Could Jonah Hex Feature Uncle Ben's Killer?

Posted by Brian Warmoth (4 posts) - - Show Bio


Michael Papajohn may be on his way to becoming the Ryan Reynolds of supporting roles in comic book films. Jonah Hex reshoots began this month, and Papajohn, whose IMDb credits already include the role of the carjacker who kills Uncle Ben in Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man," as well as appearances in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Terminator Salvation and Spawn, earned an audition with the chance to reunite with Transformers' Megan Fox today.

"The audition is for the reshoot," Papajohn told Comic Vine when asked about a Twitter post he made earlier in the day.

The actor sounded hopeful and was looking forward to a shot at appearing with Fox again, as well as saddling up in the Western genre.

"Got a Jonah Hex audition today[...]be great to work with Megan Fox again [and] would love to do a Western!" he wrote on his Twitter account.

The casting director on Jonah Hex should know from Papajohn's work on Spider-Man that he knows how to handle a gun if need be, though it's unlikely he'll get to kill a character as high-profile as Uncle Ben again.

You never know, though! Would you like to see Michael Papjohn make an appearance in Jonah Hex? What would you like to see him do, if so? Do you like the idea of seeing him around in more comics-based movies? Let us know what you think about this.    
#1 Posted by spiderpigbart (2651 posts) - - Show Bio

Hmmmmmm

#2 Edited by Ravn (180 posts) - - Show Bio

...okay! ....Him, Stanley Tucci, and Mark Strong look like they could all be related... Don't know what made me think of that but hmmm... LOL That's really all I have to say about that, since I don't remember him in Terminator or Transformers, but based on him role in Spiderman.... okay, sure! 
 
...he should make a cameo as Bat Lash or something! Hahaha

#3 Posted by Caligula (12417 posts) - - Show Bio

technically in the movies, didn't Sandman kill uncle Ben?
#4 Posted by DeathDefyingDevil (722 posts) - - Show Bio

could be cool
#5 Posted by DeathDefyingDevil (722 posts) - - Show Bio
@Caligula:
dude you're so right
#6 Posted by FoxxFireArt (3547 posts) - - Show Bio
@Caligula: 
In the third movie Marco was the was named as the actual shooter, but the partner of the hijacker that Peter caught in the first movie. We all just like to pretend that third movie never happened.
 
Though from a legal standpoint, they were both still guilty of the murder.
#7 Posted by Caligula (12417 posts) - - Show Bio
@FoxxFireArt said:
" @Caligula:  In the third movie Marco was the was named as the actual shooter, but the partner of the hijacker that Peter caught in the first movie. We all just like to pretend that third movie never happened.  Though from a legal standpoint, they were both still guilty of the murder. "

I know, and yes the third movie was crap, but I just thought I'd point out that, in Raimi's movies, Sandman was the gunman that shot Ben. I was paying attention sadly...
#8 Posted by BrianWarmoth (1 posts) - - Show Bio
@Caligula: Gah! You're totally right. Mea culpa.
#9 Posted by CATMANEXE (17052 posts) - - Show Bio
@FoxxFireArt: 
sort of. if you watch the scene Ben put his hands on the gunman first. 
in a court of law he's technically guilty of provocation, if not assault and
the gun mans shot that went off by reflex could be chalked up to self-defense.
#10 Posted by JimmyKudo09 (78 posts) - - Show Bio

I like Papajohn's work and would love to see him play a part in Jonah Hex.

#11 Posted by Caligula (12417 posts) - - Show Bio
@CATMANEXE said:
" @FoxxFireArt:  sort of. if you watch the scene Ben put his hands on the gunman first.  in a court of law he's technically guilty of provocation, if not assault and the gun mans shot that went off by reflex could be chalked up to self-defense. "

I want you as my lawyer sir.
#12 Posted by Bandito (187 posts) - - Show Bio
@CATMANEXE said:
" @FoxxFireArt:  sort of. if you watch the scene Ben put his hands on the gunman first.  in a court of law he's technically guilty of provocation, if not assault and the gun mans shot that went off by reflex could be chalked up to self-defense. "
Except they were already committing a criminal act/acts.  The very best they could hope for is manslaughter or negligent homicide, and considering they were car-jacking a guy who died because he tried to defend himself, they'd still likely get Murder 1 or 2.
#13 Posted by FoxxFireArt (3547 posts) - - Show Bio
@CATMANEXE said:
" @FoxxFireArt:  sort of. if you watch the scene Ben put his hands on the gunman first.  in a court of law he's technically guilty of provocation, if not assault and the gun mans shot that went off by reflex could be chalked up to self-defense. "
Not while they were within the act of a car jacking. It was Uncle Ben who was attempting self defense. If someone draws a gun on you and then you try and fight back. You then are not the one guilty of assault. The driver is an accessory after the fact.
 
Trying to make the hard working old man who was shot and killed into the bad guy will only get you crucified by a jury.
#14 Posted by Gothic Storm (842 posts) - - Show Bio

Why am I suddenly hungry for pizza?

#15 Edited by CATMANEXE (17052 posts) - - Show Bio
@Bandito: 
whether a person is involved in a criminal act at the time is irrelevant to another.
 

@FoxxFireArt:


attempting to stop a crime, car-jacking in this case isnt self defense, its vigilantism.
Ben was fine to go but insisted to go up to the party in question and put his hands on his
shoulders and try to stop him " from making a mistake " as he put it, before the shot was
drawn and fired. for all we know Ben may have directly caused the gun itself to go off,
much less directed the gunmans actions. it could be said that the gunman felt threatened
as well. once physical contact is initiated the ruling is in question. and unfortunately in the 
United States legal system you are the one guilty of the assault then. if someone threatens
you vocally, and you touch them its on you. as far as vigilantism goes, say for example
someone is shoplifting. the store security approaches him, blocks his way and puts their 
hands on him. at this point any charge on the shoplifter is either dropped or dropped down.
 
i believe the accused is guilty than no more than involuntary manslaughter, as he could not
anticipate Uncle Ben's intention in holding onto him. further, the accused has a long history
of mental disorder and social anxiety, coupled with mounting financial and family problems.
with that, he was abused many times over the period of his own life, and enters a fugue state
when he feels threatened, and especially when touched, and in that state is a different person
entirely. the State board of mental health has reviewed him in the presentencing, and confirms 
this as such. it is apparent by the evidence at hand, that the accused only had the intentions of 
taking the vehicle and had the firearm in the case of self defense, which he acted upon.
it is also very notable that the firearm was presented to Mr.Marko by his accomplice, whom was
threatening him at the time, and that Mr. Dennis Carradine had told the accused that the 
firearm was a replica, therefore non functioning.

i should also remind the courts, and we will confirm more after recess, that my client has recently 
undergone a physical...trauma, the likes upon which most could not begin to fathom in this room,
one which was in fact caused by a combination of this departments recklessness, as well as the 
carelessness of its own scientific research division in leaving an accessible particle accelerator
running, which i might add is unlicensed, not up to code, and apparently the technicians where aware 
of Mr.Marko's presence but mistook him for a bird , and that the accused needs to be in an appropriate 
environment to attempt to cure, and rectify this uncanny fate which has been visited upon him.
the penal institutions cannot even begin to provide adequate support for his newfound physical
illness. his law suit at the city will i fact follow this case as well. it i our hope that this will not
need to go to jury, and we can reach an outside agreement, especially considering this courts
recent financial cutbacks.
 
and, do i really need to remind the courts again that a vision of how this scenario occurred
taken from the imagination of this, Peter Parker is not admissible as evidence. thank you.
#16 Posted by Bandito (187 posts) - - Show Bio
@CATMANEXE said:
" @Bandito: 
whether a person is involved in a criminal act at the time is irrelevant to another.  "
 
Not so.  If the criminals intended to rob or assault Ben Parker and he died as a result of that, regardless of whether the death was accidental or not, the law views it as intentional. 
 
For example:  A drunk driver kills a pedestrian.  The driver didn't mean to kill anyone, but he did intend to drive home, which, while under the influence of alcohol, is illegal.  The driver would be found guilty of vehicular homicide.
#17 Edited by Bandito (187 posts) - - Show Bio

I like peanut butter. 
 
Sorry, double post.

#18 Posted by CATMANEXE (17052 posts) - - Show Bio
@Bandito: 
im sorry but incorrect, your comparison doesnt match. the drunk driver was driving drunk and this resulted in the death. in this case, the accused was stealing a getaway vehicle, and Uncle ben was free to leave. Uncle Ben chose to antagonize the accused and
put himself in harms way in the process.
#19 Posted by danhimself (22286 posts) - - Show Bio

I wonder if he gets free pizza

#20 Posted by FoxxFireArt (3547 posts) - - Show Bio
@CATMANEXE: 
Vigilantism is when you go out to stop a crime or get involved in a crime that doesn't directly involve you. If I had gotten myself involved in Uncle Ben's car jacking, that would be a vigilante act. Ben was set upon as a vicitm. He wasn't going out of his way to be involved in a crime.
 
Anyways, it doesn't matter if the original criminal kills a vigilante. Murder is still murder. If you kill someone who was trying to stop you in the act of a crime it still counts as murder. It wouldn't be murder one since you didn't plan to murder that person. It would at least be Murder 2 to Man slaughter
 
A person who is under attack has the right to defend them self. It's not advised do to so when a gun is involved, but a person is within their legal rights. Do you have any idea what would happen if a defense attorney would try to claim that his client in the act of a car jacking was set upon by his intended victim and shot the unarmed man out of self defense.  He would be laughed out of court.
 
Using lethal force against an unarmed assailant is against the law. Even police face possibly consequences and reviews if they shoot an unarmed person. There are times when it is permited. Those are normally when under extreme duress, out numbered and in fear of your life, or can show that you are in reasonable threatening situation. For example, you are set upon by someone much larger then you with what seems intent to cause you bodily harm.
 
How would you prove in court that an armed man in his mid to late thirties was under threat from an unarmed, elderly man in his sixties or seventies?
#21 Posted by CATMANEXE (17052 posts) - - Show Bio
@FoxxFireArt: 
i already did. you only rebuttled to one of my many statements.  and i already rebuttled your rebuttle in advance as well.
 
unfortunately your perception of the legal system in this matter is that of the ones presented on televison shows as well, no offense.
example:
Even police face possibly consequences and reviews if they shoot an unarmed person. There are times when it is permited. 
 
in fiction yes. in real life no. for just one example, the police department in Oshkosh, WI opened fire on Ray Pagel point
blank with rubber bullets a number of 120+ times. they also hit him with nerve gas prior, and hit his face and eyes with pepper spray. as well, they bragged about killing him beforehand over the police radio. this was recorded. Ray Pagel was 67 years old. he was unconscious after they gassed him. the police were not punished. another more infamous was the incident in which a police officer shot a seven year old boy who was playing the game Lazer Tag in his back yard with his friends. the officer opened fire into the childs stomach several times and killed him. as a result Lazer tag was temporarly banned. i can keep going on. shall i mention the 
Menendez brothers case, which your description of the court room severly is akin to, or is humanity past that mistake?
 
Uncle Ben approached and attempted to stop Marko on his own accord when Marko was startled, or something to the affect, and
the gun (which Marko was unaware was real), went off. furthermore i might add that Marko did have a permit to carry at the point in question. again, Uncle Ben was free to go, he continued the confrontation of his own accord, he was no longer threatened, but he chose to engage and not comply. 
 
the rest ive already stated as well and you dodged. id quote myself but its right there.
#22 Posted by Caligula (12417 posts) - - Show Bio
@CATMANEXE said:
" @FoxxFireArt: 
i already did. you only rebuttled to one of my many statements.  and i already rebuttled your rebuttle in advance as well.
 
unfortunately your perception of the legal system in this matter is that of the ones presented on televison shows as well, no offense.
example:
Even police face possibly consequences and reviews if they shoot an unarmed person. There are times when it is permited.   in fiction yes. in real life no. for just one example, the police department in Oshkosh, WI opened fire on Ray Pagel point blank with rubber bullets a number of 120+ times. they also hit him with nerve gas prior, and hit his face and eyes with pepper spray. as well, they bragged about killing him beforehand over the police radio. this was recorded. Ray Pagel was 67 years old. he was unconscious after they gassed him. the police were not punished. another more infamous was the incident in which a police officer shot a seven year old boy who was playing the game Lazer Tag in his back yard with his friends. the officer opened fire into the childs stomach several times and killed him. as a result Lazer tag was temporarly banned. i can keep going on. shall i mention the  Menendez brothers case, which your description of the court room severly is akin to, or is humanity past that mistake?  Uncle Ben approached and attempted to stop Marko on his own accord when Marko was startled, or something to the affect, and the gun (which Marko was unaware was real), went off. furthermore i might add that Marko did have a permit to carry at the point in question. again, Uncle Ben was free to go, he continued the confrontation of his own accord, he was no longer threatened, but he chose to engage and not comply.   the rest ive already stated as well and you dodged. id quote myself but its right there. "

same thing happened in Chickasha,OK. except it was Mentally handicapped man, robbed a Love's convienient store for Candy, seriously just Candy. and as he was leaving with his arms full of Candy, he was Gunned down by two police officers. camera's recorded the confrontation, and the man provoked the officers in no way at all, he even dropped his bat in the store, when he was fleeing. 
the police were only put on temporary suspension for justified manslaughter, they are now back on the force. 
 
the Legal system is BS.
#23 Posted by LB70145 (191 posts) - - Show Bio

I find it sad that all of you are arguing over something that was one of the biggest mistakes in Spider-Man 3. If you guys can legitimize that Ben Parker died because he was acting as a reckless individual, vigilante, what have you, it is a sad day for comics and comic-book movies. People, we should not be able to taint Uncle Ben memory for god's sake. Even if the argument is just for the sake of realism, it is just sad.
 
Besides the whole car jacking thing was how they Ben died in the movies not the comics. We should all remember that Uncle Ben was killed in cold blood when a burglar broke into the Parker household.

Just wow guys. *slow claps*

#24 Posted by Caligula (12417 posts) - - Show Bio
@LB70145:
lol. serious face is on :[ 
 
just kidding. all I pointed out is that this is not the guy that killed Ben in the Movies. it was Sandman. (yes I know that it is inaccurate to the comics)
#25 Edited by CATMANEXE (17052 posts) - - Show Bio
@LB70145: 
sorry, i reserve my sympathies for things that actually exist. but sorry to hear 
about your good friend Ben, bless his soul. lol.
 
ps= you should try and steer clear of the movie Avatar. just saying.
#26 Posted by FoxxFireArt (3547 posts) - - Show Bio
@CATMANEXE:

@Caligula:

A victim is not necessarily under any legal understanding to allow a crime to happen to himself. That person is just not allowed to use lethal force unless they are threatened with lethal force, or can prove that they were in fear of their life by the unarmed assailant. It is just not advised to do so. You are advised to just comply since a robbery isn't worth your life. It would be like saying Thomas Wayne was being a vigilante when he tried to prevent his wife from being robbed at gun point. That the shooter was defending himself from the unarmed doctor who made an aggressive motion and the shooter was startled(depending on which version of the story you choose). It's not self defense. It's murder.
Considering that the intended crime is car jacking. Until they leave with the car the over all crime is still in motion. It would only be a vigilante act if Ben had gone after the robbers in an attempt to get his car back or seek revenge. That would of been putting himself in a position of unnecessary risk. Even then there isn't much of a chance a DA will actually file charges.
 
The intentions of the shooter doesn't negate the murder. It's a matter for sentencing.
 
If you shoot a person during the act of a crime, intentional or not, it counts as murder. It's why there are degrees such as Murder 1 and Murder 2. Anyone who was assisting in the crime becomes an accessory to murder and are just as responsible. The same if someone who later learns a person committed a murder and actively assisted the killer in trying to hide or escape justice. That is aiding and abetting and possibly charged as an accessory after the fact, depending on a person's level of involvement. It's up to the DA to decide what charges to follow.
#27 Posted by Moomin123 (2205 posts) - - Show Bio

 
I've seen almost all of the films that have been mentioned above (except Spawn). But I've never seen Papajohn in any of those films.

#28 Posted by CATMANEXE (17052 posts) - - Show Bio
@FoxxFireArt: 
again, movie semantics. Uncle Ben created the second scenario. 
really two things must be present for a crime to be committed.
intent and means. Flint Marko did have the means, but the gun went
off by accident, or i should say because of Bens provocation.
therefore Flint did not have the intent. if intent cannot be ruled present, 
means becomes null and void.  Thomas Wayne is not the issue here.
his wife was under attack. Ben was not. they had his car and were leaving. 
Marko did not  approach Ben after the fact, Ben approached and came to him.
 
 
otherwise your still avoiding 90% of the case and evidence ive already laid out.
i demand a more fit and unbiased prosecution to replace Mr.FFA your honor
 
@CATMANEXE said:

@FoxxFireArt:

attempting to stop a crime, car-jacking in this case isnt self defense, its vigilantism. Ben was fine to go but insisted to go up to the party in question and put his hands on his shoulders and try to stop him " from making a mistake " as he put it, before the shot was drawn and fired. for all we know Ben may have directly caused the gun itself to go off, much less directed the gunmans actions. it could be said that the gunman felt threatened as well. once physical contact is initiated the ruling is in question. and unfortunately in the  United States legal system you are the one guilty of the assault then. if someone threatens you vocally, and you touch them its on you. as far as vigilantism goes, say for example someone is shoplifting. the store security approaches him, blocks his way and puts their  hands on him. at this point any charge on the shoplifter is either dropped or dropped down.  i believe the accused is guilty than no more than involuntary manslaughter, as he could not anticipate Uncle Ben's intention in holding onto him. further, the accused has a long history of mental disorder and social anxiety, coupled with mounting financial and family problems. with that, he was abused many times over the period of his own life, and enters a fugue state when he feels threatened, and especially when touched, and in that state is a different person entirely. the State board of mental health has reviewed him in the presentencing, and confirms  this as such. it is apparent by the evidence at hand, that the accused only had the intentions of  taking the vehicle and had the firearm in the case of self defense, which he acted upon. it is also very notable that the firearm was presented to Mr.Marko by his accomplice, whom was threatening him at the time, and that Mr. Dennis Carradine had told the accused that the  firearm was a replica, therefore non functioning. i should also remind the courts, and we will confirm more after recess, that my client has recently  undergone a physical...trauma, the likes upon which most could not begin to fathom in this room, one which was in fact caused by a combination of this departments recklessness, as well as the  carelessness of its own scientific research division in leaving an accessible particle accelerator running, which i might add is unlicensed, not up to code, and apparently the technicians where aware  of Mr.Marko's presence but mistook him for a bird , and that the accused needs to be in an appropriate  environment to attempt to cure, and rectify this uncanny fate which has been visited upon him. the penal institutions cannot even begin to provide adequate support for his newfound physical illness. his law suit at the city will i fact follow this case as well. it i our hope that this will not need to go to jury, and we can reach an outside agreement, especially considering this courts recent financial cutbacks.  and, do i really need to remind the courts again that a vision of how this scenario occurred taken from the imagination of this, Peter Parker is not admissible as evidence. thank you. "
1. Uncle Ben approached, and physically contacted Marko after the fact. Uncle Ben was already free to leave.   
Uncle Ben turned himself into the agressor in the second scenario and displayed intent.

2. Flint Marko, a man registered to carry a firearm at the time in question, was under the pretense that the firearm
he was carrying was only for show, and was not working. he was put under this presumption by Mr.Cassidy
 
3. Flint Marko was not mentally sound at the time in question. So much to the fact that the State Board
Of Mental Health has declared that he was not in control of his actions at the time in question,
much less aware of his surroundings. 

4. Your evidence is again not admissable. It is reacreated black and white footage, compiled from the memories
of Peter Parker, an angered biased nephew of the deceased, who was not present at the time in question.
furthermore, you have presented three different stories from your witness as it were, all different, and in the
first instance even claimed that Mr. Cassidy, now mysteriously murdered, was the shooter. finally, outside
the fact that Parker claims to have witnessed these events, as well as claims to have not been there, his
alibi about working to save money to buy a car to impress his girlfriend, one Mary Jane Watson, does not
match up whatsoever. perhaps the NYPD is following the wrong lead here and should be investigating Mr.Parker,
the man who knows everything and nothing about his Uncles death, to find if he may in fact be the killer himself?
 
5. currently due to both a department mishap and the supreme neglegence of the cities science divisions, 
Mr. Marko has had his molecules fuzed with sand after being chased into an unshielded unsanctioned
partcile accelerator. my client is in constant pain, and may even be at risk of dying. the correctional system 
cannot provide adequate care for his condition nor begin to start to, which is his right to have, even if convicted
in this state.
 
6. as to the above, the city is well aware of my clients suit against them, which they will surely lose. the technicians
knew of markos presence and proceeded with their experiment much against OCEA guidlines. the guards chasing
Marko, whom they had severly abused prior to his escape attempt, were fully aware of the nearby particle accelrator and
furthermore once marko fell into it, they failed to file anything in their report and stated on paper, that Marko "just
vanished".
 
7. Marko has already served a portion of the sentance for this crime already (the night in question in the abiove), 
even though he was in fact never found guilty of it, the deceased Mr. Carradine was, which is most certainly against
federal law, and as i stated, is a little too reminiscant of the Menendez Brothers case.
 
i am demanding a mistrial and believe the FBI needs to be involved in this case, if not both the NYPD and possible
several individuals present in this courtroom themselves be brought under investigation for roal roading Mr.Marko
already and trying for a second chance to do so.
#29 Posted by NightFang (9878 posts) - - Show Bio

I always lokked this guy.

#30 Edited by LB70145 (191 posts) - - Show Bio
@CATMANEXE: I'm sorry I can have an emotional response and sympathy for a fictional character. I am sorry that you apparently you do not do the same.  I like being able to read books, listen to music and watch movies, while being able to sympathize with the characters, story, and/or lyrics. I really sympathize for you, not having feelings must suck.
 
And by the way I have seen Avatar. It was a good movie, I also had an emotional response to that movie and felt sympathy and anger toward some characters. I could insult you by saying you're probably one of the people who saw the movie who was hoping the humans would ultimately win, or slept through it, or didn't pay attention. However, I will not because I do not create blind assumptions on people, unlike you.
 
The traits you have exerted on your posts however, do exert that you possess great traits to be a lawyer. Lacking a soul, being narrow minded, blowing things out of proportion, and such. I would say you would make a good politician, but I don't know if you have been lying. For that same reason I can't say you could be a good news anchor on Fox, just saying lol

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.