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...


Dear, sweet Harley Kwink...I'm madly in love with you. Marry me! We can go to Canadia. Or Boston or something. It'll be grand...You know the cookies are a given. They are ALWAYS a given. You could dump me tomorrow and you'd still get the cookies. Boston..shit, wherever dyke weddings were legalized. And where better to rub their little piggie noses in how bad they suck than right on their doorstep? What are they gonna do? Be jealous of you? Stare furiously at your tah-tahs? Not willingly give you cookies, but instead begrudgingly give you their cookies? Woman, time to wake up to the powers you wield - Uschi