Only one murderer in Avengers Arena

[Luck911]

I think people need to understand this about Avengers arena

What if somebody came inside your house put a gun to your head,Then put gun in your hand and told you shoot your friends or family or they will shoot you in head,If you fire gun are you murderer?

The answer is no the person who made you shoot is a murderer.The book handles a complicated situation and we go back to previous situation which i just brought up.Actually their is a second choice in that situation,You can choose not shoot your family and friends and let the person shoot you.That is premise of this book when place in the worst situation would you do everything you can too survive or would die to save your friends.Do you commit a evil act to save yourself or do you choose let the bad guy win and die.

The book create the supreme moral clusterf*ck and normally in this type of book the situation is created semi naturally like nuclear war,zombie out break,Large natural disaster and then we get see how human nature reacts when all the rules are gone.Arena does that type thing in extreme forced and mean way.The whole purpose of the book is not see who kill each other but more about humans react when put in certain situation.To simple call the book a slasher book with no merits of any kind is silly.I will leave with 2 questions

1.If X-23 kills Hazmat? Who is to blame Arcade or X-23?

2.If put in a situation do you defend yourself or let yourself be killed?

I think people need stop looking at the end result and look close at situation that is being presented in the book.The best way to sum it up Survive or Die which one would you pick?

[klinton]

No, you are still the murderer. Someone can demand, torture and threaten you as they wish, but the minute you pull that trigger it's on you.

Just ask the 'non-murderers' who flipped the switch on the nazi gass chambers.

[Luck911]

No, you are still the murderer. Someone can demand, torture and threaten you as they wish, but the minute you pull that trigger it's on you.

Just ask the 'non-murderers' who flipped the switch on the nazi gass chambers.

Did person flip on the gas chambers at gun point? No court in America is going to put you jail,If somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you pull the trigger or die.You are moral responsible for that person death when you pull the trigger but you are not the murderer.

A drunk person in a car is coming at you at full speed in wrong direction,You swerve the car away from that person and hit and kill somebody on the side of the road? Who is the blame for the death?You can kill somebody and not necessarily be the murderer.

[Kieran_Frost]

No, you are still the murderer. Someone can demand, torture and threaten you as they wish, but the minute you pull that trigger it's on you.
Just ask the 'non-murderers' who flipped the switch on the nazi gass chambers.

But, by the same token, are executions in the U.S. who "flip the switch" by injecting fatal poison into the arms of condemned men murderers too?

[Jmacq1]

Did person flip on the gas chambers at gun point? No court in America is going to put you jail,If somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you pull the trigger or die.You are moral responsible for that person death when you pull the trigger but you are not the murderer.

A drunk person in a car is coming at you at full speed in wrong direction,You swerve the car away from that person and hit and kill somebody on the side of the road? Who is the blame for the death?

You kill somebody and not necessarily be the murderer

You don't seem to understand the legal system of the USA terribly well.

In the "gun to the head, shoot someone or get shot" scenario, you would still likely be charged with second-degree murder. Of course the obvious question is: If someone with a gun to your head puts a gun in your hand, why don't you try to use it to shoot -him-? THAT would be self-defense by any reasonable interpretation, but pulling the trigger on an innocent to save yourself does not legally absolve you of murder. It's entirely likely that the prosecution would grant you immunity to testify against the "hold the gun to the head" guy, or recommend that the Judge be extremely lenient with the sentencing or allow a plea bargain to a much less severe charge, but you could still be legally culpable.

But it's an absurd scenario regardless. If someone's holding a gun to my head telling me to shoot an innocent, I think it's a safe assumption that the guy is going to ventilate my skull after I do it anyway (lest you testify against him in the future). Your best bet is to try to turn the gun he gives you on him.

In the second case, it's much the same scenario (though the charge would likely be vehicular manslaughter). Again, you would likely receive a very light sentence and it's possible that the authorities would not charge you, but you could still be charged. It's not "self-defense" when you kill an innocent to save your own skin, which is what you're doing (albeit under very different circumstances) in both these scenarios.

It sucks, but justice and the law are not always the same thing.

[Luck911]

But, by the same token, are executions in the U.S. who "flip the switch" by injecting fatal poison into the arms of condemned men murderers too?

More along that line,What if the person condemned to die was innocent and came out after the the execution,Who is responsible for death the executioner? The jury who convicted him? The judge who sentence him?

You can't discount the act and some responsibility but if Arcade didn't kidnapped and create a scenario where the person only has a option of dying or be killed it would not be happening.If you don't act your are murdered by Arcade and if you do act you are force killed somebody.It is no win situation.It is fun to take moral high ground but book works because almost everybody reaction is to pick themselves to lives.

I am not naive you put me in that situation i am picking me because i love me some me.The question is do stay in one place and just defend yourself or do you hunt people down.The book is not as black and white as people want to make it.They will be

-Somebody who refuse to kill period
-Somebody who will only kill if attacked
-Somebody who will hunt down and kill people before they are killed

Why is anybody wrong? For doing anything of those things

You don't seem to understand the legal system of the USA terribly well.

In the "gun to the head, shoot someone or get shot" scenario, you would still likely be charged with second-degree murder. Of course the obvious question is: If someone with a gun to your head puts a gun in your hand, why don't you try to use it to shoot -him-? THAT would be self-defense by any reasonable interpretation, but pulling the trigger on an innocent to save yourself does not legally absolve you of murder. It's entirely likely that the prosecution would grant you immunity to testify against the "hold the gun to the head" guy, or recommend that the Judge be extremely lenient with the sentencing or allow a plea bargain to a much less severe charge, but you could still be legally culpable.

But it's an absurd scenario regardless. If someone's holding a gun to my head telling me to shoot an innocent, I think it's a safe assumption that the guy is going to ventilate my skull after I do it anyway (lest you testify against him in the future). Your best bet is to try to turn the gun he gives you on him.

In the second case, it's much the same scenario (though the charge would likely be vehicular manslaughter). Again, you would likely receive a very light sentence and it's possible that the authorities would not charge you, but you could still be charged. It's not "self-defense" when you kill an innocent to save your own skin, which is what you're doing (albeit under very different circumstances) in both these scenarios.

It sucks, but justice and the law are not always the same thing.

You think a jury will would convict somebody in that situation you don't know system if you think so but not is discussion i want to go into right now,Only thing i want to discuss really is who is responsible. Donte Stallworth while driving drunk killed somebody he spent 30 days in jail.Why? Because the person he killed was drunk and was walking where they could get hit
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/inde...s_stunned.html

So your theory of second degree murder does not hold up,The courts in America understand responsibility which OJ was not convicted but still had pay a big time in Civil suit when courts clear said he was innocent of the crime.Their is situation and intent.The whole point of this thread where do you put the blame and most part people are putting on the kids in the book already.You consider their actions are being force some it puts a different light on it.

[Time_to_Zap]

Ooh, this is gonna get deep and philosophic. I'm excited.

[rpriske]

But, by the same token, are executions in the U.S. who "flip the switch" by injecting fatal poison into the arms of condemned men murderers too?

Yes. Some things are wrong. Whether they are 'legal' doesn't change that.

[kakitamike]

Yes. Some things are wrong. Whether they are 'legal' doesn't change that.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the definition of legal, making something permissible.

[Wellman]

How many threads trying to justify Avengers Arena are we going to keep see pop up?

Fans of the characters don't want to see them in a title which is set up around the idea of them stuck in a lose - lose situation, either they are killed or forced to kill and suffer all for the sake of drama. No matter how you justify it, until the final product comes out and proves itself not to be a snuff book or have merits to the story beyond that then these threads are wastes of bandwidth.

[vampiric_cannibal]

Particular since we already have a bajillion threads including a general discussion thread. Having one thread is easier to maintain and hold discussions, and importantly for archive ninja like myself for research into past threads to see perceptions and discussions at previous dates. Arena threads shouldn't be like Marvel relaunch practice - eschewing having one decent length series in exchange for a dozen micro series with slightly different titles. It isn't sustainable.

[Monty_Cristo]

what makes you guys think that this isn't all virtual reality? isn't that the next logical step for Arcade's murder world? the heroes no longer respect his toys.

[DebkoX]

You don't seem to understand the legal system of the USA terribly well.

In the "gun to the head, shoot someone or get shot" scenario, you would still likely be charged with second-degree murder. Of course the obvious question is: If someone with a gun to your head puts a gun in your hand, why don't you try to use it to shoot -him-? THAT would be self-defense by any reasonable interpretation, but pulling the trigger on an innocent to save yourself does not legally absolve you of murder. It's entirely likely that the prosecution would grant you immunity to testify against the "hold the gun to the head" guy, or recommend that the Judge be extremely lenient with the sentencing or allow a plea bargain to a much less severe charge, but you could still be legally culpable.

But it's an absurd scenario regardless. If someone's holding a gun to my head telling me to shoot an innocent, I think it's a safe assumption that the guy is going to ventilate my skull after I do it anyway (lest you testify against him in the future). Your best bet is to try to turn the gun he gives you on him.

In the second case, it's much the same scenario (though the charge would likely be vehicular manslaughter). Again, you would likely receive a very light sentence and it's possible that the authorities would not charge you, but you could still be charged. It's not "self-defense" when you kill an innocent to save your own skin, which is what you're doing (albeit under very different circumstances) in both these scenarios.

It sucks, but justice and the law are not always the same thing.

I love this point. And it relates to my theory, that this kids will fight back against arcade.

[LorrieK]

The right answer to the OP's proposed scenario is that you shoot yourself in the head. But even if you did kill the other person, you likely wouldn't be convicted. You probably wouldn't even be indicted. Not going to prison doesn't mean you made the right choice, though.

The only justification for heroes (even young ones) agreeing to fight each other to the death is to save the lives of others (and I suspect that will be the scenario for at least some of the characters, but I might be giving the writer too much credit). Real heroes would rather die than be used to murder others. I prefer to believe that most people would rather die than kill an innocent person.

Damn it! I broke my promise to myself to not read any thread or post about Avengers Arena. Why trouble my mind talking about something that sounds like fanfic. "Okay, this is just like Hunger Games, but stars Marvel characters instead"- can't you just see that as the introduction of a fanfic written by a 14 year old? I'm sure the people involved in making this book think it's deep, lol.

[LooneyKoala]

what makes you guys think that this isn't all virtual reality? isn't that the next logical step for Arcade's murder world? the heroes no longer respect his toys.

I've been thinking about this. It could all be virtual reality. The characters think everything happening is real, but it's not, meaning characters don't just die for the story, but get f***ed with.