|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 5, 2019 16:15:53 GMT
Superman is considered a hero in the dceu and he snapped Zod's neck Well that's not really the same. Winter Soldier killed an innocent woman. Superman killed a man who was already responsible for taking many lives and almost took out an innocent family. Howard Stark ran a company that created weapons and Maria reaped the rewards.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 5, 2019 16:20:06 GMT
Says the man who thinks actually murderous people such as Wonder Woman, Batman & Aquaman are the epitome of heroics. You don't like them because you don't like them and you can't figure out why you just know "duh I dunt lyke deez mooveez dey steenk" so you make up bullshit reasons for it and copy other peoples complaints without understanding why they have them, hence your inability to even argue you stance, so just stop watching the movies. 1st, killing an enemy combatant in war or killing to save an innocent life isn't murder. 2nd, when did Wonder Woman, Batman, or Aquaman ever murdered an injured and defenseless woman and then refused to turn themselves in and fled from the authorities? Winter Soldier didn't refuse to turn himself in for Howard and Maria Stark's murder. He was mind controlled. In Civil War he wasn't running because of what happened to the Starks. He was running because of the bombing. Something he had nothing to do with. And he did turn himself over to a government for treatment because of the deaths he caused of the Starks.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 5, 2019 16:34:45 GMT
Because true heroes own up to their actions and accept responsibility for their actions and don't run away like cowards. An innocent, injured, and defenseless woman was killed by Bucky. You claim that Bucky's not guilty. So if he's not guilty, then he should've turned himself in to the authorities so he can be cleared. Instead, he fled, which demonstrates guilty behavior. And even the courts have ruled that when someone flees or tries to flee, the jury can take that as a sign of guilt. If Bucky wasn't guilty, then he shouldn't have fled. If you're driving your car at night in the rain and you're under the speed limit and a pedestrian tries to jaywalk and cross on a red light and you accidentally hit them and kill them, well it was a tragic accident but only an accident and you haven't committed any crime yet. But if you decided to flee from the scene of the accident, then you've just committed a crime. Bucky fled and hid from the authorities for years after he choked an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman to death. Like Tom "Shady" Brady (who got caught cheating and refused to own up to his actions), Bucky chose to not own up to his actions. True heroes don't do that shit. True heroes own up to their actions and accept responsibility for their actions.Actually, your "shoot on sight" argument is BS. Because if there was a "shoot on sight" order, then they would've just shot Bucky instead of arresting Bucky. The fact that they arrested Bucky when they could've just shot him debunks your entire "shoot on sight" argument. there are different layers of criminal charges for causing the death of someone, accidental death, manslaughter, murder and such, the intent of your actions defines which you fall into, if you had no intent what so ever because you were not in control of your actions and were being mind controlled you cannot be a murderer, if Bucky didn't know the things he had done in the past he is not fleeing the punishment for those actions
Yes, there are different layers of criminal charges. And it's for the DA (who represents the people) to decide what the charges are and for a jury to decide guilt on the charges. In 1978, Dan White assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. White's lawyers argued the famous "Twinkee" defense as a mitigating factor for White's actions in front of a jury. And the jury decided that White was guilty, not of murder but of the lesser charge of manslaughter. Bucky's lawyers could argue "brainwashing" as a mitigating factor for Bucky killing the Starks. And a jury may well have decided that "brainwashing" was a mitigating factor in Bucky's case. And that would've been OK because it would be a jury of the people who decided that.
But what's not OK is Steve Rogers becoming a tyrant and refusing to even give the people the chance to decide if Bucky should be absolved for the killing of an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman due to mitigating factors. Steve Rogers basically said "I don't believe in the justice system and I don't believe in the American people to do the right thing and I certainly don't give a shit that Bucky choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman. I'm Captain America and I'm more powerful than the people so that gives me the right to unilaterally decide guilt or innocence, exactly the same way that tyrants throughout history have done."
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 5, 2019 16:34:58 GMT
I don't understand this obsession over heroes killing bad guys as somehow its a negative. To people who say Superman/Batman shouldn't kill...get over it. But Batman killed security guards because he wanted something they had. I guess they are bad guys because they worked for Lex. I mean, they could just be guys guarding and transporting a rare mineral for their boss.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 5, 2019 16:37:04 GMT
DC-Fan hates America's military. Bucky sacrificed himself helping free the Allies from the threat of the Nazi Hun So you're basically saying that if someone fights for their country in a war, then they get a free pass for any future crimes they may commit? What a cop who spends 30 years protecting and serving the community and putting away dangerous criminals and then after 30 years realizes that he wants to retire with more than just his pension so he joins in a scheme to rob millions from a bank? Should the cop who spend 30 years protecting and serving the community get a free pass for any crimes?
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
|
Post by Caesium137 on Oct 5, 2019 16:41:16 GMT
I don't understand this obsession over heroes killing bad guys as somehow its a negative. To people who say Superman/Batman shouldn't kill...get over it. But Batman killed security guards because he wanted something they had. I guess they are bad guys because they worked for Lex. I mean, they could just be guys guarding and transporting a rare mineral for their boss. Well it is a damaged Batman. The first 2 acts allude to his descent into extreme behaviour and his whole plan to murder Superman which Alfred is raising strong caution and Bruce ignores.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 5, 2019 16:44:02 GMT
like I said many, many times before (and which you and many MCU fans still don't seem to be able to understand) MCU super heroes are not perfect. Heroes don't have to be perfect. Heroes can make mistakes. But true heroes own up to their mistakes and accept responsibility for them rather than refuse to own up to their mistakes and run away like cowards. Then again, you wouldn't understand the concept of owning up to one's mistakes since you defend Tom "Shady" Brady, who got caught cheating in a playoff game and then refused to own up to his cheating and refused to apologize to the fans for cheating and instead continued to lie and cover up his cheating and tried to destroy evidence and worst of all run a smear campaign against the investigators whom Shady Brady's own boss praised for their integrity when they were hired to conduct the investigation.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 5, 2019 16:49:00 GMT
Apparently DC Fan doesn't stand for DC Comics, it's actually Dallas Cowboys. He's a Dallas Cowboys fan. Yes, that's correct. The DC in my user name stands for Dallas Cowboys aka America's Team. I think he does like the Spider-Man movies. Not sure about X-Men. I like the original Spider-Man movies (With Tobey Maguire). I like several of the X-Men movies (such as X2: X-Men United and Days of Future Past) but I also don't like X-Men: The Last Stand. And I also like the first 2 Fantastic Four movies (with Ioan Gruffudd and Jessica Alba).
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 5, 2019 16:51:56 GMT
If they kill as a first resort, what seperates them from the "bad guys" apart from money and super powers? If they kill as a first resort then they are a vigilante anti-hero like Deadpool or Punisher. I dont think Batman or Superman have ever killed people in that way, its always been a last resort. The warehouse scene in BvS is brutal but necessary. That's correct. Superman and Batman have never killed as a first resort. The warehouse scene in BvS is brutal. But they were holding a innocent woman hostage and threatening to incinerate her. Batman wasn't going to be able to save her by a silly Dance-Off and had to do it hard-core.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 5, 2019 16:59:58 GMT
But Batman killed security guards because he wanted something they had. I guess they are bad guys because they worked for Lex. I mean, they could just be guys guarding and transporting a rare mineral for their boss. Well it is a damaged Batman. The first 2 acts allude to his descent into extreme behaviour and his whole plan to murder Superman which Alfred is raising strong caution and Bruce ignores. So he gets a pass when a guy under actual mind control doesn't? Bruce has the ability and means to go see a therapist.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 5, 2019 17:00:01 GMT
Probably because you're way too far with the insults. Reel it back in, you don't need to go so far with it. We don't want that kind of attitude here because it'll just spiral further. Funny I didn't ask why you did it I asked if it was you that did it, the why is obvious, he's your pet troll you let piss on the furniture, if you don't want that sort of attitude then how about stopping him from intentionally antagonising people
1st, I'm not a troll. 2nd, I'm not antagonizing anyone. I expressed my opinion that it's ludicrous that MCU would consider a guy who choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman and then fled and hid from the authorities like a coward to be a hero. 3rd, if anyone feels antagonized because I stated that a guy who choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman and then fled and hid from the authorities like a coward isn't a hero, then the problem isn't me. It's the people who think that a a guy who choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman and then fled and hid from the authorities like a coward is a hero. But then again, there were plenty of people who were cheering on TV when the verdict was announced that O.J. was not guilty. An innocent man and woman were brutally stabbed to death and people were cheering on TV that the jury found O.J. not guilty. How about that! And in Civil War, an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman is choked to death and MCU calls the murderer a hero. How about that!
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 5, 2019 17:03:25 GMT
Funny I didn't ask why you did it I asked if it was you that did it, the why is obvious, he's your pet troll you let piss on the furniture, if you don't want that sort of attitude then how about stopping him from intentionally antagonising people
1st, I'm not a troll. 2nd, I'm not antagonizing anyone. I expressed my opinion that it's ludicrous that MCU would consider a guy who choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman and then fled and hid from the authorities like a coward to be a hero. 3rd, if anyone feels antagonized because I stated that a guy who choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman and then fled and hid from the authorities like a coward isn't a hero, then the problem isn't me. It's the people who think that a a guy who choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman and then fled and hid from the authorities like a coward is a hero. But then again, there were plenty of people who were cheering on TV when the verdict was announced that O.J. was not guilty. An innocent man and woman were brutally stabbed to death and people were cheering on TV that the jury found O.J. not guilty. How about that! And in Civil War, an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman is choked to death and MCU calls the murderer a hero. How about that! It is being a troll if you keep making the same thread over and over after everyone tells you you are wrong. By now you are just hoping that, if you try every once in a while, there will be new people here that will maybe agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 5, 2019 17:12:06 GMT
there are different layers of criminal charges for causing the death of someone, accidental death, manslaughter, murder and such, the intent of your actions defines which you fall into, if you had no intent what so ever because you were not in control of your actions and were being mind controlled you cannot be a murderer, if Bucky didn't know the things he had done in the past he is not fleeing the punishment for those actions
Yes, there are different layers of criminal charges. And it's for the DA (who represents the people) to decide what the charges are and for a jury to decide guilt on the charges. In 1978, Dan White assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. White's lawyers argued the famous "Twinkee" defense as a mitigating factor for White's actions in front of a jury. And the jury decided that White was guilty, not of murder but of the lesser charge of manslaughter. Bucky's lawyers could argue "brainwashing" as a mitigating factor for Bucky killing the Starks. And a jury may well have decided that "brainwashing" was a mitigating factor in Bucky's case. And that would've been OK because it would be a jury of the people who decided that.
But what's not OK is Steve Rogers becoming a tyrant and refusing to even give the people the chance to decide if Bucky should be absolved for the killing of an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman due to mitigating factors. Steve Rogers basically said "I don't believe in the justice system and I don't believe in the American people to do the right thing and I certainly don't give a shit that Bucky choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman. I'm Captain America and I'm more powerful than the people so that gives me the right to unilaterally decide guilt or innocence, exactly the same way that tyrants throughout history have done." Not my point doofus as is clear by you once again editing out the specific part of my text which explains why the entirety of your response is absolute meaningless twaddle, YOU keep referring to him in the wrong context, it isn't murder if he had no intent, which WE know there wasn't any, there is also no fleeing if he did not know he was fleeing from punishment, Bucky for all we know is hiding from Hydra that he knows was infesting all layers over government top to bottom world wide, he wasn't fleeing prosecution he was trying to evade his captors & torturers.
And Cap only protected Bucky AFTER Ross made it clear Bucky wasn't getting a fair shake, he scoffed at the idea of Bucky having legal representation, he was likely the one who ordered the assault team to shoot on sight, and he is likely the one trying to use Bucky's fate as a carrot to force Cap to sign the accords, Cap didn't decide Bucky wouldn't get a fair trial that was all but spelled out to him by Ross, Cap's initial intent was to bring Bucky in himself, not to help him flee something you clearly don't get.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Oct 5, 2019 17:24:11 GMT
DC-Fan hates America's military. Bucky sacrificed himself helping free the Allies from the threat of the Nazi Hun So you're basically saying that if someone fights for their country in a war, then they get a free pass for any future crimes they may commit? What a cop who spends 30 years protecting and serving the community and putting away dangerous criminals and then after 30 years realizes that he wants to retire with more than just his pension so he joins in a scheme to rob millions from a bank? Should the cop who spend 30 years protecting and serving the community get a free pass for any crimes? Are you replying to me? I said none of that.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Oct 5, 2019 17:25:51 GMT
And as I said, you insulted him from the start before it even got to the point of him repeating himself and not refuting points. Not that that would be an excuse to insult someone anyway. That shouldn't be done regardless.
If he's just repeating the same post then you can tag me and I'd soon delete them.
As for what I edited out, it'd be pointless to have done so and then repeat it anyway but there was a insult added as to why he didn't like them and another that you added after you told him to stop watching the movies. Just unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 5, 2019 17:50:46 GMT
Yes, there are different layers of criminal charges. And it's for the DA (who represents the people) to decide what the charges are and for a jury to decide guilt on the charges. In 1978, Dan White assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. White's lawyers argued the famous "Twinkee" defense as a mitigating factor for White's actions in front of a jury. And the jury decided that White was guilty, not of murder but of the lesser charge of manslaughter. Bucky's lawyers could argue "brainwashing" as a mitigating factor for Bucky killing the Starks. And a jury may well have decided that "brainwashing" was a mitigating factor in Bucky's case. And that would've been OK because it would be a jury of the people who decided that.
But what's not OK is Steve Rogers becoming a tyrant and refusing to even give the people the chance to decide if Bucky should be absolved for the killing of an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman due to mitigating factors. Steve Rogers basically said "I don't believe in the justice system and I don't believe in the American people to do the right thing and I certainly don't give a shit that Bucky choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman. I'm Captain America and I'm more powerful than the people so that gives me the right to unilaterally decide guilt or innocence, exactly the same way that tyrants throughout history have done."Not my point doofus as is clear by you once again editing out the specific part of my text which explains why the entirety of your response is absolute meaningless twaddle, YOU keep referring to him in the wrong context, it isn't murder if he had no intent
And it's up to a jury to decide if there was intent (and thus it's murder) or no intent (and thus a lesser charge or a not guilty verdict). Like I said in my previous post, a jury decided that Dan White was guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the 1978 assassination of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. And a jury may well have decided that Bucky didn't have intent so he's only guilty of a lesser charge or not guilty. And that would've been OK because it would be a jury of the people who decided that.
But what's not OK is Steve Rogers becoming a tyrant and refusing to even give the people the chance to decide if Bucky should be absolved for the killing of an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman due to mitigating factors. Steve Rogers basically said "I don't believe in the justice system and I don't believe in the American people to do the right thing and I certainly don't give a shit that Bucky choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman. I'm Captain America and I'm more powerful than the people so that gives me the right to unilaterally decide guilt or innocence, exactly the same way that tyrants throughout history have done."
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 5, 2019 18:03:38 GMT
Not my point doofus as is clear by you once again editing out the specific part of my text which explains why the entirety of your response is absolute meaningless twaddle, YOU keep referring to him in the wrong context, it isn't murder if he had no intent
And it's up to a jury to decide if there was intent (and thus it's murder) or no intent (and thus a lesser charge or a not guilty verdict). Like I said in my previous post, a jury decided that Dan White was guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the 1978 assassination of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. And a jury may well have decided that Bucky didn't have intent so he's only guilty of a lesser charge or not guilty. And that would've been OK because it would be a jury of the people who decided that.
But what's not OK is Steve Rogers becoming a tyrant and refusing to even give the people the chance to decide if Bucky should be absolved for the killing of an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman due to mitigating factors. Steve Rogers basically said "I don't believe in the justice system and I don't believe in the American people to do the right thing and I certainly don't give a shit that Bucky choked to death an innocent, injured, and defenseless woman. I'm Captain America and I'm more powerful than the people so that gives me the right to unilaterally decide guilt or innocence, exactly the same way that tyrants throughout history have done." scabab This is what I mean look at him he isn't even responding to what I said, he's selectively left out the parts on my response which make this an invalid response and he has again just repeated verbatim the same thing he has said over and over again, both things I tell him piss me off, he's goading me, lemme at him plz?
*starts pacing like a caged lion, a slightly drunk caged lion but a caged lion nonetheless*
|
|
|
Post by Groovy Rachel on Oct 5, 2019 18:20:53 GMT
Yeah DC-Fan you literally said the same exact thing three times in as many pages on the thread. You don't need to keep copying and pasting like that especially if someone has read and responded to it already.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Oct 5, 2019 18:26:12 GMT
I can get behind that at least, DC Fan you already made that comment and Dazz replied to it, you then replied to that by repeating the exact same thing that he had himself just replied to...and then you did it yet again.
That's just being purposefully aggravating. People can read, it was understood the first time.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Oct 5, 2019 19:51:12 GMT
Well that's not really the same. Winter Soldier killed an innocent woman. Superman killed a man who was already responsible for taking many lives and almost took out an innocent family. It's just incredible how so many people here are unable to understand the difference between choking an injured and defenseless woman to death vs killing a military general who was attempting to kill a family of civilians. How can anyone defend choking to death an injured and defenseless woman? Yet both of you know damned well how our justice system operates. ALL CRIMES ARE NOT PROSECUTED ARE THEY? My clients, convicted felons all of them, see charges dropped all the time. The prosecutors decide whether they want to press charges or not. If they don't think they have a case, they don't file. Or plea bargains are reached. ALL THE TIME. To save the cost of the trial, the accused pleads to lesser charges. Hell, most of my clients are plea bargains. It rarely hits the jury level. So either of you, DC or Scabab, think FOR A SECOND, Bucky would make it to trial? HONEST? You THAT naive? You DO remember Do you FOR A SECOND imagine Bucky wouldn't be kept brainwashed to do the Government's bidding? NEVER SEE TRIAL? The public would be told he's not fit for trial, that he's locked in a psych hospital all the while sending him out as their hit person. Steve knows this, DC. Even if you don't
|
|