It's straight making stuff up to say she killed them. She was there when they died and tried saving them as has been pointed out many times, those are the facts.
When someone is involved directly with a death. They are put on leave or are arrested while the incident is investigated to ensure it wasn't their fault.
When someone intervenes to prevent deaths but can't save everyone, they aren't blamed for killing the people they couldn't save
That's a fact
Actually its not.
They are still held responsible for not saving those people. They are still put on leave. Their actions are still investigated to ensure they didn't cause those deaths through their negligence.
What negligence? Not jumping on the bomb with her own body? How on earth could she have done more? You're being absolutely pedantic about this
If not for them being there, a dangerous chemical weapon would have killed far more people
+7
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Yeah, usually when you say so-and-so killed this many people, the implication is that they shouldn't have done that. In this case, she clearly did the right thing. The only logical complaint is that she didn't do her job well enough, which is being extremely demanding given that the team probably saved 99% of the civilian lives at stake during a protracted shootout in a crowded city.
+8
Options
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
Not to mention she reacted extremely quickly, and had barely a few seconds to even decide what to do with the currently-exploding Crossbones. I mean, if you're holding a suddenly live grenade the first thing you're going to do is chuck it as far away as possible. You don't really stop to think about what's in the general vicinity of where you're sending it, because you do not have time to do so. She absolutely did the best that she could, in those circumstances. Maybe she could have launched him straight up in the air, but once again, who thinks it's a great idea to throw a live grenade vertically?
Yeah, usually when you say so-and-so killed this many people, the implication is that they shouldn't have done that. In this case, she clearly did the right thing. The only logical complaint is that she didn't do her job well enough, which is being extremely demanding given that the team probably saved 99% of the civilian lives at stake during a protracted shootout in a crowded city.
Which is understandable, I agree with it. Despite that if she was in a government agency they'd put her on leave while they investigated what happened. If they did it properly she'd be found not guilty and rotated back on duty again. In theory this is how the Accords should have worked, but I don't think the movie was that interested in making an Accords that weren't horrible. Less horrible than the comics SHRA, but still incredibly bad where Cap could resist it without looking like an idiot.
If the Accords were retroactively able to put someone in leave, literally all of the Avengers, especially Iron Man, should have been.
The Accords weren't active yet, that was Tony doing it in their stead. While it was a dick move, I can understand why they did it. He also shouldn't have put Vision on that duty, since he's a weird, creepy robot.
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
On this one point, I agree with you. He could have communicated with Wanda better or given her some input but keeping her out of public areas was, if not 100% necessary, a good idea. When she told Vision she could protect herself, he really should have found a better way to point out that, regardless of whether she was in the right, self-defense would require violence and potential property damage.
The accords also ex post facto d the hell out of Wanda.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
The accords also ex post facto d the hell out of Wanda.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
The Accords were not why Tony had her confined to the Mansion. It was Tony worried that she didn't have control of her powers.
Also, the concept of an investigation to ensure no wrong doing was done is made, because you generally can't just tell while the event is going on.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
ResIpsaLoquiturNot a grammar nazi, just alt-write.Registered Userregular
Not to mention she reacted extremely quickly, and had barely a few seconds to even decide what to do with the currently-exploding Crossbones. I mean, if you're holding a suddenly live grenade the first thing you're going to do is chuck it as far away as possible. You don't really stop to think about what's in the general vicinity of where you're sending it, because you do not have time to do so. She absolutely did the best that she could, in those circumstances. Maybe she could have launched him straight up in the air, but once again, who thinks it's a great idea to throw a live grenade vertically?
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that in these circumstances, she did the best she could, and she did save more lives than were lost as a result of her actions.
I think the issue is that there IS an analogy to when a hero's actions in acting heroically result in the death of a civilian: that is, in a police action situation. If a police officer's actions lead to a death (at least a civilian death, so far as I understand), they're benched during the investigation, and sent back to active duty when they're cleared.
Now, I will say the movie did a poor job of showing the cause and effect of Wanda going under house arrest subsequent to the Lagos incident (and it would be reasonable to argue that the cause/effect isn't even really there); but I don't think it should be controversial to suggest that a hero should be benched while an investigation occurs regarding deaths on the scene. I'll grant also that the Accords weren't in place yet, so it wouldn't be the cause of her getting benched, but that is more or less the point--they are a sort-of law enforcement agency, and they had no plan for internal policing that resembles anything any remotely analogous agency has had for years and years.
League of Legends: MichaelDominick; Blizzard(NA): MichaelD#11402; Steam ID: MichaelDominick
You know, I can't really envision a scenario where the Accords are necessary yet aren't a catastrofuck. All the countries of the world can ever do is put their support behind the supers that happen to agree with them today, and hope that they win, and that they still agree with the countries of the world tomorrow on whatever the next issue may be.
I mean, it's not hard to imagine. The world already has forces like that--they're just nations instead of people in the real world. But for the same reason we just cringe and wring our hands and do some hands-off stuff when America or Russia ignores the rules other nations create, we'd have to do the same with an organization of supers as unmatched as the Avengers are in the MCU.
Basically, a world with a small number of supers sucks for the normal people unless they happen to be comic book paragons. Whatever they're like, you just have to live with it until governments catch up on the super arms race somehow and their laws start meaning something again. Of course to do that right might involve, like, bombs in your newly equipped/enhanced government supers' heads, so that's still pretty fucked up.
The accords also ex post facto d the hell out of Wanda.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
The Accords were not why Tony had her confined to the Mansion. It was Tony worried that she didn't have control of her powers.
Also, the concept of an investigation to ensure no wrong doing was done is made, because you generally can't just tell while the event is going on.
That's still holding her against her will with no legal backing to do so.
Tony's running an illegal prison. With a warden built out of an unaccounted for AI, stolen tech and a space rock nobody else knows about. That is capable of obsession with it's inmate and completely unstoppable by conventional means.
This is exactly the problem with his whole approach to everything.
The accords also ex post facto d the hell out of Wanda.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
The Accords were not why Tony had her confined to the Mansion. It was Tony worried that she didn't have control of her powers.
Also, the concept of an investigation to ensure no wrong doing was done is made, because you generally can't just tell while the event is going on.
That's still holding her against her will with no legal backing to do so.
Tony's running an illegal prison. With a warden built out of an unaccounted for AI, stolen tech and a space rock nobody else knows about. That is capable of obsession with it's inmate and completely unstoppable by conventional means.
This is exactly the problem with his whole approach to everything.
Not to mention she reacted extremely quickly, and had barely a few seconds to even decide what to do with the currently-exploding Crossbones. I mean, if you're holding a suddenly live grenade the first thing you're going to do is chuck it as far away as possible. You don't really stop to think about what's in the general vicinity of where you're sending it, because you do not have time to do so. She absolutely did the best that she could, in those circumstances. Maybe she could have launched him straight up in the air, but once again, who thinks it's a great idea to throw a live grenade vertically?
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that in these circumstances, she did the best she could, and she did save more lives than were lost as a result of her actions.
I think the issue is that there IS an analogy to when a hero's actions in acting heroically result in the death of a civilian: that is, in a police action situation. If a police officer's actions lead to a death (at least a civilian death, so far as I understand), they're benched during the investigation, and sent back to active duty when they're cleared.
Now, I will say the movie did a poor job of showing the cause and effect of Wanda going under house arrest subsequent to the Lagos incident (and it would be reasonable to argue that the cause/effect isn't even really there); but I don't think it should be controversial to suggest that a hero should be benched while an investigation occurs regarding deaths on the scene. I'll grant also that the Accords weren't in place yet, so it wouldn't be the cause of her getting benched, but that is more or less the point--they are a sort-of law enforcement agency, and they had no plan for internal policing that resembles anything any remotely analogous agency has had for years and years.
I would just note that being temporarily put on leave during an investigation is hardly equivalent to being imprisoned against your will (essentially kidnapped) by private parties with no oversight / due process / framework.
'Wanda can't go on mission with the Avengers until we've examined what happened to exonerate her' would be reasonable - keeping her locked-up in Tony's club house & having Friend Computer supervise her is not. It's one of many pieces of evidence that suggests the Accords are already a busted deal fro the get-go.
I mean, where is Wanda's representation? If the system is dominated by the passions of the aggrieved & those who can either be guilted into acting on behalf of those passions (Tony) or who are happy to leverage those passions for personal & political gain (Ross), without even a token effort at impartiality, that is the shakiest imaginable foundation to try and build a legal apparatus on.
Basically it is massively fucked up they only seem to be afraid of Wanda when every hero, especially Iron Man, has demonstrated themselves to be dangerous to the world at large. We're lucky they are on our side, but acting as if we can actually control them is silly. Holding them accountable is great, but it's the same as putting Superman in handcuffs. It's a symbolic gesture, not one that really restrains him at all.
But as Cap says, governments have interests that don't always service the people they supposedly protect. Keeping Wanda under house arrest or the Cap half of the Avengers in the Raft can easily do more harm than good. If they could be off saving lives but instead are bound up by a bunch of legal red tape, who is that going to do any good for?
The accords also ex post facto d the hell out of Wanda.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
The Accords were not why Tony had her confined to the Mansion. It was Tony worried that she didn't have control of her powers.
Also, the concept of an investigation to ensure no wrong doing was done is made, because you generally can't just tell while the event is going on.
It wasn't even that. When Tony and Cap are discussing it, there are a couple of lines were Tony goes on how she's not in the country legally, and if she goes out, there's the very real chance the government tries to arrest her for it, starting another fight where innocent people could get hurt.
Tony's mistake in that situation was telling Vision to keep her in Avengers HQ, rather than sitting down with Wanda and talking about her current situation so they could come to an agreement. It was another case of Tony simply doing what he thinks is best on his own, rather than talking about it with his teammates.
Also, from a few pages back, I want to point out that the government locking up Cap's team in The Raft was not a violation of their rights. The Federal Government has 30 days from the time of arrest until they indict someone on charges to hold them in prison. So, unless Cap left the team stewing in the Raft for over a month (something I can't see) then their arrest was still perfectly legal.
PSN|AspectVoid
+1
Options
ResIpsaLoquiturNot a grammar nazi, just alt-write.Registered Userregular
The accords also ex post facto d the hell out of Wanda.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
The Accords were not why Tony had her confined to the Mansion. It was Tony worried that she didn't have control of her powers was the one who put coffee grounds in the sink.
League of Legends: MichaelDominick; Blizzard(NA): MichaelD#11402; Steam ID: MichaelDominick
The accords also ex post facto d the hell out of Wanda.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
The Accords were not why Tony had her confined to the Mansion. It was Tony worried that she didn't have control of her powers.
Also, the concept of an investigation to ensure no wrong doing was done is made, because you generally can't just tell while the event is going on.
It wasn't even that. When Tony and Cap are discussing it, there are a couple of lines were Tony goes on how she's not in the country legally, and if she goes out, there's the very real chance the government tries to arrest her for it, starting another fight where innocent people could get hurt.
Tony's mistake in that situation was telling Vision to keep her in Avengers HQ, rather than sitting down with Wanda and talking about her current situation so they could come to an agreement. It was another case of Tony simply doing what he thinks is best on his own, rather than talking about it with his teammates.
Also, from a few pages back, I want to point out that the government locking up Cap's team in The Raft was not a violation of their rights. The Federal Government has 30 days from the time of arrest until they indict someone on charges to hold them in prison. So, unless Cap left the team stewing in the Raft for over a month (something I can't see) then their arrest was still perfectly legal.
They were arrested in Germany by not the US government and I doubt any of them were going to be seeing an attorney or have formal charges against them. And 30 days without charges sounds like 9/11 patriot act bullshit that shouldn't be a thing.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The accords also ex post facto d the hell out of Wanda.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
The Accords were not why Tony had her confined to the Mansion. It was Tony worried that she didn't have control of her powers.
Also, the concept of an investigation to ensure no wrong doing was done is made, because you generally can't just tell while the event is going on.
That's still holding her against her will with no legal backing to do so.
Tony's running an illegal prison. With a warden built out of an unaccounted for AI, stolen tech and a space rock nobody else knows about. That is capable of obsession with it's inmate and completely unstoppable by conventional means.
This is exactly the problem with his whole approach to everything.
The alternative is something like the Raft.
Not really. The alternative is due process, which it's exactly the opposite is the raft.
When law enforcement members are involved in a shooting, they aren't locked up until the investigation ends. They are often taken off duty or such, but we don't just throw them in jail. If there was some sort of official inquiry or panel to determine Wanda's culpability, which we don't see at all in the film, she should still be free to leave the compound. Her incarceration is all Tony, apparently unilaterally. An argument can be made that he's making the decision out of a concern for public safety, or even for Wanda's personal safety, but he's still running an illegal secret prison.
That's a violation of international human rights treaties at the very least. And nobody blinks an eye. Not the UN and definately not Tony.
The fact that they had The Raft already built to keep supers locked up shows the Accords to be a stack of papers basically amounting to a middle finger
+6
Options
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
That final fight between Steve and Tony was one of the most tragically brutal things I've ever seen. At that point both men weren't thinking logically. It was all pure emotion. I personally think that it was good that Steve was the winner of that fight because he was able to regain control and stop himself from going too far.
The way Tony's brain wasn't working, I don't think he would have.
It was just heartbreaking watching those two just hammering each other.
The accords also ex post facto d the hell out of Wanda.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
The Accords were not why Tony had her confined to the Mansion. It was Tony worried that she didn't have control of her powers.
Also, the concept of an investigation to ensure no wrong doing was done is made, because you generally can't just tell while the event is going on.
That's still holding her against her will with no legal backing to do so.
Tony's running an illegal prison. With a warden built out of an unaccounted for AI, stolen tech and a space rock nobody else knows about. That is capable of obsession with it's inmate and completely unstoppable by conventional means.
This is exactly the problem with his whole approach to everything.
The alternative is something like the Raft.
Not really. The alternative is due process, which it's exactly the opposite is the raft.
When law enforcement members are involved in a shooting, they aren't locked up until the investigation ends. They are often taken off duty or such, but we don't just throw them in jail. If there was some sort of official inquiry or panel to determine Wanda's culpability, which we don't see at all in the film, she should still be free to leave the compound. Her incarceration is all Tony, apparently unilaterally. An argument can be made that he's making the decision out of a concern for public safety, or even for Wanda's personal safety, but he's still running an illegal secret prison.
That's a violation of international human rights treaties at the very least. And nobody blinks an eye. Not the UN and definately not Tony.
His argument when confronted with it is literally, 'Give me break!'
Like shit is apparently just too hard, so fuck it, just lock her up. It's okay though because the prison is a mansion (lol).
Sorry Tony, but no, you being crushed by guilt is not a good reason to go under giant thumb and hoping it all works out somehow.
If we're going to blame the Avengers for Lagos (they saved people, period. Had they not been there lots of people would have been killed and then many many many more would have died to a bio-weapon) I find it rather interesting that Wakanda's response to losing a truckload of vibranium that was used in an attempt to destroy all life on Earth (averted by the Avengers who also take responsibility for creating Ultron - but that Vibranium was getting sold to some bad person with or without Ultron) was that the Avengers need to be put under strict controls proposed by Wakanda.
:P
Maybe Wakanda were the ones who needed to be put under a microscope. Just sayin'
Saving people isn't a shield for fucking up like that, and they did fuck up badly. With someone who was a super-villain who worked with both Ultron and HYDRA not long ago. Yes, they get gratitude for doing their jobs, they don't get medals for causing massive casualties. They're not perfect. They're not above being accountable.
That vibranium was stolen, T'Challa didn't give it to Ultron himself. The Avengers never take any responsibility for Ultron in this movie, it's not even mentioned in passing.
Haven't read to current yet in the thread but needed to address this. In every civilized country on Earth, saving people absolutely is a shield. The real world understands that bad shit happens, and that collateral damage happens, as tragic as it may be. This is because the real world understands that if you punish people acting to save or defend others, you disincentivize people from ever acting. Read up on Good Samaritan Laws, they offer legal immunity to people coming to the aid of others (in reasonable circumstances, barring negligence, etc). It's the same with self-defense laws around the world. If you act in genuine self-defense, or defense of others, and someone else is hurt or killed, you are entitled to self-defense (again, barring negligence).
So, every civilized nation in the world would view Wanda's actions through those lenses, and have to ask, was Wanda negligent? Wanda spent a great portion of her power containing an explosion in an extremely densely populated marketplace, then sent the explosion up in the air, away from civilians. Now, when I was in law school, my professor would say, that this didn't arise to the level of negligence.
Now, there are political issues in play why a nation might never be able to realistically apply chargers of manslaughter or negligence against the Avengers, but those are entirely different from the oversight demanded by the Sokovia Accords. Accountability and Oversight (and as presented, actually absolute Command) are two completely different things. Now, if Ross had come in and said "Here's the Sokovia Accords. The Avengers are no longer immune from the laws of the nations of the world, including the US. Wanda will be tried for the second degree manslaughter by an impartial court set up by the UN (think the Hague, or Nuremburg)." I honestly don't think that Steve would have had a problem at all. The response would be, ok let's get some lawyers, because we don't believe what we did was wrong.
Vision is a non-human entity with no citizenship built on the same tech as the robot that almost destroyed humanity that is indestructible, cannot be stopped by physical barriers and shoots an Iron Man wrecking laser out of the magical space rock on his forehead that no one really understands but which apparently gave him consciousness.
How in the fuck is this about Cap, Bucky and Wanda?
She wasn't removed from active duty, she was imprisoned by a creepy killbot from space that the world is inexplicably not terrified of
Just how many world citizens know Vision exists? World leadership must know because he was asked to sign the Accords, but I'd be curious if his existence was widely publicized. Tony (with Ultron) literally creating life is kind of a big thing.
It's straight making stuff up to say she killed them. She was there when they died and tried saving them as has been pointed out many times, those are the facts.
When someone is involved directly with a death. They are put on leave or are arrested while the incident is investigated to ensure it wasn't their fault.
Vision is a non-human entity with no citizenship built on the same tech as the robot that almost destroyed humanity that is indestructible, cannot be stopped by physical barriers and shoots an Iron Man wrecking laser out of the magical space rock on his forehead that no one really understands but which apparently gave him consciousness.
How in the fuck is this about Cap, Bucky and Wanda?
Vision is basically Friend Computer from Paranoia.
That final fight between Steve and Tony was one of the most tragically brutal things I've ever seen. At that point both men weren't thinking logically. It was all pure emotion. I personally think that it was good that Steve was the winner of that fight because he was able to regain control and stop himself from going too far.
The way Tony's brain wasn't working, I don't think he would have.
It was just heartbreaking watching those two just hammering each other.
The look on Tony's face just before he starts the fight by hitting Cap was heart wrenching. RDJ really nailed it in the movie. I just felt so bad for him the entire time...
Also, did they allude to Black Widow and Bucky knowing eachother like they do in the comics? I guess they were both trained in the same Red Room program thingie in the comics. During the fight in the movie when Zimo activates Bucky, and then he's choking out Widow, she says "Don't you at least recognize me?". I don't recall any interaction between them in Cap 2 or anything.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
If we're going to blame the Avengers for Lagos (they saved people, period. Had they not been there lots of people would have been killed and then many many many more would have died to a bio-weapon) I find it rather interesting that Wakanda's response to losing a truckload of vibranium that was used in an attempt to destroy all life on Earth (averted by the Avengers who also take responsibility for creating Ultron - but that Vibranium was getting sold to some bad person with or without Ultron) was that the Avengers need to be put under strict controls proposed by Wakanda.
:P
Maybe Wakanda were the ones who needed to be put under a microscope. Just sayin'
Saving people isn't a shield for fucking up like that, and they did fuck up badly. With someone who was a super-villain who worked with both Ultron and HYDRA not long ago. Yes, they get gratitude for doing their jobs, they don't get medals for causing massive casualties. They're not perfect. They're not above being accountable.
That vibranium was stolen, T'Challa didn't give it to Ultron himself. The Avengers never take any responsibility for Ultron in this movie, it's not even mentioned in passing.
Haven't read to current yet in the thread but needed to address this. In every civilized country on Earth, saving people absolutely is a shield. The real world understands that bad shit happens, and that collateral damage happens, as tragic as it may be. This is because the real world understands that if you punish people acting to save or defend others, you disincentivize people from ever acting. Read up on Good Samaritan Laws, they offer legal immunity to people coming to the aid of others (in reasonable circumstances, barring negligence, etc). It's the same with self-defense laws around the world. If you act in genuine self-defense, or defense of others, and someone else is hurt or killed, you are entitled to self-defense (again, barring negligence).
It's a shield from getting immediately throw in prison, not being put on suspension while it's being investigated by the appropriate authorities - which is my argument for what should have happened if she was under the Accords. I agree with whoever said Tony should have clearly outlined the reasons why he thought Wanda should stay in the compound until the Accords were signed. And not had Vision supervising her, Rhodey or Widow should have done that. In the US officers who fire a gun on duty do this, and Wanda did something bigger than that to warrant a temporary bench. Do Good Samaritan laws include vigilantes? Because the Avengers weren't average civilians who were accidentally at the right place at the right time, they were hunting Crossbones for months. As well as having super-powers in the mix, which brings another headache into the legality of this which the real world hasn't experienced. I agree Wanda should have access to a self defense. That was grade A bullshit.
So, every civilized nation in the world would view Wanda's actions through those lenses, and have to ask, was Wanda negligent? Wanda spent a great portion of her power containing an explosion in an extremely densely populated marketplace, then sent the explosion up in the air, away from civilians. Now, when I was in law school, my professor would say, that this didn't arise to the level of negligence.
Now, there are political issues in play why a nation might never be able to realistically apply chargers of manslaughter or negligence against the Avengers, but those are entirely different from the oversight demanded by the Sokovia Accords. Accountability and Oversight (and as presented, actually absolute Command) are two completely different things. Now, if Ross had come in and said "Here's the Sokovia Accords. The Avengers are no longer immune from the laws of the nations of the world, including the US. Wanda will be tried for the second degree manslaughter by an impartial court set up by the UN (think the Hague, or Nuremburg)." I honestly don't think that Steve would have had a problem at all. The response would be, ok let's get some lawyers, because we don't believe what we did was wrong.
Cap never brings up that defense when he had the chance, he leaves Tony then gets Hawkeye to break out Wanda. Which puts her in even worse legal trouble than she previously had, making her an outlaw in the process. But this is outside the scope of why she was held in the film, which was on Tony's orders not the UN's. Which are a different kind of screw up. Understandable, but it should have been handled better than it was.
0
Options
wiltingI had fun once and it was awfulRegistered Userregular
In Winter Soldier, Widow is the one who name drops Winter Soldier as a 'ghost' in the intelligence community, retelling an incident where she was shot that she attributes to him. But she's never met him. They tangle a bit during the highway action sequence. At the end of the film she presents Cap with some files she was able to get on Winter Solder from Kiev contacts. There's no suggestion that they trained together or anything
I don't think anyone's going to argue that Wanda should be taken off active duty for a bit. But she's being held against her will. Best intentions or not, that's a human rights violation.
I don't think anyone's going to argue that Wanda should be taken off active duty for a bit. But she's being held against her will. Best intentions or not, that's a human rights violation.
Sure, that's why I thought Tony was over reacting. That said, Vision did convince her to stay there for a while, it wasn't until Hawkeye arrived that she turned entirely against being kept on the compound. Tony and Vision fucked up there, as I outlined upthread.
I don't think anyone's going to argue that Wanda should be taken off active duty for a bit. But she's being held against her will. Best intentions or not, that's a human rights violation.
The thing that makes it bad wasn't that Wanda was stuck at the compound it was that she should have been stuck at the compound because the Avengers had a conversation about what happened and how bad it looked and how her situation as a non U.S. citizen was so tenuous and Wanda, we need you to lay low and stay home for the time being.
But of course that's not how it was handled at all. Tony tried to go all Nick Fury and, to the surprise of no one, it blew up in his face because it turns out people feel pretty threatened by "surprise, you're actually not free to leave".
Posts
When someone is involved directly with a death. They are put on leave or are arrested while the incident is investigated to ensure it wasn't their fault.
That is a fact.
That's a fact
Actually its not.
They are still held responsible for not saving those people. They are still put on leave. Their actions are still investigated to ensure they didn't cause those deaths through their negligence.
Nice try though.
e:
And with that I really am going to bed.
If not for them being there, a dangerous chemical weapon would have killed far more people
Which is understandable, I agree with it. Despite that if she was in a government agency they'd put her on leave while they investigated what happened. If they did it properly she'd be found not guilty and rotated back on duty again. In theory this is how the Accords should have worked, but I don't think the movie was that interested in making an Accords that weren't horrible. Less horrible than the comics SHRA, but still incredibly bad where Cap could resist it without looking like an idiot.
The Accords weren't active yet, that was Tony doing it in their stead. While it was a dick move, I can understand why they did it. He also shouldn't have put Vision on that duty, since he's a weird, creepy robot.
She's under house arrest for something that happened before they were signed.
That's not how these things are supposed to work, and it's not even the accords working as presented. That's not accountability, it's containment. Containment enforced by, as override so perfectly put it, an unstoppable space robot that everyone is inexplicably not terrified of.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The Accords were not why Tony had her confined to the Mansion. It was Tony worried that she didn't have control of her powers.
Also, the concept of an investigation to ensure no wrong doing was done is made, because you generally can't just tell while the event is going on.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that in these circumstances, she did the best she could, and she did save more lives than were lost as a result of her actions.
I think the issue is that there IS an analogy to when a hero's actions in acting heroically result in the death of a civilian: that is, in a police action situation. If a police officer's actions lead to a death (at least a civilian death, so far as I understand), they're benched during the investigation, and sent back to active duty when they're cleared.
Now, I will say the movie did a poor job of showing the cause and effect of Wanda going under house arrest subsequent to the Lagos incident (and it would be reasonable to argue that the cause/effect isn't even really there); but I don't think it should be controversial to suggest that a hero should be benched while an investigation occurs regarding deaths on the scene. I'll grant also that the Accords weren't in place yet, so it wouldn't be the cause of her getting benched, but that is more or less the point--they are a sort-of law enforcement agency, and they had no plan for internal policing that resembles anything any remotely analogous agency has had for years and years.
I mean, it's not hard to imagine. The world already has forces like that--they're just nations instead of people in the real world. But for the same reason we just cringe and wring our hands and do some hands-off stuff when America or Russia ignores the rules other nations create, we'd have to do the same with an organization of supers as unmatched as the Avengers are in the MCU.
Basically, a world with a small number of supers sucks for the normal people unless they happen to be comic book paragons. Whatever they're like, you just have to live with it until governments catch up on the super arms race somehow and their laws start meaning something again. Of course to do that right might involve, like, bombs in your newly equipped/enhanced government supers' heads, so that's still pretty fucked up.
That's still holding her against her will with no legal backing to do so.
Tony's running an illegal prison. With a warden built out of an unaccounted for AI, stolen tech and a space rock nobody else knows about. That is capable of obsession with it's inmate and completely unstoppable by conventional means.
This is exactly the problem with his whole approach to everything.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The alternative is something like the Raft.
I would just note that being temporarily put on leave during an investigation is hardly equivalent to being imprisoned against your will (essentially kidnapped) by private parties with no oversight / due process / framework.
'Wanda can't go on mission with the Avengers until we've examined what happened to exonerate her' would be reasonable - keeping her locked-up in Tony's club house & having Friend Computer supervise her is not. It's one of many pieces of evidence that suggests the Accords are already a busted deal fro the get-go.
I mean, where is Wanda's representation? If the system is dominated by the passions of the aggrieved & those who can either be guilted into acting on behalf of those passions (Tony) or who are happy to leverage those passions for personal & political gain (Ross), without even a token effort at impartiality, that is the shakiest imaginable foundation to try and build a legal apparatus on.
But as Cap says, governments have interests that don't always service the people they supposedly protect. Keeping Wanda under house arrest or the Cap half of the Avengers in the Raft can easily do more harm than good. If they could be off saving lives but instead are bound up by a bunch of legal red tape, who is that going to do any good for?
It wasn't even that. When Tony and Cap are discussing it, there are a couple of lines were Tony goes on how she's not in the country legally, and if she goes out, there's the very real chance the government tries to arrest her for it, starting another fight where innocent people could get hurt.
Tony's mistake in that situation was telling Vision to keep her in Avengers HQ, rather than sitting down with Wanda and talking about her current situation so they could come to an agreement. It was another case of Tony simply doing what he thinks is best on his own, rather than talking about it with his teammates.
Also, from a few pages back, I want to point out that the government locking up Cap's team in The Raft was not a violation of their rights. The Federal Government has 30 days from the time of arrest until they indict someone on charges to hold them in prison. So, unless Cap left the team stewing in the Raft for over a month (something I can't see) then their arrest was still perfectly legal.
They were arrested in Germany by not the US government and I doubt any of them were going to be seeing an attorney or have formal charges against them. And 30 days without charges sounds like 9/11 patriot act bullshit that shouldn't be a thing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
'What are the charges?'
'We don't have to tell you,'
Is like the oldest joke about Prague.
Not really. The alternative is due process, which it's exactly the opposite is the raft.
When law enforcement members are involved in a shooting, they aren't locked up until the investigation ends. They are often taken off duty or such, but we don't just throw them in jail. If there was some sort of official inquiry or panel to determine Wanda's culpability, which we don't see at all in the film, she should still be free to leave the compound. Her incarceration is all Tony, apparently unilaterally. An argument can be made that he's making the decision out of a concern for public safety, or even for Wanda's personal safety, but he's still running an illegal secret prison.
That's a violation of international human rights treaties at the very least. And nobody blinks an eye. Not the UN and definately not Tony.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The way Tony's brain wasn't working, I don't think he would have.
It was just heartbreaking watching those two just hammering each other.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
I do know, though, that it has always been terrible at holding anyone at all against their will.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
His argument when confronted with it is literally, 'Give me break!'
Like shit is apparently just too hard, so fuck it, just lock her up. It's okay though because the prison is a mansion (lol).
Sorry Tony, but no, you being crushed by guilt is not a good reason to go under giant thumb and hoping it all works out somehow.
Haven't read to current yet in the thread but needed to address this. In every civilized country on Earth, saving people absolutely is a shield. The real world understands that bad shit happens, and that collateral damage happens, as tragic as it may be. This is because the real world understands that if you punish people acting to save or defend others, you disincentivize people from ever acting. Read up on Good Samaritan Laws, they offer legal immunity to people coming to the aid of others (in reasonable circumstances, barring negligence, etc). It's the same with self-defense laws around the world. If you act in genuine self-defense, or defense of others, and someone else is hurt or killed, you are entitled to self-defense (again, barring negligence).
So, every civilized nation in the world would view Wanda's actions through those lenses, and have to ask, was Wanda negligent? Wanda spent a great portion of her power containing an explosion in an extremely densely populated marketplace, then sent the explosion up in the air, away from civilians. Now, when I was in law school, my professor would say, that this didn't arise to the level of negligence.
Now, there are political issues in play why a nation might never be able to realistically apply chargers of manslaughter or negligence against the Avengers, but those are entirely different from the oversight demanded by the Sokovia Accords. Accountability and Oversight (and as presented, actually absolute Command) are two completely different things. Now, if Ross had come in and said "Here's the Sokovia Accords. The Avengers are no longer immune from the laws of the nations of the world, including the US. Wanda will be tried for the second degree manslaughter by an impartial court set up by the UN (think the Hague, or Nuremburg)." I honestly don't think that Steve would have had a problem at all. The response would be, ok let's get some lawyers, because we don't believe what we did was wrong.
Vision is a non-human entity with no citizenship built on the same tech as the robot that almost destroyed humanity that is indestructible, cannot be stopped by physical barriers and shoots an Iron Man wrecking laser out of the magical space rock on his forehead that no one really understands but which apparently gave him consciousness.
How in the fuck is this about Cap, Bucky and Wanda?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Just how many world citizens know Vision exists? World leadership must know because he was asked to sign the Accords, but I'd be curious if his existence was widely publicized. Tony (with Ultron) literally creating life is kind of a big thing.
You found the Avenger's HR guide? That's neat.
Vision is basically Friend Computer from Paranoia.
The look on Tony's face just before he starts the fight by hitting Cap was heart wrenching. RDJ really nailed it in the movie. I just felt so bad for him the entire time...
Also, did they allude to Black Widow and Bucky knowing eachother like they do in the comics? I guess they were both trained in the same Red Room program thingie in the comics. During the fight in the movie when Zimo activates Bucky, and then he's choking out Widow, she says "Don't you at least recognize me?". I don't recall any interaction between them in Cap 2 or anything.
It's a shield from getting immediately throw in prison, not being put on suspension while it's being investigated by the appropriate authorities - which is my argument for what should have happened if she was under the Accords. I agree with whoever said Tony should have clearly outlined the reasons why he thought Wanda should stay in the compound until the Accords were signed. And not had Vision supervising her, Rhodey or Widow should have done that. In the US officers who fire a gun on duty do this, and Wanda did something bigger than that to warrant a temporary bench. Do Good Samaritan laws include vigilantes? Because the Avengers weren't average civilians who were accidentally at the right place at the right time, they were hunting Crossbones for months. As well as having super-powers in the mix, which brings another headache into the legality of this which the real world hasn't experienced. I agree Wanda should have access to a self defense. That was grade A bullshit.
Cap never brings up that defense when he had the chance, he leaves Tony then gets Hawkeye to break out Wanda. Which puts her in even worse legal trouble than she previously had, making her an outlaw in the process. But this is outside the scope of why she was held in the film, which was on Tony's orders not the UN's. Which are a different kind of screw up. Understandable, but it should have been handled better than it was.
I don't think anyone's going to argue that Wanda should be taken off active duty for a bit. But she's being held against her will. Best intentions or not, that's a human rights violation.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sure, that's why I thought Tony was over reacting. That said, Vision did convince her to stay there for a while, it wasn't until Hawkeye arrived that she turned entirely against being kept on the compound. Tony and Vision fucked up there, as I outlined upthread.
The thing that makes it bad wasn't that Wanda was stuck at the compound it was that she should have been stuck at the compound because the Avengers had a conversation about what happened and how bad it looked and how her situation as a non U.S. citizen was so tenuous and Wanda, we need you to lay low and stay home for the time being.
But of course that's not how it was handled at all. Tony tried to go all Nick Fury and, to the surprise of no one, it blew up in his face because it turns out people feel pretty threatened by "surprise, you're actually not free to leave".