Psssssst. The term is repel boarders. Besides which, I don’t recall many instances of Captain Peachfuzz tasking then with that particular chore. Also, I don’t recall that many instances of the Andalusia (Athabaska) being beset by boarders.
I will concede that preventing boarders from gaining uninvited access to one’s ship will probably make them cross. Probably downright cranky. But doing it can hardly be characterized as illegal.
This is argument. Abuse is down the hall.
This is MPSIMS. Argument and Abuse do routinely take place here, but it’s mostly for kitty pics.
We only have those laws we can enforce.
Killers like Frank “The Punisher” Castle and Eddie “The Comedian” Blake does their wet-work with impunity…no remorse or worry.
Are you gonna “stop” them?
We’ve had that conversation here already. No, he doesn’t.
Tony Stark being a Howard Hughes Expy presumably he already has a pilot’s license and could probably get the Iron Man suit licensed under the Experimental category, at least in the US (and since US Experimental category aircraft have flown around the world that would probably work elsewhere). Of course, having to paint EXPERIMENTAL and N-numbers on the suit does sort of ruin the cool paint job, but, whatever.
Good point - which version of WW and/or her lasso makes some difference here. If you are compelled to only speak truth but you have the option of silence (which, so far as I know, was never the case) then it could be compliant with the Fifth Amendment. However, even without causing pain, if it forces you to blab then it’s like drugging someone to get a confession - they can’t NOT self-incriminate and whether or not it hurts is irrelevant, it’s violates the Fifth.
Of course, that only applies in the US - not every country recognizes the right to avoid self-incrimination. And in a war zone, like WWI or WWII, it’s questionable if there is ANY real law.
There is no way all of Batman’s assaults are legal.
What does it matter? Not only isn’t wonder Woman a branch of the US Government, she isn’t even a US citizen (although, in the comics, Diana Prince poses as one)
AIUI, it does matter because in the U.S., evidence that is not legally obtained is not admissible court. And it is easy to envision a judge striking down such “testimony” obtained via the Truth Lasso because it was the police exploiting a vigilante’s work.
That being said, it might still sway a jury anyway.
Based on what laws or constitutional rights?
The exclusionary rule “is grounded in the Fourth Amendment and it is intended to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures.”
The Fourth Amendment “requires ‘reasonable’ governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
Is it written anywhere or is there case law that says if evidence is not legally obtained by someone not representing the government it is not admissible court?
Well, a good defense lawyer would ask how they knew where to dig. Because a good defense lawyer knows that once the cops admit they improperly got the info about where to dig, then the evidence from digging becomes inadmissible, too. And if the cop tries to say that he just happened to have a hunch about digging in a particular patch of woods 200 yards off the road, 30 miles upstate, most judges will think that the more likely answer is an improper search.
IANAL, but I’m pretty sure such exceptions/loopholes are closed. Otherwise, police could bring a suspect into an interrogation room and say, “Now look here buddy, we can’t torture you by law, but this friendly vigilante of ours, Freddy, who lives nearby and provides us his volunteer services for free, is going to beat your knuckles into a pulp with this crowbar if you don’t start answering questions. So…”
Little Nemo just discussed this. If a private citizen – without a cop or other government official asking or being involved-- does a search that’s illegal for a cop, the evidence could possibly be used. But if the person did it again and again, and the cops kept using their info, courts will probably think that the person is in effect acting on behalf of the cops and start suppressing the evidence. If the private party’s search is also a crime (breaking and entering or whatever), then the fact that the cops haven’t tossed them in jail might also make the judge conclude that the putative private citizen is really acting on behalf of the government.
Surprisingly I can’t find that that the Law and the Multiverse blog has addressed WW’s lasso. On reddit, a lawyer thinks that the golden-lasso testimony wouldn’t be admitted because it fails the test of scientific reliability (similar to why a polygraph reading isn’t admissible).
I’d guess the lasso has 5th Amendment implications, too, since I don’t think ‘remaining silent’ is an option when inside the lasso.
The main purpose of the fifth amendment is to prevent torturing suspects in intense interrogation, and secondly to avoid the false confessions that one tends to get in intense interrogation. Presuming it’s not the pain-inducing variant the lasso isn’t a problem on either of those fronts - it’s painless and the information it produces is reliable.
Which makes me wonder if a person could reasonably argue that using it on a person is like pointing a video camera at them while they’re committing the act - you’re getting an objectively accurate record of the truth about what occurred.
Of course the government still couldn’t deliberately use such a thing on a person due to the amendment, (though video cameras are okay), and while acting as their agent Diana couldn’t either, but if she refused the government’s orders and went around lasso-interrogating people anyway, would the cops be obligated to disregard the resulting confessions? They’re reliable and weren’t arrived at through immoral means.
And if Diana kept interrogating people that way, could they do anything about it? Technically they could arrest her for (brief) false imprisonment, though as soon as the person starts confessing then a citizen’s arrest would start being viable, I’d think. And beyond the brief imprisonment she hasn’t broken any laws, so long as she steadfastly maintains she’s a Themysciran ambassador and not a representative of the US government.
So then if there were some truth serum that was painless and reliably produced information, cops could inject suspects with it in America?
No, because they’re cops. The letter of the law trumps the intent of the law. I’m fairly confident they couldn’t legally use the lasso either.
The question is whether they have to plug their ears if Diana uses it in front of them.
What you just mentioned is a loophole, as it is the police who introduced the friendly vigilante. The OP didn’t mention a loophole:
“At the end of “Justice League” you see some thieves lassoed and spilling the beans with a police officer busily taking notes.”
I don’t see it. Courts don’t “think” that someone is a government actor. She is either employed by the government or she isn’t.
You can see it here although apparently that scene is in London so no 5th amendment so just pretend it was in the US since WW hangs in the US more often than not anyway.
This is why we can’t have superheros.
What if the cop says he got an anonymous tip?
(“Well, anonymous in that I don’t know her actual name; she used an alias.”)
I see some problems, but unsure how to legally resolve them but take some stabs, none if which is the 5th self incrimination clause.
Since the Law does not recognize magic, how can the state justify that rope? (cruel and unusual punishment, and punishment of a person that has not been convicted) why not any other rope, and what justification is there to use any rope?
Use of magic seems to fall into ‘religion’ which the state can not recognize, again why the selection of that rope (Freedom of religion). Selecting the one and only true magic rope seems like the establishing of a religion.
Now it is true that law enforcement has consulting mediums and the like to get leads (again using magic like abilities) though when done is just a starting point and not something that ends up in court.