If evidence obtained by Batman is inadmissible in a court of law doesn't that make his entire existence essentially worthless?

If evidence obtained by Batman is inadmissible in a court of law doesn't that make his entire existence essentially worthless?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You don't get it OP

    Amanda Waller is the most powerful politician figure in the world but even her reach pales in comparison to the level of reach that Lex gets away with

    This is all one big reality check hos personal responsibility and moral obligation will always be unappreciated when complete sociopaths feel like they can play God because they feel nothing can stop them

    That is how you end up with universes like The Boys

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I always assumed there was a tacit agreement between Bats and the criminals: they don't don't evade justice on technicalities after he catches them and he doesn't kidnap them to hang them by the balls off a skyscraper in the middle of the night.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they're not evading justice on a technicality, no court is going to just shrug and say "let's not look at the evidence" when they're being asked to convict a white guy over a felony that carries the death penalty

        the only way they could voluntarily get themselves locked up is by just calling the cops themselves, or having themselves committed

        Huh, so they did actually address that. Yeah, there's a reason why a (well-functioning) legal system tends to be anal with how evidence is acquired, because a judge could have that shit thrown out on a technicality.

        not on a technicality, it's basic procedure

        it's literally the process that is due to anybody accused of a crime

        the due process

        https://i.imgur.com/lf7OdtM.jpg

        If evidence obtained by Batman is inadmissible in a court of law doesn't that make his entire existence essentially worthless?

        these panels skip over any real detail but it seems like the defense asks the cop whether the murder weapon was obtained by Batman, and *on that basis* the case ends up being dropped

        which is bullshit because even prior to DNA evidence being used in 1986 they still had multiple viable techniques for identifying who's touched a weapon; this means the story rests (in court! after a murder! which the defense even admits happened and calls a murder! they're dumbasses!) on the possibility that Batman contaminated the evidence or obtained it illegally

        in the first case the knife would have to be so completely clean that there would be no point to entering it into evidence; you can in fact convict a murderer of doing a bad murder even without the murder weapon to show the court

        in the second case the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to public officials (which Batman is not) and even if it applied to the cops in this case (which it doesn't, because the defense isn't arguing that the cops *arranged* for Batman to illegally obtain evidence) he turned it in to the cops which was his civic responsibility, regardless of his identity being concealed, and it is indeed a weapon which by the time they reach court everybody has established is a murder weapon, even the defense - Batman would actually have committed a crime under 18 USC § 2071 if he *hadn't* turned the weapon in

        the defense is arguing some real sovereign citizen bullshit here

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the defense isn't arguing that the cops *arranged* for Batman to illegally obtain evidence
          It does seem like Batman essentially acts as an agent of the GCPD. They even have a signal to summon him.
          I know he doesn't get paid and doesn't have any official standing but isn't there some protection against this?
          IDK the law but it definitely seems sorta corrupt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Think of it like a letter of marque. He's a vigilante, but as long as he doesn't go after them he can basically act like an extrajudicial cop.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            in most modern stories batman isn't legally allowed but they, namely Gordon, let him play ball as long as he doesn't cross the line too far. That aspect often pops up whenever Gordon steps down and some new guy comes in trying to swing be "in charge"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's not really illegal. What crime are they going to charge Batman with? They have to prove he was assaulting someone for no good reason but he only attacks when people are committing crimes and he can get off on stop criminal action as a good Samaritan. Trespassing? Batman can get Bruce Wayne to say he didn't trespass on the property he just bought.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I mean it's not like Batman's sole job is collecting physical evidence. Majority of his existence is stopping bad guys in their tracks. Detective work is pretty secondary despite the title. Played Smart Batman could probably just make his presence on the crime scene unnoticed and then tell Jim or whoever what to do later. That being said in general Batman would be a criminals favorite reason for appeal
              >Cops don't have probable cause to break up our drug den
              >Then it just so happens a psycho kicks in our door and beats the piss out of us
              >Then the cops can come in and see all our shit while we're sleeping off our concussions tied up in bat themed bolos
              >And he's coincidentally constantly seen with the police and they barely lift a finger to bring him in despite being a fricking vigilante
              Like every criminal advocate group would be trying to expose Batman as a hoax perpetrated by the police.
              Hell I'm genuinely surprised crooked cops haven't made a tactic out of having crook on deck who they pay to go start some shit in a suspects house so they have reason to legally invade their privacy.

              >What crime are they going to charge Batman with
              Maybe all the fricking laws he broke? But anon's point is the GCPD should probably get in trouble for their dereliction of duty and fratnernizing with a known criminal but I don't know if there's technically a law they could get charged with....maybe technically accomplice to Bat's crimes.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I didn't really mean that Batman is committing any crimes (I think he probably is but whatever).
              My point is that it doesn't seem right for the cops to use evidence obtained by Batman that they couldn't have obtained themselves legally.
              I mean what's the point of having rules for cops if they can just use an intermediary to get around those rules?
              It's like if the cops said to my neighbor
              >We think Anon's smoking weed but he won't let us in his house and we can't get a warrant so when you're at his house party this weekend snoop around and report back to us
              I'd be fricking pissed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                See, what I just said. It's a lot more complex than that but say the cops have your friend search your house for them when they can't get a warrant. If it can be proved they told him, it can be deemed inadmissible in court. The Supreme Court ruled that the 4th Amendment basically comes into effect when the action can be deemed as any person acting on behalf of the state within a capacity where the state asked them to do it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            even if there's a signal and even if there were direct collusion between GCPD and Batman

            the defense hasn't argued that here, all they've argued is the innuendo that it might could maybe have happened

            they haven't presented any evidence to show that what they say happened, happened, and again this same lawyer even admits there was a murder and wants that specific piece of evidence - the MURDER WEAPON by his own admission - thrown out because it incriminates his client

            the judge is bent, this is not about procedural technicality being followed - counsel is arguing openly that if the evidence of a murder is allowed to be presented to the court, his client, the bad murderer, will go to jail

            it's dumb as shit

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Batman was deputized in the 60's show at least.

          If Batman destroys all evidence by touching it, then the only way he can be effective is if he systematically cripples every criminal he apprehends since he can't expect them to go to prison.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's more complicated. It isn't always known that batman provides them evidence and the recidivism rates for people who get involved with batman is supposedly low outside of the themed crazies

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Huh, so they did actually address that. Yeah, there's a reason why a (well-functioning) legal system tends to be anal with how evidence is acquired, because a judge could have that shit thrown out on a technicality.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not entirely; a lot of what Batman does is just beat up criminals either to disrupt their activities or to protect their victims.
    If someone gets saved from a mugging or something by Batman then that's worth it even if the mugger doesn't get convicted of anything.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A lot of thing stop making sense about Batman is you think too hard about it. You need to be able to turn your brain off to enjoy it.
      >pic related
      The blond guy in this story is a serial killer who target women and never get arrested. He completelly eludes Batman.A civilian kills him to advenge her sister. She get arrested for it and Batman is like >:( personal justice is bad. That's Starlin in a nutshell: guy had interesting concepts but butcher them because he's a brainlet with zero self-awareness about what and who he writes.

      Seconding this. For the few case that goes to court, I assume Gordon pretends the police did the works when presenting the evidences and most Gotham judges turn a blind eye to it because Batman never arrest white collar criminals. It's just basic thugs and super freaks with him and Batman too useful as a tourist attraction to cancel him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >A civilian kills him to advenge her sister.
        Funny how that never happens to Joker even though he has killed thousands of people.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >"Good news, Goon #16! You won't go to jail because the evidence against you was thrown out! Now lets get that feeding tube inserted."

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's less inadmissible than you'd think. Police can't enter without a search warrant. However this does not apply under certain conditions. If they get news that a big super hero fight breaks out they're allowed entry. Once they enter anything in plain sight is admissible evidence. So as a result of caped punch em ups being grandiose affairs then IT'S A FRICKING COMIC BOOK YOU MONUMENTAL JACKASS! When did people start being such c**ts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ironically, evidence is typically illegal if you find out the person who found it was working at the behest of the government as a means of getting around a warrant.
      If anything would make Batman-found evidence illegal it would be the Bat-signal/him being seen discussing the case with Gordon.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not if the crooks are too scared to commit crimes ever again.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why would criminals be scared of Batman? He won't kill them. He's less scary than the average american cop.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >If evidence obtained by Batman is inadmissible in a court of law doesn't that make his entire existence essentially worthless?
    Nah. Back in the day before all his rogues got all killhappy they were all burglars or kidnappers looking to get tons of money for stealing from someone, like an item on display or some heiress' fortunes, or kidnapping a person to be held for ransom. Evidence secured by Batman may end up inadmissible but witness testimony from the victims he saved works out.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The murderer in this story points out that he had a israeli lawyer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      OY VEY

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    criminals are not afraid of batman because he can send them to jail, they're afraid of batman because he can break their spine

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they're afraid of batman because he can break their spine

      Lol. Name one time Batman has intentionally broken someone's spine in the main DC continuity.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I mean most of the time he just catches them.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >crooked lawyer called ~~*brodsky*~~
    >that hand movement by the judge

    Old comics were redpilled af

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That is some crap art.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Shit taste

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *