|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,393 Likes: 1
Pulitzer
|
OP
Pulitzer
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,393 Likes: 1 |
Mayson was not killed in S2. In lieu of the Ultra Woman episode, a lightning bolt gives Mayson a copy of Clark's powers.
1) How does Mayson handle having the powers, and what (if anything) does she do with them? It's all well and good to be anti-vigilante in theory, but would she keep that stance when she actually hears people crying out for help and knows she could save them? In some cases, she could simply fly police officers onto the scene, but there would be occasions when there wouldn't be enough time to do that.
2) How would Lois react? She knows that Mayson is attracted to Clark and she knows that Mayson knows CK=S. Clark would undoubtedly be spending some time with Mayson to teach her how to control her newly-gained powers. How jealous is Lois?
3) If Lois fears that she's losing Clark to the competition ("How can I compete with the one other person else who is truly his equal?"), and if she confronts Clark, what will his reaction be? Will he be upset that she thinks he would consider the powers to matter to him? Would he, in turn, resurrect his old fear that she only likes him because of his powers?
And whatever happened to Naomi? (Bonus points for anyone who can place this obscure, non-L&C, reference.)
Joy,
Lynn
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,509
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
|
|
Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 9,509 |
2) How would Lois react? She knows that Mayson is attracted to Clark and she knows that Mayson knows CK=S. Clark would undoubtedly be spending some time with Mayson to teach her how to control her newly-gained powers. How jealous is Lois? This implies a Lois who knows CK=S. What if she doesn't know? What if when sees another hero, a female one, Lois assumes that Superman would want a woman just like himself? What if this is the little push she needs to give up her crush on Superman and take a real look at Clark? What if Mayson hasn't figured out that CK=S, and continues to think that they are two people? When she see that Clark is truly in love with Lois, would she switch her feelings to Superman, now that she has powers? Would she assume any assistance that Superman gives her as demonstration that he loves her? Would Clark suddenly be dealing with a Lois who loves him as Clark and a Mayson who loves Superman at the same time? Hee-hee. That could lead to some fun slapstick comedy or some angsty drama.
VirginiaR.
"On the long road, take small steps." -- Jor-el, "The Foundling"
---
"clearly there is a lack of understanding between those two... he speaks Lunkheadanian and she Stubbornanian" -- chelo.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 624
Columnist
|
|
Columnist
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 624 |
I really like this concept. 1) How does Mayson handle having the powers, and what (if anything) does she do with them? It's all well and good to be anti-vigilante in theory, but would she keep that stance when she actually hears people crying out for help and knows she could save them? In some cases, she could simply fly police officers onto the scene, but there would be occasions when there wouldn't be enough time to do that. I can see a lot of moral and ethical debate going on in Mayson's head about this. What if Mayson outed herself as a super and became a cop? If I remember correctly, the problem she had with Superman was that he didn't work within the established system. What if she tried to be the superhero she thought that Superman should have been? She could finagle some assignment that lets her fly a patrol around the city, then Mirandize and cuff the bad guys when she stops crime, rather than tying them up with light poles and leaving them for the police. Potential problems include allegations of use of excessive force and illegal searches (x-ray vision and hearing). And maybe jurisdiction problems if she wanders outside her boundaries? She might find that she has a lot of restrictions on what she can do and how she can help because of her official position.
"It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him." -Batman (in Superman/Batman #3 by Jeph Loeb)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 732 Likes: 1
Columnist
|
|
Columnist
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 732 Likes: 1 |
I think Mayson's labeling Superman as a vigilante had less to do with his powers and more with his anonymity. Can there be due process when the person making the citizen's arrest is anonymous? The scenario I see is Mayson outing herself to act "within the system" and then losing the powers.
Maybe better still, after her powers wore off having them restored for some time limit only after she has been in Superman's immediate vicinity. (Whether Clark knew it or not.) It'd give Clark something else to worry about. Without powers and her identity known she would be a target. Hang around Mayson and risk Lois on a rampage.
Shallowford
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 491
Beat Reporter
|
|
Beat Reporter
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 491 |
You need a warrant if things are not in plain sight. This means that cops can't use infrared cameras but can use regular cameras with telephoto lenses since cameras with telephoto lenses are common. How the courts would rule on using your own senses if they are super would be a unknown. They do allow things like drug sniffing dogs that have better then human senses but are natural.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 624
Columnist
|
|
Columnist
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 624 |
I think Mayson's labeling Superman as a vigilante had less to do with his powers and more with his anonymity. Can there be due process when the person making the citizen's arrest is anonymous? Superman isn't anonymous. He's Superman from the planet Krypton. It's not the same situation as, say, Batman. Batman is obviously someone else who is hiding his identity and could reasonably be considered anonymous. Superman is not known to have a secret identity, so there's no reason to believe that he's someone unknown hiding his identity. In Silver Age comics, it was commonly known that he had a secret identity, but he considered Clark Kent to be a civilian cover for his true identity as Superman, so I think the public still wouldn't have considered him to be anonymous back then, either. How the courts would rule on using your own senses if they are super would be a unknown. They do allow things like drug sniffing dogs that have better then human senses but are natural. I would say that Superman would be under the same restrictions that a normal human would have, i.e., something would have to be in plain sight for someone with normal sight. Your point about drug-sniffing dogs shoots a hole in my idea, though. On the other hand, Superman has way more enhanced senses than any dog, to the point that anything not hidden by lead and encased in a sound-proof (not just mostly-sound-proof) room would be "in plain sight". The room would also have to be air-tight to thwart his super sense of smell. That does not seem reasonable and would likely lead to unlawful searches under the reasoning that, "It's in plain sight for Superman, but he wasn't around today to help us, so we did ourselves with technology and searches what he can do with just his senses." It seems like a slippery slope. Then there's the question of his microscopic vision. Can he zoom in to analyze microscopic residue on the countertop if in the same situation a standard cop wouldn't be able to take samples and send it to a lab? Or are cops allowed to swab anything they want as long as it's in plain sight? All in all, I'm not sure I like the idea of Superman operating as an officer of the government. In the '60's Batman TV show, Batman and Robin were deputized members of the police force, but that worked because they were just cops with special gadgets and unusual means. They were subject to the same limitations as the other cops. (I don't think that modern Batman would work quite as well as a cop.) Superman is on a whole different level. When he starts taking orders from the police chief or the mayor, governor, or the president, things start to get scary. Politics gets involved, and it's a whole Pandora's box. I think he works much better as an independent good-Samaritan type, given that he has the moral compass that we expect from Superman. Given that, he should endeavor to work with law enforcement insofar as he should not destroy evidence when possible and apprehend crooks and turn them over to the police in a way that enables them to be properly prosecuted. I don't think that would really get Mayson off his back, but it would weaken her case against him.
"It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him." -Batman (in Superman/Batman #3 by Jeph Loeb)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 732 Likes: 1
Columnist
|
|
Columnist
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 732 Likes: 1 |
I think Mayson's labeling Superman as a vigilante had less to do with his powers and more with his anonymity. Can there be due process when the person making the citizen's arrest is anonymous? Superman isn't anonymous. He's Superman from the planet Krypton. It's not the same situation as, say, Batman. Batman is obviously someone else who is hiding his identity and could reasonably be considered anonymous. Superman is not known to have a secret identity, so there's no reason to believe that he's someone unknown hiding his identity. I agree. I was thinking anonymous more in the sense that officially at best he's an illegal alien. How would the courts handle an arrest made by an undocumented homeless...Australian? I mean, he's got to be involved in numerous criminal cases. How do the courts contact this guy? What about depositions and cross examinations? How could a court issue a summons to appear? Deputizing him might be an option but I agree with your concerns about that.
Shallowford
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,823
Pulitzer
|
|
Pulitzer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,823 |
In the '60's Batman TV show, Batman and Robin were deputized members of the police force, but that worked because they were just cops with special gadgets and unusual means. They were subject to the same limitations as the other cops. The people who write the Law and the Multiverse blog have a very interesting post about this. As they say: Constitutional limitations on things like censorship, discrimination, and search and seizure do not apply to private individuals but rather to the federal government and, in some cases, to the states. (The Thirteenth Amendment is a rare exception that applies to individuals). As a result, evidence that a superhero obtains by breaking into a villain’s headquarters is admissible even though it was obtained illegally. See, Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921). And since it doesn’t invoke the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, any additional evidence obtained via the original evidence would also be admissible.
But what about superheroes like Batman who work in close cooperation with the police? Could they fairly be described as state actors, thus triggering a whole spate of Constitutional protections? I think the answer may be yes...
...(legal citation here)...
In Batman’s case, Commissioner Gordon is certainly a person for whom the State is responsible, and Batman often acts together with Gordon and obtains significant aid from Gordon in the form of information and evidence. Batman’s conduct is also otherwise chargeable to the State because the Gotham Police Department has worked with Batman on numerous occasions (and thus knows his methods) and operates the Bat Signal, expressly invoking Batman’s assistance in a traditionally public function. This suggests state action under the public function theory: “when private individuals or groups are endowed by the State with powers or functions governmental in nature, they become agencies or instrumentalities of the State and subject to its constitutional limitations.” Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299 (1966).
In the real world, this would cause significant problems for Batman and Gotham. Batman’s rough and tumble style would lead to a rash of Section 1983 claims for damages and probably also for an injunction against Batman’s future cooperation in police investigations. As discussed earlier, most evidence that Batman collects would be inadmissible, and police use of that evidence might bar the use of additional evidence collected during a subsequent police investigation.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,357
Top Banana
|
|
Top Banana
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,357 |
In the '60's Batman TV show, Batman and Robin were deputized members of the police force, but that worked because they were just cops with special gadgets and unusual means. They were subject to the same limitations as the other cops. The people who write the Law and the Multiverse blog have a very interesting post about this. As they say: Constitutional limitations on things like censorship, discrimination, and search and seizure do not apply to private individuals but rather to the federal government and, in some cases, to the states. (The Thirteenth Amendment is a rare exception that applies to individuals). As a result, evidence that a superhero obtains by breaking into a villain’s headquarters is admissible even though it was obtained illegally. See, Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921). And since it doesn’t invoke the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, any additional evidence obtained via the original evidence would also be admissible.
But what about superheroes like Batman who work in close cooperation with the police? Could they fairly be described as state actors, thus triggering a whole spate of Constitutional protections? I think the answer may be yes...
...(legal citation here)...
In Batman’s case, Commissioner Gordon is certainly a person for whom the State is responsible, and Batman often acts together with Gordon and obtains significant aid from Gordon in the form of information and evidence. Batman’s conduct is also otherwise chargeable to the State because the Gotham Police Department has worked with Batman on numerous occasions (and thus knows his methods) and operates the Bat Signal, expressly invoking Batman’s assistance in a traditionally public function. This suggests state action under the public function theory: “when private individuals or groups are endowed by the State with powers or functions governmental in nature, they become agencies or instrumentalities of the State and subject to its constitutional limitations.” Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299 (1966).
In the real world, this would cause significant problems for Batman and Gotham. Batman’s rough and tumble style would lead to a rash of Section 1983 claims for damages and probably also for an injunction against Batman’s future cooperation in police investigations. As discussed earlier, most evidence that Batman collects would be inadmissible, and police use of that evidence might bar the use of additional evidence collected during a subsequent police investigation. It sounds like Mayson would run up against some MAJOR barriers that she probably wouldn't have expected. If she's prudent (which it seemed like she was) she would look up these kinds of statutes (after getting superpowers) and decide it's just fine to work independently. If Lois knows it's Mayson, I could see a little tension (initially) between them because of being hypocritical (because new information changed her perspective, not because of a double-standard.)
CLARK: No. I'm just worried I'm a jinx.
JONATHAN: A jinx?
CLARK: Yeah. Let's face it, ever since she's known me, Lois's been kidnapped, frozen, pushed off buildings, almost stabbed, poisoned, buried alive and who knows what else, and it's all because of me.
-"Contact" (You're not her jinx, you're her blessing.)
|
|
|
|
