COLE VS. BELTHAZOR

[vandergraafk]

So, instead of "suicide by witch", you wish to describe this as "vanquish by choice"? After all, Cole/Belthazor, even in this alternate reality, hadn't harmed Piper or Phoebe since the death of Prue. And, Phoebe does not know for certain that Cole probably killed the original Paige in this universe in order to gain standing with the Source. So, why would she want to vanquish Cole?

[jate88]

Sorry I wasn't on for a couple of days. Computer was giving me problems.

Archetypes are kind of like stereotypes but instead of being applied to people in real life they are applied to characters within a work of fiction. When they become trite and overused they are cliche but they don't have to be cliche in order to be an archetype. Archetypes can also be applied to artifacts and events in the work of fiction as well.

Wikipedia can probably explain it better. Well that's where I first came across the term at.

[vandergraafk]

Yes, that's my general understanding too.

[jate88]

I like to go through works of fiction and pick out archetpyes I like and try to apply them to my own stories. I always assumed I liked the archetypes that I did because of my past experiences. The loner,child,trickster, and artist-scientist are my personal favorites. There's literally a limitless amount of them out there though.

[pubesy]

Sept 5, 2008 21:07:22 GMT -5 vandergraafk said:

So, instead of "suicide by witch", you wish to describe this as "vanquish by choice"?

could you please expand on this...... i don't want to misinterpret.

After all, Cole/Belthazor, even in this alternate reality, hadn't harmed Piper or Phoebe since the death of Prue. And, Phoebe does not know for certain that Cole probably killed the original Paige in this universe in order to gain standing with the Source. So, why would she want to vanquish Cole?

hmm, while phoebe may not know he killed paige in this alternate universe, cole has still isolated phoebe from piper, and virtually imprisoned her in the manor.

[vandergraafk]

Vanquish by choice means that the Charmed Ones choose to vanquish a demon or warlock without the existence of a actual threat to their own survival or the need to protect the life of an innocent endangered by an action of said demon or warlock. Vanquish by choice is my characterization for much of what transpired during Season 6 when Chris "orders" his charges to vanquish demons, one after another, allegedly because of the threat they posed to Wyatt. As it turns out, Chris worked mostly from intuition, not information. As a result, many of these vanquishes were by choice, not out of necessity.

Now, you've downplayed the threat posed by Cole after he had thrown the first energy ball. However, as I indicated, suicide by witch usually means an unjustified use of lethal force that may be prompted by the appearance of a threat through verbal provocation or by the existence of devices that look like real weapons (toy guns). As I argued, the first energy ball certainly raised the stakes. She took the bait and vanquished Cole. It's suicide by witch since that's exactly the end result that Cole wished to achieve.

[pubesy]

see, i guess it all depends on how you choose to define suicide by witch. because if you use your definition - then certainly i agree. it would be suicide by witch.

however, with a little bit of calling around asking my "sources" in the foresic areas, i did come to conclude that the criminal must be directly aiming a weapon at either the victim or the police officer with the intent to shoot/stab/etc before it can be called "suicide" and that they must have indicated that suicide was their intent prior. obviously i couldn't go into specifics of cole's case (they would think i am mental) but i just asked the general question of SBC.

while cole HAD held an energy ball in his hands prior - he was not holding one at the second phoebe threw the potion.

I am definately not saying cole posed no threat to the girls when phoebe threw the potion. he posed a large threat.
he just was not immediately posing a direct and lethal threat at that moment in time.

[vandergraafk]

Go back and ask your sources - I'm curious - whether a) the incidents of "suicide by cop" are under scrutiny by internal affairs and citizen review boards; b) there is a tendency to ascribe some incidents as "suicide by cop" when there is an absence of a direct threat; and c) it matters that - for example - the "weapon" pointed at the police is a toy that bears a striking resemblance to a real weapon.

Now, you didn't quibble with my definition of "vanquish by choice". Therefore, I will take that as more or less acceptable. Let me just ground this, if I may. In Ms. Hellfire, Phoebe and Piper attempt to console a Prue upset that she has just used her powers to kill a would be assassin. Piper baldly states (I'll paraphrase): you know you had to. You had no choice.

That - more or less - was the philosophy of Charmed until the radical change that occurred in Season 6. Indeed, Piper's viewpoint was hammered home in Morality Bites when future Phoebe is expected to pay the ultimate price for using her "enhanced powers" to punish the baseball player. Though she did not vanquish him (since he wasn't a demon), Cal Greene nevertheless died as a result of Phoebe's outrage at his acquittal in a trial for murder, a murder we are told he probably did commit.

[pubesy]

ok, vander, after asking my "source" (who now, i am sure thinks that i am intending to SBC ) a few things were clarified.

(this relates to AUS alone and my state police - since police laws vary ever so slightly from state to state. I can't comment on the US police)

the following are not direct quotes - but how i remember the convo to the best of my ability.

the incidents of "suicide by cop" are under scrutiny by internal affairs and citizen review boards;

every time an officer draws a weapon, (whether it was fired or not) is placed under scrutiny of internal affairs. some events are more highly "looked at" than others. in internal affairs, there is usually someone representing the "ethical" perspective, someone representing the"law", the "community" and the "police force." as well as other roles (but he did not elaborate). auditing is done frequently. it is not always face to face - it depends on the situation.

b) there is a tendency to ascribe some incidents as "suicide by cop" when there is an absence of a direct threat;

to this question he asked "what? like a cover up?" I stated "No. more like there was no gun raised, but he was holding the gun by his side, loaded, stating that there was no point in living and that he was thinking of taking the cop down with him" he stated. "i think you have been watching too many really bad American cop movies!" (oh if he only knew i was talking about a fictional demon - psych ward for me!)
on further probing he then stated "stuff like that very rarely happens - if ever. Cops are trained on how to diffuse the situation - telling him to put the gun down, talk about how sad his kids would be if he was gone, along those lines. 99% of the time if they were going to off themselves they would have already done it and wouldn't be standing there talking about it." he then went on further to say something along the lines of "shoot to kill is the last possible line of defence - they shoot in the shoulder or leg first - the last thing a cop wants is a death by his own hands - cops are not gun crazy like they are in the movies"

c) it matters that - for example - the "weapon" pointed at the police is a toy that bears a striking resemblance to a real weapon.

this is where he got suspicious! he just said something along the lines of "mistakes can happen and if it is a reasonable mistake, and shooting was justified at the time then what can you do. i would just hate to be the cop firing the gun, and have that on your conscience. thats why shoot to kill is the last possible resort"


obviously i didn't ask anything further - i didn't want him thinking i have any plans to off myself! I don't!

now, as far as VBC:

Vanquish by choice means that the Charmed Ones choose to vanquish a demon or warlock without the existence of a actual threat to their own survival or the need to protect the life of an innocent endangered by an action of said demon or warlock. Vanquish by choice is my characterization for much of what transpired during Season 6 when Chris "orders" his charges to vanquish demons, one after another, allegedly because of the threat they posed to Wyatt.

sure i agree, with the definition. however - do i believe that happened with cole's final vanquish? I really don't know. it cannot be compared to the demon's TCO vanquished at chris' request (or can it? both warlocks and cole were vanquished due to a perceived threat at the time).
and there definately was a threat (just not an immediate, lethal threat). actually there were threats with the demons they vanquished at the beginning of s6 also - but the threat was brought upon by their own doing.

this is such a grey area! wouldn't you agree!

[vandergraafk]

Oh, it's definitely a grey area. I should, however, have stated however that SBC incidents are really put under the microscope. In Inglewood, there have been 4 shootings in 4 months - two by the same officer. That, in itself, is scandalous. Worse: the last time officers pumped 44 rounds into a person holding a gun that closely resembled the real thing. It turned out to be a toy. These are bad cop shows - they're bad cops.

Yes, officers are trained to shot to wound - not to kill. That doesn't always occur which is one reason why all officer involved shootings are - as you indicated - reviewed by internal affairs and often involve citizen review boards.

Actually, I think it would be fun to tell him about "suicide by witch". Sure, you might end up in the psych ward. But, your friend might come away with a much better impression of American TV!

[pubesy]

that is rediculous! no review after a shooting incident? and 44 rounds? how is that possible? which part of america is inglewood?

without sounding too dismissive or derogatory, Australia is noting like america in terms of gun laws and police.
In australia, not anyone can be in possession of a weapon, very few can actually. it is made difficult to own a gun - as it should be. and even then you are not allowed an automatic, they are just really pistols. there is licencing course - i believe. and you have to have had a psych review, and register it with the nearest police station. watching bowling for columbine was redicuous. i cant believe how easy and how many people have guns in america! can you really buy bullets at walmart?

no wonder there is so many shootings. if every 3rd person has a gun to "protect themselves" then no wonder there is so many shootings. (wow, i am not making any friends here )


cops rarely pull guns here. it is a last resort thing. not like NCIS or law and order, where every criminal is in possession of a weapon and it comes down to a shooting match!

[pubesy]

guh, that reply was atrocious! can you tell i have had 4 hours sleep!

[vandergraafk]

Yep! Inglewood is the urban suburb of Los Angeles that used to be where blacks resided. Now, it is a community with a large Latino minority and its previous cohesiveness has come unglued somewhat.

Of course, there were reviews. But the police chief has been mum and refused to respond to press inquiries. That one officer was involved in two of these shootings is really bizarre, especially since these all occurred within the past four months. The city is trying to keep it all hush hush. And, it has quietly suggested that some of the "victims" may have been SBC cases. Hmmm!

[pubesy]

hmmm, yeah, that is pretty scary! that's not to say things are not "hush hushed" over here.

[vandergraafk]

Here's the logic. The gentleman killed was homeless. He brandished the toy pistol in order to induce his own death. Suicide by cop! Go figure!

[pubesy]

and to think i thought that really only occurred in movies!

pretty scary.

i cant believe how gun crazy the us is! no wonder there are so many shootings! if everone has a gun!

[jate88]

Australia sounds like a pretty peaceful place

[vandergraafk]

Well, not everyone has a gun. Me? I personally loathe them, though I will confess that my father kept a WWII vintage rifle in a closet hardly anyone ever used. (He was an MP!)

What causes consternation in the US and resulted in the recent Supreme Court decision affirming (by abusing Latin rhetoric since the time of Plutarch) an individual's right to own a weapon is the disconnect between rural folks and city dwellers. I grew up in the country where it was normal for teen boys (principally) to take off a week from school to go hunting when hunting season opened. Hunting, when it involves a hunter, armed only with a shotgun, stalking his prey or sitting in wait for game to chance along, is a useful and necessary means to cull the herd of deer in Pennsylvania. Yet, there are some "hunters" who insist on using AK47s or other high-powered assault rifles to slaughter deer and other wildlife by driving up in their Hummers or what not and opening fire. That's not hunting! That's idiocy!

Then, there's the other side of the story where the inner city is plagued by cheap handguns that are used - in the place of empathy or reason - to settle disputes, stake territory or proclaim one's manhood. Why can't we regulate the ability of such individuals to gain access to guns by requiring gun owners to register their guns, use sophisticated devices - such as fingerprints - to deny access to non-authorized users and require gun owners to safely secure their weapons? I don't see where the controversy is. But, then, I have no desire to be a yahoo or a Republican. Is there a difference?

[pubesy]

hmmm, see, we DO have systems in place in that measure. to own a gun, you have to A) be a member of a licenced gun club. B) have a history free of any violent behavior or mental illness and c) data is ented including fingerprints etc.

basically the only people who are SUPPOSED to have a gun are farmers (to protect stock - but only single or double bullet ones) or those involved in gun clubs. (of course the armed forces also, but they shouldnt bring their weapons home with them - i dont think)

don't quote me - i am anti guns also, and i have no interest in fact checking

[whitelightertony]

Why can't we regulate the ability of such individuals to gain access to guns by requiring gun owners to register their guns, use sophisticated devices - such as fingerprints - to deny access to non-authorized users and require gun owners to safely secure their weapons? I don't see where the controversy is.

My only reservation with mandatory gun registration would be that the government could decide to use it as an excuse to eke more taxes out of gunowners in the future.