Maj. Gen. Olivier Mira Armstrong (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
darwinatrix) wrote2015-04-19 03:41 pm
darwinatrix) wrote2015-04-19 03:41 pm
IC Contact
This is Armstrong. Go ahead.
I intend to charge and try him. As previously mentioned, we've been a little busy.
What's it to you?
What's it to you?
Uh-huh, uh-huh, nicely done. I'm sure you've had him for less than 72 hours, right? Because I'd hate to think you're working outside the boundaries of the law.
We try and sentence according to local law.
Judging by the instability he demonstrated, he is a potential danger to himself an others.
Judging by the instability he demonstrated, he is a potential danger to himself an others.
You know he's not the only one who attacked people, right? Circumstances kind of dictate that self-defence was a pretty reasonable course of action back there.
The fact you guys even have the power to hold anyone you feel like for an undetermined amount of time is shady as fuck, you realize that, right?
The fact you guys even have the power to hold anyone you feel like for an undetermined amount of time is shady as fuck, you realize that, right?
I don't give a damn that he attacked the Soviets. He is, however, the only one who attacked his fellow imPorts with intent to kill. Thanks to that and his actions sheltering a guilty man last year, makes him a potential danger. May I remind you that we are currently at war?
Your complaints have been noted.
Your complaints have been noted.
Edited 2016-02-06 23:58 (UTC)
And may I remind you that we're still obligated to work within the confines of the justice system.
Plus, y'know, you're holding a guy who could potentially help us fight that war.
Plus, y'know, you're holding a guy who could potentially help us fight that war.
And a rabid dog can bite your enemies just as easily as it can turn its teeth back on you.
What of his actions make you think this man is anything but a menace, hm? Was it sheltering a known criminal who had immediately prior unleashed a toxic gas that resulted in massive civilian casualties? Was it using his power to shelter that man behind civilian human shields? Was it the time that he tried to usher in the Apocalypse?
According to his own words, he would have aided the Soviets if given a chance. [She links to this conversation of his... and then another.] He also insinuated that he has no self-control once he's started.
He is dangerous. Keeping him in confines is only rational.
What of his actions make you think this man is anything but a menace, hm? Was it sheltering a known criminal who had immediately prior unleashed a toxic gas that resulted in massive civilian casualties? Was it using his power to shelter that man behind civilian human shields? Was it the time that he tried to usher in the Apocalypse?
According to his own words, he would have aided the Soviets if given a chance. [She links to this conversation of his... and then another.] He also insinuated that he has no self-control once he's started.
He is dangerous. Keeping him in confines is only rational.
[Not even clicking them. He's already more than aware of the sort of shit Lucifer says on a daily basis and he's also learnt not to trust a single word of it.]
Honestly? I don't give a crap about it being Lucifer. If you hadn't noticed, he's literally The Devil, keeping him locked away for good is probably better for everyone involved.
Trouble is, we can't just lock away people because we don't like them, that's not how it works. And we can't lock them away because we think they might do bad crap in the future. This isn't the Minority Report.
Honestly? I don't give a crap about it being Lucifer. If you hadn't noticed, he's literally The Devil, keeping him locked away for good is probably better for everyone involved.
Trouble is, we can't just lock away people because we don't like them, that's not how it works. And we can't lock them away because we think they might do bad crap in the future. This isn't the Minority Report.
Edited (english??/) 2016-02-07 00:34 (UTC)
[She snorts derisively.] Please. You think that's the only justification I have for putting him away? The statute of limitations for his earlier crimes hasn't expired, the last I checked.
This may be the reason we brought him in, but I fully intend to bring his prior actions against him just as much.
This may be the reason we brought him in, but I fully intend to bring his prior actions against him just as much.
So you're gonna charge him for what he did while you were all locked up for a week, and for 'sheltering a guilty man'? Yeah, both easy to contest, just wanna let you know that. And you're making it even easier for a defence attorney like me by the fact you're still illegally containing him for more than 72 hours. Even if you somehow managed to excuse his crimes as an act as terrorism, which you can't, you'd have a week tops. Your weeks been and gone. Times up.
Hindering apprehension is a crime, as is assault, and certainly trying to usher in the goddamn apocalypse. And do you believe for a moment that he wouldn't immediately flee to his sanctuary the second he stepped out from behind bars? We have every reason to believe he would go on the run if freed.
If all you're waiting for is the formal arraignment, that can be remedied fairly easily.
If it's your intent to act as his legal counsel, I won't stop you from meeting with him. But I will not turn a dangerous man loose on the world as long as it is within my power to prevent it.
If all you're waiting for is the formal arraignment, that can be remedied fairly easily.
If it's your intent to act as his legal counsel, I won't stop you from meeting with him. But I will not turn a dangerous man loose on the world as long as it is within my power to prevent it.
Lucifer did more than just hurt me physically. He left an indelible, magical mark on my sternum - one that he has kindly offered to remove if I advocate for his early release.
I have a slightly different arrangement in mind. Would it be possible to make him erasing the mark a requirement for his release?
I have a slightly different arrangement in mind. Would it be possible to make him erasing the mark a requirement for his release?
Interesting. I suppose I can add coercion and blackmail to the list of charges he's racked up.
But you're more concerned with getting rid of the mark, I imagine.
But you're more concerned with getting rid of the mark, I imagine.
I don't think he'd run. In fact, I know he wouldn't run. It's not his style.
Just answer this honestly, who polices you? Who do you actually answer to and who the hell do we forward complaints to? The police have the IPCC, the army have the IG, what have you got?
Just answer this honestly, who polices you? Who do you actually answer to and who the hell do we forward complaints to? The police have the IPCC, the army have the IG, what have you got?
Edited 2016-02-09 13:29 (UTC)
I accept.
[There were many pros and cons to sort through and weigh carefully against one another, but ultimately only one conclusion with which to arrive at.]
To serve justice, I will lend my abilities to RISE.
[There were many pros and cons to sort through and weigh carefully against one another, but ultimately only one conclusion with which to arrive at.]
To serve justice, I will lend my abilities to RISE.
What happened to Russia's Porter, exactly, when your mission concluded?
The government requested we turn it over.
I complied. [She says, stiffly.]
I complied. [She says, stiffly.]
[As if it was ever in doubt.] Good.
A reformed criminal, on the side of justice. The people will love it.
A reformed criminal, on the side of justice. The people will love it.
Page 5 of 14