Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Lois & Clark Fanfic FDK: rules of engagement (plot untwist)

Nice, I always wanted him to do that to a criminal, but I think he's only violent with them when they directly threaten Lois.

Or anyone for that matter.

I love this! It will effectively completely change the rest of the series, but oh well.

lol, I couldn't really imagine Clark leaving him there to Rot, but I'm sure he wished he could have. He's just two darn nice.

If you want to see me, all you haveto do is look up. Poetic justice.

Well done, Bravo.

Desiree

Shame it's kidnapping. Can't see the Metropolis authorities loving that one, somehow.

Interesting, sure would have changed the first season.

That is debatable. Luthor made it clear that he is going to have people killed. He presents a Clear and Present Danger to others.

Under some kidnapping laws every time Clark transported anyone any distance at all it would be kidnapping. Clearly this is NOT the case in Metropolis as we often see Clark transporting folks against their will.

And in this case he released Luthor within minutes. He simply did not provide assistance in returning home.

While I can see Clark being charged with kidnapping I doubt anyone could make it stick.

This Clark decided not to risk Luthor killing anyone. Clark knows but can't yet prove that Luthor was behind these tests that have already endangered others.

Funny plot-untwist.

As for the legal matters:

When Superman transports victims, he is rendering assistance. He might actually be liable if he didn't provide the best first aid he can.

When he transports victims to the police station, it would be a citizen's arrest. Although I have no idea, if he is allowed to transport them, or just hold them. Which he does more often then not, anyway.

As for Luthor. Even if the actual transport is the kidnapping, Superman still holds Luthor defacto prisoner later on. Whether the legal term is kidnapping or wrongful imprisonment, or something along those lines is pretty much beside the point.

And if Luthor dies on the island due to an accident or something, it might even add manslaughter to the charges.

If we take it seriously, he has crossed a line. A jury might find him not guilty because of the merits of the case, but from a legal point of view, he could and should be prosecuted.

Could be funny, Mayson Drake could prosecute Superman and Luthor could be called as a witness.

Michael

In most of the US neither. To qualify as a citizen's arrest he can't use any form of force and he can't tie them up and he can't transport them anywhere.

Since Clark did all three in the series the laws in Metropolis are either different or not enforced.

Anyone care to count how many times Clark crossed the line in canon?

Is it any wonder why Mayson didn't trust Superman?

I would disagree. Superman released Luthor. If he he picked an area that presented problems, well so be it.

I suspect that the MPD (and everyone else, for that matter) treats Superman as a de facto member of law enforcement - that's what made Mayson's attitude so different - she considered him a vigilante, not a member of a law enforcement team.

As for Luthor, Superman has abducted him and is guilty of unlawful imprisonment as well as taking him across international boundaries.

Then again, if Superman is right and Luthor's empire collapses, Luthor will be too busy running to try to expose what Clark did to him.

The bottom line, though, is that it's funny.


Elisabeth

Oh, I wasn't saying it wasn't - but I had to think about this one when I was writing Nine Lives , and there are all sorts of reasons why Superman needs to obey the law on things like illegal imprisonment, extradition, etc. if he's to retain any credibility as a crime fighter.

Weeee ooooow! Good for you Supes! Laura

Dandello wrote:
While it's true that Luthor would probably be too busy running to make any allegations against Superman, the story would have to come out someday.

And then how could we trust Superman? He's abducted a free citizen of the U.S. and transported him somewhere against his will. That does indeed fit the definition of kidnapping. (If Tempus, for example, took Lois to the far future against her will and just left her there - as in Tank's yet unfinished story [hint-hint-nudge-nudge] - then he'd be guilty of kidnapping. Same thing.) In this untwist (which is, admittedly, funny on some levels), Superman has chosen to execute preemptive justice upon someone who has not been accused of any crime, let alone convicted of one. He has also chosen to perform this action after a period of rational thought. No one's life, health, or liberty is in danger at the moment of his act, so he has no affirmative legal defense available to him.

If Superman can decide that someone is guilty all by himself, then execute a sentence upon that someone - even if that someone is not physically harmed - he becomes a vigilante. I don't see that this action is defensible on any level. While it might have been something the early 1940's Superman might have done, the Superman of today is supposed to stand for truth and justice. There is no justice in stranding Lex Luthor on a desert island; there is only vengeance, and a preemptive vengeance at that.

It's entirely possible that I'm reading too much into this vignette, that I'm over-reacting to it. But under the surface, it says that - for Superman, at least - the end (dethroning the criminal mastermind Luthor) justifies the means (kidnapping, unlawful restraint, violation of various civil liberties). And I don't think that's true. I wrote "Rebuilding Superman" recently, where Superman faced a trial for killing Bill Church at the moment he discovered that Intergang had just murdered more than forty people. And I still believe that Superman should have gone to trial for that action. The verdict in the trial generated a great deal of feedback and some very erudite expressions of belief both for and against the final outcome, which I viewed as healthy. I hope this response is also viewed in the same light.

"In fact, virtually any superhero can be considered a vigilante if he or she is not acting under the direct authority of a law enforcement agency or other government body."

Clark has to make a choice. I noted the "rules of engagement" had changed. Clark gets to pick between three bad choices.

• Leave town to prevent Luthor killing someone in his tests of Superman
• Accept the risk that Luthor will kill someone
• Prevent Luthor from killing someone by ignoring US Law

In the series Clark defies Luthor and indeed people do die.

OJ Simpson got away with murder because, at the time, he could afford a really good lawyer. Luthor is rich. Let's face it in the series the only reason Luthor didn't get off was he decided to kill himself.

In the series we see Superman / Clark Kent ignore many laws again and again.

We hear a great hue and cry against the death plenty in the USA yet the US Government sends people to kill people all the time. People who have never been given a trial, or charged with any crime. We call it war.

Terry you are right likely many would never trust Superman, on the other hand many never did.

As for the rule of law, when was the last time you exceed the speed limit or made an illegal turn?

Not the same thing you say? Really?