Confed and Militia turned Hostile in Privateer without Provocation
- Thread starter Master Katarn
- Start date
RogueBanshee
Rear Admiral
There's a big difference between people on strike peacefully blocking routes, and a company hiring mercs to attack anyone trying to enter or leave an opposing company's shipping center.
It be like Wal-Mart hiring people to shoot at trucks leaving Target warehouses, there is no way any sane government would allow that particularly during wartime.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
They don't - the point of the thread is that *you* don't have the legal right to shoot *them* down just because you believe them to be guilty of some crime.
... except that it happened at Palan.
I'm willing to bet that the hired mercenaries don't attack spawned merchants, though - they attack you, a pilot who has been hired to kill them in the first place.
Toast
Space Marshal
Yep
The militia should deal with them. But it doesn't.
So... if I am going a street, and a bandit with a gun attacks me, and there's no militia around to protect me, and I do manage (of course, I'd never succeed in reality... ) to kill the bandit with a spade I had with me...
Am I to be called a criminal?
Not to put too fine a point on it but... by default, yes. You can be arrested and arraigned and tried by law enforcement for murder or manslaughter for killing a bandit who attacks you with a gun. You can offer self-defense as a legal defense, but strictly speaking, that's more of an "excuse" than a "justification." The difference is that while you may be excused for killing in legitimate self-defense, it's not the same as having a "right" to do so.
If you're not an agent of the state, you're not empowered to do the will of the state. As a "privateer" you're licensed to do *some* things, of course - but it's not like Confed gave you a license to kill. (Especially not to kill humans).
Still, selective enforcement sucks. I would have liked to see Confed come down hard on the other bounty hunters from time to time (and not just me), but I never saw it happen. It would probably have to be inferred that most of the bounty hunters were taking down pirates and Kilrathi.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
While this has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, you are wrong here - people absolutely do have the right to kill in self-defence. That's why, when they prove they acted in self-defence, they are acquitted, as opposed to being found guilty but given no punishment. Acquittal means the court could not see any wrongdoing on your part - which means that indeed, by killing someone in self-defence, you do not overstep your rights... in other words, it is absolutely your right to kill in self-defence, and the only reason you are arrested and put on trial for it is because the government must make sure that it really was self-defence.
As for the situation in the game - the simple fact is that whatever we do, we'll be trying to come up with an explanation to justify game mechanics. I do not believe turning Confed and the Militia hostile towards the player was something the developers intended, and that's why the situation doesn't necessarily make sense from a real-world point of view. However, whatever they had intended, the fact is that it does happen - so what it comes down to is that obviously, Confed and the Militia do mind that you killed those mercenaries.
Toast
Space Marshal
If it's a right, it's a conditional one. It arises through circumstance only, whereas rights apply first and are curtailed through circumstance. - I think of self-defense as a defense rather than a right, because in many places, the degree of force you are "justified" in using depends on the nature of the threat. I think that the right to *kill* in self-defense is not absolute - in many places it is available only when threatened with lethal force. A few places even require you to retreat rather than fight back! (I hate those places.) Many cases of self-defense do not result in arrest or trial, either, when the empowered enforcer chooses not to bring charges.
I disagree about being wrong in general, but this is kind of a legal question, so it's too long for full discussion here. You're more right than I am, and I'm more right than you are, depending on what social or philosophical axioms dominate in the society that has jurisdiction - and if nothing else, I'm sure you know more about Gemini sector than I do.
But I'm happy to stop here, since, as you say, this has pretty much nothing to do with the subject of the thread. It's probably enough to say 1) it's game mechanics, 2) Confed is not in complete control of the Gemini Sector and 3) the laws of the Gemini sector, whatever they are, are probably very different from ours in our time and place. Gemini sector is *so* violent and lawless, self-defense there might well be an absolute right, since you can't reasonably assume that anyone bearing down on you with particle cannons and heat seeking missiles doesn't mean you harm!
I disagree about being wrong in general, but this is kind of a legal question, so it's too long for full discussion here. You're more right than I am, and I'm more right than you are, depending on what social or philosophical axioms dominate in the society that has jurisdiction - and if nothing else, I'm sure you know more about Gemini sector than I do.
But I'm happy to stop here, since, as you say, this has pretty much nothing to do with the subject of the thread. It's probably enough to say 1) it's game mechanics, 2) Confed is not in complete control of the Gemini Sector and 3) the laws of the Gemini sector, whatever they are, are probably very different from ours in our time and place. Gemini sector is *so* violent and lawless, self-defense there might well be an absolute right, since you can't reasonably assume that anyone bearing down on you with particle cannons and heat seeking missiles doesn't mean you harm!