read might show. For example, the dad can verify some of the things that the suspect is saying but not all. The main character may believe she's telling the truth, as she sees it for the most part, but her motives and what actions she may take in the future are not entirely clear.

Likewise, shooting or not does not guarantee a particular result. If you shoot the suspect it is very probable that she will die. If dead or wounded the suspect won't be able to aid or interfere with the rescue operation. If the rescue operation is carried out it is much more likely that the benefactor et al will be saved but that isn't 100% certain. If you do not shoot, the dad is probably not in immediate danger from the suspect (she may be lying about why she's taking him somewhere against his will) though he is somewhat greater danger overall because he's leaving a place of relative safety from the storm... however once he's no longer useful there's no guarantee that the suspect will bring him somewhere safer or otherwise turn him loose.

[pyradonis]

I have never fired anything more lethal than an air-pressure gun in my life, that alone would make me not shoot since I'd be afraid to accidentally hit my dad instead.

Okay, you didn't say anthing about this, but Annie has Etherical aiming skills, so let's assume that hypothetical me is actually really good with a gun. In that case I would probably do what Hatredman suggested and shoot the boat engine, or fire a warning shot close to "the suspect" without hitting her.

Lethal force? No, definitely not! No one is in immediate danger for life and limb from her actions. Refusing to help others in danger is a shitty move, and illegal in many countries, but killing her wouldn't solve that problem either, would it? She is not armed, my dad knows martial arts (that ought to count, because Tony does too), honestly, the longer I'm thinking about this, the more I believe that before shooting I would honestly warn her with full honesty that my dad will most likely kick her into the river if she doesn't remove her hands from the controls this instant.

No, not seeing any speck of justification for using lethal force here.

[mturtle7]

I mean, realistically, I'd probably be too confused and hesitant in the moment to actually shoot, just like I presume Annie was in the most recent page. It would arguably be justified, though.

More importantly, I LOVE your analogy here. It's a truly hilarious and devastating way of demonstrating just how awful and unhinged Omega's behavior has been so far!

[imaginaryfriend]

One more thing that I thought was obvious but maybe isn't...

In the USA transporting someone without their consent is kidnapping and that by itself is a felony.

[Hatredman]

Jul 13, 2024 0:09:37 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

One more thing that I thought was obvious but maybe isn't...

In the USA transporting someone without their consent is kidnapping and that by itself is a felony.

Only in the US?
So I'm free to kidnap anyone in Italy or Sweden at will?

[imaginaryfriend]

Jul 13, 2024 18:06:16 GMT Hatredman said:

Jul 13, 2024 0:09:37 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

One more thing that I thought was obvious but maybe isn't...

In the USA transporting someone without their consent is kidnapping and that by itself is a felony.

Only in the US?
So I'm free to kidnap anyone in Italy or Sweden at will?

Laws do vary from country to country and within countries from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. As far as I know anywhere in the USA what we saw Omega do is kidnapping, though what degree of kidnapping and what components of that may also be charged separately might not be the same from place to place. Anthony failing to say he didn't want to go or resisting is irrelevant (it looks to me like Anthony's trying to back away from Omega in #2965 but other people may have different opinions). In other countries that have different legal traditions that may not be the case. Without really researching it, my uninformed suspicion is that since Anthony's an adult and Omega hasn't threatened specific violence or demanded money (and potentially isn't transporting him across a political boundary) it might not be considered kidnapping in some other countries. That said, if the Court has internal divisions like wards or precincts then Omega presumably transporting Anthony from one to another without consent might bring it back.

Why is that important? It goes to legal justification for shooting (or not) as well as the general norms elsewhere. In other countries the right to self-defense is much more narrowly constructed, particularly where firearms are involved, and that could play into someone's reasoning for deciding to use lethal force or not. If it's just battery and not kidnapping then shooting the suspect might be whatever the local equivalent of manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder is. I'm much more interested in the ethics of Antimony or someone in a similar real-life situation intervening or not than the legality, which is why I constructed the scenario with an "out" in the form of the incident not coming to the attention of the authorities unless the characters choose to report it. Truthfully, though, the legal and normative issues aren't entirely separate from the ethical. In the USA if you shoot someone who is kidnapping your relative right in front of you are unlikely to be charged with a crime. The identical incident in another country might be construed very differently and if you pull the trigger the bad guy might be you regardless of the potential consequences of your inaction.

[Hatredman]

What I meant is: I take offense in you implying that this is against the law in the US only, and an accepted practice in the rest of the world, including undeveloped, poor and savage countries like Switzerland or Germany.

By the way, the Court is in the UK, so redneck laws don't apply.

[imaginaryfriend]

Jul 14, 2024 21:22:18 GMT Hatredman said:

What I meant is: I take offense in you implying that this is against the law in the US only, and an accepted practice in the rest of the world, including undeveloped, poor and savage countries like Switzerland or Germany.

I am an American and thus my starting point for legal analysis is American law; I do not pretend to know much about legal traditions from other countries. As far as I know I did not say anything like kidnapping being legal in other countries, though I do know what constitutes kidnapping varies from country to country. The key point, just in case you missed it, is that kidnapping is a felony (a serious crime that may merit the death penalty) whereas battery may be a misdemeanor (probably not eligible for the death penalty). What Omega did in the comic is kidnapping according to American law thus a felony, but may not be elsewhere. Also the concept of the right to defend self, others, and property isn't universally agreed on and all of these things can be legitimate factors to consider in deciding if one should shoot or not in the scenario I described.

Would you please point out where I said anything with implications of underdevelopment, poverty, or savage characteristics of other countries in this, the previous, or any other post I made?

Jul 14, 2024 21:22:18 GMT Hatredman said:

By the way, the Court is in the UK, so redneck laws don't apply.

What are you referring to as "redneck laws"?

[pyradonis]

Jul 13, 2024 0:09:37 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

One more thing that I thought was obvious but maybe isn't...

In the USA transporting someone without their consent is kidnapping and that by itself is a felony.

So, what Parley is doing on this page could/would be considered a felony in the USA? Genuine question.

[imaginaryfriend]

Jul 15, 2024 17:16:49 GMT pyradonis said:

Jul 13, 2024 0:09:37 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

One more thing that I thought was obvious but maybe isn't...

In the USA transporting someone without their consent is kidnapping and that by itself is a felony.

So, what Parley is doing on this page could/would be considered a felony in the USA? Genuine question.

Was surprised because I expected to be linked to a page where she's bipping others. Caveat: Not a lawyer and none of anything I say is legal advice.

No, to the best of my knowledge that wouldn't be considered a felony. It wouldn't even be a misdemeanor under these circumstances because she isn't dragging him somewhere and they're friends so Smitface wouldn't press charges. Now, if you roll up and grab someone in a headlock that you don't know but aren't transporting them anywhere, and you don't say anything or choke them out or anything else, that would probably be misdemeanor battery. Funny story: My little sister is a furry and early this millennium she and two friends came to visit and we all went to a concert. Her friends are also furries and love to freak out squares. Right after we got through security one of them decided to take a running start and "glomph" me from behind. He was glomphed by three officers in turn. He would have gotten hauled off if I hadn't settled things, but unfortunately the three of them weren't done for the evening.

How about this: Suppose there's a bunch of good-for-nothings at a subway station. One of them gets a clever idea to win the admiration of his friends. He waits until the doors are about to close then walks up to the last person getting out, says, "Nah, I'm sending you on to the next stop mate!" and shoves the unfortunate person back through the doors. The unfortunate person was too surprised to resist or say anything. There were no injuries, just inconvenience. To the best of my understanding, announcing you're going to transport someone involuntarily is assault, shoving them is battery, and the transportation that resulted completes the three necessary elements for kidnapping in the USA. That said, it just scrapes by the tests in legal theory and almost certainly wouldn't be charged as such unless there was some other complication, and if it was charged it'd be an intimidation tactic to try to get the perpetrator to accept a plea bargain or something, however I think the victim could sue in civil court for unlawful imprisonment and potentially win (though proving damages might be tough).

I'm somewhat sure that exact same scenario wouldn't meet the test for kidnapping in the UK.

Factors that might push not-kidnapping into kidnapping could include the victim being transported over political lines, any effort at extortion or specific verbal threat of violence, an implied threat of violence such as brandishing a weapon, or a separate crime that follows from the kidnapping. There's probably more but that's what I can think of off the top of my head. So continuing the subway example, if the no-goodnik opens his jacket to reveal he has a knife before shoving the victim back through the door, that may elevate the crime to kidnapping. The same goes if he says, "Oi, hand over your wallet fast or you're going to miss your stop" that might also be kidnapping.

[pyradonis]

Jul 15, 2024 19:04:52 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Jul 15, 2024 17:16:49 GMT pyradonis said:

So, what Parley is doing on this page could/would be considered a felony in the USA? Genuine question.

Was surprised because I expected to be linked to a page where she's bipping others. Caveat: Not a lawyer and none of anything I say is legal advice.

No, to the best of my knowledge that wouldn't be considered a felony. It wouldn't even be a misdemeanor under these circumstances because she isn't dragging him somewhere and they're friends so Smitface wouldn't press charges. Now, if you roll up and grab someone in a headlock that you don't know but aren't transporting them anywhere, and you don't say anything or choke them out or anything else, that would probably be misdemeanor battery.

Well, it's of course hard to judge from that one panel, but to me this moment was Smitty explicitly saying he had no interest in going to get something to eat and then being grabbed in a headlock to make him come regardless. (By the person who is constantly treating him like a doormat, by the way. In my opinion, at this point in time they were not "friends", more like "bully and victim".)

No idea why I didn't think of other instances of people being teleported against their will. Even now that you said it at first I only remembered the first time (when Parley herself was not yet aware of her ability). But yes, there was the time, she grabbed the Annies, teleported them away and left them in that bunker... I assume that would count as kidnapping?

[imaginaryfriend]

Jul 17, 2024 17:42:32 GMT pyradonis said:

Well, it's of course hard to judge from that one panel, but to me this moment was Smitty explicitly saying he had no interest in going to get something to eat and then being grabbed in a headlock to make him come regardless. (By the person who is constantly treating him like a doormat, by the way. In my opinion, at this point in time they were not "friends", more like "bully and victim".)

As Antimony and Renard observed, Parley getting handsy with Smitface had become habitual and normalized. Smitface believed she was teasing him but was okay with it because he found her attractive. He weakly asserted that he wasn't hungry (implication: he didn't really want to go) but that's about all we see. If he continued to object and/or struggle and she dragged him off anyway, yeah that's problematic though I don't think it quite meets the bar for kidnapping because Parley isn't declaring that she's going to transport Smitty.

It should be noted that without the dialogue on #2965 what Omega did in the comic probably wouldn't be kidnapping in the USA either. She's grabbed onto him and is implying that Anthony is getting transported with or without his consent and additionally a reasonable person could make the inference that she's doing so to visit someplace that a typical person wouldn't have access to, though that would of course be a point to be argued about in court. I don't think that the announcement per se is enough to elevate this to kidnapping in the UK however if visiting this place they're going to would be a separate crime, or if Omega is then going to commit another crime made possible by the transportation, I'm pretty sure that would push it over the line. Fast example: If you grab hold of an officer, strongarm them into walking forward, and in so doing use them to get past a security checkpoint that wouldn't have let you through otherwise, and you thus get into the King's private quarters or onto a nuclear submarine or something, that's probably kidnapping even if they were going there anyway and the officer didn't explicitly resist or object.

Or at least that's my best understanding of what's generally true. If there's anyone with more expertise reading I'd rather be corrected than continue to be wrong.

Jul 17, 2024 17:42:32 GMT pyradonis said:

No idea why I didn't think of other instances of people being teleported against their will. Even now that you said it at first I only remembered the first time (when Parley herself was not yet aware of her ability). But yes, there was the time, she grabbed the Annies, teleported them away and left them in that bunker... I assume that would count as kidnapping?

Yeah, chapter 70 is problematic. Parley doesn't specifically make a declaration that she's going to transport the Annies but does say something about getting started which is apparently a reference to a conspiracy going on where the kids planned out their transportation and imprisonment. Even though they had good intentions I'm pretty sure that would be kidnapping in the UK.

Just as an aside, a lot of stuff happens on the regular in American high schools that could get an adult arrested if they did it in the workplace... or shot in a nightclub.

[Nika]

I don't see where the idea to shoot comes from in the first place tbh?
Since the rest of the scenario is trying to be an analogy to what's been happening in the comic, are you saying you think a logical next step would be Annie just murdering Omega? That feels a bit intense.

Also I'm gonna be honest and say that to me a rich adult who promised to provide money for treatment and then changed their mind is very different from Zimmie, the abused/"ill" (tortured by the ether) child who never agreed to any of this.
Not saying this difference would make me shoot, I still don't see why this is a dilemma of shoot or not instead of save the person or not, but it's something I noticed.

[imaginaryfriend]

Jul 19, 2024 12:34:09 GMT Nika said:

I don't see where the idea to shoot comes from in the first place tbh?

Was gonna save this for after the poll locked but...

As the last chapter was wrapping up I'd been struggling to analogize what was happening in the comic with real-life situations so I could decide how I'd feel and analyze the ethics of taking various actions and weigh what the probable outcomes would be. It was not easy. There's too many fantasy things going on to directly translate but a couple things were bothering me in particular so I kept at it. Then when #2965 dropped it struck me that the holes in the slices of swiss cheese had aligned for a justified shoot, a legally-rationalizable use of lethal force, at least according to American law. My suspicion is that the author did not intend for that to happen. I don't want to speak for him but I think in his mind Antimony killing Omega would be either murder or excessive force adding up to same... but is it, and even if Antimony is willing to do whatever it takes can she stop Omega from abducting her father?

So, what tools are at Antimony's disposal to stop the abduction of her father? She has judo but she's allowed Omega to maneuver to where she can't physically intervene in time. Likewise, Reynard is too far away so ordering him to do something physical would be useless. She has telekinesis, but it's only enough to pick a flower or close a laptop. She's got fire beams. She can try to sever Omega's arm or leg to prevent her from grabbing him or break the connection once grabbed, but I'm not sure in this distortion that will be enough. She can try to kill. I'm not sure that will work either but if she does it fast enough I think it has a better chance than going for a limb. She can order Renard to take Omega's body. I think of all possibilities for Antimony to stop the abduction that's the one with the best chance of working if she does it quickly; outside the distortion that'd be a death sentence, in the distortion it might be lethal or might not, so I'm treating it as if it was a use of lethal force.

That's why I decided to write a scenario where the main character was forced into a choice of shooting (using lethal force) or not and I would remind people that neither choice guarantees a particular outcome by the time all the events described have run their course.  It just makes one thing much more likely.

Jul 19, 2024 12:34:09 GMT Nika said:

Since the rest of the scenario is trying to be an analogy to what's been happening in the comic, are you saying you think a logical next step would be Annie just murdering Omega? That feels a bit intense.

I don't think that's what's going to happen in the comic, at least not as such, if that's what you're asking. Going by what Omega said I'd expect that she'd transport to the Omega device and retrieve her brain for later implantation into a new (Noob?) body... however, my understanding of the magic system in the GCU is that since she has a physical connection to that place she should be able to do that without Anthony. So... my best guess is that Omega is going to do something that will fortify the distortion or, more likely, obstruct Antimony et al from undoing same. The most effective thing that I can think of Omega doing would be to rat out Kat and the Noobs to the Court; using the danger of the distortion as a pretext they might try to take Kat's wonder tech (and potentially Kat) by force to the really real new world in the name of keeping them safe. Of course that would backfire on many levels if they succeeded but I could see Omega manipulating them into it.

The things that were bothering me in particular were the facial expressions on Omega and the notion of Anthony being transported to a secondary location. Even if you don't believe a single thing she says Omega is a potential source of information on what Omega will do. She's not smiling when she realizes the depth of push-back she's getting on her arguments; when she stands her expression is open to interpretation but I would say it is contemplative, as in she has decided that she can't get what she wants through persuasion and has decided on a particular and serious course of action. The smile comes back on the next page one panel before she gets right in Antimony's face. My thinking is that she's taken Antimony's measure at that point and believes that she can not only assault, batter, and abduct her dad right in front of her but she can monologue a bit while doing so. Then there's the transport. We don't know where she's taking Anthony but the concept of a "secondary location" should be a familiar one to anyone who's taken a self-defense or executive protection class. Allowing yourself or someone else to be taken to a secondary location greatly increases the odds of a tragic outcome as opposed to resisting on the spot. Anthony is now cut off from Antimony and Renard, and presumably any other aid. Antimony has just met Omega and while Anthony has worked with her (sorta) for a long time he has no idea who she is as a person. We the readers have seen a few pages that portray her as at least a somewhat-sympathetic character... but there could be omissions that would turn that on its head and given her arguments on the last few pages I'd suspect there are. She does say she just wants to live... but I'm not sure the end of the distortion would kill her, I think it'd more likely just drop her back into the machine... and that would not prevent Kat from granting her a new body after everyone else was rescued. Why didn't Omega negotiate in return for help? We don't know that but we do know that she's decided that she can take what she wants by force. It appears she is desperate. I'd also argue that she's manipulative and has expressed arguments that do not seem sympathetic to the well-being of others.

So... If my choices are either to do nothing and allow a manipulative and desperate person to kidnap a member of my immediate family, or use lethal force to prevent the kidnapping, I would more likely use lethal force than not. I'd rather the situation be more clear-cut and I'd have to be in the situation to know for sure, but I voted yes for shoot on this poll.

Jul 19, 2024 12:34:09 GMT Nika said:

Also I'm gonna be honest and say that to me a rich adult who promised to provide money for treatment and then changed their mind is very different from Zimmie, the abused/"ill" (tortured by the ether) child who never agreed to any of this. Not saying this difference would make me shoot, I still don't see why this is a dilemma of shoot or not instead of save the person or not, but it's something I noticed.

More people might vote for "save the dad" than "shoot" but "save the dad" implies a guaranteed outcome. Even if Antimony had used her fire magic quickly and decisively that might not have prevented Omega from teleporting away with her father. We just don't know what Omega's abilities are and what effect the distortion might play. Even if you shoot at the suspect in my scenario you're standing on a slippery dock in a hurricane so you may not hit, she may not die, and the boat may somehow capsize killing the dad. It's just much likely that the suspect will die and that will probably prevent whatever chain of events the suspect intended to happen.

Regarding Zeta v. benefactor: You're leaving out the bit where the suspect and the benefactor had a falling out but sure, the scenario I made is far from perfect. I tried to tetris in as many of the issues from the comic as possible and Zeta and her situation got shorted in the comparison. If I'd taken a week or two more to work on it maybe I could've done better.

[Nika]

I think my issue is more that I don't see the link between shooting this person being a guarantee to save the other person?
Like how do you know they didn't already set something in motion that's gonna prevent that that doesn't need any further input from them
or the opposite, they never had a plan to prevent it beyond just not helping with the saving endeavor and trying to convince other people with words about not saving them?
Also even if you knew it would save them, that'd still be trading one life for our desired outcome which is exactly what we're condemning Omega/the hypothetical person for.

And yeah I did read the thing with the falling out, but I still think it is a very different situation.

Within the comic, I understand how Omega is kidnapping Tony, but I think within the context of everything else that happened, this is just another example of etheric whimsy and more akin to her just dragging him out of the room where he would be more than able to just defend himself. Not to mention that Omega just explained she really likes him and needs him for something, so there is little indication of her actually meaning to hurt him. Annie going right into murder mode would be a weird overreaction, considering the entire rest of the comic up to this point where way more actively malicious things have happened and not ended in a death sentence for the character.
Also shooting a person based entirely on their facial expressions seems... not great. She expresses discontent when someone disagrees with her on something that concerns her well-being, is that really that unnatural?
I do not like Omega very much at the moment and I think she is being very unreasonable but none of that even comes close to wanting to kill her.

[imaginaryfriend]

Jul 21, 2024 12:00:19 GMT Nika said:

I think my issue is more that I don't see the link between shooting this person being a guarantee to save the other person?

There isn't one. Like I said, no outcome is guaranteed. In the scenario I came up with even if you shoot the suspect the boat could still potentially capsize and the dad could drown. In the comic pretty much anything is possible in this distortion. Omega could be a literal serial killer, Antimony could blast her to bits to save Anthony, and Anthony could still run foul of the distortion and die some other way as a consequence of Omega's death.

There aren't any guarantees irl, either.  We can just try to make one thing happen or another.

Jul 21, 2024 12:00:19 GMT Nika said:

Like how do you know they didn't already set something in motion that's gonna prevent that that doesn't need any further input from them or the opposite, they never had a plan to prevent it beyond just not helping with the saving endeavor and trying to convince other people with words about not saving them?

We don't know but I think we can infer from Omega not appealing to Antimony and Anthony on that basis that what she wants to happen loses on the merits if other people's rights and interests are being considered. In other words, Omega thinks that even if she is entirely forthcoming they will still try to end the distortion and save Zeta et al. I think the appeal to the Court's goals and best interests, as well as suggesting that everyone in the distortion may be better where they are, is Omega's best possible spin and it fell flat.

If Omega just wants a ride somewhere to sit this one out, why not ask?  Again, we don't know but I think there's reason to suspect that if Omega told them where she was going and what she was planning they wouldn't help her.  

Jul 21, 2024 12:00:19 GMT Nika said:

Also even if you knew it would save them, that'd still be trading one life for our desired outcome which is exactly what we're condemning Omega/the hypothetical person for.

We only have Omega's word for it that somehow ending the distortion makes her not live.  There's also Zeta and the others trapped in the distortion, possibly including Lana.

Now, it may be the case that Omega isn't aware of how advanced Kat's consciousness-transfer tech is and thus Omega thinks that the distortion is her only chance of living... in which case Omega's decision to get what she wants with violence instead of words is a misunderstanding, potentially a tragic one.

Jul 21, 2024 12:00:19 GMT Nika said:

And yeah I did read the thing with the falling out, but I still think it is a very different situation.

Fair enough. I admit that the scenario I came up with is full of flaws as an analogy to what's happening in the comic.

...although, it being such a Gordian knot of a problem is part of why I am attracted to solving it.

Jul 21, 2024 12:00:19 GMT Nika said:

Within the comic, I understand how Omega is kidnapping Tony, but I think within the context of everything else that happened, this is just another example of etheric whimsy and more akin to her just dragging him out of the room where he would be more than able to just defend himself. Not to mention that Omega just explained she really likes him and needs him for something, so there is little indication of her actually meaning to hurt him. Annie going right into murder mode would be a weird overreaction, considering the entire rest of the comic up to this point where way more actively malicious things have happened and not ended in a death sentence for the character.

Read what you wish into the comic but Omega's abduction of Anthony doesn't appear whimsical to me. It looks thought-out.  She is controlling distance to prevent Antimony from intervening.  She is consciously using an etheric ability to kidnap someone.  Even if she thinks it's no big deal and she's giggling as she does it, it's a big deal.

Omega is someone that Antimony just met today. Anthony may have interacted with her for a long time but I'd argue he doesn't know her well.  I'm inclined to agree she's not particularly malicious (though there's room for a bunch of omissions in her backstory that might merit her being called a witch and ostracized) but she doesn't seem to care about what happens to others, she's been a brain in a jar for decades and perhaps centuries, and she's probably desperate.  Standing down and allowing a desperate person of questionable sanity and integrity I just met to kidnap a relative of mine from my home in the hope that they won't hurt them and once they get what they want they won't cause unnecessary harm to the victim seems like a choice I might really regret.

And sure, assault and battery doesn't usually merit a death sentence. Kidnapping on the other hand is a felony for which the death sentence has historically been sometimes applied, though in many places the death penalty has been abolished.  In some places using lethal force to stop a kidnapping is a crime regardless of circumstances, and they may call it murder there if the person attempting to kidnap someone dies.  It isn't where I live, though.

Jul 21, 2024 12:00:19 GMT Nika said:

Also shooting a person based entirely on their facial expressions seems... not great. She expresses discontent when someone disagrees with her on something that concerns her well-being, is that really that unnatural?

That is a honking big misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I brought up Omega's facial expressions because looking at social cues from others can be a way to mitigate some of the unknowns in a situation. Omega's manipulative but Omega does know what Omega is thinking so how she's behaving can be a clue to what she thinks the situation is and what her intentions are.

Say for example two police officers walk into a mall food court for lunch. There's a nondescript dude over by the pizza place. Most of the people don't react at all when the officers enter the court, some look at them and look away, some look and keep looking, but the dude looks startled.  He flinches and touches the side of his jacket when he sees the uniforms, then starts walking briskly away with a stressed expression on his face. That may or may not be probable cause for a pat-down depending on jurisdiction; it's not proof that the guy has a concealed weapon, but it is evidence that he may have something unlawful.

Jul 21, 2024 12:00:19 GMT Nika said:

I do not like Omega very much at the moment and I think she is being very unreasonable but none of that even comes close to wanting to kill her.

Again, I'd have to be experiencing these things in the comic or in the scenario myself to know for sure what I'd do.  In brief my thought process runs through possibility, ethics, and practicality (legality being rolled into that last).  Is it physically possible?  Does Antimony even have the ability to fire her lasers and either kill or neutralize Omega before she bwips off with her dad?  I think potentially yes.  In the scenario I wrote it's a bit more clear.  What are the ethics of acting or not acting?  That's very complicated but I don't think it's unethical.  What are the utilitarian considerations?  That's complicated too, there's lots of unknowns and the stakes are high, but I do think it's clear that Omega will be working against Antimony in resolving the distortion.  

"Want" doesn't enter into it for me except at the very end.  Neither the suspect nor Omega has done anything that I know of that would make me want to kill them, so far, but my wants are among the lightest considerations in that whole process.

[fia]

I really think the shoot/not shoot dichotomy is nonsensical, and maybe only makes sense in a US context. The situation is so weird that unless I was law enforcement and perceived an immediate threat to life (mine or someone else's within the suspect's reach) I don't think it would make sense to kill anyone. The suspect is being annoying and brash, but they likely in 99% of cases have less control of the situation than the scenario seems to frame them as having.

To be honest, it would have made more sense to kill the robot ship back in Torn Sea (or its analogue) than to kill Omega, and even in that scenario, defusing seems like a way better outcome than killing the kidnapper/hostage-taker.

[imaginaryfriend]

(shrug) When I wrote the scenario the comic was at a point when the chance for nonlethal options appeared to have passed. The choices for Antimony were either use potentially-lethal force or not, therefore those two options. It's a little reductive but I think it's fair. Also there wasn't a case for lethal force before Omega grabbed Anthony so I couldn't have written it then. Antimony didn't know she might need to protect her father until that point else she could have done something else... but that "could" is actually a "couldn't" because she didn't know she'd need to.  Quod scripsi, scripsi.

I think the next most effective thing that Antimony could've done would've been to sheathe Anthony with fire like she did for Ysengrin. I think the chances of that preventing the bippage once Omega had made physical contact were so ridiculously low that it isn't really worth considering, and if Omega got burned but still transported that might make her more likely to do something regrettable later, so I didn't include it... but other people's opinions may differ and as someone recently reminded me, just because something's almost impossible doesn't mean you can't try. Another option would be trying to stall or defuse the situation by talking would be even less likely to be successful, methinks, but would have the benefit of not pissing Omega off if/when it fails.  

Re: Ch. 49: If you remember, Antimony actually did use potentially lethal force. She blasted two of Ship's bots; while they were just dummy terminal "fingers"(not even real robots) there were kids around who could've been hit if she missed (Zeta in particular).

[maxptc]

Jul 12, 2024 15:20:33 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Suppose you are on vacation at a big national park when a hurricane decides to visit

[rafk]

No, and neither your hypothetical nor the actual situation Annie was faced with justified summarily killing Omega, who may be happy for the threat to continue but is not the source of the threat, nor is she she any apparent lethal threat to Anthony.

[imaginaryfriend]

Jul 22, 2024 7:44:47 GMT rafk said:

No, and neither your hypothetical nor the actual situation Annie was faced with justified summarily killing Omega, who may be happy for the threat to continue but is not the source of the threat, nor is she she any apparent lethal threat to Anthony.

It's certainly true that Omega isn't the cause of the distortion. I agree Omega is no lethal threat to Anthony at the moment because she needs him.

After that? Will Omega find someone more sympathetic to her aims to be her pass-key? Does she think that Anthony is someone who would be working at cross-purposes to her if released? Can she convert him into an ally if she sticks him deep in the distortion and he meets Surma? Is he still guilt-wracked and if so what would happen to him then? In that event, I think there's a chance he might want to die and stay with Surma. If not, I guess there's just the trauma.

Consider: A few years back there was a riot in a major city. A number of buildings were set on fire. The fire department responded but a guy with a big knife, perhaps in sympathy with the rioters but possibly just doing his own thing, kept slashing their fire hoses. The police either didn't deploy officers with the firemen or gave them rules of engagement that prevented them from acting unless the firemen were directly attacked. Either way, the guy wasn't threatening any person directly, or even going near anyone. He just stood back, waited until they connected another hose and then advanced to fight the fire with it, then walked up to the unguarded end and sliced it open. The news reports were unclear about people being trapped in the buildings or not, but if there were? The guy with the knife almost certainly didn't start the fire, isn't harming anyone directly and isn't even threatening anyone; he's only damaging property, and from a replacement cost perspective it wasn't very valuable property at that.

[imaginaryfriend]

Double post for bonus points!

Okay the poll has locked. The voting was about what I expected; I was thinking it'd be about 8:1 or 9:1 in favor of "no." Just going by past experience with polls I'd guess that it'd be about 12:1 among lurkers.

Closing thoughts before I let the thread slip off the front page: One thing that I left out of the scenario on purpose is the possibility of the suspect being armed. We know a little about Omega's powers but not everything; if she can control small animals outside of the distortion she might be able to control bigger ones inside but even if not she's manipulative. With nothing else to go on I'm thinking she's more the type to attack by proxy one way or another and her power set probably reflects that. We don't know that, though. That being the case I decided to not mention the possibility at all in the scenario and let people read into it as they chose.

Something brought up in the discussion is that the comic isn't one where violence is the central focus. That's true, and it's why I took time to write the scenario and address the issue as an abstract irl, though there's some caveats. First, it does happen in flashbacks. Second, we've seen Antimony use her powers to harm etheric creatures and also some human-on-robot violence. Third, if you are a character in a comic where violence doesn't really happen to you because you are a main character, how should you act? Should you behave differently than other characters? Can you draw conclusions about how people should act from what the main character does? Also: The end of the comic is approaching and the usual norms may not apply.

In hindsight I probably should've tried harder to steer the discussion away from legal issues. They're complex, they vary from place to place, and are only tangential to the ethical and practical ones. Misunderstandings were bound to occur. Our understanding of law and order in the Court is vague and whatever procedures they have probably are broken down in the current situation; they're preparing to flee and the distortion is at minimum acting like a weather emergency. The thing is, the legal issues can create big effects in practice. No matter how right one might think action X is, they should and usually do weigh the social and legal consequences of X before doing it. Is it worth doing X if I will probably go to prison for it, or even if I can't explain my reasoning to someone who wasn't there, is a fair question.

Final thought: We like to think irl that bad things won't happen to us. The sense of safety is healthy and useful; it keeps us from stressing out and allows us to focus on things that give better returns instead of constantly prepping for the worst. However, sometimes bad things happen randomly or for reasons we can't know at the time. We like to think people behave rationally, and they often do, but sometimes they don't and when they don't their actions are not possible to predict. We can say that Antimony's best course of action once Omega grabbed her father would be to act unpredictably herself to try to confuse Omega and buy time for her father to break free on his own, then shield him with fire, but Antimony had only seconds to think about what she could do. It's unreasonable to think that she could come up with that on the fly. Likewise, it's also unreasonable to expect someone irl to have complete situational awareness and take the most effective and desirable action when they suddenly find themselves in a situation where others are using violence. I didn't create this thread to proselytize or argue a particular course of action (though I did try to keep everyone on one set of basic facts). It is my sincere hope that anyone reading, merely by reading, thought a little bit about what they'd do and in doing so they might find their own way should they find themselves in those scant seconds where normal life falls apart and things they hold dear hang in the balance. To those of you who left your comfort zones to ponder, genteel forum-goers, I salute you.

[rafk]

Jul 22, 2024 13:39:19 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Jul 22, 2024 7:44:47 GMT rafk said:

No, and neither your hypothetical nor the actual situation Annie was faced with justified summarily killing Omega, who may be happy for the threat to continue but is not the source of the threat, nor is she she any apparent lethal threat to Anthony.

It's certainly true that Omega isn't the cause of the distortion. I agree Omega is no lethal threat to Anthony at the moment because she needs him.

After that? Will Omega find someone more sympathetic to her aims to be her pass-key? Does she think that Anthony is someone who would be working at cross-purposes to her if released? Can she convert him into an ally if she sticks him deep in the distortion and he meets Surma? Is he still guilt-wracked and if so what would happen to him then? In that event, I think there's a chance he might want to die and stay with Surma. If not, I guess there's just the trauma.

Consider: A few years back there was a riot in a major city. A number of buildings were set on fire. The fire department responded but a guy with a big knife, perhaps in sympathy with the rioters but possibly just doing his own thing, kept slashing their fire hoses. The police either didn't deploy officers with the firemen or gave them rules of engagement that prevented them from acting unless the firemen were directly attacked. Either way, the guy wasn't threatening any person directly, or even going near anyone. He just stood back, waited until they connected another hose and then advanced to fight the fire with it, then walked up to the unguarded end and sliced it open. The news reports were unclear about people being trapped in the buildings or not, but if there were? The guy with the knife almost certainly didn't start the fire, isn't harming anyone directly and isn't even threatening anyone; he's only damaging property, and from a replacement cost perspective it wasn't very valuable property at that.

Your guy with the knife is rather directly preventing lives being saved. He's not "just" damaging property. The analogy to Omega remains poor.