The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
Mira:
--- Quote ---(And back to Proven Guilty, under Illinois law, I'm pretty sure Harry would be guilty as an accomplice in murdering that warlock kid, but I do not have experience in Illinois accomplice liability laws).
--- End quote ---
Or would that have been considered an execution lawfully carried out by another government, under the authority of it's governing body?
Bad Alias:
I tried to just quote in my previous post, but there isn't a quote button there. https://www.paranetonline.com/index.php/topic,23096.0.html. I don't think anyone would be upset by it, but them's the rules.
--- Quote from: Mira on June 13, 2019, 07:40:06 PM --- Or would that have been considered an execution lawfully carried out by another government, under the authority of it's governing body?
--- End quote ---
Considered by who? The White Council? Yes. Even Harry. Murphy, not so much. She said she'd go after them if a body showed up after Harry talked her down. I think this would be somewhere close to the median response of people in the law enforcement/legal community with her level of knowledge. The Feds and the States are not likely to look favorably on foreign nations executing people within their respective territories. Though it wouldn't be unthinkable for them to happily look the other way as long as the Council kept it quiet. The courts would not be happy with it. It's probably a violation of just about all the due process rights associated with the criminal justice process. (There is the whole government action component to due process, so it depends on how much the government is complicit in the process).
Also, this is what I think is the most interesting and probably best argument for why killing Cassius wasn't murder. Harry executed the guy. That's why it wasn't self defense. But was it a just and lawful execution/wartime action?
morriswalters:
--- Quote ---The problem is obtaining a conviction. It's exactly like saying Victor Sells didn't murder anyone in Storm Front because a jury would never convict.
--- End quote ---
If you can't put the case in front of a jury or if the jury refuses to convict, then to all intents and purposes he isn't guilty. Murder is a crime, what a jury decides is who committed the crime. And your speaking from God mode. They don't sit in a privileged position.
--- Quote from: g33k on June 13, 2019, 07:17:27 PM ---Linky?
I don't think I've seen any explicit list of such, and my casual poking-around didn't find it here... :-P
--- End quote ---
Do not discuss:
- Real world religion (Grey area: real world religion in the Dresden Files might be OK, but anything that comes off as using that to slam members of particular faiths in the real world by proxy is a step over the line)
- Real world politics (this is not confined to political parties, their hi jinxes, and the like, but also beliefs that cause political hot topics, such as a stance on abortion, death penalty, taxes, LGBT rights either pro or con, gun politics, etc.)
- This includes having anything like the above in your sig, or by your Avatar, or in your Avatar.
Bad Alias:
Are you saying Victor Sells isn't a murderer because a jury wouldn't believe he used magic to make people's hearts explode? And since Harry didn't kill any of the "victims" we're talking about with magic, how is magic a problem? Note that motivation isn't necessary to prove any crime. It could be considered necessary to show a defense.
Let's say a prosecutor gets Michael, Sanya, Butters, and Murphy to tell the truth about what they know.
Murphy could put them on the trail to the likeliest suspect. I don't recall whether or not Harry confessed to her.
Butters can testify to the fact that "Mouse landed on his back, and the huge dog's jaws closed on the man's neck. Cassius froze in place (in sudden terror, his eyes very wide. He stared at [Harry]). For a second there was total silence. 'I gave you a chance,' [Harry] told him, [his] voice quiet. (Quintus Cassius's liver-spotted face went pale with horrified comprehension). 'Wait[,' Cassius said]. 'Mouse,' Harry said. "Kill him." Parenthesis for parts that Butters may not have been able to see, and brackets for alterations to the original quote from the book.
Michael and Sanya can testify that Harry savagely beat the man a few years ago and stated that he would kill him if he ever saw him again. Michael can further testify that Harry said he "murdered" Cassius.
Then there is probably a bunch of physical evidence, too. Honestly, between Harry's blood at the museum and at his murder scene, if the police have properly processed it all, it would only be a matter of time before he was questioned about Cassius's death.
I wouldn't say that a lack of a conviction means a crime didn't happen. If Harry's actions and mental state constitute a crime, he committed a crime. Most murders in Chicago go unsolved. Chicago's murder clearance rate, the number of murders in which someone is charged, not convicted, is 15.4%. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/21/chicago-police-homicide-clearance-rate-killing-murder-shooting/1368099002/. While I can't say the perpetrators in the 84.6% of cases are all murderers with certainty, I think it is definitely reasonable to say that most of them are murderers, even if they never get charged or convicted.
Let's say someone is charged and acquitted of murder, and you call them a murderer. They sue you for defamation. You can go into court and prove they are in fact a murderer. Then they lose the defamation case because the truth is a defense.
morriswalters:
Harry bears a moral responsibility for killing Cassius. Harry makes an extrajudicial decision that Cassius is too dangerous to live. He isn't even a warden at that point. He's a vigilante. And Harry's ethical position is established in canon. Jim has established the mortal authorities lack of ability to contain supernatural threats. In Fool Moon, and Changes, to name two. So you can classify the act as murder, but you have to ignore canon.
Victor Sells could never be convicted of murder because you can't connect him to the act. He wasn't there and to the mortal authorities magic doesn't exist.
Just to be sure, everybody does know that dogs can't be given a kill command? Right? Only Foo dogs of exceptional intelligence need apply.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version