Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 126
  1. #31
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Well, I think the ideal is the police and vigilante's working together to fight crime. As much as Superheroes work outside the law they kind of rely on legitimate law enforcement to arrest and apprehend the villains or criminals they stop.
    That is the ending of the movie Peppermint with Jennifer Garner. What the movie is about is a drug lordís gang members murders her husband and kid, and crooked judges, cops etc rig things to get them off, so she goes full Charles Bronson on them, and at the end the hero cop says most of the force likes what she did ( whacking the guy and those responsible) and lets her go.

  2. #32
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,606

    Default

    The problem with superheroes and police is that vigilantism cuts many ways.

    It can in some ways embody a critique of police institutions. Like with Spider-Man, you have police and other people devote more resources bringing him down than in hunting Doctor Octopus or Green Goblin or other actual murderous supervillains.

    But on the other hand, the existence of vigilantism can also reinforce and extend a defense of police, and indirectly support a militarization of police. You see this in the Batman White Knight series, which has been overpraised (I think it's quite bad) and which basically takes the classic criticism of Batman as "rich guy who beats the poor" and opposes that from the right, with a call to militarization of police force.

  3. #33
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    23,018

    Default

    Superheroes as a critique of police departments is a generous take on them given they have all the issues people have with the police but dialed up to 11. Superheroes frequently brutalize enemies, cause mass property damage in fights, show disregard for civil rights and the rule of law and (at least over at DC) usually operate in anonymity and lack of oversight. When police officers screw up like what happened to George Floyd, their names are at least a matter of public record and they are much more likely to face sanctions than superheroes.

    Having Spider-Man fight police officers isn't necessarily a critique of the police given how much writers like reinforcing the underdog narrative and having him fight both law breakers and law enforcers is an easy way to do that.

  4. #34
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Superheroes as a critique of police departments is a generous take on them given they have all the issues people have with the police but dialed up to 11.
    Superheroes are first and foremost symbols/metaphors/ideas. They are power fantasies and power fantasies cut a lot of ways. On one level, superheroes are fantasies about wanting a big powerful savior/guardian/big brother to come and right the wrongs. On the other side, with Marvel and Spider-Man and X-Men, they can also be the fantasies about the underdog, the other, the marginalized. Spider-Man was always popular with African-Americans and also Jewish-Americans especially in the classic years because his stories (hounded by press, police, scapegoated) and also his sense of being an outsider and intellectual decried as a nerd, made him seem representative of their experiences. The X-Men under Claremont became Marvel's biggest comic because they embodied, even more than Spider-Man, the sense of being a persecuted minority hated for being different.

    So superheroes can embody a critique of social institutions. Even Gerry Conway, a leftist, pointed that out.

  5. #35
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The problem with superheroes and police is that vigilantism cuts many ways.

    It can in some ways embody a critique of police institutions. Like with Spider-Man, you have police and other people devote more resources bringing him down than in hunting Doctor Octopus or Green Goblin or other actual murderous supervillains.

    But on the other hand, the existence of vigilantism can also reinforce and extend a defense of police, and indirectly support a militarization of police. You see this in the Batman White Knight series, which has been overpraised (I think it's quite bad) and which basically takes the classic criticism of Batman as "rich guy who beats the poor" and opposes that from the right, with a call to militarization of police.
    Revolutionary Jack takes an extreme point of view ( his very handle should be a clue to that). Anyone who has read a superhero comic book or saw a superhero movie, knows police cannot handle some of Spider-Man¬ís enemies ( Rhino for example). Characters like Kang, Loki or Super Scrull are even above Pete¬ís level, so you have Thor, the FF and The Avengers to deal with them. For those who think ¬ďThe ends justify the means¬Ē and support anarchy, think about after Captain Stacy¬ís death, how everyone turned on Pete and would have killed him if they had the chance ( even though he was innocent). As for militarization of the police, that started in the 1930¬ís because criminals would escape by going across state lines, so the government created the FBI, organized gangs with sophisticated equipment require armor plated equipment etc.

  6. #36
    Loony Scott Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Running Springs, California
    Posts
    6,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Well, I think the ideal is the police and vigilante's working together to fight crime. As much as Superheroes work outside the law they kind of rely on legitimate law enforcement to arrest and apprehend the villains or criminals they stop.
    Its a nice fantasy that goes along with comics but not the real world. Cops have to go by due process and can't just arrest someone on the basis that Spider-Man webbed them up and said they attempted a mugging. Its ludicrous! The only way that would realistically work is if Spider-Man were sworn in as a cop or at least as a citizen patrol officer and was actually educated on how to abide by the laws. And he'd become half as effective at best.
    Every day is a gift, not a given right.

  7. #37
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NC_Yankee View Post
    Revolutionary Jack takes an extreme point of view ( his very handle should be a clue to that).
    Handle was generated by an internate username algorithm rather than created by me (I can't create cool nicknames or handles by myself). And my point of view is not extreme. It's in fact a moderate and middle view.

    For those who think ¬ďThe ends justify the means¬Ē and support anarchy, think about after Captain Stacy¬ís death,
    Not sure what Captain Stacy's death has to do with "the ends justify the means" and "anarchy". I wasn't advocating any of that either.

    how everyone turned on Pete and would have killed him if they had the chance ( even though he was innocent).
    Firstly it's not everyone. It's Sam Bullitt and Gwen Stacy, but others like Randy Robertson and so on had no intention of killing Pete nor turning on him.

    As for militarization of the police, that started in the 1930’s ...
    What happened in the 30s is the professionalization of the police. That's not the same thing as militarization. Militarization of police refers to stuff that's been happening since the Bush years, since 9/11. I suggest reading up on it because explaining it in detail will be quite off-topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Taylor View Post
    Its a nice fantasy that goes along with comics but not the real world. Cops have to go by due process and can't just arrest someone on the basis that Spider-Man webbed them up and said they attempted a mugging. Its ludicrous! The only way that would realistically work is if Spider-Man were sworn in as a cop or at least as a citizen patrol officer and was actually educated on how to abide by the laws. And he'd become half as effective at best.
    In the real world, if a criminal commits a crime and is apprehended in the real world because some random bystander trips him on the way out (as for instance the cop expected Spider-Man to do in AF#15), then that arrest would not be invalidated because he was tripped over by a random civilian and not a deputized officer of the law. On a legal level, since Spider-Man is an independent agent and unknown actor, anytime he catches or stops an armed robbery, he's basically acting as a bystander. Since he's a vigilante, any criminal he webs up for the cops to them pick up would not be invalidated any more than say, random criminals mugging a druglord's palace getting busted would invalidate pre-existing charges against that druglord whose evidence of wrongdoing got exposed by minor crimes.

    The issue of superheroes and vigilantism and the legal issues of that as it usually plays out in comics wouldn't actually be the way it goes down in the court of law.

    The real issue of glorifying vigilantism is that in American history and society, vigilantism in practise is less about catching criminals and bank robbers and more about say, "Stand your ground" and lynching and so on. Vigilantism in American history is the KKK, the White Leagues and so on. Someone like the Punisher, who has become the most popular superhero among cops and armed forces, is far more problematic and far more in need of a rethink. A hero who uses non-lethal fictionalized adhesive and so on is quite removed from the everyday context of vigilantism in a way that Frank Castle isn't and probably never will be.

  8. #38
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Handle was generated by an internate username algorithm rather than created by me (I can't create cool nicknames or handles by myself). And my point of view is not extreme. It's in fact a moderate and middle view.



    Not sure what Captain Stacy's death has to do with "the ends justify the means" and "anarchy". I wasn't advocating any of that either.



    Firstly it's not everyone. It's Sam Bullitt and Gwen Stacy, but others like Randy Robertson and so on had no intention of killing Pete nor turning on him.



    What happened in the 30s is the professionalization of the police. That's not the same thing as militarization. Militarization of police refers to stuff that's been happening since the Bush years, since 9/11. I suggest reading up on it because explaining it in detail will be quite off-topic.



    In the real world, if a criminal commits a crime and is apprehended in the real world because some random bystander trips him on the way out (as for instance the cop expected Spider-Man to do in AF#15), then that arrest would not be invalidated because he was tripped over by a random civilian and not a deputized officer of the law. On a legal level, since Spider-Man is an independent agent and unknown actor, anytime he catches or stops an armed robbery, he's basically acting as a bystander. Since he's a vigilante, any criminal he webs up for the cops to them pick up would not be invalidated any more than say, random criminals mugging a druglord's palace getting busted would invalidate pre-existing charges against that druglord whose evidence of wrongdoing got exposed by minor crimes.

    The issue of superheroes and vigilantism and the legal issues of that as it usually plays out in comics wouldn't actually be the way it goes down in the court of law.

    The real issue of glorifying vigilantism is that in American history and society, vigilantism in practise is less about catching criminals and bank robbers and more about say, "Stand your ground" and lynching and so on. Vigilantism in American history is the KKK, the White Leagues and so on. Someone like the Punisher, who has become the most popular superhero among cops and armed forces, is far more problematic and far more in need of a rethink. A hero who uses non-lethal fictionalized adhesive and so on is quite removed from the everyday context of vigilantism in a way that Frank Castle isn't and probably never will be.
    funny you mentioned the Punisher, a recent 2019 issue of the Punisher had Frank run in into cops who are huge fans and when they realized who he is at gunpoint, they take photo op and show their sticker and told Frank how there fans in the force. Frank was actually offended by that concept and took the skull sticker and tore in half, told off the cops saying the cops suppose to represent something that Frank gave up long ago and is nothing that should follow, if they want to follow an example. Captain America will would a good one. and he told the cops that if any of them go down his path, he's gonna come after them as much as any other criminal deals with. both Police officers were less than please by that.

  9. #39
    Astonishing Member David Walton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,314

    Default

    I agree that Spider-Man catching crooks would be roughly comparable to a citizen's arrest. Because superheroes are a real thing in the MU, there might even be laws on the books as to how it's handled.

    The biggest legal problem would be, as Scott Taylor already pointed out, if the crooks weren't presently wanted for any criminal activity and Spider-Man webbed them up for a crime only he had witnessed. If memory serves, that happened at least once during the Lee/Ditko era. Spidey caught some guys about to rob a jewelry store at night but since he was the only one around when it happened, they turned the tables on him and said they wanted to file harassment claims.
    Last edited by David Walton; 06-02-2020 at 11:58 AM.

  10. #40
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Walton View Post
    I agree that Spider-Man catching crooks would be comparable to a citizen's arrest.

    The biggest legal problem would be if the crooks weren't presently wanted for any criminal activity and Spider-Man webbed them up for a crime only he had witnessed. If memory serves, that happened at least once during the Lee/Ditko era.
    Yeah, something like that is more dicey to prosecute.

    But you know stuff like Doctor Octopus attacking a hospital as in The Owl/Octopus War and Spider-Man risking himself to save doctors and patients that Octopus outright tries to murder, capturing and stopping Ock then would not be invalidated since clearly that's a terrorist on a rampage.

    Spidey caught some guys about to rob a jewelry store at night but since he was the only one around when it happened, they turned the tables on him and said they wanted to file harassment claims.
    Such claims against Spider-Man would be quite impossible and prohibitive. That kind of "speak to the manager" charges are usually not affordable to low-rent thugs and small-timers. Filing those charges would also expose and bring more attention to them. Likewise, Spider-Man legally has no existence...he's not on the citizens registry, has no social security number and so on. Aside from asking the police to find and expose Spider-Man, legally he can't be sued.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rzerox21xx View Post
    funny you mentioned the Punisher, a recent 2019 issue of the Punisher had Frank run in into cops who are huge fans and when they realized who he is at gunpoint, they take photo op and show their sticker and told Frank how there fans in the force. Frank was actually offended by that concept and took the skull sticker and tore in half, told off the cops saying the cops suppose to represent something that Frank gave up long ago and is nothing that should follow, if they want to follow an example. Captain America will would a good one. and he told the cops that if any of them go down his path, he's gonna come after them as much as any other criminal deals with. both Police officers were less than please by that.
    That's basically an attempt by Marvel editorial to divest Frank from the problematic part of his real world fandom but it's done too clunkily. The real underlying issues with Frank Castle, namely his gun collection and belief that he has the right to bear arms and so on, needs to be tackled. Because he's still a poster-child for NRA. I honestly don't know if that can be done.

  11. #41
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Handle was generated by an internate username algorithm rather than created by me (I can't create cool nicknames or handles by myself). And my point of view is not extreme. It's in fact a moderate and middle view.



    Not sure what Captain Stacy's death has to do with "the ends justify the means" and "anarchy". I wasn't advocating any of that either.



    Firstly it's not everyone. It's Sam Bullitt and Gwen Stacy, but others like Randy Robertson and so on had no intention of killing Pete nor turning on him.



    What happened in the 30s is the professionalization of the police. That's not the same thing as militarization. Militarization of police refers to stuff that's been happening since the Bush years, since 9/11. I suggest reading up on it because explaining it in detail will be quite off-topic.



    In the real world, if a criminal commits a crime and is apprehended in the real world because some random bystander trips him on the way out (as for instance the cop expected Spider-Man to do in AF#15), then that arrest would not be invalidated because he was tripped over by a random civilian and not a deputized officer of the law. On a legal level, since Spider-Man is an independent agent and unknown actor, anytime he catches or stops an armed robbery, he's basically acting as a bystander. Since he's a vigilante, any criminal he webs up for the cops to them pick up would not be invalidated any more than say, random criminals mugging a druglord's palace getting busted would invalidate pre-existing charges against that druglord whose evidence of wrongdoing got exposed by minor crimes.

    The issue of superheroes and vigilantism and the legal issues of that as it usually plays out in comics wouldn't actually be the way it goes down in the court of law.

    The real issue of glorifying vigilantism is that in American history and society, vigilantism in practise is less about catching criminals and bank robbers and more about say, "Stand your ground" and lynching and so on. Vigilantism in American history is the KKK, the White Leagues and so on. Someone like the Punisher, who has become the most popular superhero among cops and armed forces, is far more problematic and far more in need of a rethink. A hero who uses non-lethal fictionalized adhesive and so on is quite removed from the everyday context of vigilantism in a way that Frank Castle isn't and probably never will be.
    Read the cover after Captain Stacy’s death”First Jamieson, then Gwen and now the entire city is against me.”
    Last edited by Conn Seanery; 06-02-2020 at 01:40 PM.

  12. #42
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NC_Yankee View Post
    Read the cover after Captain Stacy’s death”First Jamieson, then Gwen and now the entire city is against me.”
    That's how Spider-Man feels, but it's not everyone in the city based on what readers see.

    The rest is off-topic. There's a Politics and Real World board on CBR Community, go post there and take your issues there.

  13. #43
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    125

    Default

    I see Spider-Man's relationship to the police and the media similar to a protester's. If we look at what they said about protesters in the 60's (or even right now), it's not different to what they say about Spider-Man. There is constant talk about how they are "masked menaces", how they're badly influencing your kids, that they don't respect authorities and are out there causing chaos.

    Also like protesters, Spider-Man is a dangerous idea to the rich and powerful. They both challenge the idea that ordinary people are powerless. People aren't "supposed" to feel that way going by Establishment doctrine. They're "supposed" to be apathetic consumers looking out for themselves.

    It's no surprise Spider-Man was immediately more hated than other superheroes when he first debuted in the Marvel Universe. The Avengers and the Fantastic Four aren't exactly pro-status quo, but they can at least be partially controlled. They're also celebrities. It's easier for someone in the MU to imagine themselves to be Spider-Man since he is anonymous and completely covered from head to toe.

    Spider-Man also talks about how "with great power comes great responsibility", which he has said on TV on at least one occasion (Ultimate Spider-Man Vol 3). The slogan initially came from the French Revolution. Again, if you are a corrupt cop or powerful person living in the Marvel Universe, this would upset you more than what other superheroes say to the public.
    Last edited by Kaitou D. Kid; 06-02-2020 at 12:35 PM.

  14. #44
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    That's how Spider-Man feels, but it's not everyone in the city based on what readers see.

    The rest is off-topic. There's a Politics and Real World board on CBR Community, go post there and take your issues there.
    The entire point of that comic was Peter felt under siege. I agree 100% of the City was not against him ( I suspect one not against him would have been Aunt May ( although she was not in that issue as I remember)), but there are very few things you get 100% agreement on ( Laws of Physics perhaps)? But that issue is the first one where I got the impression that Peter was afraid, and that mob scene was why.

  15. #45
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaitou D. Kid View Post
    I see Spider-Man's relationship to the police and the media similar to a protester's. If we look at what they said about protesters in the 60's (or even right now), it's not different to what they say about Spider-Man. There is constant talk about how they are "masked menaces", how they're badly influencing your kids, that they don't respect authorities and are out there causing chaos.
    That certainly was part of Spider-Man's appeal back then. Although to push back on this a bit, there's that much debated and controversial moment in ASM#38 where Peter mocks a protest (admittedly a white-led non-political protest). And I am sure if you squint you will find moments where Peter has politically been iffy. There's that one story, I think "Secret War" (singular) where Nick Fury appointed him and other Avengers to depose the democratically elected government of Latveria to place a puppet there instead and Peter did that willingly.

    Also like protesters, Spider-Man is a dangerous idea to the rich and powerful. They both challenge the idea that ordinary people are powerless. People aren't "supposed" to feel that way going by Establishment doctrine. They're "supposed" to be apathetic consumers looking out for themselves.
    The fact that Spider-Man's villains are largely old white men also lends to that. And the biggest villain, Norman Osborn/Green Goblin is certainly the embodiment of American white male privilege and American impunity, a guy who fails upwards, commits crime after crime and escapes punishment.

    The slogan initially came from the French Revolution.
    More precisely, a version of it can be traced to Voltaire and was spoken up by politicians during the Revolution, and then passed into general usage, and was used by FDR in the 30s apparently. Stan Lee was a fan of French literature though (he spoke of Emile Zola as a favorite) FWIW.

    Again, if you are a corrupt cop or powerful person living in the Marvel Universe, this would upset you more than what other superheroes say to the public.
    I guess so, Americans are big on "personal responsibility" (which means if you fail it's not society's problem or anyone's concern) but not big on powerful people having more responsibilities on account of their power.

Posting Permissions

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