Author Topic: How often does Harry's withholding of information actually get people hurt...  (Read 3347 times)

Offline Mira

  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 18408
    • View Profile
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.

  Dogs can be given a kill command,  it is an "attack" command...  Mostly they are trained to go after the limbs and subdue until called off, but make no mistake a Mal or a German Shepherd can rip out someone's throat in seconds.

Why do you ignore that fact that with help Cassius had ambushed Harry? Then he tied him up with magical bonds and proceeded to carve him up with a knife desperate to get the coin he thought Harry carried?  And he was also about to kill Harry?  Harry knew it and actually prayed for a Holy Knight to come on scene to save him..  This is when Butters and Mouse showed up and saved him..  It wasn't cold blooded anything...   Except maybe on the part of Cassius, he was cold bloodily carving up Harry, until Butters and Mouse came on the scene and subdued him..

Offline g33k

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 521
    • View Profile
... Why do you ignore that fact that with help Cassius had ambushed Harry? Then he tied him up with magical bonds and proceeded to carve him up with a knife desperate to get the coin he thought Harry carried?  And he was also about to kill Harry?  Harry knew it and actually prayed for a Holy Knight to come on scene to save him..

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.

   This is when Butters and Mouse showed up and saved him..  It wasn't cold blooded anything...   Except maybe on the part of Cassius, he was cold bloodily carving up Harry, until Butters and Mouse came on the scene and subdued him..
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.
 

Offline g33k

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 521
    • View Profile
Dogs can be given a kill command,  it is an "attack" command...  Mostly they are trained to go after the limbs and subdue until called off, but make no mistake a Mal or a German Shepherd can rip out someone's throat in seconds.

Oh HELL yeah.  Unless a dog has been specifically trained to ONLY go after the limbs, to subdue... almost any adult dog over 30 lbs or so can (potentially) become a lethal threat.

And the traditional "police" dogs - malinois, alsatian, etc -- aren't even the most dangerous breeds.  Some dogs have been bred for WAR, for actual battlefields, facing armed/armored soldiers; or for gladitorial arenas; or for hunting other large predators.

The Great Dane's ancestors fought the Roman Legions in Germany, and impressed them enough to be imported back to Rome for exhibition fights in the colliseum.

The jaguar was a specific motivator for breeding the Dogo Argentino.  Do YOU wanna go "mano a dogo" vs. a jaguar-killer?  Yeah, me neither!

Rhodeisian Ridgeback was bred for African game... including lions.

Off in Japan, the Akita was the war-dog of choice.

The Caucasian Sheperd / Ovcharka is a massive guard dog.

The Anatolian too, though leaner.

Both are ancestral to various military/security uses.

And no DF thread that mentions dogs should ignore the Tibetan Mastiff -- the closest RL breed to our own Mouse!
 

Offline Mira

  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 18408
    • View Profile
Quote
Oh HELL yeah.  Unless a dog has been specifically trained to ONLY go after the limbs, to subdue... almost any adult dog over 30 lbs or so can (potentially) become a lethal threat.


Oh yeah, even when someone supposedly knows what they are doing.  A dog handler I know, worked two Mals, she had raised them from pups, thought she knew them very well... One day she got between them, whether they were fighting or just playing hard is unclear, but one turned on her and ripped her bicep off before you can say rip your bicep off, she is lucky, if the dog had jumped just a few inches higher and to the right, she wouldn't be alive to tell the tale..

Offline morriswalters

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 698
    • View Profile
For the record Mouse wasn't trained as an attack dog.   Not in the text.  Mouse is smart.  He can read and understand English.
Quote
Significant dog bites affect tens of millions of people globally each year.[3] It is estimated that 2% of the U.S. population, 4.5–4.7 million people, are bitten by dogs each year.[4] Most bites occur in children.[5] In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. averaged 17 fatalities per year, while in the 2000s this has increased to 26.[6] 77% of dog bites are from the pet of family or friends, and 50% of attacks occur on the dog owner's property.[6] Animal bites, most of which are from dogs, are the reason for 1% of visits to an emergency department in the United States.[5]
There would probably be fewer fatalities and bites if people like your dog handler friend remembered that dogs are animals. Your friend would benefit from reading this.
Quote
Human activities may increase the risk of a dog bite as does age, height, and movement. The CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association have published recommendations which encourage those that are around dogs to: not attempt to break up a dog fight[27]
I am sensitive to this subject currently since I have two great grandchildren under 18 months whose parents don't really understand dogs.  My wife was bitten because she ignored the first rule.  Do not approach strange dogs.  Carry on.

Offline Mira

  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 18408
    • View Profile
Quote
For the record Mouse wasn't trained as an attack dog.   Not in the text.  Mouse is smart.  He can read and understand English.

Mouse is an effective guard dog, trust me, he knows how to attack, that is what makes him an effective guard dog...  Yes, he is smart and can read and understand English, he also knows how to
attack when he needs to... Attack to kill if need be.

Quote
There would probably be fewer fatalities and bites if people like your dog handler friend remembered that dogs are animals. Your friend would benefit from reading this.
I didn't say she was my friend, I did say she is a dog handler, which means she knows very well what dogs are, what they capable of and can do..  She works a dog, to find human remains in all kinds of nasty situations.. Also to search for and save live people in all kinds of nasty situations and weathers...  Have you ever tried to train dog to do such work?  Have you actually worked a dog?
Quote
I am sensitive to this subject currently since I have two great grandchildren under 18 months whose parents don't really understand dogs.  My wife was bitten because she ignored the first rule.  Do not approach strange dogs.  Carry on.
Do you really understand dogs?
Then let me educate you so it turns out well for your great grandchildren and their parents....
True, one shouldn't approach a strange dog..  That is good if you see a dog off by itself, if someone is with the strange dog, always ask first if it is okay to pet the dog? If the owner says, "no." Don't try to pet... If the owner says,"Yes."  Here are some good rules... Never look a strange dog directly in the eye, it could see it as a challenge.. Next, let the dog smell your hand coming from underneath the dog's chin... Never pat the top of it's head or reach over the top of it's nose, it could feel threatened by that.. Follow those rules and everyone should be pretty safe...  I could go into paying attention to a dog's body language, but that is a little more complicated you can look it up..
« Last Edit: June 15, 2019, 12:25:58 AM by Mira »

Offline morriswalters

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 698
    • View Profile
Quote
Do you really understand dogs?
Well enough to never get bit. However that was a PSA.  Mouse is a genius among dogs.  Dogs can't process language like a human.  Mouse can read.  The point is that attack dogs don't work the way you apparently believe.  Or perhaps I am mistaken.

Offline huangjimmy108

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3022
    • View Profile
Harry does this over and over.  He's protecting Murphy.  He's protecting Kim.  He's protecting Molly.  Can you see an ongoing pattern in what Harry is doing.

Most of it are unintentional. The harm is done out of ignorance rather than out of malice, but it is harm done by Harry regardless.

1. He practice as a real wizard openly and advertise himself in the yellow pages. This opens the pandora box. It provides a convenient avenue whereby vanilla mortals and unprepared practicianers the chance to access the more dangerous and deadly part of the supernatural world. Though we may argue that people like Susan can and probably will get into the dark and deep end of the supernatural world by themselves, Harry openly practicing as a real wizard makes matter a lot worse. Harry done this despite the disapproval of the senior members of the council and he know it.

FM:
"Oh, come on, Harry," she told me. "You'reChicago 's only practicing professional wizard, and you're the only one who can help me." She leaned across the table toward me, her eyes intent. "I can't find the references for all of these symbols. No one in local circles recognizes them either. You're the only real wizard I've ever even heard of, much less know. I just want to know what these others are."

As we can see, Kim Delaney, a somewhat connected practicianer cannot easily find access to a wizard. Without Harry, gaining access is not so easy, especially during the early parts of the series where the world is still peaceful and stabil and secrecy is held tight.

2. Harry gave partial information to amateurs. Though he warm them about the dangers afterwards, his conduct are likely to encourages the amateurs instead. For example: Harry explain the 3 layered circle to Kim, but he only explain the first and second circle and he lied to Kim about the 3rd circle. Harry told kim that the 3rd circle is gobbledygook. He show kim some of the stuff, hide the most interesting ones and then told her "Don't do this!"

We know how that kind of admonission tends to encourages the curious to do the exact opposite. This is most prominently shown when it comes to Molly. The reason why Molly dabbles with magic and end up doing black magic is because the impression Harry made. I am certain Charity done all she could to warn Molly about the dangers of magic, but we know how that turns out. To a certain extent this happened to Susan too.

3. Harry involve amateurs in high level game. This equivalent to involving civilians in military matters. It is tabu. In Harry's defense, he is kind of desperate and outmatch, but it is still wrong. It is the bad out of the worse but it is still bad.

This is what Morgan say about it:
He shook his head wearily. “There’s a reason we don’t encourage amateurs to try to act like Wardens,Dresden .”

 I scowled at him, got a bowl of warm water and some antibacterial soap, and started cleaning up his left arm. “Yeah, well. I didn’t see any Wardens doing anything about it.”

 “Chicago is your area of responsibility, Warden Dresden.”

 “And there I was,” I said. “And if they hadn’t been there to help, I’d be dead right now.”

 “Then you call for backup. You don’t behave like a bloody superhero and throw lambs to the wolves to help you do it. Those are the people you’re supposed to be protecting.”

 “Good thinking,” I said, getting out the bag of saline, and suspending it from the hook I’d set in the wall over the bed. I made sure the tube was primed. Air bubbles, bad. “That’s exactly what we need: more Wardens inChicago .”

Harry is a wizard and in the later parts of the series, a warden of the council. He is not suppose to involve the alpha's at all. If he intended to involve the alpha's he need to provide information, trainning and equipment, the way the council train and equip wardens. He is ill prepared and for a wizard that is a fatal mistake.

In the later parts of the series, especially after book 12, most people involve with Harry already well informed and quite expirienced. Most of them already survive and sometimes even triumph against supernatural powers at least once. The problem of involving amateurs in the game of heavy weights becomes less prominent as a result.
 
But they were doughnuts of darkness. Evil, damned doughnuts, tainted by the spawn of darkness . . .
    . . . which could obviously be redeemed only by passing through the fiery, cleansing inferno of a wizardly digestive tract.

Offline nadia.skylark

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 791
    • View Profile
Quote
He practice as a real wizard openly and advertise himself in the yellow pages. This opens the pandora box. It provides a convenient avenue whereby vanilla mortals and unprepared practicianers the chance to access the more dangerous and deadly part of the supernatural world. Though we may argue that people like Susan can and probably will get into the dark and deep end of the supernatural world by themselves, Harry openly practicing as a real wizard makes matter a lot worse.

Objection: I see no evidence that Harry openly practicing as a wizard makes matters any worse at all, much less a lot worse.

I do see evidence that Harry openly practicing as a wizard makes matters involving people getting involved in the supernatural better.

Exhibit A: The Sells family. Victor Sells gets involved in a much nastier part of the supernatural world than anyone Harry has gotten involved. The fact that Harry is an openly practicing wizard allows Monica to come to him, making things better.

Exhibit B: Any time Marcone has contact with the supernatural world in Storm Front and Fool Moon. He does this without Harry's help, and Harry mitigates the damage.

Quote
Harry gave partial information to amateurs. Though he warm them about the dangers afterwards, his conduct are likely to encourages the amateurs instead. For example: Harry explain the 3 layered circle to Kim, but he only explain the first and second circle and he lied to Kim about the 3rd circle. Harry told kim that the 3rd circle is gobbledygook. He show kim some of the stuff, hide the most interesting ones and then told her "Don't do this!"

We know how that kind of admonission tends to encourages the curious to do the exact opposite.

Anyone whose response to a supposedly-trusted expert saying "don't do this," is to decide that that is a reason to do whatever "this" is, is going to get in trouble no matter what anyone does.

Quote
This is most prominently shown when it comes to Molly. The reason why Molly dabbles with magic and end up doing black magic is because the impression Harry made.

The reason Molly started experimenting with magic is because she accidentally turned herself invisible. The only thing Harry's impression on her caused was encouraging her to hide it from Harry. If Harry hadn't been involved, it would hardly have improved the situation.

Quote
I am certain Charity done all she could to warn Molly about the dangers of magic, but we know how that turns out.

Objection: Statement contrary to the evidence.

Fact 1: We know Charity knew about the Laws of Magic--it says so in Proven Guilty.
Fact 2: We know that Molly did not know about the Laws of Magic--it says so in Proven Guilty.
Conclusion: Charity has not done all she could to warn Molly about the dangers of Magic, because she did not warn Molly about the Laws of Magic.

Quote
Harry involve amateurs in high level game.

I would dispute this. Harry frequently tries to avoid involving amateurs in high level games, and when he does involve them, he usually does so by giving them all the facts first.

-He tries to keep Susan uninvolved.
-He tries to keep Kim uninvolved.
-He tries to keep Murphy uninvolved, until he fills her in on everything.
-He tries to keep the Alphas uninvolved, until he fills them in on everything (I don't count him going to Will's house when he saw the Skinwalker, because he was clearly in no state to think clearly or make rational decisions).

Offline Mira

  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 18408
    • View Profile
Well enough to never get bit. However that was a PSA.  Mouse is a genius among dogs.  Dogs can't process language like a human.  Mouse can read.  The point is that attack dogs don't work the way you apparently believe.  Or perhaps I am mistaken.

Fantasy, Mouse, he can read, verses reality....  Dogs understand quite a bit, while they cannot read books, they can read body language, they also have a large vocabulary...  They have remarkable noses, they can find lost people, they can distinguish between dead human remains and other animal remains, they can sniff out cancer, they can tell when a human is about to have a seizure, they can sniff out drugs, they can sniff out explosives, I could go on...

Guard dogs..
Quote

The dog does not attack out of fear or anger, the dog attacks because he has been commanded to. Attack dog training, if carried out properly is very useful in personal protection. However the dog should still use his own initiative, if situations arise where the handler has been injured and cannot give a command.

In other words.... That guard dog will attack on it's own to protect it's handler, the object of that attack will not be wearing a nice protective bite suit.  If the handler is incapacitated, he or she may not be able to give the "stop" command .. Most likely the dog will go after the arm or leg because it is easiest to get to, but that doesn't rule out the throat.. Oh, both the arm and the leg contain arteries, bleeding out is a possibility..  So can a guard dog kill?  Yup...




Offline morriswalters

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 698
    • View Profile
My apologies for having dragged us down this path.  It isn't really germane to the topic at this point.

Offline Mira

  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 18408
    • View Profile
My apologies for having dragged us down this path.  It isn't really germane to the topic at this point.

  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.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2019, 09:19:46 PM by Mira »

Offline Bad Alias

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
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.

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.

It wasn't cold blooded anything...

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.

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.

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.

Offline Mira

  • Seriously?
  • ***
  • Posts: 18408
    • View Profile
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.

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?

« Last Edit: June 15, 2019, 09:16:38 PM by Mira »

Offline morriswalters

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 698
    • View Profile
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.
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.