Ask a lawyer-soldier

[parkhyun]

Hello all,

I'm a lawyer. I'm also an Army officer. I also love GMing games. That makes me relatively well-placed to answer your questions about how the law, the military, and modern international relations would affect the happenings in your campaign.

Now - I am NOT going to give you legal advice. And any answers I provide should NEVER be applied to real-world situations. Asking me a question does NOT make you my client. But if you're wondering how the courts, the Army, or the UN Security Council might be a part of your campaign, or your hero, and want to add a dash of detail or realism to your adventures, heck, bring on the questions!

[slade the sniper]

The Recon threads have some interesting military related legal issues that pop up on there occasionally. The Robotech threads as well.

-STS

[parkhyun]

Good to know. I really would prefer to do this in a single thread or forum, so that I'm not bouncing around everywhere. I started thinking about the interplay of law, markets, the military and international relations when I got back into Heroes Unlimited - for me, it seems like the best place to talk about it.

When the Zentraedi start submitting matters to arbitration, I suppose I'll do this in the Robotech forums as well.

[slade the sniper]

The Zentraedi could do so...the Robotech Masters seem awfully classical, so maybe they will Socratic method you to death in debates

As for HU, I usually run pretty heavy governmental campaigns where powers are registered similar the Shadow Ops series, with cooperation between countries to take out superpowered threats... similar to the current GWOT...and of course, just like reality, a lot of states make their own unregistered supers for doing bad things.

Hope you get some good questions

-STS

[parkhyun]

Let me "prime the pump" here with a few problems you might face:

1. If your hero is a witness to the crime, how can he or she testify in court without revealing his or her true identity? Couldn't they just leave photos around the site, Spiderman-style? No - those photos are worthless in court. What about the tips he gave police that led to the search that found all that evidence - why would the police have believed anything the Superhero told them? Is that enough to justify a warrant?

2. Can't Captain Impossible, an agent for the US government, use his Awesome Ray to blast the crap out of his enemies instantly? Well, yes, but if he does it in a way to causes casualties to non-combatants unnecessarily, he should be court-martialled.

3. Well, what about Captain Impossible capturing The Golden Emir, Al-Queda's supervillain? Does The Golden Emir have to be handed back to Korruptistan, the breakaway "republic" and failed state? What if The Emir claims he was a soldier in Korruptistan's war for independence?

4. What are Cobalt Man's options when Cobalt, Inc., the company be built from the ground up and which provides him all those awesome suits, is the target of a hostile takeover led by an investment group comprising all of Cobalt Man's once-defeated enemies?

[Nightmask]

Let me "prime the pump" here with a few problems you might face:

1. If your hero is a witness to the crime, how can he or she testify in court without revealing his or her true identity? Couldn't they just leave photos around the site, Spiderman-style? No - those photos are worthless in court. What about the tips he gave police that led to the search that found all that evidence - why would the police have believed anything the Superhero told them? Is that enough to justify a warrant?

Okay, why exactly would photographic evidence of a crime be considered worthless in court? Considering photographic evidence is frequently admitted once its proven not to be faked.

[eliakon]

Let me "prime the pump" here with a few problems you might face:

1. If your hero is a witness to the crime, how can he or she testify in court without revealing his or her true identity? Couldn't they just leave photos around the site, Spiderman-style? No - those photos are worthless in court. What about the tips he gave police that led to the search that found all that evidence - why would the police have believed anything the Superhero told them? Is that enough to justify a warrant?

Okay, why exactly would photographic evidence of a crime be considered worthless in court? Considering photographic evidence is frequently admitted once its proven not to be faked.

the photographer has to be available to testify (the right to face your accuser). Thus an anonymous photograph would not be legally admissible. There are also lots of limits on evidence based on custody, and how/who obtained it, that I would suspect would apply here as well.

[Nightmask]

Let me "prime the pump" here with a few problems you might face:

1. If your hero is a witness to the crime, how can he or she testify in court without revealing his or her true identity? Couldn't they just leave photos around the site, Spiderman-style? No - those photos are worthless in court. What about the tips he gave police that led to the search that found all that evidence - why would the police have believed anything the Superhero told them? Is that enough to justify a warrant?

Okay, why exactly would photographic evidence of a crime be considered worthless in court? Considering photographic evidence is frequently admitted once its proven not to be faked.

the photographer has to be available to testify (the right to face your accuser). Thus an anonymous photograph would not be legally admissible. There are also lots of limits on evidence based on custody, and how/who obtained it, that I would suspect would apply here as well.

I'm really not seeing how that makes sense, it's a photograph not a person making a claim.

[eliakon]

Let me "prime the pump" here with a few problems you might face:

1. If your hero is a witness to the crime, how can he or she testify in court without revealing his or her true identity? Couldn't they just leave photos around the site, Spiderman-style? No - those photos are worthless in court. What about the tips he gave police that led to the search that found all that evidence - why would the police have believed anything the Superhero told them? Is that enough to justify a warrant?

Okay, why exactly would photographic evidence of a crime be considered worthless in court? Considering photographic evidence is frequently admitted once its proven not to be faked.

the photographer has to be available to testify (the right to face your accuser). Thus an anonymous photograph would not be legally admissible. There are also lots of limits on evidence based on custody, and how/who obtained it, that I would suspect would apply here as well.

I'm really not seeing how that makes sense, it's a photograph not a person making a claim.

A photograph doesn't just exist though. Legaly it is just a form of speech. its the speaker (photographer) that is actually saying something. This is related btw to the idea of proving the photo genuine.

[parkhyun]

Aha! Good questions. Here's your answer:

To move a photo into evidence, you need to "lay foundation": i.e., prove it is what you say it is. That means you have to show that it's a "fair and accurate depiction." This can either be done by having the person who took the photo testify to that, or having someone who was there when the photo was taken do it.

So: yes, the Spiderman photos could be used in court, but only if other people who saw the event could testify to lay foundation for the photos. Otherwise, Spidey himself would have to appear in court, which would kind of kill the whole "secret identity" thing.

[Greyaxe]

Aha! Good questions. Here's your answer:

To move a photo into evidence, you need to "lay foundation": i.e., prove it is what you say it is. That means you have to show that it's a "fair and accurate depiction." This can either be done by having the person who took the photo testify to that, or having someone who was there when the photo was taken do it.

So: yes, the Spiderman photos could be used in court, but only if other people who saw the event could testify to lay foundation for the photos. Otherwise, Spidey himself would have to appear in court, which would kind of kill the whole "secret identity" thing.

Not if he wore a burka. Sniker Sniker.
But that does lead me to ask the question. In a world of superheroes where they have public identities and private identities would there not be a law protecting them? Appear in court in your costume but provide retina scans to prove identity. or finger prints on file if you are an agent of the law? There would have to be some kind of work around if accommodations can be made on religious grounds, why not under safety grounds for the hero who has very real and often super powered enemies as well...

Obviously in the case of Spiderman who, while popular, works outside the law. Evidence provided by his photos would have to be presented by another. Perhaps a partner in solving crime, like a super sleuth with ties to legitimate law enforcement. This brings up yet another question. Could the super sleuth in this example who works with Spiderman be forced to reveal Spiderman's secret identity if known or brought to court?

[say652]

Are items brought from other dimensions considered illegal. How would magic weapons be openly carried( irl I got drawn on while practicing a suel nunchuka kata with my tang soo do master in a state park:/) and any victim good or evil can still press charges for battery correct?

[parkhyun]

Are items brought from other dimensions considered illegal. How would magic weapons be openly carried( irl I got drawn on while practicing a suel nunchuka kata with my tang soo do master in a state park:/) and any victim good or evil can still press charges for battery correct?

Since civil law is concerned about repairing the harm done, what's important is really whether you intentionally or negligently hurt someone, and not how. If the victim could show by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. more likely than not) that you meant to use that weapon, you did, and it hurt him or her, you'll be on the hook for their damages. They can even get you if you should have known it would hurt them!

Is it criminal (i.e. you can get sent to jail)? Well, that depends. Let's look at NY:

"Firearm" means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon.

Look here for more definitions: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/P/265/265.00

Does your magic weapon fire bullets? Does it have a large blade? Basically, it is really obviously a weapon? If so, it can probably be regulated. Where you bought it or how is irrelevant.

[Dr_Prof_Bosk]

So how legally realistic is Century Station's Operation Overlord? I know it works as a story telling device but if Washington D.C. tried to do something similar to get its crime problem under control it doesn't seem like that dog would hunt.

[parkhyun]

So how legally realistic is Century Station's Operation Overlord? I know it works as a story telling device but if Washington D.C. tried to do something similar to get its crime problem under control it doesn't seem like that dog would hunt.

Tell me a little more about it. I don't have the book any longer.

[taalismn]

I'm kinda interested in how Cobalt Man escapes handing over his company to his arch-enemies' lawyers....Win the epic fight, but lose the corporate takeover(then see your hardware used in the next attempted super-villain coup)? That would be SAD....and mad-fuel for every anti-government survivalist twinky who hates the American justice system and corporations in general.

[parkhyun]

Is The Sector legal?

OK, you gotta give me some more information to work with...

[say652]

Laws for service animals. My hero recently aquired a mini horse. What legal stuff is required to bring it wvery where.

[say652]

Laws for service animals. My hero recently aquired a mini horse. What legal stuff is required to bring it wvery where.

[parkhyun]

Laws for service animals. My hero recently aquired a mini horse. What legal stuff is required to bring it wvery where.

Ah, this one is easy. Usually, if you have a domesticated pet that bites or harms someoneor something, the injured party needs to prove negligence: usually that you knew it was dangerous (the "every dog gets one bite" rule), that you weren't careful, and because you weren't careful, the animal injured the other party.

But if it's a wild animal, you're strictly liable: all they need to show is that the animal hurt them, and you gotta pay.

But remember that even if it's a domesticated animal, if you're acting against a statute or code, the fact that you weren't following the law means you're automatically negligent.

So... is the mini horse dangerous? Are there city codes limiting ownership? If so, you better hope that both you and your mini horse have good secret identities.

[parkhyun]

Is The Sector legal?

OK, you gotta give me some more information to work with...

Well, according to Century Station (p88-89 - Sector 10):

"The US Federal government has always needed a ultra-covert organization, ready, willing, and able to carry out quasi-military actions throughout the world, usually without the approval of Capitol Hill or the direct knowledge of the White House. Typically, the President knew of the Sector and what it could do, but for political reasons never dealt directly with it or was allowed to know the full scope of its operation.

The Sector carried out dozens of assassinations, covert wars, and acts of political, industrial, and domestic espionage all in the name of advancing US national policies...."

Not unlike the CIA, DIA, or NSA. So my question is: what are the factual legalities of such extra-judicial actions in the name of national interests? Does the law only apply when it is convenient for it to apply?

This also begs the question, both in the fictional world of HU and in the real world: exactly who is it that controls the USA? The President or the military-industrial complex?

Just curious.

Congress.

The problem with The Sector is that I can't say who's funding it. If it's Federal money, than it should be through federally-appropriated money, and that's up to Congress. So if The Sector is acting without the approval of Congress, it's in violation of the law requiring spending only according to the budget, and if it's using Federal funds without the knowledge of the White House, it's in violation of the basic Constitutional structure granting the President Executive Powers.

Another big problem is that if it acts internationally in a military capacity, without wearing some form of identifier or uniform, its agents will have no Geneva rights. They're criminals, not soldiers. But they were already acting illegally, so there you go.

Perhaps they're using non-appropriated funds - that requires a lot of bake sales for the kind of operations you're describing. But let's say they have super-rich backers. That makes them a non-governmental organization, and if Federal employees are working to further a non-government organization that is acting contrary to the stated policy of the US government, they're committing treason.

So, long story short, no - it's not legal. It's also probably not possible.

[EDIT] After I posted this, I realized what it's most similar to, and that's Nixon's "plumbers." Theoretically, the White House could divert appropriated military funds into a covert unit, establish a separate command and then order the commander not to tell them what he or she does. However, that doesn't make sense, because you'd have no way of knowing what they did with the money (Jamaican vacation?).

[parkhyun]

Aha! Good questions. Here's your answer:

To move a photo into evidence, you need to "lay foundation": i.e., prove it is what you say it is. That means you have to show that it's a "fair and accurate depiction." This can either be done by having the person who took the photo testify to that, or having someone who was there when the photo was taken do it.

So: yes, the Spiderman photos could be used in court, but only if other people who saw the event could testify to lay foundation for the photos. Otherwise, Spidey himself would have to appear in court, which would kind of kill the whole "secret identity" thing.

Not if he wore a burka. Sniker Sniker.
But that does lead me to ask the question. In a world of superheroes where they have public identities and private identities would there not be a law protecting them? Appear in court in your costume but provide retina scans to prove identity. or finger prints on file if you are an agent of the law? There would have to be some kind of work around if accommodations can be made on religious grounds, why not under safety grounds for the hero who has very real and often super powered enemies as well...

Obviously in the case of Spiderman who, while popular, works outside the law. Evidence provided by his photos would have to be presented by another. Perhaps a partner in solving crime, like a super sleuth with ties to legitimate law enforcement. This brings up yet another question. Could the super sleuth in this example who works with Spiderman be forced to reveal Spiderman's secret identity if known or brought to court?

Wow - sorry I took so long to get to this. I somehow skipped right over it. I'm sorry.

I suppose in a world with superheroes, anything could be possible. But in this world (with somehow your superhero dropped into it), the issue is really whether someone can testify in court without revealing his or her real identify to the opposing party or the jury.

The bottom line is, no. Check out Smith v. Illinois: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/129/case.html. Now, the line has apparently been blurred by subsequent cases in which the witness's name was given to the defense team, but no other identifying information, and the witness testified under a pseudonym (I say apparently because I base this only on some Googling).

Now here's the part I don't need Google for: even if it was somehow possible to testify in tights, the cross examination would be so brutal it would probably be better to never testify at all. "Are you hiding your real identity because if the jury knew it, they wouldn't trust you?" "Are you wearing a mask because you're afraid to stand by what you said here today?" "Would you put a citizen in prison, depriving him of his freedom for years on end, based on the word of someone you didn't know, couldn't identify, who wouldn't look you in the eye, and who couldn't be adequately questioned?"

So... part II. The supersleuth.

Theoretically, if the supersleuth is subpoenaed, he is required by law to testify. To refuse to answer the question could be contempt, which is itself a crime. This has been a huge problem for journalists, who are forced to reveal the identities of their sources in court. Of course, the supersleuth could lie and say he has no idea, but that's perjury - another crime. It could also make him look really, really bad in court, harming his case (although if he's forced to testify, he probably doesn't care about the case).

If there's a pattern to all my answers, so far, it's this: keep that identity a secret!

[Alrik Vas]

Is it legal for the US Army (not the National Guard) to operate in a peacekeeper capacity on American soil? And if so, what are the criteria for such an action?

[The Beast]

Is it legal for the US Army (not the National Guard) to operate in a peacekeeper capacity on American soil? And if so, what are the criteria for such an action?

Only under certain conditions: Posse Comitatus Act

[Nightmask]

Considering how beat to death this is getting on another site, aren't existing laws in general good enough to cover the general misuse of super-powers in a super-powered setting? Would it really be justified to try and insist that all super-powers are the same in the eyes of the law and should be treated as if one were using a handgun or explosives to commit a crime with subsequent sentencing increases even in completely non-violent crimes such as teleporting away someone's wallet rather than pick-pocketing it?

[parkhyun]

Considering how beat to death this is getting on another site, aren't existing laws in general good enough to cover the general misuse of super-powers in a super-powered setting? Would it really be justified to try and insist that all super-powers are the same in the eyes of the law and should be treated as if one were using a handgun or explosives to commit a crime with subsequent sentencing increases even in completely non-violent crimes such as teleporting away someone's wallet rather than pick-pocketing it?

Absolutely! Most laws are intended to be "method-neutral," because they are meant to deter behavior that is harmful to society. The "method" of committing crimes usually becomes what's called an "aggravating factor," so Assault may be a crime, and Assault with a Deadly Weapon may be another crime, but the latter simply adds to the definition of the former. Another good example is Felony Murder, which is more serious than Murder 1, because the defendant was killing as part of another, related crime (shooting a guard during a bank robbery, for instance).

Let's say your superpower involves shooting ray beams from your eyes, and your PC blasts the bad guy with more power than usual, cutting him in half. The police arrive and the PC yells "self-defense!" Fine, but the cops will have to arrest him, conduct an investigation, and may still charge him with Murder with a Deadly Weapon, an aggravating factor to Homicide in your state. He'll still have to go to trial, and hopefully can show that the decades of the villain's attempts to kill the PC put him in reasonable fear of his life.

[eliakon]

Awesome. Thank you very much for this parkhyun. This is exactly the sort of detail and information that is useful (at least to me). Its nice to be able to say to a player "They are charging you for X even though you used Y because the law is method-neutral." Its much more satisfying than saying "well it just seems logical that they would arrest you.".....even if they are both the same thing. And this is useful for players, for the same reason. If things are method-neutral then they can still get Villian-of-the-day on weapons charges....even though he is running around dual wielding mutant dandelions.

[say652]

Centaurs
Can I get a drivers license or do I have to be registered as an animal??
I can shapechange but I dont normally prefer to hide my horseyness.

[NMI]

Centaurs
Can I get a drivers license or do I have to be registered as an animal??
I can shapechange but I dont normally prefer to hide my horseyness.

Then as a horse, you would not be able to fit into a normal vehicle, even with modifications, therefor - no, you cannot get a drivers license.

[say652]

But if I choose to be considered an animal I am privy to all the rights and legal protections of being an animal.

[parkhyun]

Centaurs
Can I get a drivers license or do I have to be registered as an animal??
I can shapechange but I dont normally prefer to hide my horseyness.

So you want to know if it's legal for a centaur to get a driver's license? When you say, "registered as an animal," you mean, for driving purposes???

I have no idea what kind of car a centaur could drive, but I guess you could tie two motorcycles together and hit the road.

Anyways... assuming you are not owned by someone else, there would be no need to register, as that's usually for pets, and done by the city or local government.

"Rights and protections of being an animal..." These are very few and very far between. You have far more legal rights as a human. Freedom of speech and movement, job protections, legal standing, voting, gun ownership (if that's your thing), all these things belong to humans and not animals. I would recommend, legally, that you claim human rights first.

[say652]

The character can shapshift so I have to be human, taxes ugh.

[Nightmask]

Considering how beat to death this is getting on another site, aren't existing laws in general good enough to cover the general misuse of super-powers in a super-powered setting? Would it really be justified to try and insist that all super-powers are the same in the eyes of the law and should be treated as if one were using a handgun or explosives to commit a crime with subsequent sentencing increases even in completely non-violent crimes such as teleporting away someone's wallet rather than pick-pocketing it?

Absolutely! Most laws are intended to be "method-neutral," because they are meant to deter behavior that is harmful to society. The "method" of committing crimes usually becomes what's called an "aggravating factor," so Assault may be a crime, and Assault with a Deadly Weapon may be another crime, but the latter simply adds to the definition of the former. Another good example is Felony Murder, which is more serious than Murder 1, because the defendant was killing as part of another, related crime (shooting a guard during a bank robbery, for instance).

Let's say your superpower involves shooting ray beams from your eyes, and your PC blasts the bad guy with more power than usual, cutting him in half. The police arrive and the PC yells "self-defense!" Fine, but the cops will have to arrest him, conduct an investigation, and may still charge him with Murder with a Deadly Weapon, an aggravating factor to Homicide in your state. He'll still have to go to trial, and hopefully can show that the decades of the villain's attempts to kill the PC put him in reasonable fear of his life.

I think I missworded my question somewhat or you misread it (or I'm misreading you), since the 'method neutral' argument should mean using a super-power shouldn't be treated as an aggravating factor since if you teleport someone's wallet out of their pocket and somehow get caught (say it's got a fancy RF chip card in it that ends up revealing it's been stolen) that's no different than the pick-pocket lifting it the non-powered way not that all powers should be treated the same in the eyes of the law since powers run a massive range of abilities that can't possibly be seen as somehow as an aggravating factor to add to a crime when there was only one crime. Otherwise you're singling out one class of people (those with super-powers) for extra punishment even though they commit the same crime and the power and nature of the crime shouldn't allow for such a thing (Mechano-link to rob an ATM vs being able to pick its lock and steal the cash that way there's only the same crime, using the power didn't somehow increase the crime or make it worse like someone using a gun to rob someone vs unarmed robbery).

I'd hate to think it would be treated as acceptable to treat all uses of a super-power as an aggravating thing to add to a crime, effectively making super-powers a crime, no matter the power or the circumstance. The guy using elongation and plasticity to reach into a cracked window to steal some stuff would be getting really screwed over getting an extra 5 years compared to the guy who last week did the same thing using a fishing rod just because he used a super-power to commit the same crime. Unlike the guy with flame powers using them to intimidate someone to rob them, that's justifiable as if you were using a gun or other weapon to threaten someone so should naturally be an aggravating circumstance in the same light.

[parkhyun]

Considering how beat to death this is getting on another site, aren't existing laws in general good enough to cover the general misuse of super-powers in a super-powered setting? Would it really be justified to try and insist that all super-powers are the same in the eyes of the law and should be treated as if one were using a handgun or explosives to commit a crime with subsequent sentencing increases even in completely non-violent crimes such as teleporting away someone's wallet rather than pick-pocketing it?

Absolutely! Most laws are intended to be "method-neutral," because they are meant to deter behavior that is harmful to society. The "method" of committing crimes usually becomes what's called an "aggravating factor," so Assault may be a crime, and Assault with a Deadly Weapon may be another crime, but the latter simply adds to the definition of the former. Another good example is Felony Murder, which is more serious than Murder 1, because the defendant was killing as part of another, related crime (shooting a guard during a bank robbery, for instance).

Let's say your superpower involves shooting ray beams from your eyes, and your PC blasts the bad guy with more power than usual, cutting him in half. The police arrive and the PC yells "self-defense!" Fine, but the cops will have to arrest him, conduct an investigation, and may still charge him with Murder with a Deadly Weapon, an aggravating factor to Homicide in your state. He'll still have to go to trial, and hopefully can show that the decades of the villain's attempts to kill the PC put him in reasonable fear of his life.

I think I missworded my question somewhat or you misread it (or I'm misreading you), since the 'method neutral' argument should mean using a super-power shouldn't be treated as an aggravating factor since if you teleport someone's wallet out of their pocket and somehow get caught (say it's got a fancy RF chip card in it that ends up revealing it's been stolen) that's no different than the pick-pocket lifting it the non-powered way not that all powers should be treated the same in the eyes of the law since powers run a massive range of abilities that can't possibly be seen as somehow as an aggravating factor to add to a crime when there was only one crime. Otherwise you're singling out one class of people (those with super-powers) for extra punishment even though they commit the same crime and the power and nature of the crime shouldn't allow for such a thing (Mechano-link to rob an ATM vs being able to pick its lock and steal the cash that way there's only the same crime, using the power didn't somehow increase the crime or make it worse like someone using a gun to rob someone vs unarmed robbery).

I'd hate to think it would be treated as acceptable to treat all uses of a super-power as an aggravating thing to add to a crime, effectively making super-powers a crime, no matter the power or the circumstance. The guy using elongation and plasticity to reach into a cracked window to steal some stuff would be getting really screwed over getting an extra 5 years compared to the guy who last week did the same thing using a fishing rod just because he used a super-power to commit the same crime. Unlike the guy with flame powers using them to intimidate someone to rob them, that's justifiable as if you were using a gun or other weapon to threaten someone so should naturally be an aggravating circumstance in the same light.

The aggravating factors will generally be things like using a deadly weapon or committing a crime in a person's home. Since real superpowers don't exist, all I can say is that you have to look at the danger of the activity or the social harm it would cause: no extra harm by using stretch powers, buy lots of potential harm using flame powers.

[Sir_Spirit]

As for the "I get animal Rights" thing, well, if you can turn into an animal, no one can stop you, practically speaking, from just going off and living as one. If you want yo be both an animal and a human, you might seek out an "Owner"type dominant on Fetlife, or similar places on the net.
If you are 'just' a centaur-dude, then claiming humanity is better for legal protection.
For instance, an animal that attacks, but doesn't even kill, a human can just be put down. Whereas a human gets a trial, and so forth.

[Alrik Vas]

The character can shapshift so I have to be human, taxes ugh.

shapeshifting as a form of tax evasion? That's creative, but pretty low.

[Alrik Vas]

The character can shapshift so I have to be human, taxes ugh.

Shape shifting as a form of tax evasion? Creative, but that's pretty low.

[Nightmask]

Considering how beat to death this is getting on another site, aren't existing laws in general good enough to cover the general misuse of super-powers in a super-powered setting? Would it really be justified to try and insist that all super-powers are the same in the eyes of the law and should be treated as if one were using a handgun or explosives to commit a crime with subsequent sentencing increases even in completely non-violent crimes such as teleporting away someone's wallet rather than pick-pocketing it?

Absolutely! Most laws are intended to be "method-neutral," because they are meant to deter behavior that is harmful to society. The "method" of committing crimes usually becomes what's called an "aggravating factor," so Assault may be a crime, and Assault with a Deadly Weapon may be another crime, but the latter simply adds to the definition of the former. Another good example is Felony Murder, which is more serious than Murder 1, because the defendant was killing as part of another, related crime (shooting a guard during a bank robbery, for instance).

Let's say your superpower involves shooting ray beams from your eyes, and your PC blasts the bad guy with more power than usual, cutting him in half. The police arrive and the PC yells "self-defense!" Fine, but the cops will have to arrest him, conduct an investigation, and may still charge him with Murder with a Deadly Weapon, an aggravating factor to Homicide in your state. He'll still have to go to trial, and hopefully can show that the decades of the villain's attempts to kill the PC put him in reasonable fear of his life.

I think I missworded my question somewhat or you misread it (or I'm misreading you), since the 'method neutral' argument should mean using a super-power shouldn't be treated as an aggravating factor since if you teleport someone's wallet out of their pocket and somehow get caught (say it's got a fancy RF chip card in it that ends up revealing it's been stolen) that's no different than the pick-pocket lifting it the non-powered way not that all powers should be treated the same in the eyes of the law since powers run a massive range of abilities that can't possibly be seen as somehow as an aggravating factor to add to a crime when there was only one crime. Otherwise you're singling out one class of people (those with super-powers) for extra punishment even though they commit the same crime and the power and nature of the crime shouldn't allow for such a thing (Mechano-link to rob an ATM vs being able to pick its lock and steal the cash that way there's only the same crime, using the power didn't somehow increase the crime or make it worse like someone using a gun to rob someone vs unarmed robbery).

I'd hate to think it would be treated as acceptable to treat all uses of a super-power as an aggravating thing to add to a crime, effectively making super-powers a crime, no matter the power or the circumstance. The guy using elongation and plasticity to reach into a cracked window to steal some stuff would be getting really screwed over getting an extra 5 years compared to the guy who last week did the same thing using a fishing rod just because he used a super-power to commit the same crime. Unlike the guy with flame powers using them to intimidate someone to rob them, that's justifiable as if you were using a gun or other weapon to threaten someone so should naturally be an aggravating circumstance in the same light.

The aggravating factors will generally be things like using a deadly weapon or committing a crime in a person's home. Since real superpowers don't exist, all I can say is that you have to look at the danger of the activity or the social harm it would cause: no extra harm by using stretch powers, buy lots of potential harm using flame powers.

Which would be the sensible and more in keeping with the purpose of our laws and such, I was just on the peeved side (to put it mildly) at someone who insists that ALL uses of super-powers automatically qualified as an aggravating factor and the crime was irrelevant even if it was simply impossible to call the super-power's use to commit the crime an aggravating factor (like insisting if you were peeping with Telescopic Vision that it was somehow inherently worse than peeping with binoculars so the super using Telescopic Vision should get a much more punishing sentence).

His strawman arguments got so bad he finished up equating having super-powers and registration acts with tracking child molesters basically equating all criminal uses of super-powers with child molesting and how it just made sense to have lifetime tracking and restrictions on them. All while refusing to even acknowledge the examples that disproved his 'all super-powers used for crime is just worse and should be punished more harshly' position and using non-super criminal abuses (guy builds power armor and creates havoc) as somehow being examples of abuses of super-powers that need lifetime harsh punishments instead of something already well covered in the law just as if you ran amok with a stolen tank or fighter jet.

[eliakon]

Considering how beat to death this is getting on another site, aren't existing laws in general good enough to cover the general misuse of super-powers in a super-powered setting? Would it really be justified to try and insist that all super-powers are the same in the eyes of the law and should be treated as if one were using a handgun or explosives to commit a crime with subsequent sentencing increases even in completely non-violent crimes such as teleporting away someone's wallet rather than pick-pocketing it?

Absolutely! Most laws are intended to be "method-neutral," because they are meant to deter behavior that is harmful to society. The "method" of committing crimes usually becomes what's called an "aggravating factor," so Assault may be a crime, and Assault with a Deadly Weapon may be another crime, but the latter simply adds to the definition of the former. Another good example is Felony Murder, which is more serious than Murder 1, because the defendant was killing as part of another, related crime (shooting a guard during a bank robbery, for instance).

Let's say your superpower involves shooting ray beams from your eyes, and your PC blasts the bad guy with more power than usual, cutting him in half. The police arrive and the PC yells "self-defense!" Fine, but the cops will have to arrest him, conduct an investigation, and may still charge him with Murder with a Deadly Weapon, an aggravating factor to Homicide in your state. He'll still have to go to trial, and hopefully can show that the decades of the villain's attempts to kill the PC put him in reasonable fear of his life.

I think I missworded my question somewhat or you misread it (or I'm misreading you), since the 'method neutral' argument should mean using a super-power shouldn't be treated as an aggravating factor since if you teleport someone's wallet out of their pocket and somehow get caught (say it's got a fancy RF chip card in it that ends up revealing it's been stolen) that's no different than the pick-pocket lifting it the non-powered way not that all powers should be treated the same in the eyes of the law since powers run a massive range of abilities that can't possibly be seen as somehow as an aggravating factor to add to a crime when there was only one crime. Otherwise you're singling out one class of people (those with super-powers) for extra punishment even though they commit the same crime and the power and nature of the crime shouldn't allow for such a thing (Mechano-link to rob an ATM vs being able to pick its lock and steal the cash that way there's only the same crime, using the power didn't somehow increase the crime or make it worse like someone using a gun to rob someone vs unarmed robbery).

I'd hate to think it would be treated as acceptable to treat all uses of a super-power as an aggravating thing to add to a crime, effectively making super-powers a crime, no matter the power or the circumstance. The guy using elongation and plasticity to reach into a cracked window to steal some stuff would be getting really screwed over getting an extra 5 years compared to the guy who last week did the same thing using a fishing rod just because he used a super-power to commit the same crime. Unlike the guy with flame powers using them to intimidate someone to rob them, that's justifiable as if you were using a gun or other weapon to threaten someone so should naturally be an aggravating circumstance in the same light.

The aggravating factors will generally be things like using a deadly weapon or committing a crime in a person's home. Since real superpowers don't exist, all I can say is that you have to look at the danger of the activity or the social harm it would cause: no extra harm by using stretch powers, buy lots of potential harm using flame powers.

Which would be the sensible and more in keeping with the purpose of our laws and such, I was just on the peeved side (to put it mildly) at someone who insists that ALL uses of super-powers automatically qualified as an aggravating factor and the crime was irrelevant even if it was simply impossible to call the super-power's use to commit the crime an aggravating factor (like insisting if you were peeping with Telescopic Vision that it was somehow inherently worse than peeping with binoculars so the super using Telescopic Vision should get a much more punishing sentence).

His strawman arguments got so bad he finished up equating having super-powers and registration acts with tracking child molesters basically equating all criminal uses of super-powers with child molesting and how it just made sense to have lifetime tracking and restrictions on them. All while refusing to even acknowledge the examples that disproved his 'all super-powers used for crime is just worse and should be punished more harshly' position and using non-super criminal abuses (guy builds power armor and creates havoc) as somehow being examples of abuses of super-powers that need lifetime harsh punishments instead of something already well covered in the law just as if you ran amok with a stolen tank or fighter jet.

It could happen too. Remember laws are passed by people. If there is a fear of supers at some point you could get some nasty laws passed on them. For real life look at the schizophrenic laws on various weapons, or drugs. For superpowers well.....look at stuff like the various marvel incarnations of the super powers acts, or Watchmen, or Wildcards, or......
As our laws are today there is no basis for assuming that the mere presence of a super power would automatically be an aggravating circumstance....but there is nothing to stop that being inferred legally either, or added explicitly.

[13eowulf]

I have a question relating to a game I played in the past.
First some background.

I was a super solder, with several traits that gave me great reflexes, but also caused the character to be chronically hyperactive, with issues being still, let alone laying down or sleeping.
In character he use.... herbal remedies.... to relieve this status when not on duty. It became an issue for the character, in-character.
The character also had an extra-dimensional room he had access to (per the super power).

On one mission they raided drug shipments, I was using my room as a place to gather evidence, but had not finished when battle erupted and part of the shipment was destroyed.
My character took that opportunity to claim some of the 'herbal' shipment that was not destroyed had indeed gone away with the rest of the shipment.
He then turned over a great deal of what he had, and all the non-herbal evidence.

Since no one could enter the room, and my character was an upstanding super soldier no one questioned it, and no one could even prove otherwise. There was some discussion on this, but essentially that is how he got away with it.
Now then the GM cautioned me that since my Room was extradimensional I left the country every time I entered it, and if I brought any 'herbs' back with me it would be considered smuggling if I was caught.

So, realistically, how would laws treat extradimensional pockets of space/time?

[Nightmask]

I have a question relating to a game I played in the past.
First some background.

I was a super solder, with several traits that gave me great reflexes, but also caused the character to be chronically hyperactive, with issues being still, let alone laying down or sleeping.
In character he use.... herbal remedies.... to relieve this status when not on duty. It became an issue for the character, in-character.
The character also had an extra-dimensional room he had access to (per the super power).

On one mission they raided drug shipments, I was using my room as a place to gather evidence, but had not finished when battle erupted and part of the shipment was destroyed.
My character took that opportunity to claim some of the 'herbal' shipment that was not destroyed had indeed gone away with the rest of the shipment.
He then turned over a great deal of what he had, and all the non-herbal evidence.

Since no one could enter the room, and my character was an upstanding super soldier no one questioned it, and no one could even prove otherwise. There was some discussion on this, but essentially that is how he got away with it.
Now then the GM cautioned me that since my Room was extradimensional I left the country every time I entered it, and if I brought any 'herbs' back with me it would be considered smuggling if I was caught.

So, realistically, how would laws treat extradimensional pockets of space/time?

I'd think that ridiculous myself if Marvel hadn't pulled that 'oh yeah all we have to do is imprison people in another dimension and we won't have to obey any American laws!' nonsense (since as an US outpost it should still be bound by US laws including all those pesky little civil rights protecting ones). If the laws did recognize their existence I'd have to think that you can't get more out of the country than another dimension.

[parkhyun]

I have a question relating to a game I played in the past.
First some background.

I was a super solder, with several traits that gave me great reflexes, but also caused the character to be chronically hyperactive, with issues being still, let alone laying down or sleeping.
In character he use.... herbal remedies.... to relieve this status when not on duty. It became an issue for the character, in-character.
The character also had an extra-dimensional room he had access to (per the super power).

On one mission they raided drug shipments, I was using my room as a place to gather evidence, but had not finished when battle erupted and part of the shipment was destroyed.
My character took that opportunity to claim some of the 'herbal' shipment that was not destroyed had indeed gone away with the rest of the shipment.
He then turned over a great deal of what he had, and all the non-herbal evidence.

Since no one could enter the room, and my character was an upstanding super soldier no one questioned it, and no one could even prove otherwise. There was some discussion on this, but essentially that is how he got away with it.
Now then the GM cautioned me that since my Room was extradimensional I left the country every time I entered it, and if I brought any 'herbs' back with me it would be considered smuggling if I was caught.

So, realistically, how would laws treat extradimensional pockets of space/time?

Tough question!

I suppose the first thing to look at is whether the dimension is considered a nation's "territory" under international law.

You can find the most common definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention.
Unfortunately, the article doesn't really give you many references to prove it's accuracy, but I have seen this definition in textbooks and court cases, and so I'm pretty sure this is the accepted definition. Under this definition, the dimensional room is per se not part of the defined territory of the United States. Therefore, it cannot be subject to American control.

It's therefore most like an airport. Your PC "boards" his power and travels outside the border. Check out this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Montoya_de_Hernandez. Your PC, coming back across the "border," would have very limited rights, indeed.

[zerombr]

I've a simple question.

I feel that the Basic Military skill package in Ninjas and Superspies is unfairly put together. The idea of all Worldly Martial Artists knowing Demo Disposal is just wrong. What would reflect a proper Basic Military package?

[13eowulf]

I've a simple question.

I feel that the Basic Military skill package in Ninjas and Superspies is unfairly put together. The idea of all Worldly Martial Artists knowing Demo Disposal is just wrong. What would reflect a proper Basic Military package?

You could always use the HU2 Basic Military Skill Package, it does not include Demo.

[parkhyun]

I've a simple question.

I feel that the Basic Military skill package in Ninjas and Superspies is unfairly put together. The idea of all Worldly Martial Artists knowing Demo Disposal is just wrong. What would reflect a proper Basic Military package?

Bottom line up front: Your PC would have to be in the Army for probably several years to get all the training the book says he would have.

If you're coming into the US Army, you'll go through basic training. This should give you something roughly equivalent to:
Running
W.P. Assault Rifle
Military Etiquette
Athletics
Land Navigation

Then you'll go through AIT, which if you're an 11b (Infantry, Enlisted), should give you something like:
HtH Expert (i.e. Modern Army Combatives)
Climbing
Camouflage
First Aid
W.P. Heavy Weapons (your M-240b or SAW)
W.P. Knife
Detect Ambush
Recognize Weapon Quality

There are also schools, such as Air Assault and Airborne, that are not mandatory but very common. Air Assault should give you rappelling (as part of your climb skill), and Airborne should give you parachuting. Ranger school would probably provide some Rogue skills, Pathfinder school would include Wilderness Survival, while the Diver school would be swimming (of course), underwater demolitions, and SCUBA. Other military skills would be very MOS-dependent; we have CBRN take care of Nuclear, Biological, & Chemical Warfare and Military Intelligence handling intelligence (obviously), so you won't find Soldiers who have every "Soldier skill" in the book.

School aren't usually closed off to other branches, either, so while a Marine shouldn't get parachuting at level 1, he could later have the opportunity to train with an Army Airborne unit and pick up the skill.

[zerombr]

Thank you!

[Matt]

OK, so I am not a lawyer. With the photo evidence, what about those traffic cameras or video surveillance obtained from local surveillance cameras? There is no "photographer" to be questioned.

At least here in Southern California those red-light cameras are thrown out as evidence all the time, to the point that many cities have done away with them altogether. Plus the numerous instances of fraud by the companies that operate them and collect a % from the resulting fines.