X2 debate: Is Wolverine a murderer? (SPOILERS!)

[emarkp]

So Stryker’s ginsu-fingered henchwoman is just resting on the bottom of that tank? And she’s simply more Adamantium-fortified than before?

[Miller]

I’d be more interested in the director or the screenwriter’s take on what happened to the soldiers than the producers. However, part of me suspects that the producer was saying that with a smirk and a wink. “What’s that? Violence in the X-Men movie? Naw, none of those guys died. The one who got his head blown off? Just a flesh wound. He’s alright, really.”

[holmes]

One note on the soldiers getting ‘better’…a part of Wolverine’s history concerns the Reavers. I believe they were originally ‘soldiers’ of the Hellfire Cub, that Wolverine cut up.

They were rebuilt as cyborgs and were actually lead for a time by Lady Deathstrike, who too went thru the process and got “made”.

Their one goal was to destroy Wolverine.

[Morbo]

Originally posted by Winston Bongo

Originally posted by Dooku
I watched plenty of “bad people getting killed” cartoons and movies when I was a kid, and it didn’t turn me into a raving psychopath. Where is your thread decrying the implications of the actions of Freddy Krueger?

Ooookay. One more time for Dooku . . .

Freddy Krueger = bad guy
Thus: mass killing fully expected.

Wolverine = good guy
Thus: mass killing becomes an ethical issue in context of the film.

See?

What I see is that you decided to crop the first part of my post, the end result of which which implies something out of context that I did not intend. Here’s the full post:

There was no question in my mind that some audience members would react in exactly this fashion. Means nothing. This is a fun fantasy movie. I watched plenty of “bad people getting killed” cartoons and movies when I was a kid, and it didn’t turn me into a raving psychopath. Where is your thread decrying the implications of the actions of Freddy Krueger?

In other words, THIS IS A FUN FANTASY MOVIE. I get sick of fun fantasy movies that cram ethics down our throats and nobody kills anyone anymore, good or bad. Hence my Freddy Krueger reference - another FANTASY MOVIE character.

Originally posted by Winston Bongo
As for violence in movies turning people into psychopaths, you must have me confused with another poster, in another thread, on another topic. Sorry!

Sorry! I haven’t confused you with another poster. It was you who, in this thread, once again cropped my post and took one sentence alone out of context to preach about certain audience members reacting morally outraged and implying that we’ve learned nothing from the Professor. Which was not my point at all, of course. Here’s the whole post:

I cheered in that scene. It’s not because my bloodlust was so satiated that I had to applaud - I was cheering because someone in a movie finally started killing. I am so goddamn sick of Sci Fi movies where every bad guy has to be accounted for / attended to / saved. The very fact that this movie was willing to ignore all the pressure behind that morality was quite a relief.

In other words, I’m sick of movies today that add all this morality into their fantasy stories. That’s all. Whether other people are or not I don’t care - I made no claims that there would be people outraged by this - you did. My comment about violence turning people into psycopaths was directly on point to what you were saying about “learning from the Professor” - what do we have to learn exactly? When I grew up I saw plenty of good people killing in movies and cartoons and there’s nothing wrong with me.

In the future, please do not edit my post and quote me solely on one sentence in such a way as to steer my original message into the counterpoint you’re trying to make - it’s disingenuous.

[jkusters]

Yeah, Wolvie was probably justified in his actions, but I would have appreciated a bit of moralized agony about it. Mostly to make a distinction between the “good” guys and the “bad” guys. Perhaps have Bobby say something like, “Oh my god, you killed that guy!” followed by Wolvie saying something like, “Right now, it’s either you or him. Make your choice.”

I guess the point is that in moral stories (which the X-Men saga ultimately is), when the “good” guys do something that is morally tainted, there should be some consequences. When the consequences are unpleasant, the good guys realize that it is the cost associated with having a higher moral calling. I would have appreciated seeing some consequences, even if it’s just surprise and shock from the X-Children.

This was, in my opinion, one of the lesser flaws of the movie. I did very much enjoy the film, but I felt it suffered from some pretty big problems. (Can we say “completely out of character,” Jean? I knew you could.

JOhn.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Professor Xavier’s school is located in Westchester County, New York, so New York law applies (ignoring any wrinkles that would arise under federal law due to the federal character of the soldiers). This is what New York law has to say, in relevant part:

ARTICLE 125 - HOMICIDE, ABORTION AND RELATED OFFENSES
Sec. 125.00 Homicide defined.

Homicide means conduct which causes the death of a person or an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, criminally negligent homicide, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree.

Sec. 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or
[…]

Sec. 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:

1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; or
2. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person under circumstances which do not constitute murder because he acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of section 125.25. The fact that homicide was committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance constitutes a mitigating circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter in the first degree and need not be proved in any prosecution initiated under this subdivision; or
   […]

Sec. 125.25 Murder in the second degree.
A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:

1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that:
   (a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant`s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime; or
   […]
2. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person; or
   […]

Sec. 125.27 Murder in the first degree.
A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:

1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; and
   (a) Either:
   (i) the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision 34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended victim was a police officer; or
   (ii) the intended victim was a peace officer as defined in paragraph a of subdivision twenty-one, subdivision twenty-three, twenty-four or sixty-two (employees of the division for youth) of section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time of the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the intended victim was such a uniformed court officer, parole officer, probation officer, or employee
   of the division for youth; or
   […]
   (viii) as part of the same criminal transaction, the defendant, with intent to cause serious physical injury to or the death of an additional person or persons, causes the death of an additional person or persons; provided, however, the victim is not a participant in the criminal transaction; or
   […]
   (x) the defendant acted in an especially cruel and wanton manner pursuant to a course of conduct intended to inflict and inflicting torture upon the victim prior to the victim`s death. As used in this subparagraph, “torture” means the intentional and depraved infliction of extreme physical pain; “depraved” means the defendant relished the infliction of extreme physical pain upon the victim evidencing debasement or perversion or that the defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in the infliction of extreme physical pain; or
   (xi) the defendant intentionally caused the death of two or more additional persons within the state in separate criminal transactions within a period of twenty-four months when committed in a similar fashion or pursuant to a common scheme or plan; or
   […]
   (xiii) the victim was killed in furtherance of an act of terrorism, as defined in paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section 490.05 of this chapter; and
   (b) The defendant was more than eighteen years old at the time of the commission of the crime.

2. In any prosecution under subdivision one, it is an affirmative defense that:
   (a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant`s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime except murder in the second degree; or
   […]

ARTICLE 35 - DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION

Sec. 35.00 Justification; a defense.
In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 35.05 through 35.30, is a defense.

Sec. 35.05 Justification; generally.
Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
[…]
2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The necessity and justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a defense.

Sec. 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such person.
[…]
6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in defense of himself or a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized by any such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance, nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or
qualify such authorization.

Sec. 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter`s conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

2.   A  person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a)   He  reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use  deadly  physical  force.   Even  in  such  case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and  others avoid the  necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i)  in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or

[…]
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Sec. 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.

2.   A  person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein,  may  use physical  force  upon  another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what  he  reasonably believes  to  be  the  commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises.   He  may use  any  degree  of  physical  force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes  to  be  necessary  for  such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed  in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.

3.   A  person  in  possession  or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling  or  an  occupied  building, who reasonably   believes   that  another  person  is  committing  or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use  deadly  physical  force  upon  such  other  person  when  he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or  terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

[…]

[…]

Sec. 35.27 Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.
A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a police officer or peace officer when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a police officer or peace officer.

[…]

FWIW, “peace officers” includes federal as well as state law enforcement – see Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law. However, it only applies to certain listed types of agents (the list is lengthy, which is why I’m not quoting it here). I don’t see “quasi-illegal black ops soldiers” on the list.

[Winston_Bongo]

Originally posted by Dooku
In the future, please do not edit my post and quote me solely on one sentence in such a way as to steer my original message into the counterpoint you’re trying to make - it’s disingenuous.

I cropped the part where you said it was a “fun fantasy movie” because that was both obvious and beside the point. Does anybody NOT think it’s a fun fantasy movie? You seem to think that excuses it from being the subject of any ethical/moral debate; but X-Men has always been a metaphorical fantasy. A “hero” in such a movie might be expected to act in a more ethical manner than Freddy Krueger. They are both obviously fantasy characters – but Wolverine is a hero in a movie that invites ethical debate, while Freddy Krueger is a villain in movies that don’t. Two different things. I should have quoted your entire paragraph, but my original point remains.

Furthermore, when I said this:

“And the fact that some audience members reacted as such is exactly why the implications of Logan’s actions should not have been ignored. Have we fans learned nothing from the Professor?”

I meant the fact that some audience members reacted like you did shows why the issue should have been addressed within the film. You said you cheered the movie’s ignoring moral pressure; I think in a film dealing with moral issues like those espoused by Professor X, such a reaction should have been anticipated and addressed by the filmmakers.

Now, to be sure I’m fair, I’ll quote the entirety of your last comment before responding:

In other words, I’m sick of movies today that add all this morality into their fantasy stories. That’s all. Whether other people are or not I don’t care - I made no claims that there would be people outraged by this - you did. My comment about violence turning people into psycopaths was directly on point to what you were saying about “learning from the Professor” - what do we have to learn exactly? When I grew up I saw plenty of good people killing in movies and cartoons and there’s nothing wrong with me.

Again, you don’t understand: I’m not saying that watching the film will directly inspire criminal behavior. Where did you get that? I’m discussing the ethics depicted IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FILM, that I perceive them to be inconsistent in that context, and that viewers who simply cheer the mass killing without questioning it are, quite frankly, reacting more like Magneto than Xavier. Which is fine if that’s your take on it; I’m just making an observation. So let it be known across the SDMB that I never meant to imply that Dooku personally wishes to carve up his fellow humans with large knives because of any cartoons or movies he/she has viewed.

Finally, I address this statement found above: “I made no claims that there would be people outraged by this - you did.” Wrong. I never said any such thing. I did not say I was “outraged” nor did I say I expected anyone else to be. I said I was relatively “disturbed,” but that I fully expected some others would cheer the sequence as you did. I promise to stop quoting you selectively if you promise to stop attributing statements to me that I did not say. :dubious:

[Kamino_Neko]

BTW, getting back to the Weapon X program hijack, Alkali Lake is in the Canadian Rockies, not Alberta, as I said before (Just rewatched X-Men last night). So, I was right that Prof. Xavier said that it was in Canada, but I was wrong about exactly where.

[smiling_bandit]

The claws were going right through people’s chests. No way they survived! Especially the guy in the kitchen! There’s no way you shove that much metal in a guy’s chest and miss every vital organ.

Not neccessarily. Chest wounds are bad, but not invariably fatal. There was no attack Wolverine made that was absolutely going to cause a death if the soldiers recieved prompt medical attention. So, its not improbable that they died. However, with the injuried they took, soe are damned likely to have died.

[Morbo]

I’m not saying that watching the film will directly inspire criminal behavior. Where did you get that? I’m discussing the ethics depicted IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FILM, that I perceive them to be inconsistent in that context, and that viewers who simply cheer the mass killing without questioning it are, quite frankly, reacting more like Magneto than Xavier. Which is fine if that’s your take on it; I’m just making an observation.

I’m timing out trying to quote your entire post, so forgive me if I get to these points, which I believe do not alter your meaning, and which I believe are at the heart of our mutual misunderstanding.

What I’m failing to convey, apparently, is that I did not cheer the mass killings without questioning them b/c of some moral bankrupcy - I cheered because of the fact that the filmmakers didn’t bow to the current morailty in movies where no bad guy gets killed ever. I was never talking about the context of the film - I was talking about enjoying a throwback movie that didn’t care so much about that. I’m not excusing it, I was just happy to see a movie go for broke for a change. Call it the “Greedo shoots first” syndrome.

Finally, I address this statement found above: “I made no claims that there would be people outraged by this - you did.” Wrong. I never said any such thing. I did not say I was “outraged” nor did I say I expected anyone else to be. I said I was relatively “disturbed,” but that I fully expected some others would cheer the sequence as you did.

I definitely misunderstood you. I thought your statement:

“And the fact that some audience members reacted as such is exactly why the implications of Logan’s actions should not have been ignored. Have we fans learned nothing from the Professor?”

was referring to the audience members that reacted to the immorality of it - not audience members that cheered, whether their reasons were different from my own or not. Can you agree that your sentence was ambiguous?

Finally:

Let it be known across the SDMB that I never meant to imply that Dooku personally wishes to carve up his fellow humans with large knives because of any cartoons or movies he has viewed.

Can I use that as my Sig?

[middleman]

DCH,

Even assuming those agents somehow managed to be classified as some form of Peace Officer, wouldn’t this passage still be operative to allow Wolverine to make an argument of self-defense.?:

“when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a police officer or peace officer (Italics Mine.)” Sec. 35.27

The Police don’t tend to shot tranq darts or submachine guns at children!

[Daniel]

one thing: just because a base is in Canada doesn’t mean it isn’t still American. America has bases and troops all over (granted, mostly in countries we’ve fought wars in and just not left, most notably Germany), but the country’s reach isn’t limited by its borders. The thing could easily be in Canada and still be an American project.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

watsonwil: I think that’s a plausible argument. I wasn’t trying to make a statement one way or the other – I was just providing the substantive law that was relevant to the discussion.

[Ranchoth]

Just another note…I was browsing through the “Art of X-2” book at borders yesterday, and noticed a “still” from the film, showing one of the troopers that Logan is slashing…and he (the trooper) is clearly carrying an FN-P90. A futuristic looking, but Belgian made SMG. Notable for the fact that it uses 5.7x28mm ammunition. And it is, to the point, not used by any U.S. forces.

So…whoever these guys were, they weren’t Yank’s.