Captain America: Civil War *SPOILERS*

[Immortal Weapon]

Except he did do that. He realized Cap was right, he went off to Siberia on his own, made explicit he was doing it behind Ross' back, and then he went home with no regard for the other heroes who'd done the exact same thing as him and were still locked up for it. It doesn't matter that Ross was wrong because Ross was wrong before, when he and Tony were on the same side, nothing had changed except TONY'S opinion. Ross being wrong and keeping everyone from going after the true bad guy was exactly the kind of situation Steve was wary of when they were all arguing about the Accords, this situation proved that fear valid, but nothing about Tony breaking the law himself, going to Siberia, and coming home and spending time with the remaining Avengers without doing anything to help his former teammates in any way addressed that.

And yes, impulse control is a Stark flaw, which is exactly why its understandable why HE would think that accountability and a system of checks and balances were necessary for heroes like himself....which makes it even worse that he has zero problem completely disregarding that accountability and system when it no longer suits his desires or opinions.

He went behind Ross back after he blew him off. He wasn't interested in Zemo and that Bucky was framed. He wanted to bring Cap in and lock him up with the rest of the Avengers. He couldn't reply on Ross to do things the right way so he took matters into his on hands.

[Kalen O.]

1) That's still extremely irresponsible, and stupid. How can she assume no one would ever be able to decipher the files? So this conflict is mainly her fault. Wow, that loses her character a lot of cred.

2) I'm guessing that Stark blew him off because Steve kept refusing to talk before, so why should he give the courtesy Steve wouldn't? Stark tries to bring up taking responsibility, and cooperation with the world governments, and Steve irrationally, and arrogantly, says that the people involved with the U.N. can be corrupted, or have agendas, because they're people....as if he is somehow immune to human flaw. So yeah, I can see Stark not wanting to hear anything from Captain Holier-Than-Thou by then.

'Irrationally and arrogantly'?

Did you not watch Winter Soldier, where many of Cap's superiors were revealed to be Hydra, giving him orders that were part of their plan for world domination?

How on earth is Steve irrational for being wary of government oversight and agendas when the last agency he was part of in the movie immediately prior to this was chock full of corruption?

Not to mention, Steve is aware he's human and flawed. From sending Tony the letter acknowledging he was wrong to keep what he knew about Tony's parents from him, even though he thought he was protecting him by doing so, to making sure Tony always had a way to reach them if he ever needed them (knowing that Tony could very well use that phone to draw them into a trap if he were so inclined...Steve prioritizes doing the right thing and helping Tony and the world as more important than the possibility Tony might try and trap them again), to making sure his people aren't left behind on the Raft and going and breaking them out at great risk to himself. Whereas Tony never said anything to Ross about everything he found in Siberia that proved Steve was right to go after Zemo, the true bomber. Something that could have mitigated what the other Avengers had done but of course would have implicated Tony for doing the exact same thing they were being locked up for....

And then we have Bucky who volunteers to be put back in cryogenic stasis in Wakanda because he can't be trusted as long as Hydra's brainwashing is still in effect.

Despite the fact that Team Iron Man were the ones harping on about accountability, its only those on Team Cap who actually are shown understanding what that means....they just don't agree it means sitting around in prison for breaking the letter of the law when they were trying to uphold the spirit of what they all believed in.

[TooFlyToFail]

Well, in this case, the "law" is pretty dodgy. In the first Avenger's movie they launched a nuclear strike against a New York full of civilians before gathering any intel on the aliens whatsoever, trying a conventional military solution or trying to negotiate. "Hell there are aliens attacking New York, lets nuke it!"

This is the government Tony was so quick to sign in with? The one that fired the nuke at New York? The one that also, by the way, tried to establish a network of weapons in the sky to watch over everyone in the entire world, big brother like. Cap is morally right to rebel against that government.

We know it's not the govt Tony decided to agree with so quickly. It's the U.N. and 116/117 of its countries. Are we just supposed to brush that off? So should police officers be able to do whatever they want, as long as they save people, even if their recklessness still results in deaths?

We now know that that was Hydra before. Was T'Chaka, someone at the forefront of the Accords, Hydra affiliated? No, he wasn't.

Black Widow being allowed to get away with info dumping high grade Shield/Hydra info into the public is another display of recklessness that got people killed. Other people, not just Zemo, with bad intentions can access too.

Face it, Tony is right. It's not perfect, but cooperation is better than being arrogant enough to think that you will always be morally right.

[Kalen O.]

That doesn't change the fact that the Avengers coordinating with local authorities makes their job easier. That bit with Pietro was just one, of many, needless plays at humor in that movie.

Besides, that wouldn't have happened if they didn't push Stark to make Ultron in the first place.

Dude, your bias is making you rewrite what actually happens in these movies.

Nobody pushed Stark to make Ultron. Steve and everyone else WARNED him against making Ultron, and Tony went ahead and did it anyway.

[XPac]

We know it's not the govt Tony decided to agree with so quickly. It's the U.N. and 116/117 of its countries. Are we just supposed to brush that off? So should police officers be able to do whatever they want, as long as they save people, even if their recklessness still results in deaths?

We now know that that was Hydra before. Was T'Chaka, someone at the forefront of the Accords, Hydra affiliated? No, he wasn't.

Black Widow being allowed to get away with info dumping high grade Shield/Hydra info into the public is another display of recklessness that got people killed. Other people, not just Zemo, with bad intentions can access too.

Face it, Tony is right. It's not perfect, but cooperation is better than being arrogant enough to think that you will always be morally right.

Tony has a valid point. And he got his way. Whether or not he's right about the accords remains to be seen. Time will tell ... though frankly my money isn't on the accords lasting into phase 4.

[TheCatBastet]

I think she was cool with it until Vision stopped her from going to the store. She was on house arrest and apparently they didn't even discuss that with her. She was on house arrest and her friends/team were her jailers. Sure she should step back from fighting but for her being confined to the compound seemed a step too far. It probably reminded her of when she worked for the bad guys and was only let out when they needed her to fight. And then she was reminded by Clint of why she joined, she wanted to do good in order to make up for the bad. And she can't do good while on house arrest.

This bit bothered the heck out of me. Apparently Tony decided that Wanda should be restricted to the Avengers compound, but never talked to her about it. But did talk to Vision, who seemed to be willing to act as jailer. (I cut Vision some slack because I figure he's still learning about humanity.) He could have explained to her that he thought it would be better if she stayed out of public view for a while (Who knows, some angry citizen might decide to assault her while she was out shopping.) and she might have been willing to go along with it. But she had no idea he thought she shouldn't be allowed to leave the premises. That's real jerkitude on Tony's part.

[Kalen O.]

He went behind Ross back after he blew him off. He wasn't interested in Zemo and that Bucky was framed. He wanted to bring Cap in and lock him up with the rest of the Avengers. He couldn't reply on Ross to do things the right way so he took matters into his on hands.

None of which changes the fact that he still did exactly what the Sokovian Accords were supposed to prevent. HE TOOK MATTERS INTO HIS OWN HANDS because he thought he knew better than Ross, both of which are exactly what he said the Avengers couldn't afford to do and were exactly the things he held against Steve and the others. It doesn't matter whether he went to Siberia to bring in Cap or to help him, either way, he still went off book and behind Ross' back despite it being exactly what that law had been enacted for.

(And no, he didn't go to Siberia to bring Cap in and lock him up, he made abundantly clear that he was there to help, that's why he and Bucky and Cap all had a truce when he got there and they were all walking calmly together to where they confronted Zemo).

[GhostPirate]

Well, in this case, the "law" is pretty dodgy. In the first Avenger's movie they launched a nuclear strike against a New York full of civilians before gathering any intel on the aliens whatsoever, trying a conventional military solution or trying to negotiate. "Hell there are aliens attacking New York, lets nuke it!"

This is the government Tony was so quick to sign in with? The one that fired the nuke at New York? The one that also, by the way, tried to establish a network of weapons in the sky to watch over everyone in the entire world, big brother like. Cap is morally right to rebel against that government.

Also the government everyone here is so quick to side with... forgetting, once again, that this exact same Ross pursued and made a fugitive a guy trying to find a cure to his "30 megaton warhead" of a condition; to the extent he mounted a covert op on foreign soil, ans full on military operations on a college campus and in the middle of Harlem. This in addition to conducting his own experiment on a foreign operative who he himself had worked with exactly ONCE to make him a super soldier.

But hey, when it comes down to it even the King of Wakanda proved to be a hypocrite. His father was apparently a driving force behind the Accords, but yet he himself blew off sovereign jurisdictions in pursuit of his vendetta against what turned out to be an innocent man.

And it's like no one arguing the pro-reg/Accords side has any idea how government bureaucracy works. There's danger, it has to be proven beyond any doubt to people with opposing agendas who have to be beat over the head repeatedly with the truth before there's any way to change their minds.. yeah, the governments and politicians would still be arguing, engaged in their never-ending pissing contest to prove themselves right while getting nothing done (probably not even to the point of coming to agreement there was even a threat in the first place) while Ultron dropped Sokovia with enough force to wipe out all life (but hey, at least instead of a couple hundred or a couple thousand innocents killed everyone would be dead and we wouldn't have to deal with these insipid arguments) or the bio weapon from Lagos had already been used (maybe all of Wakanda would have been wiped out instead and the dozen or so Wakandans lost in CW would have the privilege of being the last Wakandans instead).

[Kalen O.]

Just to be clear, its not that I think there was no argument to be made for why UN oversight might not be a bad thing for the Avengers. It's not that Nigeria couldn't have been handled better, or that a system of checks and balances aren't needed, or that the Avengers needed to figure out a way to cooperate better with sovereign nations and that accountability is a bad thing.

It's just that Tony was the wrong person to be making these arguments because Tony was the one saying one thing and doing another throughout the entire movie. Tony's the one who repeatedly does things and feels really bad for them not going the way he intended, but never actually faces consequences for his actions. He's the one who truly NEEDS accountability, but never accepts it even when he's the one actually arguing for it.

If it had been anyone else leading the charge for government oversight and increased cooperation, the ideological split would have had a lot more power and pathos. But when the spokesperson for one side is more guilty of all the things he's preaching against than the opponents he's preaching to, it just doesn't work IMO.

[XPac]

None of which changes the fact that he still did exactly what the Sokovian Accords were supposed to prevent. HE TOOK MATTERS INTO HIS OWN HANDS because he thought he knew better than Ross, both of which are exactly what he said the Avengers couldn't afford to do and were exactly the things he held against Steve and the others. It doesn't matter whether he went to Siberia to bring in Cap or to help him, either way, he still went off book and behind Ross' back despite it being exactly what that law had been enacted for.

(And no, he didn't go to Siberia to bring Cap in and lock him up, he made abundantly clear that he was there to help, that's why he and Bucky and Cap all had a truce when he got there and they were all walking calmly together to where they confronted Zemo).

In most cases Tony is frankly more willing to break laws than Steve. The difference between the two is that Steve is honest and upfront about it while Stark will try and break them when he thinks no one is looking.

[Scott Taylor]

Face it, Tony is right. It's not perfect, but cooperation is better than being arrogant enough to think that you will always be morally right.

It wasn't cooperation for Tony and it wasn't arrogance for Cap. Cap wasn't willing to sign the paper because to him it represented an actual commitment. Tony saw the Accords as just a piece of paper, and he did his own thing several times against the Accords. There is no difference between the two of them other than intellectual honesty.

[PhantomStranger]

I was planning on reading more before really getting into commenting but I've seen this assertion or similar too many times:

That doesn't matter. She's doesn't have full control of her powers, and thus couldn't contain the blast. It was an accident, but she still caused deaths. She should at least serve her suspension from duty, and continue to learn her powers as she's doing so.

What a complete load of garbage. It wasn't that her control was bad, it was that she simply wasn't strong enough to contain that much explosive force. She did a heck of a job getting it as clear from bystanders as she did. Her strength simply gave out. That's not her fault. Everyone has limits.

The problem isn't that the Avengers did anything wrong. It's that modern-day people seem to have the delusion that in a fight the only ones suffering are the actual participants, and that any collateral damage is due to either malice or incompetence on the part of said participants.

Been that way since the early 90s with Gulf War 1. All that footage on TV over and over and over again showing bombs that fly in through specific windows and so forth and defense contractors boasting about how uber accurate this weapon is or that weapon is as if warfare were now "safe" for anybody other than the soldiers.

Which simply isn't true. Bullets and bombs (and superpowers) don't have a "hurt only the badguy/target" setting. Innocent people get hurt in combats. Always have and always will.

As several others have pointed out, Wanda was in a no-win situation. If she'd not tried to lift the exploding Crossbones clear, she and Cap and all the bystanders on the ground would have been the ones to be hurt/killed. Was she supposed to let that happen?

Your example doesn't fit. It's more like, if you're a police officer chasing a shooter, and you accidentally direct the shooter towards other civilians, and said shooter kills civilians before you stop him/her. Yes, you stopped him/her from potentially killing more, but you were reckless still got people killed. That officer should still face some kind of punishment for the lack of foresight, because it's the officer's job to have said foresight.

More garbage. Pure Monday-morning quarterbacking. You said it yourself..."accidentally direct". Wanda didn't chose to put those people in danger. Her plan was to levitate the explosion clear of everyone. Her strength gave out before she got it far enough away.

Yours is the same sort of illogical expectation that gets good police officers pilloried for not having the omniscience or omnipotence of God all too often.

Wanda carried Crossbones so close to that build either because she was careless, or because she's not in complete control of her powers. If the former, she deserves her punishment. If the latter, why is she even in the field? That makes Cap look even worse.

Still more garbage. Is any failure in your moral universe due to either malice or incompetence? People can do everything right and still not succeed.

[stillanerd]

Pros: (snipped for length)

In total agreement with all of your pros.

- Wanda. Her character is a hypocritical character, and she makes no sense. We were told that she was going to get an arc in the movie, but we didn't get that at all. It's like she refuses to acknowledge that she's now become the Stark bomb/missile, that her, and Pietro, waited in fear to finally explode. While Tony takes the blame for AoU, she's the reason why that all happened. Yes, she reacts appropriately when she killed those people, but she didn't really react to Sokovia, and she didn't seem to dwell too much on the Lagos incident after the first Ross scene. It's like the speech that Vision gave completely flew over her head. Vision was proven right: They are not in control of everything, and their very presence created these "challenges", as he put it. Why did she betray Vision, and escape? Vision was right, and you think her killing those people would've hit her with Tony level guilt, but it didn't. She even chastised Clint for pulling his punches. I get it, but why is that person directly responsible for so many deaths in the movies she's been in the one to say that? Makes no sense. She should be on Tony's team, if she felt the guilt the way he did.

Think about it this way: Wanda, like her brother, were used by Hydra as living weapons and imprisoned against their will. Now, thanks to the Sokovia Accords, she's being forced to become a living weapon and is being held her against her will all over again. Yes, Vision is trying to protect others in case Wanda should lose control of her powers, and she's not confined to a cell, but he is, for intents and purposes, her jailer. The implication is that Wanda actually DID see Tony and Vision's side of things because of the guilt she felt from the Logos incident and wanted to control her powers, until she realized she couldn't leave the Avengers compound. Even Cap was very close to conceding to Tony and willing to finally sign the agreements until he found out what was happening with Wanda.

- What's up with these motivations to be on Team Cap? Clint has a family, including a recently born baby, and yet he decided to go fugitive? Why is siding with Cap suddenly more important than your kids. "Disappointing my kids." Why tho? What if he'd been killed? What would his family do then? Even now, he's a fugitive to the world, and Tony knows where he lives, he's gotta move his family now, or keep his distance now. Scott Lang? Why is he on Cap's side? I understand agreeing with Cap, and Pym's influence ("Never trust a Stark"...because they've never saved the world, or anything, right?), but you just got on your ex-wife's good side, and can spend time with his daughter...why would he then make himself the enemy of the United Nations, for people he doesn't know personally? Why is Wanda on his side, because Cap let's her out to play? She just killed people, so needs to take responsibility and sit the hell out of it. She deserves no sympathy.

Don't forget though that Clint, in Avengers: Age of Ultron, sympathized with Wanda, looked out for her during the fight at Sokovia, and was responsible for her deciding to become an Avenger. He's loyal to her and Cap to a fault in that regard. Scott was on board because, hey, it's freaking Captain America wanting his help. Just like Peter was all excited about working with Tony.

- Steve Rogers. I get why he's doing what he's doing, but that's not the point. The point is that he's still in that soldier mentality: Collateral damage, and casualties, are part of war, and I don't have to deal with any consequences. He can talk about the potential cons of the Sokovia Accords all he wants, but he outright refused to acknowledge the concept of taking responsibility for his actions. Like Rhodes said, that is highly arrogant, and yet the character never speaks on it. The world is best in their hands? Hello, Vision just explained to you that bad things are happening also because of y'all doing what you do. Zemo only did what he did because of the actions of current Avengers. He let's Wanda back on the field, despite her killing innocent people. He admits that his judgement gets cloudy when it involves Bucky, but he still defends him so fiercely.

Accept from Cap's POV, signing the accords isn't really accepting responsibility but shifting the blame to somebody else, in this case a bunch of politicians with their own political agendas, or as he says "What if they send us somewhere where we think we shouldn't go? What if there is somewhere where we need to go, but they don't let us?" Also, keep in mind this is someone who saw first hand how easily corruptible an organization with oversight powers can really be, given the ease in which Hydra was able to infiltrate and ingrate themselves within SHIELD for decades. Although, I agree, his friendship to Bucky is definitely his greatness weakness.

- Brul, while he did great as Zemo, his plan very much only possible due to conveniences. Wanda killing those people, Stark feeling the guilt he did, Cap's loyalty to Bucky, Black Panther suddenly showing up to catch/detain Bucky, Cap having so many supporters, Iron Man actually going to Siberia at all, let alone by himself...if those things don't happen his plan doesn't work at all. People criticized BvS for something similar happening with Lex, in that Batman conveniently wanted to have the deathmatch at that exact moment. Yet, despite Zemo's scheme needing many more conveniences, I don't see much criticism for it. Why is that?

Well, it was established Zemo did study the Avengers for over a year, so he could, at least, anticipate what they would do and how to work that against them. Also, note how Ross handed the Avengers a full copy of Sokovia Accords after the Logos incident. That pretty much means it was something the UN had been drafting and working on well before what happened in Logos, that registration was a fait accompli, and the signing of those accords were pretty much a formality.

- BvS was criticized for the lack of a fair conversation between the Bats and Supes,...where is that same criticism for Civil War. Yes, they converse/discuss, but Steve literally refuses to see the cons of his side, and NOBODY on his side acknowledges those cons. At least Alfred was there to point out the bad decisions of him, and Bruce's side. At least Superman acknowledges his failings. Tony acknowledges his failing, and knows that his side of the argument has flaws, but sees it as a lesser of two evils. Steve is just bullheaded. Does he not understand how his actions could influence other vigilantes to potentially disregard authority?

But again, Steve's point is that registration is forcing them to comply to someone else's agenda without having any say in the matter. Remember, this is someone who has witnessed the consequences that could happen when people are forced to "just follow orders."

- Like in BvS, the ideological aspect of the plot is pushed aside for the emotional aspect. That's fine, but like how the BvS title fight didn't need to happen, on Superman's side, and they were emotionally played with by the villain (two things that people criticized BvS for), Zemo basically does the same thing, and Stark starts a fight he didn't need to start. Stark knows that Bucky was brainwashed, and he knows that the villain JUST TOLD THEM HE WANTED THE AVENGERS TO DESTROY THEMSELVES....yet he goes along with it anyways? I can understand being angry, and wanting to detain Bucky, but fighting Cap to kill him was completely unnecessary, and makes him look stupid for doing exactly what the villain just told him to do. Where is the outcry for that poor storytelling? Stark is smart enough to know that the Avengers can't keep doing what they do, without limitations, but stupid enough to let the villain play him like this? I don't buy it. It should've have been his parents death that caused the fight....Rhodes should've died. Not by Vision tho, but by Cap, or Bucky, using weapons on this new quinjet (why was that quinjet just randomly there anyways, I may have missed that part) to stop War Machine and Iron Man from following them, and them shooting Rhodes down, but not knowing/realizing that they accidentally killed Rhodes in the process. If that happened, plus the video of Bucky killing his parents, and Cap still refused to surrender himself, or Bucky, then the fight would've made more sense, because Rhodes death would've been a direct result of Cap forcing this conflict, and Stark would be driven to bring him in to FINALLY face consequences.

Oh, I agree Rhodey should've died based on what happened. However, Tony wasn't trying to kill Cap after he found out about Bucky killing his parents. He was only trying to kill Bucky, and he was giving Cap every opportunity to stay out of his way or surrender. Not to mention at that point, Tony's emotions would be running high. It's kind of like what happened with Brad Pitt's character in Seven; sure, he gets told he's playing right into the bad guy's hands, but he's so consumed by revenge he just doesn't care.

[TooFlyToFail]

She wasn't assuming no one would ever decipher the files. She wanted someone to decipher the files. That was the whole point of releasing them, to reveal to the world the extent to which Hydra had infiltrated SHIELD and to rally public sentiment and international authority against them.



Which is completely beside the point, as I wasn't suggesting that Stark should have listened to Cap nor criticizing him for not doing so. My point was that the overheard exchange between Tony and Steve likely served as the catalyst for Widow's decision to help Steve and Bucky escape, which was the actual question you raised in your previous post.

1) That still doesn't change the fact that dangerous people getting their hands on that kind of info is potentially very bad, as shown in this movie. If that was the point, then she is still irresponsible.

2) Fair enough.

'Irrationally and arrogantly'?

Did you not watch Winter Soldier, where many of Cap's superiors were revealed to be Hydra, giving him orders that were part of their plan for world domination?

How on earth is Steve irrational for being wary of government oversight and agendas when the last agency he was part of in the movie immediately prior to this was chock full of corruption?

Not to mention, Steve is aware he's human and flawed. From sending Tony the letter acknowledging he was wrong to keep what he knew about Tony's parents from him, even though he thought he was protecting him by doing so, to making sure Tony always had a way to reach them if he ever needed them (knowing that Tony could very well use that phone to draw them into a trap if he were so inclined...Steve prioritizes doing the right thing and helping Tony and the world as more important than the possibility Tony might try and trap them again), to making sure his people aren't left behind on the Raft and going and breaking them out at great risk to himself whereas Tony never said anything to Ross about everything he found in Siberia that proved Steve was right to go after Zemo, the true bomber, something that could have mitigated what the other Avengers had done but of course would have implicated Tony for doing the exact same thing they were being locked up for....

And then we have Bucky who volunteers to be put back in cryogenic stasis in Wakanda because he can't be trusted as long as Hydra's brainwashing is still in effect.

Despite the fact that Team Iron Man were the ones harping on about accountability, its only those on Team Cap who actually are shown understanding what that means....they just don't agree it means sitting around in prison for breaking the letter of the law when they were trying to uphold the spirit of what they all believed in.

1) So after Winter Soldier, no law should ever be trusted because any govt could be Hydra in disguise? Is that what he thought when he saw T'Chaka asking for them to be held accountable for risking civilian lives when they held an unsanctioned, covert mission without evacuating the surrounding area first? Hell, Vision, or War Machine, could've done that, but he kept them home. If they were cooperating with the authorities, then this may not have happened.

2) Steve may realize he's doing "wrong" (which to him it isn't, which is why he still does it), but he's arrogant to believe his way is always the right way, and he is above reproach. It's why he stays in hiding rather than turning himself in, after saving everyone he dragged into this mess, and after Bucky made his own decision (Cap didn't want to do it) to be frozen until they can fix him. How can you put the lives of everyone in the hands of a man that refuses to be held accountable?

3) How is Cap's team understanding of what it means to take accountability? Wanda being kept out of the field for awhile, while learning how to control her powers, is a good thing for the public you want to defend. It won't help if they fear you, because they can then turn on you. Clint has a family to care for, and yet he leaves them to become a wanted criminal? He didn't know if he was ever going to get out of that cell. Who would care for them then? Probably Stark, the guy everybody hates. I can only hope he was smart enough to take his family to Wakanda too, if that's where they're hiding. Scott Lang...he doesn't even know these people, and now he's a wanted man again. I thought he wanted to be there for his daughter? Now he can't, and he probably ruined what good grace he had with his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Wanda, ignores what Vision said about their presence inviting challenge, despite the fact that her powers affirm his theory; she was given those power to help Hydra fight off the Avengers. Cap going on the run could easily influence other heroes to see themselves as truly above the law.

So no, I don't get how Team Cap is all about taking responsibility. Especially not Cap. He saved his friend, and got the others out of jail, because they were loyal to him. If he knows he's wrong, then he should turn himself in, with all that other stuff done. I don't see how they can be the Avengers anymore; not when they can't trust each other anymore.

[PhantomStranger]

So the police officer is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't? If he doesn't act, people die and his abilities are called into question. If he does make an attempt to stop the perpetrator, people still die because he cannot anticipate every single thing happening.

What a life!

Look up the statistics about suicide rates and life expectancy for retired LEOs...large part of it is because yes, non-LEOs do in fact expect that level of perfection from them, and more. We're damn lucky that there are people willing to step up like that, despite knowing the cost to them...and the civilians of the MCU are too.