View Poll Results: We the jury find the Defendant, Scott Summers, to be...

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • Guilty of Murder in the First (or Second) Degree

    13 9.92%
  • Guilty of Voluntary (or Involuntary) Manslaughter

    13 9.92%
  • Not Guilty by way of Self-Defense

    25 19.08%
  • Not Guilty by reason of Insanity

    60 45.80%
  • Not Guilty (Other)

    20 15.27%
Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 201
  1. #76
    Lazy Struggler BitParallel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Cloud 9
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maestroneto View Post
    Stark was director of SHIELD at the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by BitParallel View Post

    Leave Tony Alone!!
    Attachment 83975
    Kindly refer to my previous message.

  2. #77
    Ninpuu - Shinobi Change! Striderblack01's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    318

    Default

    On the Defendant's State of Mind

    Quote Originally Posted by Huntsman Spider View Post
    Of course, this is Scott Summers's trial, not Tony Stark's, so if there were to be a defense offered, how about severe emotional and psychological duress, compounded by being possessed by even a fragment of the Phoenix Force? Given all the crap he'd been through in the past decade (real-time and comic-time) with no psychotherapy or a functional support structure, it'd only be a matter of time before something snapped.
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Alpha View Post
    Difference is one was being constantly attacked while he had the Phoenix unwillingly (both for him and the entity) and did it when he was a) Not in full control of his actions; b) In war, while the other did it willingly.
    Quote Originally Posted by The tall man View Post
    And how is it that all the so-called "good" things Cyclops did with the Phoenix was all him and all the "bad" things he did were not him?
    Quote Originally Posted by BitParallel View Post
    Your honour, the defendant was well aware of his mental state and the corrupted power he was harnessing. Nonetheless, it did not stop him from knocking out his girlfriend at the time(domestic abuse?) and obtain more power which he knew will corrupt him more yet he pursued it and finally resulted in Professor Xavier’s death. It was calculated and he admittedly said he would do it all over again. Meaning he does not regret killing Professor Xavier and the destruction caused by the defendant.


    It appears that we are finally getting to the heart of the Mental State / Insanity Question. Good.

    The Prosecution is correct in asking pertinent questions and attempting to break down the argument in general.
    As "Mental Insanity" is an affirmative defense, it's up to the defense council to prove mental insanity.

    The Defense must prove the Defendant either lacked the capacity to know the nature & consequences of their conduct, or that such conduct was wrong.

    The Defense, therefore, must:

    • Establish the cause(s) of the psychological duress.
    • Establish a rough timeline of when the psychological duress started and ended.
    • Establish signs the Defendant displayed of mental duress, if any.
    • Present a likely diagnosis, if possible.
    • Illustrate exactly how this duress limited the Defendant's capacity to appreciate their behavior - through actions and speech.
    • Tie it all together directly to the death of Charles Xavier.
    • In general, educate the court on the relevant mental illness (was it a sudden, short burst, psychotic break? Or a long, progressively worsening, episode? Are your capacities always hindered, or do they come and go? etc., etc.).


    So ordered.


    Quote Originally Posted by Shreene View Post
    I that Robin Thede?
    Confirmed. Bonus points for you!
    Last edited by Striderblack01; 06-30-2019 at 06:58 AM.
    The Milkshake Boom
    Quite possibly the greatest movie podcast ever made!
    (But probably not)

  3. #78
    Mighty Member KangMiRae's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    The sea!
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Cyclops did nothing wrong!
    Admiral of a fleet of ships—relationships!
    Comicbooks are nothing to me without ships and romance!

  4. #79
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,298

    Default

    Marvel has never made it explicit on-panel whether it was Scott or the Phoenix Force that decided to kill Xavier. IOW, the evidence remains ambiguous (and I'm convinced Marvel prefers it this way).

    My personal interpretation is that it was voluntary manslaughter--a crime of passion. Juiced up on the Phoenix Force, emotionally unstable and suffering from PTSD due to years of losing loved ones, and enraged by the events of AvX, Scott killed Xavier in a fit of rage.

    However, he wasn't insane. Immediately after the killing, he begged to be killed. He recognized right away the wrong of what he'd just done. As angry as he was, he still understood the difference between right and wrong. In his anger, in the moment, he'd just stopped caring.

    Again though, Scott's culpability remains canonically ambiguous.
    Last edited by FUBAR007; 06-30-2019 at 08:01 AM.

  5. #80
    Sad & Brazilian PrezValentine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitParallel View Post
    Your honour, the defendant was well aware of his mental state and the corrupted power he was harnessing. Nonetheless, it did not stop him from knocking out his girlfriend at the time(domestic abuse?) and obtain more power which he knew will corrupt him more yet he pursued it and finally resulted in Professor Xavier’s death. It was calculated and he admittedly said he would do it all over again. Meaning he does not regret killing Professor Xavier and the destruction caused by the defendant.



    I’m lost! Who are you referring to?



    OBJECTION, Your Honour.

    Btw the army was in hiding, it’s a strategy.
    Sure wolverine and the defendant were tight. The defendant trusted him to run a bunch of assassins and do the dirty work for the defendant. You need to be close to the person to trust them with such responsibilities.
    Objection. At the time, Wolverine acted, as his staff can confirm, as if the defendant was his enemy. Therefore, all his actions towards or related to the defendant are questionable at best, since he would benefit from the defendant being discredited and all members of the X-Men living under his leadership.
    Hunting's no fun when your prey doesn't move.

  6. #81
    Astonishing Member Hizashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    4,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitParallel View Post
    Your honour, the defendant was well aware of his mental state and the corrupted power he was harnessing. Nonetheless, it did not stop him from knocking out his girlfriend at the time(domestic abuse?) and obtain more power which he knew will corrupt him more yet he pursued it and finally resulted in Professor XavierÂ’s death. It was calculated and he admittedly said he would do it all over again. Meaning he does not regret killing Professor Xavier and the destruction caused by the defendant.

    The sequence of events is important here. Scott wasn't under undue mental stress (especially not by the PF) and he also wasn't in danger of corruption by PF until the Avengers intervened.

    Scott wasn't pursuing the PF to harness for his own use, but to keep it out of the hands of the Avengers and to ensure that it could find its intended host. The power is corrupting - how can one be aware of their mental state under that influence? And the context for Scott's ultimate meltdown is important; practically every "hero" and "heroine" arrived at his home prepared to kill him, and it was only after an extended battle that he finally lost it.

    Killing Xavier broke Scott - his comment about doing it all again was shown to be part of his desire to martyr himself in subsequent events.

    Quote Originally Posted by BitParallel View Post
    OBJECTION, Your Honour.

    Btw the army was in hiding, itÂ’s a strategy.
    Sure wolverine and the defendant were tight. The defendant trusted him to run a bunch of assassins and do the dirty work for the defendant. You need to be close to the person to trust them with such responsibilities.
    By bringing an army, the Avengers have lost all rights to claim that they were attempting to cooperate with the Utopian X-Men. It certainly is a strategy - one used against adversaries, not allies. We can now move on from the ridiculous notion that the Avengers were acting in good faith.

    During the events in question, Wolverine had already left the Utopian X-Men and was clearly no longer on good terms with Cyclops.

  7. #82
    Astonishing Member Ulfhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3,135

    Default

    Your Honor,

    Ulfhammer, counsel for the DEFENSE.

    Upon reviewing the listed charges against the DEFENDENT, I note the inclusion of the following:

    Abandoning His Mentor’s Ideology of Peaceful Coexistence and;
    Being a bad Husband & a dead-beat Father

    I would remind the court of the established Principle of Legality. As per the Third Geneva Convention, Article 99, first paragraph; Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 67 for which the United States of America is a signatory:

    ;prisoners of war and civilians respectively may not be tried for acts that were not criminal offences, provided for by law, prior to the commission of those acts.[1] Additional Protocols I and II repeat the same principle and add that a heavier penalty may not be imposed than that applicable at the time the act was committed but that if, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit from this.[2] This principle of legality is also set forth in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.[3]

    Further upon review of Title 18 of the US Code, neither of the listed charges appears as a criminal offense, therefore I call for the immediate dismissal of these charges.

  8. #83
    Ninpuu - Shinobi Change! Striderblack01's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulfhammer View Post
    Your Honor,

    Ulfhammer, counsel for the DEFENSE.

    Upon reviewing the listed charges against the DEFENDENT, I note the inclusion of the following:

    Abandoning His Mentor’s Ideology of Peaceful Coexistence and;
    Being a bad Husband & a dead-beat Father

    I would remind the court of the established Principle of Legality. As per the Third Geneva Convention, Article 99, first paragraph; Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 67 for which the United States of America is a signatory:

    ;prisoners of war and civilians respectively may not be tried for acts that were not criminal offences, provided for by law, prior to the commission of those acts.[1] Additional Protocols I and II repeat the same principle and add that a heavier penalty may not be imposed than that applicable at the time the act was committed but that if, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit from this.[2] This principle of legality is also set forth in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.[3]

    Further upon review of Title 18 of the US Code, neither of the listed charges appears as a criminal offense, therefore I call for the immediate dismissal of these charges.
    If this were a regular court of law, this argument would be justifiable.
    But...


    THIS. IS. AN INTERNET COOOOUUUURT!

    And while this Court styles itself as a regular court of law - it is NOT your typical court of law.
    If the people continue to charge the Defendant for those crimes, as we've seen time and time again in these forums, then the accused should at least have a forum where he may formally defend himself of those charges.

    That is where we, the People's Court, come into play.

    Last edited by Striderblack01; 06-30-2019 at 09:56 PM.
    The Milkshake Boom
    Quite possibly the greatest movie podcast ever made!
    (But probably not)

  9. #84
    Astonishing Member Tazpocalapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Ruins of Genosha
    Posts
    2,555

    Default

    I go with guilty by insanity per being under the influence.

  10. #85
    Better than YOU! Alan2099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,201

    Default

    Scott wasn't pursuing the PF to harness for his own use, but to keep it out of the hands of the Avengers and to ensure that it could find its intended host. The power is corrupting - how can one be aware of their mental state under that influence?
    This seems an odd argument. The power is corrupting and one can't be sure of somebody's mental state under it's influence. It stands to reason then, that if this is the case, one can't count on a person's actions to predictable, rational, or beneficial to others. So if you can't expect Phoenix to behave rationally why would you want to have anyone under it's influence?

    As for it not being for his own use, he was under the belief that the Phoenix force, would ultimate serve his own goals even if it did reach it's expected host.

    And the context for Scott's ultimate meltdown is important; practically every "hero" and "heroine" arrived at his home prepared to kill him, and it was only after an extended battle that he finally lost it.
    The other heroes arrived after he had already made multiple threats against the world and demanded it's leaders do as he said. Some would argue that he never took control of any countries and allowed them to keep ruling themselves. However he made it clear that they could continue to do so ONLY if they did as he said. At this point he was clearly operating as a terrorist on a global scale.

  11. #86
    Astonishing Member PsychoEFrost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    3,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan2099 View Post
    This seems an odd argument. The power is corrupting and one can't be sure of somebody's mental state under it's influence. It stands to reason then, that if this is the case, one can't count on a person's actions to predictable, rational, or beneficial to others. So if you can't expect Phoenix to behave rationally why would you want to have anyone under it's influence?

    As for it not being for his own use, he was under the belief that the Phoenix force, would ultimate serve his own goals even if it did reach it's expected host.


    The other heroes arrived after he had already made multiple threats against the world and demanded it's leaders do as he said. Some would argue that he never took control of any countries and allowed them to keep ruling themselves. However he made it clear that they could continue to do so ONLY if they did as he said. At this point he was clearly operating as a terrorist on a global scale.
    1) The Phoenix will always do what it needs to do, and do that through her host. It's the reason some hosts like the Cuckoos or QQQ dislike it: they aren't really in control, even if their desires are made reality. Especially since it was heavily implied Jean was manipulating the events that created Hope in order to rescue mutantkind.

    2) That's incorrect. The Avengers attacked Utopia, placing every student in their in danger, based on false information from Wolverine. After that, the P5 made the world a much better place in the eyes of some of the smartest people alive (Black Panther, Mister Fantastic, Beast). It was only after repeated attacks and the kidnapping of Hope did the P5 lose it.
    "It is the truest mark of heroism: to give your life aware that those you save will never know."

  12. #87
    Embrace the Fluff FluffyCyclopsRLZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Your Honor, the Defense would remind the Court that Charles Xavier himself presented a diagnostic of Scott Summers and Emma Frost' psychological condition shortly after they inadvertently inherited the Rasputin siblings' powers. The Defense would like to point out that Steve Rogers, T'Challa, son of T'Chaka, Ororo Monroe, James Howlett and Peter Parker were all present when aforementioned diagnostic was surmised and that not a single objection was put forward.



    For the sake of transparency, the Defense would openly admit it doesn't have the slightest of efffin' clues why Steve Rogers chose that particular moment to shed what suspiciously looks like the most ridiculous tear in the history of ever.

  13. #88
    Sarveśām Svastir Bhavatu Devaishwarya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,142

    Default

    Because every high-profile case needs one...
    I'll be that casual malcontent who just shows up at the hearing and, given a moment of opportunity...stands up and yells...AVX-WAS-SHIT!!!THIS-HEARING-IS-A-FARCE!!! AVX-WAS-SHIT!!!THE-WRITERS-SHOULD-BE-ON-TRIAL!!!...before I'm forcibly escorted out of the courtroom by the judiciary guards.

  14. #89
    Fantastic Member Cap808's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    In the middle of the sea
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Does this deadbeat father have diplomatic immunity?

    Otherwise I would like to point out that precedence of forgiveness with minimal to no charges has already been set during the People vs. Hal Jordan, among many others.
    Last edited by Cap808; 07-01-2019 at 02:36 PM.

  15. #90
    Ultimate Member Havok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,840

    Default

    Involuntary manslaughter. He wasnt exactly in his right mind due to the PF amping him up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •