MikeHunt12345's Replies


Interesting reply, I haven't seen the original, I didn't know that. We don't know much about the rape case, and obviously being promiscuous doesn't mean you deserve to be raped, but the victim's sexual history can sometimes be relevant. For example, if Cady tied her up, and the report on her sexual history said she enjoyed being tied up, Sam could've used that to argue that it was consensual sex. Him trying to drown him in a well should be enough to not want him to raise him. OK, you're right about those ones. I think it probably would be, but I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. But he wasn't trespassing, he was outdoors on public property. It doesn't matter what his intentions were, his actions would've been legally justified even if he didn't have a license to kill. If he shot her non-fatally, and she called it off, Renard may have been able to tell she was in pain from her voice, and it could've made him suspicious. The radio was in front of her face. If he shot it, he still would've killed her. And he would've been taught to always aim for the center mass. It doesn't matter how close the target is, and how good of a shot he is, there's still a higher chance he'll miss, it's not worth the risk. He killed her right as she was ordering the strike, the gunshot cut her sentence short, so it could've at least made the order more confusing. The one in TSWLM could be argued as self defence, the man was trying to kill him, and grabbed onto his tie. He could've argued he had to prevent him from dragging him off the roof. He could've argued helping him up was too dangerous, since they were at the edge of the roof, the man was bigger than him, and likely would've kept trying to kill him. You're right, there's no defence for the one in FYEO. I think his license to kill means he can kill whoever he wants wherever he wants, but it's only recognised in the UK. He could be arrested in other countries, but the UK wouldn't extradite him. People do have the right to kill intruders, or detain them at gunpoint and turn them over to the police. But they don't have the right to hold them against their will for the rest of their life. If they do, the intruder becomes a kidnapping victim, and they have the right to kill their kidnappers. I think this is what happens when Bond enters the villains' lairs. It's always clear that they intend to kill Bond while he's detained and no longer a threat, which is illegal, and Bond would have the right to defend himself from that even if he didn't have a license to kill. I can't think of any other examples of that. So that means technically he didn't use his license to kill in that movie, because he didn't have one. But he did have some kills in that movie that weren't self defence. From what I remember, whenever he killed people in the villain's lair, he was always being held against his will. It is legal to kill kidnappers, even when they're unarmed. I don't remember much detail about his license to kill in the movies, but in the Dr No trailer, the narrator says he has a "license to kill whom he pleases, where he pleases, when he pleases." He didn't kill anyone with a machine gun in YOLT, he did in TSWLM, but they were all armed and trying to kill him. It is legal to kill kidnappers, even when they're unarmed. In YOLT and TSWLM, he was being held in the villain's lair against his will, and I can't think of any movies where he wasn't. In YOLT, he did voluntarily enter, but then they held him against his will with the intention of killing him, and they were also already holding others against their will. It doesn't matter whether or not he had vengeance in his mind. People have the right to kill people who are about to fire a nuclear missile, or do something that would result in it happening, including giving the order. He killed her right as she was giving the order. What else was he supposed to do, say "please stop giving that order"? I didn't notice you also mentioned Davidov, or maybe you edited your post, I suppose you're right about that one. It wasn't self defence, although sometimes you can argue committing a crime is necessary to prevent something worse from happening. But from what I remember, he always kills them in self defence. That was self defence, he shot her while she was telling a man to fire a nuclear missile. Well I'm talking about if Bond told the police exactly what happened. That's an interesting one. If he didn't have a license to kill, and he told the police exactly what happened, I'm not sure if he would've gotten away with it. It generally is legal to kill intruders, even when they're unarmed, but there are examples where people have gone too far, and been convicted for it, like Byron David Smith, who shot two intruders, and later shot them again while they were incapacitated. Dent was pointing a gun at Bond, but Bond knew it was empty. Bond had a loaded gun, he could've easily turned him over to the police. However, he could've argued that Dent could've quickly reloaded or pulled out another weapon, and that since he'd just tried to shoot him, he didn't want to take that chance. Bond made it much harder for himself by shooting Dent again while he was on the ground. If he did it quicker, it would've been much more permissible, as he could've argued it was the adrenaline. However, he did wait a little while to shoot him again. It wasn't that long though, I suppose he could've argued Dent still could've shot him while wounded. Because in real life they didn't have friends help them escape. I know filmmakers will often add one swear word or rude joke to make their movie PG. But there are many modern PG rated animated movies with no swearing or rude jokes, that are rated PG entirely for violence scariness and/or thematic elements, that are much less dark, scary, violent and mature than older G rated animated movies. So I agree the problem is partly filmmakers sometimes wanting a PG rating, but it’s also definitely the MPAA becoming more strict.