The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...
morriswalters:
My apologies for having dragged us down this path. It isn't really germane to the topic at this point.
Mira:
--- Quote from: morriswalters on June 15, 2019, 12:14:10 PM ---My apologies for having dragged us down this path. It isn't really germane to the topic at this point.
--- End quote ---
Accepted, for the record I am a dog handler and have worked a SAR dog for twenty years. I also have handled therapy dogs for nearly that long and have witnessed the difference they make for the sick and the emotionally vulnerable. I also have worked with handlers of police dogs and former military handlers, so I was never speaking on what I believe to be true, but what my experience tells me is true... That and current knowledge in the field of working dogs.. Now we can get back to regular programing.
Bad Alias:
--- Quote from: morriswalters on June 13, 2019, 10:49:20 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
I'm not ignoring the fact that police can't do anything about Cassius. I mentioned it. It doesn't make it not murder. What do you mean he isn't a warden? Do you mean he is killing Cassius because he said he would back in Death Masks, or that he isn't a warden yet? I'm not saying an act outside the law is necessarily immoral. Morality and legality intersect, but don't completely cover one another.
Is Victor Sells a murderer?
I stated that Mouse is either a tool or an accomplice/co-conspirator/etc., so that doesn't really matter in my opinion.
--- Quote from: Mira on June 14, 2019, 01:25:00 PM ---It wasn't cold blooded anything...
--- End quote ---
Harry literally described his killing of Cassius and Corpsetaker as cold. Harry basically says that he is going to kill Cassius because he promised to kill him if he ever saw him again. Cassius knew that's what Harry meant. Harry didn't have to kill Cassius to stop him (in the short term, which is all that matters legally). Should Harry have killed Cassius even if it was murder? Yes. It was the right thing to do for a number of reasons. Mostly he had to stop someone from becoming a dark god.
--- Quote from: g33k on June 14, 2019, 06:39:34 PM ---Not ignoring these!
Horrible crimes; torture, attempted murder, etc. Not even any of the ambiguity we're arguing about in Harry's case -- both the laws of the White Council, and the laws of Illinois, hold Cassius as criminal in these actions. (although as far as I understand it, not the Unseelie Accords -- Mab doesn't object to personal animosity even leading up to murder).
So, yeah -- Cassius was an awful person, and was doing awful things there. No argument.
Yeah, this is a key point: Cassius had been subdued. He was not in a position to continue his assault on Harry, he was not a threat in that moment when Harry ordered Mouse to kill him.
Killing somebody who is not a threat in the moment? That looks... an awful lot like murder. Even if the person "deserved" it.
A couple of key counter-questions:
- was Harry entitled to kill him anyway? Under WC law, yes he was: Luccio had Warden'ed him shortly before, so Harry's Grey Cloak entitled him to execute sorcerors, necromancers, and their allies, particularly with the Darkhallow ritual having begun.
- would Cassius have renewed murderous violence, and how soon? Preponderance of the evidence suggests that Cassius would indeed have renewed his violence, and done so as soon as he saw advantage; possibly as soon as Mouse was off him.
I would argue that, Harry being "cold-blooded" or not, Cassius was an immediate threat -- only momentarily neutralized, in a highly-unstable situation -- and the killing was in fact self-defense.
Nevertheless, the argument that Harry "committed murder" does have some merit, particularly if you ONLY consider it from the POV of local/mortal law. "But he started it!" isn't a defense, since Cassius (as noted) had been subdued, and was not a threat in the moment. AFAIK, mortal law has no coverage for the "cannot safely take the subdued perp to jail, must execute on the spot" situation.
--- End quote ---
All of this. American criminal law does not have an exception for this situation, so Harry is, by definition (or law, whichever term you prefer), a murderer; therefore, it is arguable that he is a murderer. The law of war and laws of some foreign countries might. There might also be some historical exceptions that are no longer applicable.
Mira:
--- Quote ---Harry literally described his killing of Cassius and Corpsetaker as cold. Harry basically says that he is going to kill Cassius because he promised to kill him if he ever saw him again. Cassius knew that's what Harry meant. Harry didn't have to kill Cassius to stop him (in the short term, which is all that matters legally). Should Harry have killed Cassius even if it was murder? Yes. It was the right thing to do for a number of reasons. Mostly he had to stop someone from becoming a dark god.
--- End quote ---
In my opinion perhaps the forethought was cold on Harry's part, but when it actually happened it wasn't. Why? Because Cassius had tortured him for several hours and his emotional state at that moment was questionable.. Murphy was still a police officer at that time, how come she never arrested him?
morriswalters:
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on June 15, 2019, 08:51:18 PM ---I'm not ignoring the fact that police can't do anything about Cassius. I mentioned it. It doesn't make it not murder. What do you mean he isn't a warden? Do you mean he is killing Cassius because he said he would back in Death Masks, or that he isn't a warden yet? I'm not saying an act outside the law is necessarily immoral. Morality and legality intersect, but don't completely cover one another.
Is Victor Sells a murderer?
I stated that Mouse is either a tool or an accomplice/co-conspirator/etc., so that doesn't really matter in my opinion.
--- End quote ---
My version of the timeline was incorrect, he was a warden by that point. The question your asking has a couple of answers. If you were a character inside the story who didn't sit in a position of privilege your answer should be no. As a reader you have access to God mode and as such, yes he is. However without the use of magic, there is no theory of the crime that fits. In a world where magic is not part of the common human experience, Victor Sells could not only never be convicted, he could never be charged.
I'm not sure what point your trying to make. There is a legal definition of murder as defined by the appropriate jurisdiction. A jury is presented arguments with the Judge making sure that what the jury sees and hears is what the law allows. The jury looks at the arguments and makes a determination of the guilt of the accused. At that moment, when the jury says guilty as charged, or whatever, you go from the accused to the convicted. The whole point of the jury is to make that determination, is someone a murderer.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version