Daredevil Message Board
The Board Without Fear!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


DAREDEVIL #23 Preview, Reviews and Discussion
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Daredevil Message Board Forum Index -> The comics
View previous topic :: View next topic  

What did you think of DAREDEVIL #23?
5
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
4
44%
 44%  [ 4 ]
3
33%
 33%  [ 3 ]
2
11%
 11%  [ 1 ]
1
11%
 11%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 9

Author Message
jriddle
Playing to the Camera


Joined: 19 May 2011
Posts: 127

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GrinchieDog wrote:
Lastly, I'm disappointed that Murdock continues to advertise DD's abilities such as superhearing, etc like he did to She Hulk or in the courtroom last issue. Historically, this skill and others haven't been known to the public or to his enemies. in fact, only under rare occasions over the years have any supervillians known of his skills and taken this knowledge into account to their advantage (such as using a loud whining device to render him immobile). Thugs are always surprised and confused when DD turns the light off and then easily wins the fight. I certainly don't think his skills should have been used in the court scene to justify who he is.


Leaving that as a matter of public record was an incredibly stupid move by Soule. His solution to the whole no-one-remembers-Matt-is-DD thing was also off-the-scale stupid and allows Mark Waid to continue to rape the character long after he's gone. The idea of masked vigilantes being allowed to testify in court is INCREDIBLY **** stupid. Literally unconstitutional--a non-starter that renders a waste of space any story built around the idea.

The current Defenders book is offering yet another example of how Soule continues to allow Waid to rape DD. Bendis has created a simple, straightforward story to act as a pretext for DD, Luke, Jessica and Fist to get together and do some old-school ass-kicking and the whole thing is poisoned because no one knows Matt is DD, rending the characters' relationships and large sections of their respective backstories entirely incomprehensible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike Murdock
Child's Play


Joined: 08 Sep 2014
Posts: 980

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't say the idea of masked vigilantes is literally unconstitutional. It's problematic, but I think the issue addresses that to a degree. I think in reality, it would just be a rule of evidence (the state of New York would deem the identity of the masked hero testifying would be irrelevant). Then it's a question of whether the Due Process Clause (which guarantees a right to a fair trial) would be violated by that rule. That clause is very wishy washy and malleable. In the real world we don't have anywhere near the importance of masked heroes that exist in the Marvel universe. I could see this rule coming out differently in their universe vs. ours.

I think at this point there are enough people who have fought Daredevil and done the "it's like he's got eyes in the back of his head" that I think people can figure out he has super senses. People knew Spider-Man had a Spider-Sense all the way back in the silver age. People know Wolverine has a healing factor. We've seen countermeasures to counter his senses at least as early as Bendis. Having him flat out say it at this point is just repeating what his enemies know.
_________________
Matt Murdock's cooler twin brother

Not sure what to read next? Check out the Book Club for some ideas!

I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Thomas More - A Man for All Seasons
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jriddle
Playing to the Camera


Joined: 19 May 2011
Posts: 127

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike Murdock wrote:
I wouldn't say the idea of masked vigilantes is literally unconstitutional. It's problematic, but I think the issue addresses that to a degree. I think in reality, it would just be a rule of evidence (the state of New York would deem the identity of the masked hero testifying would be irrelevant). Then it's a question of whether the Due Process Clause (which guarantees a right to a fair trial) would be violated by that rule.


The Sixth Amendment says that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." It doesn't stutter on the point. It's an established point of law that goes all the way back to the Romans.

Soule has Matt sitting there thinking that, if he can pull off this masked-vigilantes-allowed-to-testify, it will mean the end of crime, which is completely idiotic. Matt is openly discussing how he's a one-man surveillance operation and how this could make the data gathered by his senses without any sort of warrant or due process admissible in court. He's excited by the prospect--doesn't give civil liberties or the rights of the accused so much as a line of thought. Who the **** is this character?!

Mike Murdock wrote:
Having him flat out say it at this point is just repeating what his enemies know.


This is more of Waid's garbage continuing to poison the book--what that as a matter of public record, anyone knows how to put DD down with minimal effort. By doing this, Soule has turned his own run into something that, like Waid, is going to have to be erased if we're ever going to get DD back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike Murdock
Child's Play


Joined: 08 Sep 2014
Posts: 980

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Confront the witnesses, yes, but that doesn't mean every question is admissible (it's possible to imagine a world where "what's your secret identity" is not a valid question without a special showing). The confrontation clause allows witnesses to testify via video (where the witness can't see the defendant), for example.

The more problematic situation for the Sixth Amendment would be when the police say "yeah, Spider-Man webbed up this guy next to some stolen money with a sign that said thief." Then Spider-Man's absence would violate the Sixth Amendment.
_________________
Matt Murdock's cooler twin brother

Not sure what to read next? Check out the Book Club for some ideas!

I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Thomas More - A Man for All Seasons
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Daredevil Message Board Forum Index -> The comics All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group