Has Buffy ever killed humans?
Dorkusporkus
Are the Knights of Byzantium humans?
In Season 5, Buffy throws an axe right at one of them and it sure looks
like she killed the guy.
ebail...@aol.com
Yeah, she bumped a few of them off. It was a kill or be killed
situation.
E
poolnuz
<ebail...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106390720.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
and that pesky 'needing to save the world part'
theNews
>
> E
>
Can Altinbay
news:FftId.13140$8u5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> and that pesky 'needing to save the world part'
>
LOTS
Don Sample
Dorkusporkus <sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us> wrote:
Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans, even
before the knights came along. Among them are:
Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
Coach Marin - Go Fish
Hans and Frans - Homecoming
Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Naomi Darling
> In article <spam1-62E810....@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> Dorkusporkus <sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us> wrote:
>
>> I'm kinda confused.
>> Are the Knights of Byzantium humans?
>> In Season 5, Buffy throws an axe right at one of them and it sure looks
>> like she killed the guy.
>
> Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans, even
> before the knights came along. Among them are:
>
> Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
> One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
> Coach Marin - Go Fish
> Hans and Frans - Homecoming
> Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
No. Hans and Frans were not human.
Cody: "I like the two little one's better."
BTR1701
Darling <naomid@no*spam.lycos.co.uk> wrote:
Then what were they?
Don Sample
Naomi Darling <naomid@no*spam.lycos.co.uk> wrote:
That was Hansel and Gretelin _Gingerbread_. Hans and Frans were the
identical twin brother assassins/terrorists who hunted Buffy and Cordy
in _Homecoming_. (Their real names were Hans and Frederick
Gruenshtahler, but I like calling them Hans and Frans.)
shuggie
> In article <pan.2005.01.22.22.04.55.446218@no*spam.lycos.co.uk>,
> Naomi Darling <naomid@no*spam.lycos.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:28:24 -0500, Don Sample wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <spam1-62E810....@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>>> Dorkusporkus <sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm kinda confused.
>>>>Are the Knights of Byzantium humans?
>>>>In Season 5, Buffy throws an axe right at one of them and it sure looks
>>>>like she killed the guy.
>>>
>>>Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans, even
>>>before the knights came along. Among them are:
>>>
>>>Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
>>>One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
>>>Coach Marin - Go Fish
>>>Hans and Frans - Homecoming
>>>Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
>>
>>
>>No. Hans and Frans were not human.
>>Cody: "I like the two little one's better."
>
>
> That was Hansel and Gretelin _Gingerbread_. Hans and Frans were the
> identical twin brother assassins/terrorists who hunted Buffy and Cordy
> in _Homecoming_. (Their real names were Hans and Frederick
> Gruenshtahler, but I like calling them Hans and Frans.)
>
Have you cleared that change with Keeper of the Holy Transcripts, John
Briggs?
;)
John Briggs
I didn't hear that :-)
It should be Hans and Fritz, of course. "Gruenshtahler" is, of course,
impossible as a German name. The nearest would be "Gruenthaler".
--
John Briggs
Mel
Mel
alphakitten
No, it was that pesky 'needing to save Dawn part'. If the Knights had
killed Dawn, the world would not have required saving.
~Angel
David Samuel Barr
>
> In article <spam1-62E810....@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> Dorkusporkus <sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us> wrote:
>
> > I'm kinda confused.
> > Are the Knights of Byzantium humans?
> > In Season 5, Buffy throws an axe right at one of them and it sure
> > looks like she killed the guy.
>
> Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans, even
> before the knights came along. Among them are:
>
> Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
> One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
> Coach Marin - Go Fish
> Hans and Frans - Homecoming
> Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
As has been pointed out on the numerous other occasions this has been
hashed out here, at least three of the above were not actually killed
by Buffy. Dr Weirick was killed by the hyenas after he fell into their
pit during his fight with Buffy; ditto Coach Marin by his fishified
swim team. Buffy only severed Gwendolyn Post's forearm, which would
not have been fatal if promptly treated; she was killed by the energy
from the weapon which was randomly unleashed when she no longer had
control of it. Hans & Frans killed each other, but were indeed directly
tricked into it by Buffy.
Exp315
> Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans,
even
> before the knights came along. Among them are:
> Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
> One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
> Coach Marin - Go Fish
> Hans and Frans - Homecoming
> Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
Well, you could argue about most of those:
- We saw Buffy apparently cause serious injury to some of the Knights
when they attacked her with deadly intent, but we don't know for sure
that any of them actually died. She couldn't be expected to stick to
guaranteed non-lethal force in the circumstances.
- She tossed the zookeeper into the hyena cage, but the hyenas killed
him - and we don't even know that she meant to toss him there - he was
charging her after all.
- The assasin, ok, she slashed his throat with a skate blade. But he
was a pro assasin trying to kill her and Angel, and she may have
thought he was a vampire or some other supernatural creature (as one of
the other human-looking assasins was).
- The Coach accidentally fell into the middle of the creatures he
created, and was killed by them. Buffy tried to save him.
- Hans and Frans killed each other (Buffy set them up, but they did the
shooting, intending to kill her).
- Buffy cut the Glove from Gwen's hand, which was absolutely necessary
in the circumstances - the magical side effects killed Gwen, which
Buffy couldn't have known or prevented.
So generally I would give Buffy a passing grade on the "doesn't kill
humans" test. She was on the line a couple of times, but just barely
kept from going over it. I'd even give Faith a pass if it were only
Alan that she killed, since it was an accident. Of course Faith then
went on to kill the archeologist deliberately as the Mayor's hired
killer.
BTR1701
"Exp315" <Exp...@canada.com> wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
> > Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans,
> even
> > before the knights came along. Among them are:
> > Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
> > One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
> > Coach Marin - Go Fish
> > Hans and Frans - Homecoming
> > Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
>
> Well, you could argue about most of those:
> - We saw Buffy apparently cause serious injury to some of the Knights
> when they attacked her with deadly intent, but we don't know for sure
> that any of them actually died. She couldn't be expected to stick to
> guaranteed non-lethal force in the circumstances.
Of course not. I don't know why people make such a big deal out of this.
They were trying to kill her. It's legitimate self-defense. She didn't
lose the right that we all enjoy to defend herself the moment she became
a Slayer.
And those Knights almost certainly died. It would be spectacular miracle
for someone dressed in a suit of armor to be tossed off a vehicle moving
at speed and survive.
> - She tossed the zookeeper into the hyena cage, but the hyenas killed
> him
LOL! That's like saying she tossed a guy into a volcano but it was
actually the lava that killed him.
Don Sample
David Samuel Barr <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
> >
> > In article <spam1-62E810....@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> > Dorkusporkus <sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm kinda confused.
> > > Are the Knights of Byzantium humans?
> > > In Season 5, Buffy throws an axe right at one of them and it sure
> > > looks like she killed the guy.
> >
> > Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans, even
> > before the knights came along. Among them are:
> >
> > Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
> > One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
> > Coach Marin - Go Fish
> > Hans and Frans - Homecoming
> > Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
>
> As has been pointed out on the numerous other occasions this has been
> hashed out here, at least three of the above were not actually killed
> by Buffy. Dr Weirick was killed by the hyenas after he fell into their
> pit during his fight with Buffy; ditto Coach Marin by his fishified
> swim team.
And as I point out every time this comes up, if you push someone in
front of a bus, you can't blame the bus for killing them. They hyenas
and fish guys were the buses. Buffy pushed Weirick and Marin.
> Buffy only severed Gwendolyn Post's forearm, which would
> not have been fatal if promptly treated;
I didn't notice any ambulance and paramedics standing by to rush Post to
the hospital. Yes, people have survived losing their arms in accidents
in which they weren't rushed to the hospital right away. People have
also survived being shot in the head. I wouldn't recommend either
though.
poolnuz
"alphakitten" <alphak...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41F31691...@netscape.net...
I just KNEW someone would come up with "she wanted to save Dawn"
what did you think, I didn't watch the ep????
BtVs, always operated on SEVERAL levels
theNews
>
>
>
> ~Angel
>
poolnuz
"Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-68D0A3...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <spam1-62E810....@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> Dorkusporkus <sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us> wrote:
>
> > I'm kinda confused.
> > Are the Knights of Byzantium humans?
> > In Season 5, Buffy throws an axe right at one of them and it sure looks
> > like she killed the guy.
>
> Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans, even
> before the knights came along. Among them are:
>
> Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
> One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
> Coach Marin - Go Fish
> Hans and Frans - Homecoming
> Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
yes indeed
the Knights were a bit of a departure tho,
previously on Buffy, she dispatched evil people
the Knights were actually the good guys, sort of
theNews
poolnuz
"Exp315" <Exp...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1106464164.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
semantics, only
in each of the cases you cite
Buffy caused the death of the person(s) involved
you can argue for manslaughter vs murder, but that is all
to say she didn't kill them is very much incorect
theNews
>
BTR1701
"poolnuz" <block...@nospam.net> wrote:
Actually, it wouldn't be accurate to argue for either manslaughter or
murder.
In all cases, the killings were legitimate cases of self-defense or
defense of others which makes them neither manslaughter nor murder.
They are justifiable homicides.
Naomi Darling
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
> content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15">
> <title></title>
> </head>
> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
> <br>
> <br>
> Naomi Darling wrote:<br>
> <blockquote type="cite"
> cite="midpan.2005.01.22.22.04.55.446218@no*spam.lycos.co.uk">
> <pre wrap="">On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:28:24 -0500, Don Sample wrote:
>
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:spam1-62E810....@news.isp.giganews.com"><spam1-62E810....@news.isp.giganews.com></a>,
> Dorkusporkus <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us"><sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us></a> wrote:
>
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">I'm kinda confused.
> Are the Knights of Byzantium humans?
> In Season 5, Buffy throws an axe right at one of them and it sure looks
> like she killed the guy.
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap="">Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans, even
> before the knights came along. Among them are:
>
> Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
> One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
> Coach Marin - Go Fish
> Hans and Frans - Homecoming
> Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap=""><!---->
>
> No. Hans and Frans were not human.
> Cody: "I like the two little one's better."
>
>
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <br>
> The two guys with the laser aimed guns *weren't* human? Then what were
> they?<br>
Ops. My bad. Sorry!
William George Ferguson
>In article <1106464164.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>"Exp315" <Exp...@canada.com> wrote:
>
>> Don Sample wrote:
>> > Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans,
>> even
>> > before the knights came along. Among them are:
>> > Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
>> > One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
>> > Coach Marin - Go Fish
>> > Hans and Frans - Homecoming
>> > Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
>>
>> Well, you could argue about most of those:
>> - We saw Buffy apparently cause serious injury to some of the Knights
>> when they attacked her with deadly intent, but we don't know for sure
>> that any of them actually died. She couldn't be expected to stick to
>> guaranteed non-lethal force in the circumstances.
>
>Of course not. I don't know why people make such a big deal out of this.
>They were trying to kill her. It's legitimate self-defense. She didn't
>lose the right that we all enjoy to defend herself the moment she became
>a Slayer.
That's the key, of course, nobody who brings these up argues that Buffy
shouldn't have done it, just that Buffy, when lethel force is necessary
to protect others, will use it without hesitation, even against humans.
Some people don't want to recognize that fairly simple fact (Buffy
herself has acknowledged that she has killed humans when necessary, she
wasn't happy about it, but she wasn't in denial about it either).
>And those Knights almost certainly died. It would be spectacular miracle
>for someone dressed in a suit of armor to be tossed off a vehicle moving
>at speed and survive.
The ones she threw off the Winnie were still more likely to survive than
the one she tomahawked with the battle ax. She wasn't necessarily trying
to kill them, but she was definitely operating on 'they are not going to
kill my sister, and if they don't survive my stopping them, tough".
>> - She tossed the zookeeper into the hyena cage, but the hyenas killed
>> him
>
>LOL! That's like saying she tossed a guy into a volcano but it was
>actually the lava that killed him.
Buffy accepts that she occasionally has to use lethel force against
humans because using less than lethel force would put innocents at too
great a risk. We should be able to accept the same. She doesn't adhere
to Superman's code (never kill anyone no matter what the reason), but
rather Wonder Woman's code (protect the innocents, and if that means
having to kill a bad guy, well, they shouldn't have threatened the
innocents). In the latest issue of one of the Superman titles, Wonder
Woman basically reams out both Supes and Bats on this issue. If a
villain poses an untenable, and undefefendable, threat to their loved
ones (and by extension, any innocents), that will never abate as long as
the villain lives, correct the 'as long as the villain lives'.
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me. Hints are fine."
Joan Girardi (after God shows her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
BTR1701
com...@indenter.com wrote:
> All good points... and as the Buffy human-kill-body-count has been
> rising lately in this thread... shouldn't Buffy have had to go to
> the police and face the same kind of trial Faith did eventually?
> I mean, if the justice system is worth anything... since she did
> kill some people... even if she is found innocent by self-defense
> or saving-the-world or whatever... shouldn't she have to face a
> courtroom too?
No. In cases of self-defense, the most common course of events is for
the district attorney to present the case to the grand jury and if the
person truly acted in self-defense, the grand jury will no-bill them and
decline to hand down an indictment. No trial will take place.
Shorty
<com...@indenter.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:26:56 -0500, Carlos Moreno
><moreno_at_mo...@xx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>Exp315 wrote:
>>
>>> - The assasin, ok, she slashed his throat with a skate blade. But he
>>> was a pro assasin trying to kill her and Angel, and she may have
>>> thought he was a vampire or some other supernatural creature (as one of
>>> the other human-looking assasins was).
>>
>>This is irrelevant to the point originally discussed; what
>>she did was perfectly justified, and I *really* doubt that
>>there may exist a single person in this world who would think
>>otherwise.
>>
>>But she did kill him. And he was human. Whether or not she
>>intended to kill him and whether or not she knew that he was
>>human doesn't change the fact that she killed a human being
>>in that particular instance.
>>
>>> I'd even give Faith a pass if it were only
>>> Alan that she killed, since it was an accident.
>>
>>You seem to confuse "kill" with "murder" -- the fact that it
>>was an accident doesn't change the fact that she killed him;
>>it simply determines that she is not criminally or morally
>>responsible for his death -- it was an accident; she *killed*
>>him by accident.
>>
>>Carlos
>
>All good points... and as the Buffy human-kill-body-count has been
>rising lately in this thread... shouldn't Buffy have had to go to
>the police and face the same kind of trial Faith did eventually?
>I mean, if the justice system is worth anything... since she did
>kill some people... even if she is found innocent by self-defense
>or saving-the-world or whatever... shouldn't she have to face a
>courtroom too?
>
>-Stewart
Faith's issue was that she:
1) Covered the crime up by disposing of the body...poorly
2) Denied having done it
3) Showed no remorse thus cutting herself off from the Council and the
Scoobs. It was the Council that more than likely escalated the police
pursuit of her.
4) Beat several other people within an inch of their lives for shits
and grins.
5) Acted as the Mayor's personal assassin and killed at least one
other person in cold blood.
Shorty
Carlos Moreno
> - The assasin, ok, she slashed his throat with a skate blade. But he
> was a pro assasin trying to kill her and Angel, and she may have
> thought he was a vampire or some other supernatural creature (as one of
> the other human-looking assasins was).
This is irrelevant to the point originally discussed; what
she did was perfectly justified, and I *really* doubt that
there may exist a single person in this world who would think
otherwise.
But she did kill him. And he was human. Whether or not she
intended to kill him and whether or not she knew that he was
human doesn't change the fact that she killed a human being
in that particular instance.
> I'd even give Faith a pass if it were only
> Alan that she killed, since it was an accident.
You seem to confuse "kill" with "murder" -- the fact that it
was an accident doesn't change the fact that she killed him;
it simply determines that she is not criminally or morally
responsible for his death -- it was an accident; she *killed*
him by accident.
Carlos
--
BTR1701
Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Buffy accepts that she occasionally has to use lethel force against
> humans because using less than lethel force would put innocents at too
> great a risk. We should be able to accept the same. She doesn't adhere
> to Superman's code (never kill anyone no matter what the reason), but
> rather Wonder Woman's code (protect the innocents, and if that means
> having to kill a bad guy, well, they shouldn't have threatened the
> innocents). In the latest issue of one of the Superman titles, Wonder
> Woman basically reams out both Supes and Bats on this issue.
Since when did Batman become such a pussy? I've never followed the
comics but I was always under the impression that Batman was a much
darker super hero-- almost an anti-hero-- in that he didn't hesitate to
kill the people who need killing.
Carlos Moreno
>>>Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
>>>One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
>>>Coach Marin - Go Fish
>>>Hans and Frans - Homecoming
>>>Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
>>
>>As has been pointed out on the numerous other occasions this has been
>>hashed out here, at least three of the above were not actually killed
>>by Buffy. Dr Weirick was killed by the hyenas after he fell into their
>>pit during his fight with Buffy; ditto Coach Marin by his fishified
>>swim team.
>
>
> And as I point out every time this comes up, if you push someone in
> front of a bus, you can't blame the bus for killing them. They hyenas
> and fish guys were the buses. Buffy pushed Weirick and Marin.
Perhaps the zookeeper is a close call -- but comparing the
events with coach Martin vs. pushing someone in front of a
bus is absurd.
A better analogy, IMO, would be the following:
If someone comes visit me in my home, and I ask them to
go and sit in the living room, and then a bus that lost
control crashes into my house smashing everything in the
living room and kills the person, you would not hold me
responsible for that person's death.
Buffy tripped him as part of a fight in which she was
trying to ensure that the bad guy would be held responsible
for his criminal actions. That *unintentionally* led to
the guy falling -- which in itself was not fatal, and was
not the cause of death. So, there are *two* reasons why
you could say Buffy didn't kill him.
>>Buffy only severed Gwendolyn Post's forearm, which would
>>not have been fatal if promptly treated;
>
> I didn't notice any ambulance and paramedics standing by to rush Post to
> the hospital.
Irrelevant -- she did not die of a severed arm. Buffy and
the gang didn't call an ambulance and/or assist Gwendolyn
because there was no Gwendolyn to help. The cause of death
was electrocution/deep-fry-cooking from the energy that she
herself invoked for other, evil purposes.
If there had been no ray and she had died of the severed
arm, then you would have a case to argue that Buffy killed
her. I would go as far as to say that Buffy didn't even
have anything to do with her death -- she just happened
to be right there when the death occured.
It's not a matter of "she had it coming", or "it was killed
or have your friends killed" -- what Buffy did wasn't,
directly or indirectly, the cause of death (or in any
case, indirectly, but in a way that was neither intentional
nor possibly predictable -- it was not known to Buffy that
by severing the arm with the magic glove the energy would
vaporize her -- as much as it wouldn't have been known to
me, in the hypothetical example above, that by asking the
person to sit in the living room the person was going to
die).
Carlos
--
BTR1701
<moreno_at_mo...@xx.xxx> wrote:
> Exp315 wrote:
>
> > - The assasin, ok, she slashed his throat with a skate blade. But he
> > was a pro assasin trying to kill her and Angel, and she may have
> > thought he was a vampire or some other supernatural creature (as one of
> > the other human-looking assasins was).
>
> This is irrelevant to the point originally discussed; what
> she did was perfectly justified, and I *really* doubt that
> there may exist a single person in this world who would think
> otherwise.
You apparently haven't been to Europe.
> > I'd even give Faith a pass if it were only
> > Alan that she killed, since it was an accident.
>
> You seem to confuse "kill" with "murder" -- the fact that it
> was an accident doesn't change the fact that she killed him;
> it simply determines that she is not criminally or morally
> responsible for his death -- it was an accident; she *killed*
> him by accident.
People are still criminally liable for accidental killings if they were
acting recklessly at the time.
Drunk driving is a prime example. The drivers never intend to kill
anyone, yet their actions are reckless in the extreme, therefore any
deaths that result, while accidental, still result in criminal
liability. That's actually the very definition of manslaughter (as
opposed to murder).
The standard in most states is "reckless disregard for human life or
safety" but some states call it "depraved indifference to human life".
Faith was acting recklessly. Staking anything that moved without
determing first if it was an actual threat or not. But she never formed
the intent to kill a human being. Therefore, she'd be guilty of only
manslaughter in the death of Alan Finch.[And subsequently obstruction of
justice for covering up the crime. Oh, and she and Buffy both-- and
maybe Giles and Willow, too-- would be guilty of conspiracy to obstruct
justice.]
Now the killing of Professor Worth was a different matter entirely. In
that instance, Faith was guilty of premeditated first degree murder.
That's death penalty territory.
Incidentally, I know a law professor down in Texas that uses the
exploits of Buffy and Faith as fact patterns for her criminal law exams
every semester.
peachy ashie passion
>
> All good points... and as the Buffy human-kill-body-count has been
> rising lately in this thread... shouldn't Buffy have had to go to
> the police and face the same kind of trial Faith did eventually?
> I mean, if the justice system is worth anything... since she did
> kill some people... even if she is found innocent by self-defense
> or saving-the-world or whatever... shouldn't she have to face a
> courtroom too?
>
> -Stewart
Well, that would be reasonable IF Buffy could tell her side of it
and explain how it was self defense or saving the world.
Given that most people would not believe her the first time she
mentioned demons, and she'd end up back in the loony bin in a matter
of days, it seems impractical to have her count on the justice
system to clear her.
--
"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of
scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams."
~ Mary Ellen Kelly
AFPslave to Mistress Stacie
ashes...@verizon.net
Shorty
<com...@indenter.com> wrote:
>Just a guess... but I'm guessing Buffy in some way tried to cover
>up or at least deny having anything to do with the humans she
>killed... also never really got a handle personally on why the
>police stopped being after her during Becoming... remember they
>found her over Kendra's body, and were chasing her saying she was
>"presumed dangerous"... then by the start of the next season she
>was back in school and the police weren't wondering why she
>disappeared... I'm assuming they didn't catch the real killer,
>since Drusilla killed Kendra!
>
>Not defending Faith here... but interesting... also interesting
>that the council of watcher's would be ok with Faith sitting in a
>prison cell where she may or may not let secrets out of the bag...
>when they had previously been busting their humps trying to
>reclaim her for "rehabilitation".
>
>-Stewart
That I never quite understood myself. I would have thought they would
have tried to have her killed during her prison stay.
Shorty
peachy ashie passion
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:11:38 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Vernon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>All good points... and as the Buffy human-kill-body-count has been
>>>rising lately in this thread... shouldn't Buffy have had to go to
>>>the police and face the same kind of trial Faith did eventually?
>>>I mean, if the justice system is worth anything... since she did
>>>kill some people... even if she is found innocent by self-defense
>>>or saving-the-world or whatever... shouldn't she have to face a
>>>courtroom too?
>>>
>>>-Stewart
>>
>> Well, that would be reasonable IF Buffy could tell her side of it
>>and explain how it was self defense or saving the world.
>>
>> Given that most people would not believe her the first time she
>>mentioned demons, and she'd end up back in the loony bin in a matter
>>of days, it seems impractical to have her count on the justice
>>system to clear her.
>
>
> So then, why was everybody ok with Faith facing the music? How
> could she possibly explain her killings... since at least one of
> them took place while she was out looking for demons to fight...
> and another was under the leadership of the Mayor who was himself
> a demon? She couldn't put up much of a reasonable defense to help
> her cause could she?
>
> -Stewart
Stewart, she walked into the house of an innocent professor and
killed him.
What part of this requires the explanations of the supernatural
to explain?
BTR1701
<notrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That I never quite understood myself. I would have thought they would
> have tried to have her killed during her prison stay.
Maybe they did.
BTR1701
com...@indenter.com wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:11:38 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > Given that most people would not believe her the first time she
> >mentioned demons, and she'd end up back in the loony bin in a matter
> >of days, it seems impractical to have her count on the justice
> >system to clear her.
>
> So then, why was everybody ok with Faith facing the music? How
> could she possibly explain her killings... since at least one of
> them took place while she was out looking for demons to fight...
> and another was under the leadership of the Mayor who was himself
> a demon? She couldn't put up much of a reasonable defense to help
> her cause could she?
She wasn't trying to mount a defense. She *wanted* to go to prison.
William George Ferguson
That was true back in the 40s, and wasn't addressed that much in the 50s
(when the comics were a lot more hyper-realistic, with the giant props and
such), but hasn't been true since the 60s. Even when Batman was grittied
up in the 90s, they kept him to a 'never kill' code, mainly because DC has
invested effort into establishing that Batman is the bestest human ever.
The DC partyline on the Bats is 'give him 6 months and he could take down
Galactus (which is nonsense unless you seriously jury-rig the story to
allow it).
Basically most the super-powered DC characters adhere to the 'never kill'
code. About the most powerful one who doesn't is Wonder Woman, who has
been portrayed as a true Amazon warrior, with all that entails, from the
90s on. Some of the less powerful, or non-powered, heroes also have no
problem when lethel force is necessary
The situation is similar over in Marvel comics, where you have a tier of
heroes (maybe the majority) who are absoulutely opposed to killing their
opponents no matter the provocation, and another group that is less
stup... er, noble.
The meta-reason for the 'never kill' code of heroes is, of course, Dr.
Fredric Wertham and "The Seduction of the Innocent". The fallout of
Wertham's crusade was the comic industry coming up with "The Comics Code"
as a self-regulation. In the code, it specifically says 'the hero shall
never be shown killing someone'.
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me! Hints are fine."
-Joan Girardi
(after God showed her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
William George Ferguson
We saw one assassination attempt on Faith in prison. The guards were
mainly surprised that anyone would be brain-dead stupid enough to attack
her (which indicates there had been prior incidents establishing that
attacking Faith was a Very Bad Idea).
James Craine
Stewart Vernon wrote:
>
> All good points... and as the Buffy human-kill-body-count has been
> rising lately in this thread... shouldn't Buffy have had to go to
> the police and face the same kind of trial Faith did eventually?
> I mean, if the justice system is worth anything... since she did
> kill some people... even if she is found innocent by self-defense
> or saving-the-world or whatever... shouldn't she have to face a
> courtroom too?
>
> -Stewart
No the courts can't handle this kind of a case. There is
nothing that says that you must report the incident. If you
are mugged you are not obligated to report the crime. If you
repel the mugger you still are not. Buffy repelled an
attacker, he subsequently died, so what. Why would Buffy go
to the cops?
Faith is in prison for the vulcanologist, not the dep-mayor.
Remember that she said she was doing time for murder.
James Craine
BTR1701 wrote:
> Incidentally, I know a law professor down in Texas that uses the
> exploits of Buffy and Faith as fact patterns for her criminal law exams
> every semester.
Would it be possible to get those tests and the answers posted?
James Craine
Stewart Vernon wrote:
> So then, why was everybody ok with Faith facing the music? How
> could she possibly explain her killings... since at least one of
> them took place while she was out looking for demons to fight...
> and another was under the leadership of the Mayor who was himself
> a demon? She couldn't put up much of a reasonable defense to help
> her cause could she?
>
> -Stewart
She didn't put up any defense. She confessed. I presume that
she confessed to only the vulcanologist.
Carlos Moreno
>>You seem to confuse "kill" with "murder" -- the fact that it
>>was an accident doesn't change the fact that she killed him;
>>it simply determines that she is not criminally or morally
>>responsible for his death -- it was an accident; she *killed*
>>him by accident.
>
>
> People are still criminally liable for accidental killings if they were
> acting recklessly at the time.
Of course!
> Drunk driving is a prime example. The drivers never intend to kill
> anyone, yet their actions are reckless in the extreme, therefore any
> deaths that result, while accidental
I sort of disagree with this last item -- "it was an accident"
is the typical, lame-in-the-extreme, excuse that the drunk
driver would use... A death caused by a drunk driver is *not*
accidental. It's more like a huge chance (almost a miracle)
when it does not happen.
> The standard in most states is "reckless disregard for human life or
> safety" but some states call it "depraved indifference to human life".
I thought "depraved indifference" referred to a more serious sort of
disregard -- situations where you know a person is about to die,
and you can do something about it, at low risk to yourself and
obvious high chance of saving the person, but you consciously
choose not to help the person. (hence the "depraved" attribute).
Not that the above is the only example, but it's a typical
example of what I've always understood as "depraved indifference"
(which, IIRC, is considered Murder 2, according to Law & Order)
> Faith was acting recklessly. Staking anything that moved without
> determing first if it was an actual threat or not. But she never formed
> the intent to kill a human being. Therefore, she'd be guilty of only
> manslaughter in the death of Alan Finch.
Hmmm... I'm not sure. As an eye witness of the alleged crime
myself, I do not think she acted that recklessly. I would give
her a 100% clean bill on that particular incident.
She is *definitely* guilty of a related crime: obstruction of
justice when she decided to cover up and tamper with the
evidence. But I do think it was legitimately an accident,
given the circumstances -- they were hunting for demons, and
in particular, a kind of demons that look a lot like humans;
she was not "shooting at anything that moves no matter what".
Perhaps a little borderline, but with a good justification,
I think.
> Now the killing of Professor Worth was a different matter entirely. In
> that instance, Faith was guilty of premeditated first degree murder.
> That's death penalty territory.
Hmmm, not sure why would it be *first* degree; but definitely,
it was premeditated murder -- I believe this was never questioned
(perhaps the incident/episode was forgotten/overlooked by some of
the previous posters, but I don't believe anyone in their sane
mind would argue in favor of Faith on this particular incident)
Carlos
--
Carlos Moreno
> All good points... and as the Buffy human-kill-body-count has been
> rising lately in this thread... shouldn't Buffy have had to go to
> the police and face the same kind of trial Faith did eventually?
> I mean, if the justice system is worth anything... since she did
> kill some people... even if she is found innocent by self-defense
> or saving-the-world or whatever... shouldn't she have to face a
> courtroom too?
I guess the scriptwriters decided that this would have been an
unnecessary distraction and too much of going off-a-tangent from
the standard stories in BtVS.
After all, it is clear that she is not guilty of any crime (we
are eye witnesses of the incidents after all), so why bother.
With Ted, she did have to respond to a police investigation,
and even though there was doubt in her own mind and in Joyce's
mind, the police ruled the death accidental.
That's what would have happened in the other incidents, so
why waste the air time in showing it?
One instance in which I do believe the scriptwriters were a
bit irresponsible in the "actions have consequences" front is
when they broke into the sports store and stole things and
then assaulted the police officers. That was a serious crime,
and I believe the scriptwriters were irresponsible at handling
that one.
Carlos
--
Don Sample
Stewart Vernon <com...@indenter.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:41:23 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Vernon wrote:
> >
> >> So then, why was everybody ok with Faith facing the music? How
> >> could she possibly explain her killings... since at least one of
> >> them took place while she was out looking for demons to fight...
> >> and another was under the leadership of the Mayor who was himself
> >> a demon? She couldn't put up much of a reasonable defense to help
> >> her cause could she?
> >>
> >> -Stewart
> >
> > Stewart, she walked into the house of an innocent professor and
> >killed him.
> >
> > What part of this requires the explanations of the supernatural
> >to explain?
>
> The Professor had lots of occult stuff in his place... in today's
> "real" world... someone killed who had lots of occult stuff in his
> house, there would be all sorts of skeletons in the closet to come
> out about how he was a professor by day, but a cult-worshiper by
> night or something.. and maybe it wasn't murder but instead a cult
> ritual gone wrong or something.
>
> Just saying...
>
> -Stewart
Now you're making stuff up. He had no occult stuff in his home. He was
a vulcanologist. He had stuff about volcanos.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
Don Sample
Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mo...@xx.xxx> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > Drunk driving is a prime example. The drivers never intend to kill
> > anyone, yet their actions are reckless in the extreme, therefore any
> > deaths that result, while accidental
>
> I sort of disagree with this last item -- "it was an accident"
> is the typical, lame-in-the-extreme, excuse that the drunk
> driver would use... A death caused by a drunk driver is *not*
> accidental. It's more like a huge chance (almost a miracle)
> when it does not happen.
No. 99% of all drunk drivers never kill anyone, or even get in an
accident. It isn't any sort of "almost a miracle" when they don't get
in an accident. (And if they were anywhere near that likely to kill
someone, drunk driving would be a self correcting problem, since the
person most likely to be killed by a drunk driver is himself.)
Don Sample
Stewart Vernon <com...@indenter.com> wrote:
> Now who is making stuff up? :)
>
> What logic is there or proof that says a drunk driver is more
> dangerous to himself than other people on the road? The drunk
> driver at least knows he is drunk... other drivers don't, and are
> usually surprised when they get hit by one! Unless he is on a
> road by himself, he is immediately dangerous to everyone else.
It is a simple statistical fact. Overall in 2002, 44 percent of those
who died in traffic crashes involving a drinking driver with a BAC of
0.01 percent or higher were people other than the drinking driver, which
leaves 56 percent of the traffic fatalities involving a drinking driver,
being the drinking driver.
7 percent were other drivers in vehicles struck by drinking drivers, 22
percent were passengers in vehicles with drinking drivers or struck by
drinking drivers, 13 percent were pedestrians, and 2 percent were
bicyclists.
<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CXH/is_1_27/ai_112937516>
> I've heard countless stories about drunk drivers hitting other
> cars, and the other car's passengers are hurt or killed while the
> drunk driver walks away with minor injuries.
Anecdotal evidence is statistically useless. There are also countless
stories about drunk drivers who ran their cars into trees, and killed no
one but themselves.
> I would have to argue
> that in a collision between a drunk driver and a sober driver, the
> sober driver is more likely to be killed because it will take him
> by surprise.
The drunk driver is just as surprised. And surprised or not, really
doesn't make much difference anyway.
> I wouldn't say 99% of all drunk drivers never kill anyone either,
> much less your assertion that 99% of them don't even get into an
> accident... that is a pretty whopping statistic that I doubt
> there is any evidence to back it up. That kind of statistic
> implies that it must be ok to drive drunk because 99% of the time
> nothing happens.
Most people who drive drunk do it repeatedly, and have been doing it for
years. They keep doing it because they keep getting away with it.
I did just pull that 99% out of thin air, but now I've gone and done
some research. There were an estimated 80 million drinking-driving
trips in the US in 2002. There were 1.5 million drinking-driving
arrests, and 8,000 fatalities. 8000 out of 80 million is .01 percent,
so the actual number would be more like 99.99 percent.
John Briggs
"Silly, silly Amanda. Why would Faith kill a person who studies Vulcans?"
--
John Briggs
BTR1701
Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:02:07 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1ubbv05q7b13qattm...@4ax.com>, Shorty
> ><notrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:09:16 -0500, Stewart Vernon
> >> <com...@indenter.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Not defending Faith here... but interesting... also interesting
> >> >that the council of watcher's would be ok with Faith sitting in a
> >> >prison cell where she may or may not let secrets out of the bag...
> >> >when they had previously been busting their humps trying to
> >> >reclaim her for "rehabilitation".
> >
> >> That I never quite understood myself. I would have thought they would
> >> have tried to have her killed during her prison stay.
> >
> >Maybe they did.
>
> We saw one assassination attempt on Faith in prison.
And she told Angel about another one when he visited her.
BTR1701
<moreno_at_mo...@xx.xxx> wrote:
Nope. There's no legal duty to help another person. The only exception
is child abuse. Most states impose an affirmative duty to stop child
abuse and if you stand by and do nothing, you can be criminally liable.
> > Faith was acting recklessly. Staking anything that moved without
> > determing first if it was an actual threat or not. But she never formed
> > the intent to kill a human being. Therefore, she'd be guilty of only
> > manslaughter in the death of Alan Finch.
>
> Hmmm... I'm not sure. As an eye witness of the alleged crime
> myself, I do not think she acted that recklessly. I would give
> her a 100% clean bill on that particular incident.
No, she had a duty to not just ram a stake through the chest of anything
that moved. Even given the existence of vampires, she's no different
than a cop in the same situation. If a cop is running down an alley,
being attacked by one bad guy after another, he still has a duty to make
sure the next person he shoots is a bad guy before he pulls the trigger.
> She is *definitely* guilty of a related crime: obstruction of
> justice when she decided to cover up and tamper with the
> evidence. But I do think it was legitimately an accident,
> given the circumstances -- they were hunting for demons, and
> in particular, a kind of demons that look a lot like humans;
Bad guys look alot like good guys but as a cop myself, I know that I
can't just shoot people at random and claim "heat of the moment" after
the fact.
> > Now the killing of Professor Worth was a different matter entirely. In
> > that instance, Faith was guilty of premeditated first degree murder.
> > That's death penalty territory.
>
> Hmmm, not sure why would it be *first* degree;
Because it was essentially murder for hire. She was an assassin. That's
a first degree capital crime.
BTR1701
Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Hmmm... must make for some pretty frustrating stories and some
retarded-appearing characters. ;-)
Daniel Damouth
news:LJdJd.32734$zV3.8...@wagner.videotron.net:
> Exp315 wrote:
>
>> - The assasin, ok, she slashed his throat with a skate blade.
> But she did kill him. And he was human.
How do you know he was human?
-Dan Damouth
BTR1701
com...@indenter.com wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:41:23 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> The Professor had lots of occult stuff in his place... in today's
> "real" world... someone killed who had lots of occult stuff in his
> house,
I saw nothing occultish in his home. He was a geology prof. The show
never protrayed him as anything more.
BTR1701
com...@indenter.com wrote:
> I'm not making stuff up... I'm just "whatif"ing things... he was
> investigating some interesting phenomenon...
No, he wasn't. He had stumbled across a previous ascended demon in a
past excavation and the mayor was worried the good guys might find out
about it.
John Briggs
He was interested in Vulcans - what more proof do you want?
--
John Briggs
Bill Reid
Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mo...@xx.xxx> wrote in message
news:DklJd.54204$hO4.1...@weber.videotron.net...
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > Now the killing of Professor Worth was a different matter entirely. In
> > that instance, Faith was guilty of premeditated first degree murder.
> > That's death penalty territory.
>
> Hmmm, not sure why would it be *first* degree; but definitely,
> it was premeditated murder
The term "premeditated first degree murder" is redundant, as
a real lawyer would know. If murder is premeditated, it is first-degree
murder under California law. Otherwise, it is second-degree.
Also, under California law, first-degree murder is not
necessarily "death penalty territory". So-called "special
circumstances" must apply. However, the instant case would
qualify for the death penalty, because of the "special
circumstance" of murder for hire.
> I believe this was never questioned
> (perhaps the incident/episode was forgotten/overlooked by some of
> the previous posters, but I don't believe anyone in their sane
> mind would argue in favor of Faith on this particular incident)
>
What is always overlooked is that Buffy is clearly guilty of
attempted murder of Faith. If Faith had died, Buffy would
have been guilty of first-degree murder (she not only armed
herself with a deadly weapon to kidnap Faith, but verbally
expressed the premeditated intent to commit acts that almost
certainly would kill her).
I think that death of a person as part of a kidnapping
is one of California's special circumstances (although
ransom may have to be involved), so Buffy might have
also qualified for a lethal injection...
---
William Ernest Reid
peachy ashie passion
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:50:11 -0700, William George Ferguson
> <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:02:07 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <1ubbv05q7b13qattm...@4ax.com>, Shorty
>>><notrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:09:16 -0500, Stewart Vernon
>>>><com...@indenter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Not defending Faith here... but interesting... also interesting
>>>>>that the council of watcher's would be ok with Faith sitting in a
>>>>>prison cell where she may or may not let secrets out of the bag...
>>>>>when they had previously been busting their humps trying to
>>>>>reclaim her for "rehabilitation".
>>>
>>>>That I never quite understood myself. I would have thought they would
>>>>have tried to have her killed during her prison stay.
>>>
>>>Maybe they did.
>>
>>We saw one assassination attempt on Faith in prison. The guards were
>>mainly surprised that anyone would be brain-dead stupid enough to attack
>>her (which indicates there had been prior incidents establishing that
>>attacking Faith was a Very Bad Idea).
>
>
> 'course that one was in the last season, and was at the behest of
> the First Evil wanting to "kill all the slayers" and so forth...
> you'd think if anyone tried before, it would have been a big deal
> in the prison since the guards obviously knew she was only staying
> in prison because she wanted to, and not because they were holding
> her.
>
> -Stewart
Faulty logic again Stewart.
The guards can eaily know that Faith is one of the toughest
prisoners they have, and assaulting her is a bad idea. There are
folks of that description in every prison that exists.
There is nothing in that fact that also lets them know that they
couldn't keep her in prison if she wanted out.
--
"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of
scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams."
~ Mary Ellen Kelly
AFPslave to Mistress Stacie
ashes...@verizon.net
peachy ashie passion
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:41:23 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
> house, there would be all sorts of skeletons in the closet to come
> out about how he was a professor by day, but a cult-worshiper by
> night or something.. and maybe it wasn't murder but instead a cult
> ritual gone wrong or something.
>
> Just saying...
>
> -Stewart
Actually no.
Even if your "given" were true, that he has occult items in his
house, the next part doesn't follow.
No matter what items he had in his house, there is no
supernatural self defense that we know to be a fact and no jury
would believe.
Faith walked into his house and killed him.
Those are the basic facts. Nothing in his home makes any
difference to that. Certainly there was nothing supernatural about
that.
Diane Wilson
> No matter what items he had in his house, there is no
> supernatural self defense that we know to be a fact and no jury
> would believe.
>
> Faith walked into his house and killed him.
>
> Those are the basic facts. Nothing in his home makes any
> difference to that. Certainly there was nothing supernatural about
> that.
Yes, it really is an open-and-shut case for murder 1 and the
death penalty. Plus all the people she beat up in LA, and
numerous assaults in Sunnydale after waking from her coma, as
additional evidence of violent tendencies. Assuming that
she confessed (confession is good for the soul, after all)
there would be two more murders at least, Alan Finch, and
the courier who delivered the box of spiders. Am I leaving
anyone out?
Which raises the question of why her conviction was murder 2
with 25 to life. I'd assume that includes the possibility
of parole. That seems kind of lenient.
Diane
William George Ferguson
>Just a guess... but I'm guessing Buffy in some way tried to cover
>up or at least deny having anything to do with the humans she
>killed... also never really got a handle personally on why the
>police stopped being after her during Becoming... remember they
>found her over Kendra's body, and were chasing her saying she was
>"presumed dangerous"... then by the start of the next season she
>was back in school and the police weren't wondering why she
>disappeared... I'm assuming they didn't catch the real killer,
>since Drusilla killed Kendra!
There's no evidence that she ever tried to, or needed to, cover up the
deaths of any human bad guy that she killed (or caused the death of).
We've seen more than one occasion where she fought a human bad guy and
ended up turning it over to the police. The two times that she thought
she had killed a human needlessly, she made no effort to cover it up (the
first time it turned out to be a robot and the second time she found that
Warren had actually killed her, so she didn't actually end up in jail,
but she was willing to go both times).
As for Kendra, there was no evidence linking her to Kendra's murder, and
eyewitness accounts that would establish she didn't do it (and likely
some people who saw her doing the wind sprint across Sunnydale at the
time of Kendra's death). In addition, when this petite blonde 17 year
old girl, who is later proven to not have been the killer, panics and
runs away, the police sergeant opens fire on her with a gun. The
Sunnydale PD would very much want that to just go away and not have
attention (not to mention lawsuits) called to it.
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me. Hints are fine."
Joan Girardi (after God shows her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
BTR1701
<di...@firelily.com> wrote:
> In article <j2vJd.10644$CI6.4965@trnddc06>, res1...@invalid.net says...
>
> > No matter what items he had in his house, there is no
> > supernatural self defense that we know to be a fact and no jury
> > would believe.
> >
> > Faith walked into his house and killed him.
> >
> > Those are the basic facts. Nothing in his home makes any
> > difference to that. Certainly there was nothing supernatural about
> > that.
>
> Yes, it really is an open-and-shut case for murder 1 and the
> death penalty. Plus all the people she beat up in LA, and
> numerous assaults in Sunnydale after waking from her coma, as
> additional evidence of violent tendencies. Assuming that
> she confessed (confession is good for the soul, after all)
> there would be two more murders at least, Alan Finch, and
> the courier who delivered the box of spiders. Am I leaving
> anyone out?
Alan Finch was not a murder.
> Which raises the question of why her conviction was murder 2
> with 25 to life.
We don't know what crime she actually confessed to or was convicted of.
If it was the professor, then her lesser sentence was probably the
result of a plea bargain.
Diane Wilson
@ix.netcom.com says...
> In article <MPG.1c604c4139e7b7959899c0@news-server>, Diane Wilson
> <di...@firelily.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <j2vJd.10644$CI6.4965@trnddc06>, res1...@invalid.net says...
> >
> > > No matter what items he had in his house, there is no
> > > supernatural self defense that we know to be a fact and no jury
> > > would believe.
> > >
> > > Faith walked into his house and killed him.
> > >
> > > Those are the basic facts. Nothing in his home makes any
> > > difference to that. Certainly there was nothing supernatural about
> > > that.
> >
> > Yes, it really is an open-and-shut case for murder 1 and the
> > death penalty. Plus all the people she beat up in LA, and
> > numerous assaults in Sunnydale after waking from her coma, as
> > additional evidence of violent tendencies. Assuming that
> > she confessed (confession is good for the soul, after all)
> > there would be two more murders at least, Alan Finch, and
> > the courier who delivered the box of spiders. Am I leaving
> > anyone out?
>
> Alan Finch was not a murder.
Manslaughter, at the very least. With no reasonable explanation.
As far as the police are concerned, I'd expect it to be murder 2.
Assault with a deadly weapon, resulting in death. Can't call
it self-defense, certainly, and "I didn't know he wasn't a vampire"
won't work. If not murder, what *would* you call it?
> > Which raises the question of why her conviction was murder 2
> > with 25 to life.
>
> We don't know what crime she actually confessed to or was convicted of.
> If it was the professor, then her lesser sentence was probably the
> result of a plea bargain.
No, but as far as the various assaults, thefts, etc. in
Sunnydale and LA, a number of which can be traced to Faith
without a confession, the single murder charge isn't all
she's on the hook for.
Plea bargain, maybe, but that's often an exchange; what
does Faith have to offer, besides turning herself in?
Diane
Stephen Tempest
>Nope. There's no legal duty to help another person.
In at least one country I know of - France - that duty does exist. If
you see somebody drowning in a lake and fail to assist them (provided
you can do so without endangering yourself) you commit an offence.
>Because it was essentially murder for hire. She was an assassin. That's
>a first degree capital crime.
So is there any explanation (other than "the scriptwriter made a
mistake") that she was, in fact, convicted of murder 2?
(Bear in mind here that my knowledge of the US legal system comes
almost entirely from Hollywood...)
Is it legally possible to reduce the charges against somebody in
return for their complete cooperation with the police, for instance?
Maybe Faith turned State's Evidence against the remnants of the
Mayor's operation in Sunnydale?
Stephen
BTR1701
<di...@firelily.com> wrote:
The same thing I've called it whenever this subject comes up (and at
least once in this very thread): manslaughter. Faith never intended to
kill a person when she stabbed Finch. Intent is an element of the crime
of murder. Therefore, no murder.
> > > Which raises the question of why her conviction was murder 2
> > > with 25 to life.
> >
> > We don't know what crime she actually confessed to or was convicted of.
> > If it was the professor, then her lesser sentence was probably the
> > result of a plea bargain.
>
> No, but as far as the various assaults, thefts, etc. in
> Sunnydale and LA, a number of which can be traced to Faith
> without a confession, the single murder charge isn't all
> she's on the hook for.
She told Cordelia what her sentence was in "Salvage":
CORDELIA
Oh, gee! Thatıs great. Wait a sec! Wasnıt she convicted of murder and
sent to a state correctional facility for like a gazillion years?
FAITH
Murder two, 25-to-life. For the record.
No mention of serving time for assault or theft or anything else. Those
charges also may have been dropped in exchange for her confession and
agreement not to go to trial.
> Plea bargain, maybe, but that's often an exchange; what
> does Faith have to offer, besides turning herself in?
Saves the state the considerable time and expense of a trial.
Don Sample
Diane Wilson <di...@firelily.com> wrote:
Given a reasonably accurate account of what happened in the alley
(substituting "gang on PCP" for vampires) if they had reported what had
happened right away, Faith probably wouldn't have been convicted of
anything. If the DA was in a bad mood, it might have gone to trial, but
it isn't likely that a jury would convict her.
"We were passing through the alley, when we were attacked by these guys
in weird outfits. We'd just fought them off when this guy reaches out of
the dark and grabs Buffy. We thought he was one of the gang. Buffy threw
him up against the wall, and I grabbed a stick and stabbed him with it.
I didn't notice that he was dressed different until it was too late."
>
> > > Which raises the question of why her conviction was murder 2
> > > with 25 to life.
> >
> > We don't know what crime she actually confessed to or was convicted of.
> > If it was the professor, then her lesser sentence was probably the
> > result of a plea bargain.
>
> No, but as far as the various assaults, thefts, etc. in
> Sunnydale and LA, a number of which can be traced to Faith
> without a confession, the single murder charge isn't all
> she's on the hook for.
>
> Plea bargain, maybe, but that's often an exchange; what
> does Faith have to offer, besides turning herself in?
Saving them the trouble of a *very* expensive trial, which might lead to
Faith walking away, free and clear. Faith's age was never given, but
there's a good chance that she was still a minor when she turned herself
in, and the initial confession she made to Kate Lockley was made without
her having a lawyer or guardian present, so it might as well be tossed
straight into the garbage. Once she did get a lawyer, the condition
that they placed on Faith repeating her confession, in a way that
wouldn't get tossed, might have been the 25 to life sentence, rather
than death.
Even if the confession was admitted, you can't convict someone on a
confession alone. People sometimes confess to things that they didn't
do. There has to be some corroborating evidence. Since Lester Worth's
murder would have been investigated by the Sunnydale police department,
I doubt if there was any evidence collected that pointed to Faith.
Their job would have been to make sure that any physical evidence that
they found that pointed at her disappeared. They probably also found
some "witnesses" who say that they saw a six foot tall, bald, black man
leaving Lester's apartment with blood on his clothes.
Don Sample
Stephen Tempest <steph...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >Nope. There's no legal duty to help another person.
>
> In at least one country I know of - France - that duty does exist. If
> you see somebody drowning in a lake and fail to assist them (provided
> you can do so without endangering yourself) you commit an offence.
France is not the US. Among other things, the rule in France is "guilty
until proven innocent."
> >Because it was essentially murder for hire. She was an assassin. That's
> >a first degree capital crime.
>
> So is there any explanation (other than "the scriptwriter made a
> mistake") that she was, in fact, convicted of murder 2?
The prosecutors, and jurors haven't seen the show, so they didn't see
Faith kill Lester. They might not have felt that they had enough
evidence to try for murder 1.
> (Bear in mind here that my knowledge of the US legal system comes
> almost entirely from Hollywood...)
>
> Is it legally possible to reduce the charges against somebody in
> return for their complete cooperation with the police, for instance?
> Maybe Faith turned State's Evidence against the remnants of the
> Mayor's operation in Sunnydale?
>
> Stephen
Yes. The DA has the authority to reduce or dismiss charges, and they do
it quite frequently. They often do it just to save the expense of a
trial, the outcome of which is never certain.
I'm not sure, but I don't think you can plead guilty to murder 1, in
California. If the prosecution wants to convict someone of that, it
*has* to go to trial. And if, on conviction, the person is sentenced to
death, there is an automatic appeal.
Diane Wilson
@ix.netcom.com says...
> In article <MPG.1c6079a233f5d0e09899c1@news-server>, Diane Wilson
> <di...@firelily.com> wrote:
>
> > > Alan Finch was not a murder.
> >
> > Manslaughter, at the very least. With no reasonable explanation.
> > As far as the police are concerned, I'd expect it to be murder 2.
> > Assault with a deadly weapon, resulting in death. Can't call
> > it self-defense, certainly, and "I didn't know he wasn't a vampire"
> > won't work. If not murder, what *would* you call it?
>
> The same thing I've called it whenever this subject comes up (and at
> least once in this very thread): manslaughter. Faith never intended to
> kill a person when she stabbed Finch. Intent is an element of the crime
> of murder. Therefore, no murder.
Intent to kill *was* there. She intended to kill a vampire.
The stake into the heart was deliberate and intentional.
Since Faith did intend to kill, and the state does not
distinguish between vampires and humans, I think a murder
charge would be appropriate.
Diane
William George Ferguson
"You plead guilty to all these various offenses, so we can write them all
off as solved (and improve our statistics) without any court expense,
we'll give you murder 2 on the professor's death and have everything else
run concurrent."
Also, even if she provided enough corroborating evidence to support her
confession and guilty plea, a judge might well balk at an uncontested
murder 1 (it's been known to happen), while almost no judge would balk at
an uncontested murder 2 (maybe at most asking for corroborating evidence,
such as her furnishing information about the murder that only the
murderer and the police would know).
Another thing, can a judge even make a non-jury death sentence? Once a
jury's involved, then who knows?
Don Sample
Diane Wilson <di...@firelily.com> wrote:
> In article <BTR1702-E4E9AC...@news.east.earthlink.net>, BTR1702
> @ix.netcom.com says...
> > In article <MPG.1c6079a233f5d0e09899c1@news-server>, Diane Wilson
> > <di...@firelily.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Alan Finch was not a murder.
> > >
> > > Manslaughter, at the very least. With no reasonable explanation.
> > > As far as the police are concerned, I'd expect it to be murder 2.
> > > Assault with a deadly weapon, resulting in death. Can't call
> > > it self-defense, certainly, and "I didn't know he wasn't a vampire"
> > > won't work. If not murder, what *would* you call it?
> >
> > The same thing I've called it whenever this subject comes up (and at
> > least once in this very thread): manslaughter. Faith never intended to
> > kill a person when she stabbed Finch. Intent is an element of the crime
> > of murder. Therefore, no murder.
>
> Intent to kill *was* there. She intended to kill a vampire.
> The stake into the heart was deliberate and intentional.
> Since Faith did intend to kill, and the state does not
> distinguish between vampires and humans, I think a murder
> charge would be appropriate.
>
> Diane
Faith had no intent to kill a human being. It's like a hunter who sees
some rustling in the bushes, and blasts away at it, thinking its a deer,
but kills a person who happened to be out for a walk in the woods. He
intended to kill a deer, but killed a person. The charge would be
manslaughter. Since vampires are already dead, the most she could be
convicted of for killing one would be something like mutilating a
corpse. (I'm pretty sure that there's some law against that, but there
might not be. It only recently became illegal to have sex with a corpse
in California.)
(And if she did go into court saying that she thought she was stabbing a
vampire, and insisting that vampires are real, and that she slays them
all the time, she'd have a pretty good shot at an insanity defence,
since she was clearly unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality.)
BTR1701
<di...@firelily.com> wrote:
> In article <BTR1702-E4E9AC...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> BTR1702
> @ix.netcom.com says...
> > In article <MPG.1c6079a233f5d0e09899c1@news-server>, Diane Wilson
> > <di...@firelily.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Alan Finch was not a murder.
> > >
> > > Manslaughter, at the very least. With no reasonable explanation.
> > > As far as the police are concerned, I'd expect it to be murder 2.
> > > Assault with a deadly weapon, resulting in death. Can't call
> > > it self-defense, certainly, and "I didn't know he wasn't a vampire"
> > > won't work. If not murder, what *would* you call it?
> >
> > The same thing I've called it whenever this subject comes up (and at
> > least once in this very thread): manslaughter. Faith never intended to
> > kill a person when she stabbed Finch. Intent is an element of the crime
> > of murder. Therefore, no murder.
>
> Intent to kill *was* there. She intended to kill a vampire.
"Murder" is defined as the intentional killing of a human being.
Faith never intended to kill a human being.
It's the same as if she'd been out hunting raccoons with a rifle and was
shooting at everything that moved and ended up shooting a person.
Yes, there was intent to kill raccoons (or vampires) but no intent to
kill a human being.
> The stake into the heart was deliberate and intentional.
> Since Faith did intend to kill, and the state does not
> distinguish between vampires and humans, I think a murder
> charge would be appropriate.
It doesn't matter what the state distinguishes. It's Faith actual mental
state that's at issue. In her mind, she had no intent to kill a human
being.
No murder.
BTR1701
ste...@stempest.demon.co.uk wrote:
> BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >Nope. There's no legal duty to help another person.
>
> In at least one country I know of - France - that duty does exist.
Sure. But we're talking America here. In France, they're probably so
liberal, it'd be a crime to defend yourself against a vampire, anyway.
> >Because it was essentially murder for hire. She was an assassin. That's
> >a first degree capital crime.
>
> So is there any explanation (other than "the scriptwriter made a
> mistake") that she was, in fact, convicted of murder 2?
Plea bargaining. Trials costs the state lots of time and money. The
prosecutor often offers a reduced charge in exchange for a confession
which saves the taxpayers all that cabbage.
I do it myself all the time. When I arrest counterfeiters, I often tell
them that if they confess and provide a written statement, I'll only
charge them under state law for forgery instead of sending them to
federal prison for 15 years for counterfeiting.
> Is it legally possible to reduce the charges against somebody in
> return for their complete cooperation with the police, for instance?
Yep.
BTR1701
Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <s9edv0hml45fufb47...@4ax.com>,
> Stephen Tempest <steph...@stempest.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Is it legally possible to reduce the charges against somebody in
> > return for their complete cooperation with the police, for instance?
> > Maybe Faith turned State's Evidence against the remnants of the
> > Mayor's operation in Sunnydale?
> Yes. The DA has the authority to reduce or dismiss charges, and they do
> it quite frequently. They often do it just to save the expense of a
> trial, the outcome of which is never certain.
>
> I'm not sure, but I don't think you can plead guilty to murder 1, in
> California.
The court will accept a plea of guilty for any crime. Forcing a trial
would be stupid because if the person wanted to plead guilty, all the
would do at trial is take the stand and say "I did it", anyway.
The only time a court will refuse a guilty plea is when there's question
as to the defendant's competence.
> And if, on conviction, the person is sentenced to death,
> there is an automatic appeal.
There are automatic appeals but a better term for them would be
automatic review by the appellate court, since there's not necessarily
going to be an issue at contest.
BTR1701
Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Also, even if she provided enough corroborating evidence to support her
> confession and guilty plea, a judge might well balk at an uncontested
> murder 1 (it's been known to happen), while almost no judge would balk at
> an uncontested murder 2 (maybe at most asking for corroborating evidence,
> such as her furnishing information about the murder that only the
> murderer and the police would know).
Well, a confession can't be the sole basis for conviction no matter the
crime. There always has to be some kind of corroborating evidence.
Don Sample
Stewart Vernon <com...@indenter.com> wrote:
> So, a previously ascended demon couldn't in any way be perceived
> by the investigating police as occult?
>
> -Stewart
No. It was the fossilized remains of a previously unknown species of
dinosaur. Lester's notes said so. Nothing demonic about it. Nothing
for the police to be interested in at all.
Mel
Stewart Vernon wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:26:14 -0500, Don Sample
><dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>In article <hrebv0dqofik9cbk6...@4ax.com>,
>>Stewart Vernon <com...@indenter.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:41:23 GMT, peachy ashie passion
>>><res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stewart Vernon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So then, why was everybody ok with Faith facing the music? How
>>>>>could she possibly explain her killings... since at least one of
>>>>>them took place while she was out looking for demons to fight...
>>>>>and another was under the leadership of the Mayor who was himself
>>>>>a demon? She couldn't put up much of a reasonable defense to help
>>>>>her cause could she?
>>>>>
>>>>>-Stewart
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Stewart, she walked into the house of an innocent professor and
>>>>killed him.
>>>>
>>>> What part of this requires the explanations of the supernatural
>>>>to explain?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The Professor had lots of occult stuff in his place... in today's
>>>"real" world... someone killed who had lots of occult stuff in his
>>>house, there would be all sorts of skeletons in the closet to come
>>>out about how he was a professor by day, but a cult-worshiper by
>>>night or something.. and maybe it wasn't murder but instead a cult
>>>ritual gone wrong or something.
>>>
>>>Just saying...
>>>
>>>-Stewart
>>>
>>>
>>Now you're making stuff up. He had no occult stuff in his home. He was
>>a vulcanologist. He had stuff about volcanos.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not making stuff up... I'm just "whatif"ing things... he was
>investigating some interesting phenomenon... which I gather the
>Mayor was afraid could result in someone knowing too soon about
>his ascension, hence why he had Faith go there to take care of the
>good professor.
>
>I'm sure that the Mayor would have found a way to spin the
>professor's death in a way that suited him and deflected blame for
>Faith... 'course he turned into a big snake and got himself
>killed... but I don't know that there was anything to actually tie
>Faith to the killing except the scoobies being suspicious of her,
>and the council "watching" her as it were.
>
>Anyway, we're all doing a lot of what-iffing about things, so I
>went off on a tangent.
>
>I'm just having trouble with the simplified Faith-kill-bad,
>Buffy-kill-good, Angel-kill-good, Angelus-kill-bad,
>Spike-kill-???? logic that has been going back and forth.
>
>-Stewart
>
Didn't the professor's research amount to he thought he found the
remains of a big dinosaur? What would make him think it was a demon? The
Scoobs put 2 and 2 together to come up with big snake = mayor, but I
don't recall any implication that the *professor* thought what he found
was supernatural.
Mel
BTR1701
com...@indenter.com wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:07:41 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> So, a previously ascended demon couldn't in any way be perceived
> by the investigating police as occult?
Even the professor himself didn't know it was a demon. In his report, he
called it a dinosaur.
WESLEY
It seems our Mr. Worth headed an expedition in Kaui, digging in old lava
beds near a dormant volcano.
BUFFY
I'm not fascinated yet.
WESLEY
He found something underneath. A carcass, buried by an eruption.
GILES
A carcass?
WESLEY
A very large one. Mr. Worth posits that it might be some heretofore
undiscovered dinosaur.
ANGEL
A demon?
GILES
Yes, that would be something that the Mayor would want to keep a secret.
If it's the same kind of demon he's turning into and it's dead, it means
that, well, he's only impervious to harm until the Ascension. In his
demon form, he can be killed.
jil...@hotmail.com
> Stewart Vernon wrote:
>
> > All good points... and as the Buffy human-kill-body-count has been
> > rising lately in this thread... shouldn't Buffy have had to go to
> > the police and face the same kind of trial Faith did eventually?
> > I mean, if the justice system is worth anything... since she did
> > kill some people... even if she is found innocent by self-defense
> > or saving-the-world or whatever... shouldn't she have to face a
> > courtroom too?
> With Ted, she did have to respond to a police investigation,
> and even though there was doubt in her own mind and in Joyce's
> mind, the police ruled the death accidental.
>
> That's what would have happened in the other incidents, so
> why waste the air time in showing it?
>
> One instance in which I do believe the scriptwriters were a
> bit irresponsible in the "actions have consequences" front is
> when they broke into the sports store and stole things and
> then assaulted the police officers. That was a serious crime,
> and I believe the scriptwriters were irresponsible at handling
> that one.
Very probably. Buffy ceased that sort of behaviour when she saw the
road it was leading down. Namely, to carelessness that could get an
unknown human killed.
I remember very well that Buffy was more upset than almost anyone when
she thought she'd killed Ted. The police and Giles were all insisting
that it wasn't her fault. The police were investigating. Her mother,
who'd been drugged, was having trouble with her daughter having killed
her suitor.
I suspect that, since the Knights insisted they were legion, survivors
recovered their men's bodies. They would not have considered it
murder, they considered it war. They certainly wouldn't want the local
(read lesser being who obviously have no higher purpose and may be
working for evil) authorities bothering them.
We know assorted official bodies are keeping an eye on places like
Sunnydale. The CIA or whatever guys showing up to retrieve invisible
girl and put her in espionage and assassination school with a bunch of
other invisible kids... certainly cleaning the remaining swim-team
members of fish DNA was being done by officials. And I always wondered
how (Spoiler final season Angel) the US Govt's demon initiative guys
knew about Angel's soul when the Watcher's didn't.
Then of course there are also the Watchers. The Council and the field
operatives clearly keep each other out of loops. Giles had to have
been reporting on Buffy's fighting and asking questions about demons,
and yet the Council had no clue she was still alive, or just didn't
mention that to Kendra's Watcher.... And the Council has probably, for
ages, been unaware of the emergency kit. Hence Nikki's Watcher
deciding not to pass it on was never noticed, and Giles never knew it
existed.
James Craine
Bill Reid wrote:
> What is always overlooked is that Buffy is clearly guilty of
> attempted murder of Faith. If Faith had died, Buffy would
> have been guilty of first-degree murder (she not only armed
> herself with a deadly weapon to kidnap Faith, but verbally
> expressed the premeditated intent to commit acts that almost
> certainly would kill her).
>
> I think that death of a person as part of a kidnapping
> is one of California's special circumstances (although
> ransom may have to be involved), so Buffy might have
> also qualified for a lethal injection...
>
> ---
> William Ernest Reid
I think that morally Buffy was right. And stupid for giving
Faith a chance. I would have killed her without warning
unless using a drug was an option. But still, as far gone as
Faith was at that time I think killing her was right.
James Craine
Diane Wilson wrote:
> Which raises the question of why her conviction was murder 2
> with 25 to life. I'd assume that includes the possibility
> of parole. That seems kind of lenient.
>
> Diane
Jack McCoy would give her the lesser charge for her cooperation.
James Craine
Don Sample wrote:
>
> Faith had no intent to kill a human being. It's like a hunter who sees
> some rustling in the bushes, and blasts away at it, thinking its a deer,
> but kills a person who happened to be out for a walk in the woods. He
> intended to kill a deer, but killed a person. The charge would be
> manslaughter. Since vampires are already dead, the most she could be
> convicted of for killing one would be something like mutilating a
> corpse. (I'm pretty sure that there's some law against that, but there
> might not be. It only recently became illegal to have sex with a corpse
> in California.)
This actually happened in New England. I it was on 60
Minutes. A hunter aimed at a deep but an anti-hunting woman
rushed at the hunter to save the deep. She ran out of the
bushes right at the gun. He fired and she died. He was tried
and aquitted. I think he should have never been tried. It
was clearly an accident and she contributed to it.
Don Sample
James Craine <James...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
Buffy should have taken the tranq gun, and shot Faith in the ass with
it, before Faith even noticed she was there.
Shorty
Fleeing the scene of a crime when she is the prime suspect? And in
Sunnydale? I dont think the Mayor would've raised much of a stink and
the parents in the town all lived huddled in their homes.
Shorty
Shorty
<com...@indenter.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:33:27 GMT, James Craine
><James...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Stewart Vernon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> All good points... and as the Buffy human-kill-body-count has been
>>> rising lately in this thread... shouldn't Buffy have had to go to
>>> the police and face the same kind of trial Faith did eventually?
>>> I mean, if the justice system is worth anything... since she did
>>> kill some people... even if she is found innocent by self-defense
>>> or saving-the-world or whatever... shouldn't she have to face a
>>> courtroom too?
>>>
>>> -Stewart
>>
>>No the courts can't handle this kind of a case. There is
>>nothing that says that you must report the incident. If you
>>are mugged you are not obligated to report the crime. If you
>>repel the mugger you still are not. Buffy repelled an
>>attacker, he subsequently died, so what. Why would Buffy go
>>to the cops?
>>
>>Faith is in prison for the vulcanologist, not the dep-mayor.
>>Remember that she said she was doing time for murder.
>
>I thought she was a wanted fugitive because of several killings.
>I could be wrong though about that... and I know if no one
>reported anything, then it might be hard to tie her or Buffy to a
>particular crime.
>
>The curious thing to me is... why Buffy would give Faith so much
>grief over it, but didn't spend much time herself... Actually...
>if you watch the show a little closely... from about the time
>Faith & Buffy switch bodies... it seems like Buffy slowly becomes
>a little more Faith-like in terms of detachment from her friends
>and the world... whereas Faith starts to develop a conscience and
>want to be good, or at least be punished for the bad she did. Not
>sure how much of this was intentional vs me reading into things.
>
>-Stewart
You miss the point.
Buffy gave Faith grief over not telling her Watcher Giles but she
wasnt going to turn her into the cops over it. After all Buffy
trusted Giles explicitly as this was prior to her testing (that
helpless thing they did to her). Buffy only wrote Faith off
completely after realizing she had a) been killing for the Mayor i.e.
the innocent vulcanologist and b) essentially killed Angel is the most
painful way possible (for all Faith knew that was a slow but
inevitable death).
Shorty
Don Sample
Stewart Vernon <com...@indenter.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:54:17 -0500, Don Sample
> <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <6jubv09sv5cabac01...@4ax.com>,
> > Stewart Vernon <com...@indenter.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:55:41 -0500, Don Sample
> >> <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No. 99% of all drunk drivers never kill anyone, or even get in an
> >> >accident. It isn't any sort of "almost a miracle" when they don't get
> >> >in an accident. (And if they were anywhere near that likely to kill
> >> >someone, drunk driving would be a self correcting problem, since the
> >> >person most likely to be killed by a drunk driver is himself.)
> >>
> >> Now who is making stuff up? :)
> >>
> >> What logic is there or proof that says a drunk driver is more
> >> dangerous to himself than other people on the road? The drunk
> >> driver at least knows he is drunk... other drivers don't, and are
> >> usually surprised when they get hit by one! Unless he is on a
> >> road by himself, he is immediately dangerous to everyone else.
> >
> >It is a simple statistical fact. Overall in 2002, 44 percent of those
> >who died in traffic crashes involving a drinking driver with a BAC of
> >0.01 percent or higher were people other than the drinking driver, which
> >leaves 56 percent of the traffic fatalities involving a drinking driver,
> >being the drinking driver.
>
> That's a whole lot different than 99% though...
Huh?
> >> I wouldn't say 99% of all drunk drivers never kill anyone either,
> >> much less your assertion that 99% of them don't even get into an
> >> accident... that is a pretty whopping statistic that I doubt
> >> there is any evidence to back it up. That kind of statistic
> >> implies that it must be ok to drive drunk because 99% of the time
> >> nothing happens.
> >
> >Most people who drive drunk do it repeatedly, and have been doing it for
> >years. They keep doing it because they keep getting away with it.
> >
> >I did just pull that 99% out of thin air, but now I've gone and done
> >some research. There were an estimated 80 million drinking-driving
> >trips in the US in 2002. There were 1.5 million drinking-driving
> >arrests, and 8,000 fatalities. 8000 out of 80 million is .01 percent,
> >so the actual number would be more like 99.99 percent.
>
> How exactly do they estimate 80 million drinking driving trips?
> If there wasn't an accident and no arrest or ticket... how could
> anyone possibly make that kind of estimate?
Lots of ways. Surveys, extrapolation from the percentage of drunk
drivers pulled over on any particular night to the entire population,
etc.
> If we focus on the 1.5 million arrests... how many of those were
> in accidents? A lot of proactive policework has prevented
> accidents by stopping and arresting folks who were intoxicated
> before they got into an accident.
Precisely. Most drunk drivers don't get in accidents.
> This is a good thing, and it
> keeps the accident numbers lower than they would be if the driver
> was able to drive extended periods.
And most of them don't get caught, either.
Even if you assume that the cops caught *every* drunk driver, it still
leaves 95% of all drunk driving incidents involving no fatalities. A
long way from your initial statement that it takes a miracle to survive
getting into a car with a drunk driver.
peachy ashie passion
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:05:20 GMT, peachy ashie passion
> <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Vernon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:50:11 -0700, William George Ferguson
>>><wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>We saw one assassination attempt on Faith in prison. The guards were
>>>>mainly surprised that anyone would be brain-dead stupid enough to attack
>>>>her (which indicates there had been prior incidents establishing that
>>>>attacking Faith was a Very Bad Idea).
>>>
>>>
>>>'course that one was in the last season, and was at the behest of
>>>the First Evil wanting to "kill all the slayers" and so forth...
>>>you'd think if anyone tried before, it would have been a big deal
>>>in the prison since the guards obviously knew she was only staying
>>>in prison because she wanted to, and not because they were holding
>>>her.
>>>
>>>-Stewart
>>
>> Faulty logic again Stewart.
>>
>> The guards can eaily know that Faith is one of the toughest
>>prisoners they have, and assaulting her is a bad idea. There are
>>folks of that description in every prison that exists.
>> There is nothing in that fact that also lets them know that they
>>couldn't keep her in prison if she wanted out.
>
>
> I was working under the assumption that the guards had seen her
> fend off some previous overzealous prisoners, and were made aware
> of her history that led to her incarceration... coupled with the
> fact that when she did want to make her exit, she did so with
> relative ease.
>
> -Stewart
Yes, you were.
But nothing of her history or being able to beat other prisoners
would tell them that she could have made her exit at any time, which
was your initial claim.
--
"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of
scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams."
~ Mary Ellen Kelly
AFPslave to Mistress Stacie
ashes...@verizon.net
Don Sample
peachy ashie passion <res1...@invalid.net> wrote:
> Stewart Vernon wrote:
>
> >
> > I was working under the assumption that the guards had seen her
> > fend off some previous overzealous prisoners, and were made aware
> > of her history that led to her incarceration... coupled with the
> > fact that when she did want to make her exit, she did so with
> > relative ease.
> >
> > -Stewart
>
> Yes, you were.
>
> But nothing of her history or being able to beat other prisoners
> would tell them that she could have made her exit at any time, which
> was your initial claim.
And if they believed she could leave any time she wanted to, they
wouldn't have been treating her like just another prisoner.
Michael C.
Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article <41F355...@mindspring.com>,
> David Samuel Barr <dsb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Don Sample wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <spam1-62E810....@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> > > Dorkusporkus <sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm kinda confused.
> > > > Are the Knights of Byzantium humans?
> > > > In Season 5, Buffy throws an axe right at one of them and it sure
> > > > looks like she killed the guy.
> > >
> > > Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans, even
> > > before the knights came along. Among them are:
> > >
> > > Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
> > > One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
> > > Coach Marin - Go Fish
> > > Hans and Frans - Homecoming
> > > Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
> >
> > As has been pointed out on the numerous other occasions this has been
> > hashed out here, at least three of the above were not actually killed
> > by Buffy. Dr Weirick was killed by the hyenas after he fell into their
> > pit during his fight with Buffy; ditto Coach Marin by his fishified
> > swim team.
>
> And as I point out every time this comes up, if you push someone in
> front of a bus, you can't blame the bus for killing them. They hyenas
> and fish guys were the buses. Buffy pushed Weirick and Marin.
I don't think Buffy was aiming for the Hyena pit in Weirick's
case, though noone was particularly upset at the loss.
In the case of Marin I seem to recall Buffy moving out of the
way, and she did try to save him.
>
> > Buffy only severed Gwendolyn Post's forearm, which would
> > not have been fatal if promptly treated;
>
> I didn't notice any ambulance and paramedics standing by to rush Post to
> the hospital. Yes, people have survived losing their arms in accidents
> in which they weren't rushed to the hospital right away. People have
> also survived being shot in the head. I wouldn't recommend either
> though.
Post didn't exactly give notice that she'd be throwing lightning
bolts at them.
Michael C.
--
mcsu...@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities. - Bruce Lee
Michael C.
poolnuz <block...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> "Don Sample" <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in message
> news:dsample-68D0A3...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <spam1-62E810....@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> > Dorkusporkus <sp...@s93744050.onlinehome.us> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm kinda confused.
> > > Are the Knights of Byzantium humans?
> > > In Season 5, Buffy throws an axe right at one of them and it sure looks
> > > like she killed the guy.
> >
> > Yes, the knights were human, and Buffy has killed lots of humans, even
> > before the knights came along. Among them are:
> >
> > Dr. Weirick, the zookeeper - The Pack
> > One Eyed Assassin - What's My Line
> > Coach Marin - Go Fish
> > Hans and Frans - Homecoming
> > Gwendolyn Post - Revelations
>
> the Knights were a bit of a departure tho,
> previously on Buffy, she dispatched evil people
> the Knights were actually the good guys, sort of
If someone is trying to kill someone else, I'd hesitate to call
them the good guys.
Ymmv,
Michael C.
--
mcsu...@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest."
- Mark Twain
Don Sample
Stewart Vernon <com...@indenter.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:11:35 -0500, Don Sample
> <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <kb7ev09odgn92l29t...@4ax.com>,
> > Stewart Vernon <com...@indenter.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:54:17 -0500, Don Sample
> >> <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It is a simple statistical fact. Overall in 2002, 44 percent of those
> >> >who died in traffic crashes involving a drinking driver with a BAC of
> >> >0.01 percent or higher were people other than the drinking driver, which
> >> >leaves 56 percent of the traffic fatalities involving a drinking driver,
> >> >being the drinking driver.
> >>
> >> That's a whole lot different than 99% though...
> >
> >Huh?
>
> First you said 99%... then you said 56%... 56% is a lot different
> than 99%. That's all I was saying.
I said that 99% of the time drunk drivers don't kill anyone at all.
(Actually it's more like 99.99% of the time.) When they do kill someone,
56% of the time it's themselves.
> >
> >Lots of ways. Surveys, extrapolation from the percentage of drunk
> >drivers pulled over on any particular night to the entire population,
> >etc.
>
> Surveys aren't that accurate. Remember the election exit polls :)
>
> But seriously... Surveys often show that surveys are inaccurate.
> Many times people are afraid they will be "caught" by what they
> admit to in surveys... Blind surveys are more reliable if the
> person filling it out feels he is truly anonymous in his
> responces... but even then people aren't always honest about their
> misdeeds when asked.
Sure there's a margin of error, but the number is in the right ballpark.
Even if it was off by a factor of 10, it doesn't change anything in my
basic point.
> I would be wary of an estimate like that... and if there truly
> were 80 million or more drunken drivers on the road... you aren't
> helping me to feel safer on the highway!
Divide it by 365. That's only about 220,000 a day, or about 10,000 an
hour (On average, across all of the US. Depending on the time of day it
could be a lot higher or lower.)
> >> If we focus on the 1.5 million arrests... how many of those were
> >> in accidents? A lot of proactive policework has prevented
> >> accidents by stopping and arresting folks who were intoxicated
> >> before they got into an accident.
> >
> >Precisely. Most drunk drivers don't get in accidents.
>
> Because police are stopping them before they do... If we had
> martial law and police following us around the streets murders
> would probably be down too...
>
> but it doesn't jive with your statistic...
Do you really think that the cops are catching more than one or two
percent of the drunk drivers on the roads? If they were, drunk driving
wouldn't be much of a problem, because they'd all have had their
licenses revoked by now.
>
> >Even if you assume that the cops caught *every* drunk driver, it still
> >leaves 95% of all drunk driving incidents involving no fatalities. A
> >long way from your initial statement that it takes a miracle to survive
> >getting into a car with a drunk driver.
>
> I wasn't the one, by the way, to say initially that it takes a
> miracle... That was someone else, who I happened to agree with...
> so I agreed in post with it... but I wasn't the first to say it.
>
> That said... Now you're mixing "incidents" and accidents. I would
> say anytime a police stops a driver who is drunk that is an
> incident and counts in that 1.5 million arrests you were talking
> about... but that isn't an accident... What are the statistics on
> deaths/major injuries for DUI related accidents? I would think
> that would be much higher than the percentages you've quoted.
4% of all DUI accidents result in a fatality. 42% in an injury. There
are about 200,000 DUI accidents a year.
>
> If you quote incidents with accidents then I think you're mixing
> apples/oranges.
I'm just saying that it doesn't take a miracle to survive getting in a
car with a drunk. People drive drunk 80 million times a year in the US.
8,000 people are killed. Being one of the 9,999 survivors out of 10,000
isn't miraculous, or even particularly lucky.