Built To Last

Actually that ought to be murder because iirc there's a clause that any death that happened during a felony is considered a murder 1st degree of which the felon is guilty...

Since shooting someone with a bullet is probably a murder attempt in the first place, which is a felony, the person killed by said bullet is indeed a victim of murder not manslaughter.

I have also seen some claims that Any death during a felony is a their fault and considered murder... even if they personally had very little to actually do with it. Like if someone took a bank hostage and one of the hostages died from an unrelated medical condition during it.
Felony murder rule - Wikipedia And in some places in the US it goes as far as if the cops shoot and kill one of your accomplices you get charged with murder.
 
Oddly enough, Thomas Calvert most likely was compltely uninvolved with Shadow Stalker being able to get away with malicious behavior while not on duty as a Ward, as he would have had no idea who she was under her mask. Remember, at best, Calvert is a consultant. He'd lack the required clearances to be informed of the secret identities of the local members of the Protectorate and Wards.

Not that he won't try to use Sophia being Shadow Stalker against the local PRT in some manner once he figures it out. However, he is likely to want to lay low for a bit once he realizes that there is an internal investigation going on. Largely to find out exactly where the breakdown in communication that prevented Director Piggot from finding out what Shadow Stalker had been getting up to had occurred, but also to find out if this is happening elsewhere in her organization.
 
we need to keep in mind that in most worm fanfictions that blackwell was embezelling money from the school district that was meant to go to winslow and in doing so stole the money that was meant to go to the removal of asbestos in the school
Well, we already do know by inference that Winslow is undermaintained (otherwise even the canonical locker prank would have been caught and dealt with by the Janatorial staff long before Winslow even opened up for the students after the winter break), so it's not hard to believe that somebody is embezzling money intended for their maintenance budget, and it may well even be Blackwell who is doing the embezzling.

That being said, whether or not there is asbestos that Winslow failed to remove, or a potentially nonfunctional sprinkler system due to faked safety records, there is a much higher chance of there being a dangerous mold accumulating in the ventilation ducts simply because it's apparently not in the budget to get them cleaned often enough.
 
Last edited:
I think I'd definitely like an in-depth look. Doesn't have to be too long, though. Maybe just a few examples of other cases, like people talking about something like the Captain Computer VS SafeCracker incident or whatever? Or why the former Brockton Bay Brigade are really lucky that Marquis still refused to just gut the lot of them when they invaded his home?
 
My general thought is it depends on two factors.

First, how well do you actually understand the legal stuff going on? Because while there probably are a fair number of changes in the law on Earth Bet, there are a lot of similarities to here, so if you actually understand how the trial goes, it can work. If you don't really understand the legal process well, I'd strongly recommend skimming it, because it can be rather disconcerting to read something that you know is wrong. (A minor, and so frequently done mistake that I've more or less become resigned to it is the CDC being involved at the locker. They are unlikely to be involved at this point. The people actually going and investigating the site are much more likely to be the state Health Department. They may pass info on to the CDC, but they generally don't have the on the ground personnel for that sort of thing unless it is really high profile like an ebola outbreak)

Second, how much drama or plot is driven by the trial? If it is just an excuse for extended worldbuilding, then I'd be in favor of skipping. If there are plot relevant reasons to show it, then going into detail is fine.
 
I vote for in-depth. I want to see every detail of their comeuppance.
 
C: We're working through the legal intriciacies of the trial, and they're fasconating. Is it ok if we go really in-depth on the proceedings, or would you rather we skim over it?
Go wild. It's always fun to see an author really get into the weeds. Anyone who isn't interested can skim over it themselves.
 
Back
Top