RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books DC: Civil War

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Rob Kamphausen said:
hal might agree more with not-registering, however because of his allegience to superman, and rocky relationship with batman, reject his own feelings.

---

Hal's in the military. His commanding officer already knows his ID and Hal is generally portrayed as a "follow orders" kind of guy (contrasting him with Green Arrow). I think if there's anyone in the DCU who would be on pro-registration side, its Hal.

---

Quote:

---

Brad Lee said:
I've been thinking about this, and I think G-man is right about Batman being pro registration, and Superman being against registration. I think Robin would side with Batman, but Nightwing and the original Titans would probably side with Superman. Add Ollie and Hal to the pro side. Wonder Woman would probably be against it because she's seen the system perverted against her. Oracle would be against it, and her Birds of Prey would stand by her, including former BOP member Canary. Jay Flash would be against it, what with his own identity public and his experiences with that. Bart Flash would be for, because there needs to be a rift between "grandfather" and "son," much like Bruce vs. Dick. This is a civil, or rather, uncivil war, after all. I think the real impact would be which side Supergirl falls on. She is supposed to be more powerful than Superman, and if Batman could bring her over to his side, well...

---

Quote:

---

Son of Mxy said:
Supergirl being more powerful than Superman is probably just Loeb wanting a gay-ass feminist twist to the story.

---

Quote:

---

Nowhereman said:
The very basis of Batmans psyche would make him be oposed to any form of registration.
Please try to remember, that to him Wayne is the mask, not the Batman!

---

Quote:

---

If he were to have his identity revealed on a large scale, he would either never take the costume off

---

Quote:

---

uperman on the other hand, views himself as Clark first & foremost,

---

Quote:

---

[He] has always tended to be about "truth, justice & the American way".
To go against the government would be going against the three things he stands for.

---

Quote:

---

The reason that its always been portrayed this was is thats part of their characters.

---

Quote:

---

First Amongst Daves said:
Res ipsa loquitur.

---

Quote:

---

The Time Trust said:

Quote:

---

First Amongst Daves said:
Res ipsa loquitur.

---

Res ipsa loquitur, sed quid in infernos dicet?

---

Quote:

---

First Amongst Daves said:
Isn't this sort of pissing in the wind? I can't see any of them agreeing with a registration act, aside from Superman, who did so in the Legends miniseries when Glorious Godfrey, in disguise as an anti-metahuman demagogue, caused all superheroes to go underground.

---

Quote:

---

Rob Kamphausen said:
old school JSAers might feel the "for the people, for the flag" movement that spirited their WWII adventures.

---

Quote:

---

Rob Kamphausen said:
even if it meant for their own protection?

clearly, the number one reason for not divulging an ID is for the all-too-easy purpose of a villain using said ID to attack a hero at his weakest. sue dibny's experience in "infinite crisis" being one of the more poigniant examples.

however, what if the stance were moreso that divulging the ID to government higher-ups added extra layers of protection?

presuming, of course, that the "higher ups" were not akin to our real life fuck ups. but, lets say, the government higher up organization was like an officially sanctioned checkmate, which currently counts larger heroes, like alan scott, amongst their numbers.

with that kind of firepower and surveilance at hand, its possible sue's fate could have been prevented. or, in the recent JLA story arc (and i don't think i'm spoiling much here), where red tornado's house and family are infiltrated.

the argument can be made that, with registration, there'd be more of a pro-active response to deter such infiltrations.

---

Quote:

---

Rob Kamphausen said:
aquaman, for example, might see this as an opportunity to finally get recognition of atlantis, placing it in the UN, being part of global decisions, increasing punishments for eco-terrorism, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Son of Mxy said:
Batman is a dick

---

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
Then again, Batman has no problem making others adhere to his system since he's only concerned with his law.

---

Quote:

---

THE Bastard said:

Quote:

---

Pariah said:
Then again, Batman has no problem making others adhere to his system since he's only concerned with his law.

---

I disagree.

The Bat-Man doesn't care about the law, his or otherwise.
He's only interested in JUSTICE.

The Bat-Man breaks the law every single time he leaves The Cave:

• He tampers with evidence and crime scenes
• He commits breaking and entering
• He detains people against their will
• He threatens and coerces witnesses and suspects
• He assaults people
• He inteferes with police investigations
• He carries deadly weapons and burglar tools
• He illegally wiretaps people
• The Batmobile ain't exactly street legal

That stuff is off the top of my head. I'm sure that someone else more familiar with the law than I (G-man, Harley or Dave) could go on and on.

The Bat-Man is the ultimate ends-justify-the-means guy. He will do whatever is necessary to bring criminals to justice. In many cases, the actual law gets in the way of that goal. So, he ignores it. Both in how he goes about his business and in how it may apply to a criminal.

It seems funny to me that any criminal ever gets convicted in Gotham. Seems like any lawyer worth his salt could get any charges dropped or conviction overturned given that any evidence provided by The Bat-Man would be considered tainted and any confession obtained by him would be considered coerced and an abridgement of the suspect's rights.

---

You make really good points Basty, but WRT your last comments, what it would come down to is whether or not the system considers Batman working with law enforcement. It's been a long time since I've looked at crim pro (criminal procedure), but IIRC, when an individual who is not working in concert with law enforcement brings in evidence, that evidence is not going to be considered having been obtained in violation of a suspect's rights, because it was brought in by a person who is not connected to the official police investigation. (This is not the same as a private citizen wearing a wire, for example. In that scenario, they are clearly working with the police.)

I would think that, given Batman and Gordon's history, saying that Batman is not some sort of extension of the GCPD is a weak argument, but nonetheless, it could be argued that because the Batman is not currently sanctioned (or officially sanctioned) by the GCPD, that his bringing in evidence is not considered to be part of a police investigation. Hence, there has been no violation of the law - at least with respect to the actual evidence. How it was obtained, however...

Still, a good defense attorney would be remiss if s/he didn't bring up the obvious friendship/relationship that Gordon and Bats have. Just because Gordon - who as Commissioner speaks for the GCPD - turns a blind eye, as it were, to Batman's actions, doesn't negate the fact that his relying on Batman all these years is, in a way, an implicit sanction of Batman.

But playing devil's advocate, if the cops could show that they would have eventually obtained the evidence without Batman's help - i.e., that it was inevitable that they would have gotten it anyway - then the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument would fail.

I actually want to comment on the law/justice point you raise, but I have got to get going. Seriously, I was supposed to leave here 20 minutes ago...

Quote:

---

harleykwin said:
...what it would come down to is whether or not the system considers Batman working with law enforcement. It's been a long time since I've looked at crim pro (criminal procedure), but IIRC, when an individual who is not working in concert with law enforcement brings in evidence, that evidence is not going to be considered having been obtained in violation of a suspect's rights, because it was brought in by a person who is not connected to the official police investigation. (This is not the same as a private citizen wearing a wire, for example. In that scenario, they are clearly working with the police.)

I would think that, given Batman and Gordon's history, saying that Batman is not some sort of extension of the GCPD is a weak argument, but nonetheless, it could be argued that because the Batman is not currently sanctioned (or officially sanctioned) by the GCPD, that his bringing in evidence is not considered to be part of a police investigation. Hence, there has been no violation of the law - at least with respect to the actual evidence. How it was obtained, however...

Still, a good defense attorney would be remiss if s/he didn't bring up the obvious friendship/relationship that Gordon and Bats have. Just because Gordon - who as Commissioner speaks for the GCPD - turns a blind eye, as it were, to Batman's actions, doesn't negate the fact that his relying on Batman all these years is, in a way, an implicit sanction of Batman.

But playing devil's advocate, if the cops could show that they would have eventually obtained the evidence without Batman's help - i.e., that it was inevitable that they would have gotten it anyway - then the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument would fail.

I actually want to comment on the law/justice point you raise, but I have got to get going. Seriously, I was supposed to leave here 20 minutes ago...

---

Quote:

---

harleykwin said:


You make really good points Basty, but WRT your last comments, what it would come down to is whether or not the system considers Batman working with law enforcement. It's been a long time since I've looked at crim pro (criminal procedure), but IIRC, when an individual who is not working in concert with law enforcement brings in evidence, that evidence is not going to be considered having been obtained in violation of a suspect's rights, because it was brought in by a person who is not connected to the official police investigation. (This is not the same as a private citizen wearing a wire, for example. In that scenario, they are clearly working with the police.)

I would think that, given Batman and Gordon's history, saying that Batman is not some sort of extension of the GCPD is a weak argument, but nonetheless, it could be argued that because the Batman is not currently sanctioned (or officially sanctioned) by the GCPD, that his bringing in evidence is not considered to be part of a police investigation. Hence, there has been no violation of the law - at least with respect to the actual evidence. How it was obtained, however...

Still, a good defense attorney would be remiss if s/he didn't bring up the obvious friendship/relationship that Gordon and Bats have. Just because Gordon - who as Commissioner speaks for the GCPD - turns a blind eye, as it were, to Batman's actions, doesn't negate the fact that his relying on Batman all these years is, in a way, an implicit sanction of Batman.

But playing devil's advocate, if the cops could show that they would have eventually obtained the evidence without Batman's help - i.e., that it was inevitable that they would have gotten it anyway - then the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument would fail.

I actually want to comment on the law/justice point you raise, but I have got to get going. Seriously, I was supposed to leave here 20 minutes ago...

---

Quote:

---

THE Bastard said:
Back to The Bat-Man:

It's been said in recent continuity, that The Bat-Man is not acknowledged to exist by the GCPD. In fact, he's considered a myth by most of the residents of Gotham. In current continuity (before One Year Later), his existence had become common knowledge (since that whole gang war storyline where Orpheus and Spoiler were killed), and he had been disavowed by the cops.

Now, if the police used evidence obtained by Bats in any cases previous to his existence becoming common knowledge, they would have had to perjure themselves about its origins. If they would not publicly cop to his existence, then how could they admit that they've used evidence provided by him?

Wouldn't the fabrication of how they obtained the evidence be enough to have it thrown out and any conviction based on that evidence overturned? Wouldn't the mere appearance of impropriety be enough to have almost any criminal case resulting in conviction during the time that Bats has been in operation retried?

Now obviously, DCU Law is probably a bit different from ours but, vigilantism is still illegal even there. To me, this means that any agent, from Superman on down, that is not directly in the employ of an officially sanctioned law enforement agency, is engaged in illegal activity.

So, my question is this: If evidence is obtained by somebody engaging in an illegal activity in order to get it, then wouldn't that evidence be considered inadmissable since, by definition, it was illegally obtained?

I got the whole thing about arguing that the evidence could be admissable if the cops can credibly show that they would have gotten it anyway during the course of the investigation. But, so much of the evidence provided by Bats is the result of actions that are completely against acceptable police procedures.

Lat's say The Bat-Man illegally bugged the Penguin's penthouse and found out that a critical piece of evidence was hidden in a safe in one of his warehouses. He then breaks into that warehouse...without benefit of a warrant or even any official capacity to be there...proceeds to severely injure several privately employed security agents in order to coerce them into giving up the location of the safe. Then, using a small C-4 charge to blow the safe, opens it and removes the item proving guilt. He then hands it over to Gordon, Gordon gives it to the D.A. and the crimninal is convicted

This is a fairly standard plotline for a Bat-Man book. The Bat-Man committed at least 4 felonies during that example. Whether he's an acknowkedged agent of the GCPD or not, wouldn't that evidence be considered tainted? Even if the cops could say that they applied for and were granted permission to officially wiretap the Penguin's crib and would have gotten the necessary info leading to the recovery of the evidence anyway?

---

The information was obtained illegally, but not by the police. The only thing the police would have to worry about is if the defense tries to tie Batman to the police or say that Batman planted the evidence. As long as the police were not involved in obtaining the evidence or having Batman work as their agent to obtain it, they don't have to worry about having to prove inevitable discovery. At least that's what Sam Waterston taught me.

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:

The information was obtained illegally, but not by the police.

---

Bam. Give the boy a cookie.

Quote:

---

THE Bastard said:

Harley, I did not know that about an agent acting without official sanction. I guess is does make sense...without official sanction or formal relationship to law enforcement, there can be no expectation that the suspect's rights should be upheld. But, that does raise some interesting points...

Say you had 2 guys, Peter and Elsia, who sold drugs. Peter had a fued with the Elsia. What would happen if Peter brought a kilo of heroin to the police and told them it belonged to Elsia...when it actually belonged to Peter?

---

Quote:

---

If the police acted on incorrect information and arrested Elsia, could it be argued that they had no probable cause for taking action against Elsia...since the heroin wasn't his to begin with and it was known on the streets that Elsia only sells crack?

Now, I know I'm over-simplifying the case...I would imagine that the police wiould investigate, determine that Elsia was a bad actor, and his arrest would be based on its own merits. But if the whole thing were brought about by false information, would the suspect have any legal recourse?

Back to The Bat-Man:

It's been said in recent continuity, that The Bat-Man is not acknowledged to exist by the GCPD. In fact, he's considered a myth by most of the residents of Gotham. In current continuity (before One Year Later), his existence had become common knowledge (since that whole gang war storyline where Orpheus and Spoiler were killed), and he had been disavowed by the cops.

Now, if the police used evidence obtained by Bats in any cases previous to his existence becoming common knowledge, they would have had to perjure themselves about its origins. If they would not publicly cop to his existence, then how could they admit that they've used evidence provided by him?

Wouldn't the fabrication of how they obtained the evidence be enough to have it thrown out and any conviction based on that evidence overturned? Wouldn't the mere appearance of impropriety be enough to have almost any criminal case resulting in conviction during the time that Bats has been in operation retried?

Now obviously, DCU Law is probably a bit different from ours but, vigilantism is still illegal even there. To me, this means that any agent, from Superman on down, that is not directly in the employ of an officially sanctioned law enforement agency, is engaged in illegal activity.

So, my question is this: If evidence is obtained by somebody engaging in an illegal activity in order to get it, then wouldn't that evidence be considered inadmissable since, by definition, it was illegally obtained?

I got the whole thing about arguing that the evidence could be admissable if the cops can credibly show that they would have gotten it anyway during the course of the investigation. But, so much of the evidence provided by Bats is the result of actions that are completely against acceptable police procedures.

Lat's say The Bat-Man illegally bugged the Penguin's penthouse and found out that a critical piece of evidence was hidden in a safe in one of his warehouses. He then breaks into that warehouse...without benefit of a warrant or even any official capacity to be there...proceeds to severely injure several privately employed security agents in order to coerce them into giving up the location of the safe. Then, using a small C-4 charge to blow the safe, opens it and removes the item proving guilt. He then hands it over to Gordon, Gordon gives it to the D.A. and the crimninal is convicted

This is a fairly standard plotline for a Bat-Man book. The Bat-Man committed at least 4 felonies during that example. Whether he's an acknowkedged agent of the GCPD or not, wouldn't that evidence be considered tainted? Even if the cops could say that they applied for and were granted permission to officially wiretap the Penguin's crib and would have gotten the necessary info leading to the recovery of the evidence anyway?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Even if someone is not a duly deputized law officer, if it can be shown that the person was working at the behest of the police, the illegally obtained evidence is, as noted above, usually inadmissible.

In the case of Batman, given that Gordon often specifically asks for Batman's help on a case, and even has a special method of signaling him on the roof of police HQ, it would often be difficult, at best, to show that Batman was not acting as a police agent at the time he acted illegally.

---