|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 17, 2021 4:01:10 GMT
Let me start by saying I dislike Captain Marvel, but that also the people that are being responded to in the video are conservative idiots. With that being said, LegalEagle is being dishonest imo. Now the legality of the situation in the DELETED scene from the movie is up for debate, but whether or not it is legal I have ethical issues with it.
I think what he is doing is coming back at the conservatives in a similar way as they are coming at the scene in question, so I will cut him some slack there. Though I think someone like him should be trying to be as unbiased as possible in a video like this.
So apparently people of a certain type are calling Captain Marvel the villain because of the scene shown (silly imo), but his comparison to the bar scene in T2 is ridiculous. The T-800 is a cyborg and his status as a hero or villain at that point in the movie is irrelevant. The T-800 does incredibly villainous stuff at a couple points in the movie. When he is about to murder those "jock douchebags" and the part where he kneecaps a security guard who is only doing his job. The point is that he isn't a thinking agent of any moral responsibility, especially at that point in the movie. The guy in the video is also being dishonest because the scene in Captain Marvel, while similar in ways is nothing like the scene in T2 in other more important terms. First of all he is being a hypocrite because in T2 Arnold is the one who does what the biker in Captain Marvel does, not the other way around. Also, the T-800 is physically harmed during the scene. The guy puts a cigar out on his chest for crying out loud. I would guess that good defense lawyer would be able to argue pretty good for excessive force by Arnold when defending the bikers.
I am not a lawyer obviously, but he is reaching hard to defend Captain Marvel's actions here. The defense would have a good argument that she intentionally harms him without cause (especially in that she knows she isn't in any danger because she is a super being) and does it premeditated. She asks him for a handshake and then physically harms the man and then threatens him into giving her his keys. She then commits auto theft. Funny that LegalEagle completely ignores that in T2 as well. He steals clothes, keys, a motorcycle and sunglasses. The liberal bias is strong in this one. I normally like this guy, but he drops the ball here.
I'd be interested in hearing different people's take here, because it definitely makes for an interesting and unusual discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 17, 2021 9:44:24 GMT
I think its an ok movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2021 10:53:40 GMT
It's been awhile since I've watched the video, but from what I recall from his argument as well as personal experience is that biker guy touching her item is legally battery thus the hand squeeze is considered self defense. Stealing his bike, not so much.
As far as T2 goes, the scene is blatantly an homage. But CM doesn't commit to her being an antihero the way T2 does Arnold.
As for my personal feelings of the scene, it reeks of 90s-00s era "kicking a guy in the nuts = feminism" stuff and I'm glad it was deleted. What's funny about this stereotype of men telling women they should smile is that I've been told the same thing several times...by women. Don't know if I'm special or if it's not as gendered as feminists think it is, but hey.
|
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on May 17, 2021 11:26:20 GMT
I thought it was an okay movie, but a missed opportunity. This could've been a darker, more grown-up Marvel movie, like a 70's style conspiracy thriller comparable to something like 3 Days Of the Condor. Or a modern spy thriller like the Bourne films. Instead it's just your typical silly family movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on May 17, 2021 13:53:37 GMT
I’ve never seen the film, but hearing the analysis is interesting. However, I’m pretty sure the case law on battery is not very conclusive on whether the act of touching a newspaper someone is holding fits the definition. Additionally, Captain Marvel uses extreme unreasonable disproportionate force in response to what Legal Eagle calls battery.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 17, 2021 18:04:19 GMT
It's been awhile since I've watched the video, but from what I recall from his argument as well as personal experience is that biker guy touching her item is legally battery thus the hand squeeze is considered self defense. Stealing his bike, not so much. As far as T2 goes, the scene is blatantly an homage. But CM doesn't commit to her being an antihero the way T2 does Arnold. As for my personal feelings of the scene, it reeks of 90s-00s era "kicking a guy in the nuts = feminism" stuff and I'm glad it was deleted. What's funny about this stereotype of men telling women they should smile is that I've been told the same thing several times...by women. Don't know if I'm special or if it's not as gendered as feminists think it is, but hey. Oh, I understand what he is saying. I just don't agree. Whether it is battery or not to touch her paper and be that close to her in the way he was, I think he is being dishonest about her action being self-defense. I don't think it counts as self-defense if you ask for a handshake (a gesture of peace or agreement) and then hit the person or whatever harm you cause. As I said in my OP, there is also the matter of her not being in any danger of harm. I am not sure though if that is taken into account in a case like this. It would be the equivalent of me doing what she does to a crippled person who invaded my space in a semi-threatening manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 17, 2021 18:07:05 GMT
I’ve never seen the film, but hearing the analysis is interesting. However, I’m pretty sure the case law on battery is not very conclusive on whether the act of touching a newspaper someone is holding fits the definition. Additionally, Captain Marvel uses extreme unreasonable disproportionate force in response to what Legal Eagle calls battery. I think the defense lawyer for the biker would have a good case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2021 20:15:40 GMT
It's been awhile since I've watched the video, but from what I recall from his argument as well as personal experience is that biker guy touching her item is legally battery thus the hand squeeze is considered self defense. Stealing his bike, not so much. As far as T2 goes, the scene is blatantly an homage. But CM doesn't commit to her being an antihero the way T2 does Arnold. As for my personal feelings of the scene, it reeks of 90s-00s era "kicking a guy in the nuts = feminism" stuff and I'm glad it was deleted. What's funny about this stereotype of men telling women they should smile is that I've been told the same thing several times...by women. Don't know if I'm special or if it's not as gendered as feminists think it is, but hey. Oh, I understand what he is saying. I just don't agree. Whether it is battery or not to touch her paper and be that close to her in the way he was, I think he is being dishonest about her action being self-defense. I don't think it counts as self-defense if you ask for a handshake (a gesture of peace or agreement) and then hit the person or whatever harm you cause. As I said in my OP, there is also the matter of her not being in any danger of harm. I am not sure though if that is taken into account in a case like this. It would be the equivalent of me doing what she does to a crippled person who invaded my space in a semi-threatening manner. I think you're conflating your personal dislike of this law with his legal argument. Is what he's saying morally dubious in the name of defending his client? Of course, he's a lawyer. But the law was off the biker's side the moment he touched the item she was holding. Take it from me, I've lived this. And yeah, he doesn't pose an actual threat to her, but do we have a frame of reference for how laws work for superheroes? Legal Eagle made the argument in the comment section that it's still a crime to fire a gun at someone with a bulletproof vest. Don't they call this "Intent"? |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 17, 2021 20:34:40 GMT
Oh, I understand what he is saying. I just don't agree. Whether it is battery or not to touch her paper and be that close to her in the way he was, I think he is being dishonest about her action being self-defense. I don't think it counts as self-defense if you ask for a handshake (a gesture of peace or agreement) and then hit the person or whatever harm you cause. As I said in my OP, there is also the matter of her not being in any danger of harm. I am not sure though if that is taken into account in a case like this. It would be the equivalent of me doing what she does to a crippled person who invaded my space in a semi-threatening manner. I think you're conflating your personal dislike of this law with his legal argument. Is what he's saying morally dubious in the name of defending his client? Of course, he's a lawyer. But the law was off the biker's side the moment he touched the item she was holding. Take it from me, I've lived this. And yeah, he doesn't pose an actual threat to her, but do we have a frame of reference for how laws work for superheroes? Legal Eagle made the argument in the comment section that it's still a crime to fire a gun at someone with a bulletproof vest. Don't they call this "Intent"? Fair enough, though I would need to see it from a more unbiased perspective. So when it happened to you there was a handshake pause before the "self-defense?" I am almost positive that doesn't qualify as self-defense. I'd like to hear from a lawyer who is showing no signs of biased defense. The fact that he ignores the theft and then uses T2 as a non-equal comparison is evidence of his bias. I am pretty aware of the law and and it is the handshake part that makes me doubt. If LegalEagle wasn't being biased then I might believe him more. It is his fault that he poisoned the well, so to speak. He doesn't really address the theft and that is the main villainous act during the scene. She intentionally causes him physical harm to get the keys to steal his boke, not for self-defense. This is what he is conveniently over-looking. There is also the issue that he is responding to responses about the morality of the situation, not the legaiity, which is the more important question. As everyone is aware, laws are wrong all the time from an moral standpoint. This is why he brings up T2 and misrepresents the T-800. He would have been better bringing up something like what Axel Foley does in BHC2 or the jaywalking scene in Lethal Weapon 3 or Bruce Willis holding a gun to his daughters head in order to steal a car in The Last Boy Scout. I know he is using the T2 one because it is what the scene is making reference to, but it is a bad example. In T2, he is the villain in the context of that scene. Btw, when I just stop responding it is for many reasons. In this case because I won't come to agreement and it would be futile to continue. That never means I stop thinking about it though and considering someone else's POV further. I actually tend to obsess on this stuff after even for days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2021 21:10:26 GMT
I think you're conflating your personal dislike of this law with his legal argument. Is what he's saying morally dubious in the name of defending his client? Of course, he's a lawyer. But the law was off the biker's side the moment he touched the item she was holding. Take it from me, I've lived this. And yeah, he doesn't pose an actual threat to her, but do we have a frame of reference for how laws work for superheroes? Legal Eagle made the argument in the comment section that it's still a crime to fire a gun at someone with a bulletproof vest. Don't they call this "Intent"? Fair enough, though I would need to see it from a more unbiased perspective. So when it happened to you there was a handshake pause before the "self-defense?" I am almost positive that doesn't qualify as self-defense. I'd like to hear from a lawyer who is showing no signs of biased defense. The fact that he ignores the theft and then uses T2 as a non-equal comparison is evidence of his bias. I am pretty aware of the law and and it is the handshake part that makes me doubt. If LegalEagle wasn't being biased then I might believe him more. It is his fault that he poisoned the well, so to speak. He doesn't really address the theft and that is the main villainous act during the scene. She intentionally causes him physical harm to get the keys to steal his boke, not for self-defense. This is what he is conveniently over-looking. There is also the issue that he is responding to responses about the morality of the situation, not the legaiity, which is the more important question. As everyone is aware, laws are wrong all the time from an moral standpoint. This is why he brings up T2 and misrepresents the T-800. He would have been better bringing up something like what Axel Foley does in BHC2 or the jaywalking scene in Lethal Weapon 3 or Bruce Willis holding a gun to his daughters head in order to steal a car in The Last Boy Scout. I know he is using the T2 one because it is what the scene is making reference to, but it is a bad example. In T2, he is the villain in the context of that scene. Btw, when I just stop responding it is for many reasons. In this case because I won't come to agreement and it would be futile to continue. There was no handshake intervel, no. But let's say a guy was sexually assaulting a girl, then she started to "give in" to lower his defenses before peppespraying him or something. I'm pretty sure that's still self defense on her part regardless. And before you say that sexual assault and touching a map aren't the same, don't underestimate the stupidity of battery laws. You'll probably have a rough time finding an unbiased lawyer, IMDB2 or elsewhere. They're in it to win it. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 17, 2021 21:29:45 GMT
Fair enough, though I would need to see it from a more unbiased perspective. So when it happened to you there was a handshake pause before the "self-defense?" I am almost positive that doesn't qualify as self-defense. I'd like to hear from a lawyer who is showing no signs of biased defense. The fact that he ignores the theft and then uses T2 as a non-equal comparison is evidence of his bias. I am pretty aware of the law and and it is the handshake part that makes me doubt. If LegalEagle wasn't being biased then I might believe him more. It is his fault that he poisoned the well, so to speak. He doesn't really address the theft and that is the main villainous act during the scene. She intentionally causes him physical harm to get the keys to steal his boke, not for self-defense. This is what he is conveniently over-looking. There is also the issue that he is responding to responses about the morality of the situation, not the legaiity, which is the more important question. As everyone is aware, laws are wrong all the time from an moral standpoint. This is why he brings up T2 and misrepresents the T-800. He would have been better bringing up something like what Axel Foley does in BHC2 or the jaywalking scene in Lethal Weapon 3 or Bruce Willis holding a gun to his daughters head in order to steal a car in The Last Boy Scout. I know he is using the T2 one because it is what the scene is making reference to, but it is a bad example. In T2, he is the villain in the context of that scene. Btw, when I just stop responding it is for many reasons. In this case because I won't come to agreement and it would be futile to continue. I'm not sure how great an idea it is to air my legal laundry on a movie forum, but no, there was no handshake intervel. But let's say a guy was sexually assaulting a girl, then she started to "give in" to lower his defenses before peppespraying him or something. I'm pretty sure that's still self defense on her part regardless. And before you say that sexual assault and touching a map aren't the same, don't underestimate the stupidity of battery laws. You'll probably have a rough time finding an unbiased lawyer, IMDB2 or elsewhere. They're in it to win it. I really like that response and I mostly agree. I think that the sexual assault things is a bit different, though the same ridiculousness you point out about battery laws I am sure applies to sexual assault laws too. Like if he put his hand over her paper and said "you're sexy" and then the same actions followed. All he says is "how about a smile. The least you could do is give me a smile." I really don't see that she was in any danger and self-defense is usually considered a last resort from what I know. LegalEagle even implies that what she does is more appropriate than walking away or saying leave me alone. She does neither of those things. Then if he kept at her then I would support physical self-defense, even the handshake. It would be really stupid for a normal women to offer to shake the hand of a possible predator as that would be putting them in more danger than walking away. We are probably somewhat on the same page now and have nuanced different perspectives here when it comes to everything before the theft. Also, I do need to emphasize that the people calling her a villain because of that scene are more ridiculous. On top of being hypocritical on the face of it, they are also unfairly using a deleted scene to make their point. Failing to make their point is more accurate. I will spare you more of my rambling.
|
|
|
|
Post by onethreetwo on May 17, 2021 21:31:49 GMT
I don't have a problem with the scene because I don't think superheroes need to be perfect goody two shoes all the time. If they want to take a little frustration out on a d-bag I'm okay with that.
That said, I think the scene does a disservice to women. It's great that Captain Marvel can use her powers to stop this guy, but real human women do not have superpowers. In fact, real human women are at a physical disadvantage in most cases when dealing with a threatening man.
Real empowerment is showing how women can effectively deal with harassment by using words. Fake empowerment is watching a female superhero use her powers to stop harassment. The former isn't very exciting action movie material though. I agree the scene was better left on the cutting room floor.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 17, 2021 21:39:15 GMT
I don't have a problem with the scene because I don't think superheroes need to be perfect goody two shoes all the time. If they want to take a little frustration out on a d-bag I'm okay with that. That said, I think the scene does a disservice to women. It's great that Captain Marvel can use her powers to stop this guy, but real human women do not have superpowers. In fact, real human women are at a physical disadvantage in most cases when dealing with a threatening man. Real empowerment is showing how women can effectively deal with harassment through the use of words. Fake empowerment is watching a female superhero use her powers to stop harassment. The former isn't very exciting action movie material though. I agree the scene was better left on the cutting room floor. My personal dislike of the movie aside, I agree with most of what you said.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on May 17, 2021 21:44:32 GMT
She wasn't Captain Marvel at that point. She was a Kree Soldier executing a Kree mission and only bound by Kree rules. The movie is about her journey and learning that the Kree are the bad guys and becoming a hero to stop them. So IF she did something bad in that scene it is irrelevant to who the character becomes at the end of the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 17, 2021 21:48:41 GMT
She wasn't Captain Marvel at that point. She was a Kree Soldier executing a Kree mission and only bound by Kree rules. The movie is about her journey and learning that the Kree are the bad guys and becoming a hero to stop them. So IF she did something bad in that scene it is irrelevant to who the character becomes at the end of the movie. I didn't remember that, so thanks for bringing that up. Still doesn't change the argument that the guy in the video is making about the law though, but it does address the people calling her a villain. LegalEagle is arguing under the assumption that she is the good guy in that scene, because he hasn't seen the movie. I disagreed with that she could be seen as the villain in that scene even if she wasn't on the side of the "white male bad" side of the story. Sorry, I couldn't resist. That is how I perceived the movie, but I did try and keep that out of my rating. I dislike the movie because it bored me (Mostly because of the bland directing and casting) and every character is an unlikable bore except for Nick Fury. I dislike Civil War for similar reasons, though I have more issues with the convoluted and contrived script in that case. Still far better than Captain Marvel though, for RDJ's performance and dealing with more complex and interesting themes in a more intelligent way.
|
|
