[Poll] [Discuss] Did Jasnah do the right thing?

[Letryx13]

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

This is getting pretty close to blaming a girl for, eh certain crimes by saying she shouldn't have been wearing a particular kind of dress.

Not if the "victim" was specifically trying to draw someone into attacking her. Jasnah did what she did to provoke them into attacking her, not because she wanted to walk in that part of Karbranth, or was on her way to a party. For all she said to Dalinar about wanting ruling councils governing nations, she doesn't seem to mind taking it upon herself to decide people shouldn't continue living.

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

That is true, and legally one might look at that, however morally I think it was still within her right.

I'm going to have to side with Kaladin in WoR on this one. "...telling ourselves it's for the good of the kingdom. If if kill a man, I'm going to do it in the sunlight. And I'm going to do it only because there is no other way." I think killing should only ever be used if there are no other options.

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

In the US under self defense you have committed no crime.

I don't think it can be considered self defense if the other person is incapable of killing you.

 

But let's compare this situation to something similar. In the novella Edgedancer, when Nale executes the street urchin, Tiqqa, he has the legal authority to do so, since since she pulls a knife on him, an officer of the law.  Legally, he has the right to do this, because she assaulted him with a bladed weapon.  However, later, when Lift summons Wyndle as a shardrod, he mocks her, clearly not feeling threatened or intimidated.  If that's the case, ignoring all issues regarding Nale's sanity, was he justified in executing Tiqqa for breaking the law, despite the fact that she clearly posed no threat to him?

[Frustration]

2 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

I don't think it can be considered self defense if the other person is incapable of killing you.

If someone breaks into my house and stands on the other end of my hallway with a knife while I have a gun, there is only one of us that walks away but I'm still free on self defense.

3 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

But let's compare this situation to something similar. In the novella Edgedancer, when Nale executes the street urchin, Tiqqa, he has the legal authority to do so, since since she pulls a knife on him, an officer of the law.  Legally, he has the right to do this, because she assaulted him with a bladed weapon.  However, later, when Lift summons Wyndle as a shardrod, he mocks her, clearly not feeling threatened or intimidated.  If that's the case, ignoring all issues regarding Nale's sanity, was he justified in executing Tiqqa for breaking the law, despite the fact that she clearly posed no threat to him?

Yes, completly justified.

She stole, and got arrested, She attacked on officer of law and got killed because of it.

[Pathfinder]

So I dropped by to comment on a few things.

 

First, what Jasnah did is not entrapment. The definition is when you induce a person to commit a crime that the person "would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit". The individuals were known to attack people on that route (established propensity for the crime). The individuals had the means to commit the crime on them (had weapons). The individuals pursued the women, and struck first (the assailant stabbed at Jasnah before anything occurred). Jasnah at no point artificially placed them in that location. She did not place weapons in their hands. She did not taunt, theaten, or take any action to cause them to attack. Being an individual with expensive clothing, walking anywhere is never a legal recourse to commit a crime. 

Second, based on the law of the land, in world, at the time, nothing would happen to Jasnah. She did not have the authority to adjudicate as she was not a member of the government. What she did have however, is justification in world to kill those men. She was a lighteyes being assaulted. Lighteyes men can draw a blade on a person who says something they consider offensive, and kill the person. All legal, all fine. And before it is said that because she had the soulcaster, it is different, it is mentioned in the book, and in our world back then as well, that there were people who were exceptional with a sword who would deliberately take offense or look for excuses to get into a fight, because they knew they could easily kill the person. And it was still considered fine and legal. The only concern, especially in the world of the novels, is that you were a person of power that felt you were offended. 

Third, based on the law of the land, in our world, assuming the US law, with investigation. Jasnah would still get off. The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jasnah went there with the intention of finding those individuals and killing them. Shallan would be a crucial witness, but it would be difficult to make it stick. All other aspects of the story would be unable to be proven. It is an alley known to be the shortest distance to the theater. It is an alley that was known for being used by the affluent. The danger the alley posed was knowledgeable to locals. Jasnah is not a local. Soulcasters are not seen by the local populace as a weapon, but a tool to create fortifications, and food. The first individual was turned to fire, so no body. The second was turned into crystal, and appears to have fallen backwards. The remaining two that fled were turned into smoke, so again no body.

 

(this is how it would have been presented in court as there is no way other than Shallan to prove otherwise and Shallan can be discredited as a witness)

It would be reasonable to conclude if presented as such, that Jasnah was in fact out for a walk. She had no prior knowledge of the danger the alleyway presented (unless she wrote down her research on the alley or she did prior scouting, her prior knowledge would be difficult to prove). She did not enter the alleyway with a weapon. She was able to turn the soulcaster to her defense. The only body recovered shows she had shoved the assailant away as she transformed it into crystal (the first body is fire, so no way to prove intent. the third and fourth body are smoke, so no way to show they were fleeing). Upon investigation, it is revealed that the alley is a known hotspot and that MO has been committed on multiple occasions in the past. Thereby ruled self defense.

 

The above was going based on how the occurrence would have been investigated. We are supremely fortunate to be able to read the entire experience as it happens and be able to refer back to it with absolute clarity. A court does not have that privilege. A court has to do its best to recreate what occurred based on the evidence provided, and paint a picture. Then rule based on that picture. The only real physical evidence that could be employed would be the positioning of the crystal body, and Shallan's testimony. There are numerous avenues to discredit Shallan's testimony and call into question its veracity. 

 

Having stated that, if however, the court was able to review a line by line factual and verifiable account of what occurred in that moment, then self defense would be out the window. Turning the first individual to fire is self defense. He came at her with a knife in close quarters. She did the best a reasonable individual would have done in a high pressure situation when their life is in danger. Do anything with whatever is available to you to end the threat. In that moment, the "level" of the means taken to end the threat is immaterial. Her life was in immediate danger. A normal reasonable person does not have the state of mind to calmly consider the weapon that is being used to end her life, and thereby then have the time to calmly consider and call up the appropriate level of response. So as I said, individual one would be self defense. Individual two, three and four however immediately began to flee the scene. Now in some cases it has been argued successfully that it would be still self defense if it could be proven the fleeing individual was leaving to get a higher level of response. So for instance running away to get a weapon, or call for reinforcements. Thereby it would be shown the threat did not end, and if left to its own devices, would increase. But in this case it is ruled that a reasonable individual would do whatever they could to get away from a threat. If they could not get away, then they would do whatever they could to minimize or end the threat, and then attempt to get away. As the three individuals were fleeing from her, she would have had ample time to then flee with Shallan. 

 

An example to illustrate (this is a real case). Two individuals in a house were having an argument. Individual B flees out of the house, grabs a shotgun from the car, comes back, and shoots individual A. Individual B pled self defense. That he felt like his life was in danger. This was disproven by individual B's actions. Individual B got out of the house. Individual A did not pursue. Thereby individual B could have fled and got help. Instead individual B returned. Thereby individual B's shooting of individual A was not self defense.

 

As to my thoughts on whether or not Jasnah did the right thing? Given the scenario (continual killings, with no way for the individuals to be prosecuted and held accountable by law, coupled with the fact that they did initiate the attack at no prompting for Jasnah), I think she did the right thing. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Letryx13]

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

If someone breaks into my house and stands on the other end of my hallway with a knife while I have a gun, there is only one of us that walks away but I'm still free on self defense.

False analogy. A person with a knife is still a threat to someone with a gun.

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

She stole, and got arrested, She attacked on officer of law and got killed because of it.

Again, from EdgeDancer, the words of Arclo the sleepless, ""In defense of myself," he chuckled, "I suppose that is a lie. They were not capable of killing me, so I can't plead self-defense, any more than a soldier could plead it in murdering a child."" Tiqqa couldn't possibly have harmed Nale.

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Letryx13 said:

False analogy. A person with a knife is still a threat to someone with a gun.

A person with a knife is still a threat to a radiant, not much of one, but neither is the person with a knife to the person with a gun.

1 minute ago, Letryx13 said:

Again, from EdgeDancer, the words of Arclo the sleepless, ""In defense of myself," he chuckled, "I suppose that is a lie. They were not capable of killing me, so I can't plead self-defense, any more than a soldier could plead it in murdering a child."" Tiqqa couldn't possibly have harmed Nale.

Whether she could have killed Nale is irrelivent, she attacked him and he responded.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Ookla the Frustrated

[Inquisitor #5]

7 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

In the US under self defense you have committed no crime.

Wow, really?

Looking up some things, I came across the term, imperfect self-defense, which is killing in self-defence where lethal force is found to have been excessive, if I understood it correctly.

This is second degree murder.

7 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

That is true, and legally one might look at that, however morally I think it was still within her right.

I see.

I think we just fundamentally disagree there. I find intentional use of excessive force indefencible.

7 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Someone with better knowledge may correct me, but I'm pretty sure First degree murder requires that you plan to kill the specific individual that you did.

I'm not sure, though I'm no legal scholar, and it may of course vary by legal system.

I believe that under the system where I live, first degree murder is simply intentional homicide, second degree is the same thing, but where there are exonerating circumstances, such as the victim having threatened or beaten the perpetrator, and manslaugter, which is homicide through negligence.

Under this system, she's definitely guilty of first degree murder.

7 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Well first off yes you are completely moral, you have no responsibility to add precautions against a crime happening, if a crime is committed in this situation guilt lies solely with the one who committed it.

I would say that it depends on your intent in doing so, deliberately baiting someone into commiting a crime so that you can arrest them is immoral.

That is not to say that the the person commiting the crime is exonerated, they still chose to commit a crime.

Mistborn Era 2:

Spoiler

7 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

So, is Wax also guilty, he hid himself inside a train car, knowing it would be stolen. Specifically so he could catch criminals.

Well, no.

Wax didn't bait them into commiting a crime, he simply put himself in a position where he had reason to believe that a crime would be commited.

Which is also to say, there's a difference between being vigilant of known crime and deliberately provoking said crime.

 

7 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Also I would like to point out the mercy Jasnah showed, she could have trapped them, given them to Taravangian, and convinced him to leave them out in the Highstorm as an example.

How is it a mercy? Just because she could have done something more cruel doesn't make not doing that a mercy.

7 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

She could have tortured them, or killed them slowly, instead she gave each one an instant and painless death.

I don't think that's much of a moral high-ground. 

She could have, y'know, not killed them. Even if the sentence would have been death, killing them then and there is not a mercy.

5 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

If someone breaks into my house and stands on the other end of my hallway with a knife while I have a gun, there is only one of us that walks away but I'm still free on self defense.

A person with a knife is still a much greater threat to you with a gun that the footpads were to Jasnah.

I don't think you can claim self-defence for shooting a toddler who kicked you in the shin.

They are not a reasonable threat to her.

5 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Yes, completly justified.

She stole, and got arrested, She attacked on officer of law and got killed because of it.

Excuse me, but that sounds completely insane to me.

Given Nale's reasoning of death preventing recidivism, he likely would have excecuted her anyway.

Also, lethal force should always be the last resort.

Then again, I live somewhere where the death penalty isn't a thing.

She had no reasonable way to be a threat to him, so lethal force is completely unjustified.

Going back to the toddler, if a toddler punches a police officer, is that officer justified in killing the toddler?

By a strict reading of your argument, they would be.

Ideally, a police officer should never have to kill anyone.

So, where I live there are roughly 1.4 million police interventions per year, last year there were 36 incidents where police discharged firearms. And it's not a case of a low due to the whole pandemic thing, the number is the same for 2018.

Oh, and of those incidents, 5 and 6 respectively led to death.

Lethal force as a response to a non-threat is sheer brutality.

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Whether she could have killed Nale is irrelivent, she attacked him and he responded.

Lethal force as a baseline expectation for belligerent behaviour is utterly terrifying.

4 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

First, what Jasnah did is not entrapment. The definition is when you induce a person to commit a crime that the person "would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit".

Huh, interesting. The impression I got was that it was wider.

4 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

Jasnah at no point artificially placed them in that location. She did not place weapons in their hands. She did not taunt, theaten, or take any action to cause them to attack.

She deliberately flaunted her wealth, in a place that she knew that crimes were being commited, with the expectation of being accosted.

She did not happen to end up on that street, she deliberately went there intending to remove a problematic criminal element.

4 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

Being an individual with expensive clothing, walking anywhere is never a legal recourse to commit a crime. 

Of course not, but she is still deliberately baiting the footpads into going for her.

And I think there's a difference between those things.

3 hours ago, Letryx13 said:

Again, from EdgeDancer, the words of Arclo the sleepless, ""In defense of myself," he chuckled, "I suppose that is a lie. They were not capable of killing me, so I can't plead self-defense, any more than a soldier could plead it in murdering a child."" Tiqqa couldn't possibly have harmed Nale.

Fully agree here.

 

¤_¤

[Frustration]

13 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Wow, really?

yep

16 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Mistborn Era 2:

  Hide contents

Well, no.

Wax didn't bait them into commiting a crime, he simply put himself in a position where he had reason to believe that a crime would be commited.

Which is also to say, there's a difference between being vigilant of known crime and deliberately provoking said crime.

 

MB era 2

Spoiler

Wax looked at a pattern in crime, and recreated the conditions

Jasnah did the same thing, why is Wax guiltless but Jasnah isn't?

 

18 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

How is it a mercy? Just because she could have done something more cruel doesn't make not doing that a mercy.

I don't think that's much of a moral high-ground. 

She could have, y'know, not killed them. Even if the sentence would have been death, killing them then and there is not a mercy.

If the idea is she went out to punish them she had legal ability to make things far worse, and she took the least painful option.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

I don't think you can claim self-defence for shooting a toddler who kicked you in the shin.

They are not a reasonable threat to her.

Three things

1. If I sat still and did nothing a todddler could not kill me, if Jasnah and Nale did that they would die.
2. These aren't children they are grown adults(or close there to in the girls case) and they know there are consequences for their actions
3. They weren't trying to inconvinence or hurt, they were trying to kill.

 

27 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Lethal force as a baseline expectation for belligerent behaviour is utterly terrifying.

Lethal force as a baseline excpectation for Lethal force is fair.

26 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Also, lethal force should always be the last resort.

It should, but that doesn't mean it can never be used.

26 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Ideally, a police officer should never have to kill anyone.

Ideally no one should ever have to kill anyone.

[Letryx13]

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

 

  Hide contents

Wax looked at a pattern in crime, and recreated the conditions

Jasnah did the same thing, why is Wax guiltless but Jasnah isn't?

The Vanishers were always going to steal the railway car, Wax just hid himself inside it to find them.

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

If the idea is she went out to punish them she had legal ability to make things far worse, and she took the least painful option.

If you're in a position where you can torture someone, or kill them slowly, then you can't claim self-defense. If they're incapacitated or restrained, then they aren't a threat to you.

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Lethal force as a baseline excpectation for Lethal force is fair

How exactly was Jasnah in danger? At what point was she afraid for her life?

2 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Three things

1. If I sat still and did nothing a todddler could not kill me, if Jasnah and Nale did that they would die.
2. These aren't children they are grown adults(or close there to in the girls case) and they know there are consequences for their actions
3. They weren't trying to inconvinence or hurt, they were trying to kill.

1. If I sat still and did nothing while a toddler that had a knife threw a tantrum, they could kill me.  That doesn't mean killing a toddler with a knife reasonable.

2.  It's not about whether or not they deserved to be punished. It's about whether or not Jasnah has the right to hunt them down and kill them.

3. She was trying to kill too. And she could still have stopped them without killing them.  If anything, she chose the more difficult route. She says in Oathbringer that a person's soul resits "mightily" when soul cast. Stone seems much easier. Soulcasting the stone out from under them would likely have been the easier option.

 

[Frustration]

2 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

Spoiler

The Vanishers were always going to steal the railway car, Wax just hid himself inside it to find them.

 

MB

Spoiler

Those murderers were always going to attack the next noblewoman to come through, Jasnah just chose to be the one it was.

I see no difference.

 

3 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

If you're in a position where you can torture someone, or kill them slowly, then you can't claim self-defense. If they're incapacitated or restrained, then they aren't a threat to you.

Once again self defence is a legal claim, not a moral one.

3 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

How exactly was Jasnah in danger? At what point was she afraid for her life?

Did I say Lethal force in exchange for being in danger or being afraid for you life is fair, or did I say that Lethal force in exchange for Lethal force is fair?

5 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

1. If I sat still and did nothing while a toddler that had a knife threw a tantrum, they could kill me.  That doesn't mean killing a toddler with a knife reasonable.

There is a reason there are three points

6 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

2.  It's not about whether or not they deserved to be punished. It's about whether or not Jasnah has the right to hunt them down and kill them.

Jasnah did not hunt them down, she went to a place and they jumped her, not the other way around.

7 minutes ago, Letryx13 said:

3. She was trying to kill too. And she could still have stopped them without killing them.  If anything, she chose the more difficult route. She says in Oathbringer that a person's soul resits "mightily" when soul cast. Stone seems much easier. Soulcasting the stone out from under them would likely have been the easier option.

1. Once someone tries to kill you they lose all protections until that situation ends.
2. Soulcasting a part of the ground underneath a moving individual is more difficult than you make it out, they are roughly equal routes, with the one Jasnah took having a far higher degree of success.

[Pathfinder]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Huh, interesting. The impression I got was that it was wider.

Nope. It even goes so far as stating one of the possible criteria for it to be entrapment is that the location be a place where it does not make sense for the crime to take place. The idea is if a normal person with no connection whatsoever to crime could be tricked into doing it, then it is entrapment. There was no duplicity on Jasnah's part. She did not coerce, cajole, or in any way turn these criminals from their usual path.

2 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

She deliberately flaunted her wealth, in a place that she knew that crimes were being commited, with the expectation of being accosted.

Does. Not. Matter. There is not any law that states walking anywhere means getting accosted is now "legal" and permitted. 

2 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

She did not happen to end up on that street, she deliberately went there intending to remove a problematic criminal element.

Still not entrapment. Otherwise police would never be able to conduct stake outs. 

2 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Of course not, but she is still deliberately baiting the footpads into going for her.

She really didn't. Legally and otherwise. She did not go to various taverns proclaiming loudly "hey im rich, and defenseless and in exactly 10 minutes I am going to be alllll alone over in this place". The criminals did not vacate a place to then go there in pursuit of her. Shalln confirmed as much from her perspective. The criminals had staked out the location. The criminals trapped the women. The first criminal swung the blade at Jasnah first. In that regard her intentions mean nothing. She did not take any active action to affect anything in their actions. The only thing she did was walk down that alley. And that is not enough to be constituted baiting, and most definitely is not entrapment

2 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

And I think there's a difference between those things.

There really isn't. Because there is never a situation or a law that says attacking or killing someone is suddenly legal because "well they should have known better than to walk there". Because what if the person really didn't know better? What if that invisible line shifts over time? What if more territory becomes a bad neighborhood? Are people now allowed and legal to be attacked because they happen to have to live in a bad neighborhood? Or what if someone normally travels through that area perfectly fine, but because of occurrences, end up traveling home late and has no choice but to go down that route? Is the violence suddenly permissible then? You are certainly entitled to think the person was foolish to walk down an alley alone flashing millons of dollars, but that does not make it legal, nor does it justify the assailants actions.

[Letryx13]

10 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

Does. Not. Matter. There is not any law that states walking anywhere means getting accosted is now "legal" and permitted. 

No one is saying that what the street thugs did was right or justified.  

10 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

She really didn't. Legally and otherwise. She did not go to various taverns proclaiming loudly "hey im rich, and defenseless and in exactly 10 minutes I am going to be alllll alone over in this place". The criminals did not vacate a place to then go there in pursuit of her. Shalln confirmed as much from her perspective. The criminals had staked out the location. The criminals trapped the women. The first criminal swung the blade at Jasnah first. In that regard her intentions mean nothing. She did not take any active action to affect anything in their actions. The only thing she did was walk down that alley. And that is not enough to be constituted baiting, and most definitely is not entrapment

I don't think what Jasnah did was entrapment either, but she deliberately set out to sprung a trap with the specific intention of killing whoever set it.  If intentions mean nothing, then there's no reason to distinguish between murder and manslaughter.

11 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Did I say Lethal force in exchange for being in danger or being afraid for you life is fair, or did I say that Lethal force in exchange for Lethal force is fair?

It's not lethal force if it isn't capable of killing you. Those four thugs might as well have been swinging bags of yarn for all the threat they were to her.

11 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Jasnah did not hunt them down, she went to a place and they jumped her, not the other way around

As I mentioned previously, she used herself as bait with the intention of drawing them out. That's hunting, or maybe fishing. Either way, her goal was clear.

11 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

1. Soulcasting a part of the ground underneath a moving individual is more difficult than you make it out, they are roughly equal routes, with the one Jasnah took having a far higher degree of success.

The only times I know of her mentioning soulcasting stone are during the battle of Thaylena, where she specifically mentions soulcasting a pit underneath enemies, and when she is fighting in Emul. She mentions in Emul that the stone would resist her, but doesn't say how much, also she seems to be speaking specifically of the stone on the plains. If that is the case, stone might be difficult, but souls are likely much more so. Unless there is some other reference that I'm unaware of. And even if you're correct, then she had two options, one lethal, one non lethal. And she chose the lethal one when she didn't need to. Dropping them in a pit would have stopped them.

 

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

It's not lethal force if it isn't capable of killing you. Those four thugs might as well have been swinging bags of yarn for all the threat they were to her.

On the contrary it could kill her, stormlight would prevent it from happening, but so could medical attention for most wounds, that does not change the lethality of something.

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

As I mentioned previously, she used herself as bait with the intention of drawing them out. That's hunting, or maybe fishing. Either way, her goal was clear.

For the sake of the argument let's say your right, and she was bait, they bit, and got hooked, that's their own fault, no action of hers forced them to do that. They chose to attack, they get the consequences.

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

The only times I know of her mentioning soulcasting stone are during the battle of Thaylena, where she specifically mentions soulcasting a pit underneath enemies, and when she is fighting in Emul. She mentions in Emul that the stone would resist her, but doesn't say how much, also she seems to be speaking specifically of the stone on the plains. If that is the case, stone might be difficult, but souls are likely much more so. Unless there is some other reference that I'm unaware of. And even if you're correct, then she had two options, one lethal, one non lethal. And she chose the lethal one when she didn't need to. Dropping them in a pit would have stopped them.

Soulcasting part of an object is much harder than soulcasting all of it, opening just a pit would be really difficult on its own, accuratly predicting and opening a pit beneath multiple moving targets at once, would be just as difficult, if not more than just soulcasting them.

And on top of that, making the pit big enough that they couldn't get out would be even more difficult.

[AquaRegia he/him]

I (like Kaladin as quoted earlier) am strongly of the opinion that killing should always be the very last resort.  Jasnah clearly had multiple options to incapacitate those men, or otherwise neutralize the threat they posed, without jumping right to murder.

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

No one is saying that what the street thugs did was right or justified.  

By stating what Jasnah did was entrapment, is. Entrapment is a defense to prevent the defendant from being prosecuted for the crime they committed. It is stating the individuals would not have committed the crime otherwise. Which is not the case. Here would be another example

It is the equivalency of a known drug dealer that is known to deal on a specific corner to teenagers from a local school. Cops stage a stake out, and have a kid wired walk by the drug dealer. The drug dealer calls out to the kid "hey i got some real primo stuff to deal. Its just twenty bucks. You interested?" The kid is the target group. The cops had the kid walk by the drug dealer in the location the drug dealer is known to deal drugs. By the logic presented, the kid was bait, and the drug dealer should not be prosecuted because it was entrapment. Which is not the case at all. The drug dealer was not lured to another location. The drug dealer was known to deal drugs in that location. The kid did not approach the drug dealer first. The drug dealer initiated the exchange. The drug dealer was under no outside compunction to commit the crime. It does not matter that the kid walked by the drug dealer with the intent for the drug dealer to be caught. The kid did not make the drug dealer attempt to sell drugs. The cops did not make the drug dealer attempt to sell drugs. It is still not entrapment. 

1 hour ago, Letryx13 said:

I don't think what Jasnah did was entrapment either, but she deliberately set out to sprung a trap with the specific intention of killing whoever set it.  If intentions mean nothing, then there's no reason to distinguish between murder and manslaughter.

My statements were in response to presenting Jasnah's actions as entrapment, which it was not. For the purposes of entrapment in that case, her intentions were immaterial. For the purposes of self defense charges, it could play a part, but again, she did not take any direct action to initiate the crime. To use another example, though unsavory, so I apologize in advance. If a group marches with racist signs in a neighborhood that is predominantly the race the signs refers to, the group is still not ruled as baiting. So long as they themselves do not take any overt aggressive or violent act, and they have a permit to protest, they can do so. If anyone attacks the group because of the signs or things the group states, then the attacker is then arrested. 

Jasnah did not change anything about herself. She literally threw some clothes on after a bath and walked down that alley. If a serial killer tends to kill blondes, and a blonde goes out at night, does that mean she baited him? The woman could take measures to protect herself, realizing she would be a target but still go about her business and that would not be baiting. 

The only way it would be baiting is if the killer in question is off doing their own thing. Whether at home, or hanging out with friends. An individual then tracks down the killer, and actively pulls the killer away from their normal actions, and presents a situation where the killer then would act where they normally would not. That is baiting. Nothing Jasnah did from her bathroom, to the killers deaths involved her actively pulling them away from their usual routine. They did not know it was her in particular. There was nothing special about her for her to be selected. Any other person walking down that alley would have, and has experienced the exact same situation. 

[Frustration]

14 minutes ago, AquaRegia said:

I (like Kaladin as quoted earlier) am strongly of the opinion that killing should always be the very last resort.  Jasnah clearly had multiple options to incapacitate those men, or otherwise neutralize the threat they posed, without jumping right to murder.

First off it was not murder, they attacked first.

Second, I would be intrested to see those options, there is only one I can think of and it would have resuted in several injuries, some of them rather severe.

[Pathfinder]

35 minutes ago, AquaRegia said:

I (like Kaladin as quoted earlier) am strongly of the opinion that killing should always be the very last resort.  Jasnah clearly had multiple options to incapacitate those men, or otherwise neutralize the threat they posed, without jumping right to murder.

So this statement is not to change your mind, nor as a proof that Jasnah's actions were ok. I find these things interesting, so I posit a change of perspective for you to think on.

You present the numerical options on the part of Jasnah. She had multiple options to incapacitate the men without killing them so by killing them, she jumped to the last option.

Let us change perspective for a moment. The men were known to kill theater goers that passed through the alley. It was enough of an occurrence that the subject was even noticed by the ruler (Taravangian). It was enough of an occurrence that it was brought before the local police force who were told to pay special attention to it. These men had multiple chances to change their ways. They on multiple occasions went to the extreme and last option of killing their targets. They were notorious enough that they knew the police and higher authorities were aware of their actions. Despite all of this, they did not:

 

1. Say to themselves "oh my, I feel killing people is wrong. Maybe I should think about stopping". How do we know? Because they kept doing it a whole bunch more times and did it again to Jasnah.

2. Say to themselves "oh crap, I might get in trouble for this. Maybe I should stop". How do we know? Because they bribed the cops, and had a benefactor that protected them

 

So from this other perspective. On multiple occasions, when there were multiple options for them to steal without killing, or stop altogether, they jumped right to murder. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Inquisitor #5]

I want to say that I thought I'd aknowledged it wasn't entrapment, I was wrong in that.

That said, I still think that her intent matters, she intentionally provoked the footpads, which means that she's morally at fault.

Which is not to say that the footpads' actions are legal or moral, both parties are at fault for various things.

To me it clearly reads as her intentionally provoking the footpads. Had she naïvely been in the wrong place, the morality of the situation would be different, but deliberately inviting an attack as an excuse to carry out vigilante justice is immoral.

 

With that, I wish to excuse myself from this discussion, as I feel like continued engagement would be detrimental to my mental health.

P.S. I apologise for not being clearer about that I accepted that what she did was not entrapment. 

P.P.S. I hope this doesn't come across as an emotional appeal or whatever, that is not my intent.

 

¤_¤

[Pathfinder]

So I was going to add this to my prior post because I just thought of it, and I don't want this to seem like I am replying to Inquisitor#5 as they have excused themselves from the conversation. This post was thought of completely prior to reading Inquisitor#5's post, and is not meant to be a response to his or her points.

 

It has been stated that Jasnah should not have killed the criminals but rather apprehended them. I think it is safe to say we all acknowledge and agree the local legal system would not have done anything to the individuals, and had they been apprehended, they probably would have ended right back up on the street. So this harkens me to the whole Batman and Joker problem. Batman always has the means of outthinking the Joker and capturing him. But also Batman always has a means of killing the Joker. Everytime Batman incapacitates the Joker, the Joker is sent to jail. A jail he shortly escapes from, and then kills people. Batman finds and apprehends the Joker. The Joker goes to jail, escapes, and kills again. It has been posited that after a certain point, Batman begins to have a moral responsibility to those lives lost each time he chooses to capture the Joker and each time the Joker escapes and then kills. Batman knows the Joker if not captured will kill. Batman also knows the Joker has proven his capability to escape time and time again. So at what point does placing Joker in the same situation, knowing he will most certainly escape and end more lives, result in criminal negligence on the part of Batman? Those subsequent lives did not have to be lost. It is a proven formula across the comics over and over again. Place the Joker in jail, the Joker will get out. If the Joker is out, people die. Rinse and repeat. 

 

So if Jasnah knows these individuals will get off, and go right back to doing it again (as per the police being informed, and they bribed the cops and continued to do as they have), then does Jasnah, an individual with the power to end the cycle, not have an ethical duty to the lives lost if she does nothing or an action she knows will amount to nothing? That by using soulcasting to apprehend those men, knowing that they will just get back out and kill again, does she not bear some responsibility for those deaths by extension?

[NameIess]

7 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

It has been stated that Jasnah should not have killed the criminals but rather apprehended them. I think it is safe to say we all acknowledge and agree the local legal system would not have done anything to the individuals, and had they been apprehended, they probably would have ended right back up on the street. So this harkens me to the whole Batman and Joker problem. Batman always has the means of outthinking the Joker and capturing him. But also Batman always has a means of killing the Joker. Everytime Batman incapacitates the Joker, the Joker is sent to jail. A jail he shortly escapes from, and then kills people. Batman finds and apprehends the Joker. The Joker goes to jail, escapes, and kills again. It has been posited that after a certain point, Batman begins to have a moral responsibility to those lives lost each time he chooses to capture the Joker and each time the Joker escapes and then kills. Batman knows the Joker if not captured will kill. Batman also knows the Joker has proven his capability to escape time and time again. So at what point does placing Joker in the same situation, knowing he will most certainly escape and end more lives, result in criminal negligence on the part of Batman? Those subsequent lives did not have to be lost. It is a proven formula across the comics over and over again. Place the Joker in jail, the Joker will get out. If the Joker is out, people die. Rinse and repeat. 

No benefactor would protect those criminals after they attempted to attack Jasnah Kholin. Doing so could be perceived as a major political insult at best, and as protecting assassins hired specifically to assassinate the sister to the king of Alethkar. Those men were dead as soon as they so much as threatened Jasnah.

[Pathfinder]

22 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

No benefactor would protect those criminals after they attempted to attack Jasnah Kholin. Doing so could be perceived as a major political insult at best, and as protecting assassins hired specifically to assassinate the sister to the king of Alethkar. Those men were dead as soon as they so much as threatened Jasnah.

I was positing on the premise that she could have incapacitated them and followed the letter of the local law. So soulcasted manacles on them as a citizens arrest. Notified the police. The police collected them, and she went on her way. If she then had the benefactor assassinated, the same issue would have been brought up. How she should have exposed the benefactor and had him or her arrested instead of jumping to killing the benefactor. Which still would not have worked as the benefactor is clearly very well connected while Jasnah is an outsider and further Jasnah ends up having to leave. After which things would go right back to the way they were. But to be clear my last post was not meant to use that example as a means of saying what she did was ok. I was just curious to think on it from another angle.

Basically we were discussing whether it was ethical or not for her to kill those men, but I was wondering if it would be ethical for her not to kill them? And by proxy potentially be responsible for any subsequent deaths due to her inaction?

Edited December 8, 2021 by Pathfinder

[NameIess]

1 minute ago, Pathfinder said:

I was positing on the premise that she could have incapacitated them and followed the letter of the local law. So soulcasted manacles on them as a citizens arrest. Notified the police. The police collected them, and she went on her way. If she then had the benefactor assassinated, the same issue would have been brought up. How she should have exposed the benefactor and had him or her arrested. Which still would not have worked as the benefactor is clearly very connected while Jasnah is an outsider and further Jasnah ends up having to leave. After which things would go right back to the way they were. But to be clear my last post was not meant to use that example as a means of saying what she did was ok. I was just curious to think on it from another angle.

Basically we were discussing whether it was ethical or not for her to kill those men, but I was wondering if it would be ethical for her not to kill them? And by proxy potentially be responsible for any subsequent deaths due to her inaction?

There would be no subsequent deaths. Even if she had simply run away, the mere fact that she was attacked by those thieves would have destroyed any protection they may have had. To not immediately take action against the thieves would risk war with Alethkar.

[Pathfinder]

10 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

There would be no subsequent deaths. Even if she had simply run away, the mere fact that she was attacked by those thieves would have destroyed any protection they may have had. To not immediately take action against the thieves would risk war with Alethkar.

There wasn't any proof of who the benefactor is. Even if there was proof, Jasnah would have to prove the men specifically targeted her. She went out at night without any personal protection nor informed the local authorities she would be leaving, so it is not an issue on the party of Kharbranth failing to protect her. She could certainly have demanded their heads for having been accosted, but then we get back to the issue presented of her going right to the killing. That they should have been captured so they could be jailed. Basically given a continual statement across this thread is that killing should be the absolute last option, then by extension this means there cannot be a resolution preventing further deaths sourced at killing the men nor their benefactor. That only after every other avenue was tried first, says to me that if at any point in the scenario Jasnah called for these individuals deaths, unless they actively targeted her directly (and even then given her powers she should still incapacitate them), then her killing of them should not be considered. Hmm, I had trouble writing that sentence in a coherent way. Let me try this:

 

1. Killing is always the last possible action

2. There is always a way to incapacitate and detain those men

3. If those men are not killed, they will get out and do the crime again

 

If killing must always be the last possible action, and there is always a way for her to incapacitate and detain them (which there is given her powers), then there will be no ending of the crime. If the men are apprehended, and the benefactor is revealed. Then they must be jailed. But the system is corrupt, so they will be released to continue. As she cannot kill them, she must catch them again, and detain them again. As the system is corrupt, and she has no way to reform it, they will get out again. That is what I meant. 

 

So out of curiosity, given the situation, can there be another perspective where it is unethical for her to go through a process where she knows ultimately more people will die? When she has the power to prevent it. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Frustration]

No one is ever responsible for the actions of another, even if they had escaped prison, no matter how many times, the ones apprehending them are not responsible for their crimes.

[Pathfinder]

3 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

No one is ever responsible for the actions of another, even if they had escaped prison, no matter how many times, the ones apprehending them are not responsible for their crimes.

Totally respect that, and that was the point of bringing it up at all, was curiosity at how people would handle the question. I do have a follow up question. So they are never responsible, even if they have the power to prevent it, and through their inaction it is able to occur?

[Frustration]

Just now, Pathfinder said:

Totally respect that, and that was the point of bringing it up at all, was curiosity at how people would handle the question. I do have a follow up question. So they are never responsible, even if they have the power to prevent it, and through their inaction it is able to occur?

You are responsible for your own actions and inactions, but not those of others.

Let's put it this way, someone is planning on commiting murder, Bob, finds out but does nothing, Bob is not responsible for the murder, but he is at fault for doing nothing.