36 Comments
Posted by blkson

Yes it is still murder.

Edited by The Stegman

Of course, that's like asking if a person steals a car but it is later found and returned to the owner is it still stealing? Yes, it is.

Posted by Pokeysteve

This is one of those Staff posts you can tell they reached for lol. Stegman stole my logic though.

Posted by G-Man

@pokeysteve: Not really sure what that means. By definition, you're ending someones life. There's no law that says they are able to come back. What evidence is there that they were murdered if they're still alive. Maybe they were just really really tired. Maybe you're just saying you don't like the question.

Also, have no idea why you mentioned Stegman...?

Staff
Posted by Sleepbutnodream15

Yes, for every reason mentioned above. Also, it's important to remember that there aren't definite and easy ways to bring people back to life in most comics. It usually happens randomly or with some rare magic, or or I don't even know what.

Posted by nappystr8

It depends on if the character ever died in the first place or whether it was a retcon where everyone just thought they were dead. But I don't think it really matters much considering that attempted murder holds the same penalties as a successful one.

Online
Posted by JakeN7

@g_man said:

Also, have no idea why you mentioned Stegman...?

He was talking about the user that posted above him who said:

Of course, that's like asking if a person steals a car but it is later found and returned to the owner is is still stealing? Yes, it is.

Online
Posted by BlueLantern1995

James Tynion got it right...he's 100% spot on. It is murder(I mean he did kill the guy and his coming back doesn't change that so..) but the murderer would most likely get away free from it because of the Resurrection.

Edited by Dud317

A rare miss...

Posted by midgard2

No its not unless that person is a clone or from a alternate dimension.

Posted by RedheadedAtrocitus

Oh yeah, regardless of whether the hero comes back or not, the fact that the said individual was killed with intent shows motive for murder. Resurrection can simply be the proverbial 'middle finger' to the murderer so to speak, but it still doesn't erase the fact that the person who killed said hero committed murder. I do like Higgins' application of basic philosophy to the principle here. Tynion's answer makes a valid point though, murder regardless, but if resurrection occurs then the severity seems to lessen with the hero's return.

Edited by Rich711

What if you kill yourself from an alternate reality and then take that body to a different universe where it is dumped in a Lazarus pit but only before being sucked into a wormhole so you never learn if they are alive or dead or even in existence anywhere. Does that make you Schodinger's cat or just a really stupid hypothetical?

Posted by Mr. Kamikaze

Isn't murder intent? If you kill someone, with malicious intent, then yeah it's totally murder. They just get a second chance at life and possibly get murdered again. Now if the murdered person gets resurrected before the murderer gets caught, then...he probably won't get any jail time for it because there now a lack of evidence. But ya know...you still killed someone. Resurrection does mean to come back from the dead.

Edited by BobFromAccounting

Sounds like it could be a good issue of She-Hulk.

Posted by Pokeysteve

@g_man said:

@pokeysteve: Not really sure what that means. By definition, you're ending someones life. There's no law that says they are able to come back. What evidence is there that they were murdered if they're still alive. Maybe they were just really really tired. Maybe you're just saying you don't like the question.

Also, have no idea why you mentioned Stegman...?

So you were wondering all of that, presumably without a conviction or a body then? Like if Jason Todd's or Ted Kord's bodies were never found, how could anyone prove they were dead? That makes more sense.

Stegman was mentioned because of his car analogy. He was the comment right above mine.

Posted by Schmalzel

The better question is if one kills themselves and comes back to life, is it still considered suicide?

Posted by cmaprice

I'd say yes, but I suppose it would be a tough issue, legally.

First and foremost, we'd have to have a legal recognition of resurrection. If there is none, then the courts would have to either not recognize the person's return and uphold the conviction, or conclude the death itself was invalid, thus probably overturning the conviction, or lessening the sentence to attempted murder or another lesser charge.

I would also point to real-life precedent. If you shoot someone who clinically dies, but is revived, you are not charged with murder. I suppose there'd be an argument to be made about when death is actually death in a world where the supernatural is real.

Edited by Trodorne

Well if we are refering to something like Jason Todd, and Joker went to prison for the murder of Jason Todd. That would be murder. But if jason came back to life... which he did. and Joker killed him again. it would not be murder at that point because law defines that you can be convicted or tried for the same crime twice. Double Jeopardy. Ashley Judd proved that.

Posted by Mbecks14

Of course, that's like asking if a person steals a car but it is later found and returned to the owner is it still stealing? Yes, it is.

Yeah exactly. The act was still committed and someone still died. It's not even attempted murder because they succeeded.

Posted by Mezmero

I think Tynion had it right. It's murder if you get caught. If there's a witness it's absolutely murder but if the only witness is the victim and he comes back to life then you're in the clear. Treat it like knocking out your opponent in a boxing or MMA match. They'll be back on their feet in no time. I've said it before, fictional characters only die if they're forgotten.

Edited by Reignmaker

Is it still murder? Yes. Does coming back diminish the importance of the original act? Absolutely.

Posted by Lvenger

Of course, that's like asking if a person steals a car but it is later found and returned to the owner is it still stealing? Yes, it is.

This sums up my view too. Doesn't change the fact that an act of murder took place.

Online
Posted by Extremis

Tynion had it right. Gotta love that guy.

Posted by Niki1988Ingram

Yep, still murder

Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek

Legally it's a gray area. Morally, HECK YEAH IT'S MURDER.

Posted by thejman251

- Yes, if they were murdered and they came back from the grave, they were still murdered.

- If you had a witness or video evidence, then you could probably still convict the person in question of murder.

Posted by tupiaz

Nope it isn't. Let us try to do this in real life. a person is on the trial on even convicted the person the repairs without us knowing how that has happen (and that is often the case. The population don't know how the heroes or villains cmes back. So wouldn't we think it would be fair that the person got released (or has to get charged with assault instead? Would we really have a legal system where you could get convicted for murder when the people was walking around and was alive. How the person got back to life seems irreverent the attacker just failed at killing who he/she wanted to kill.

- Yes, if they were murdered and they came back from the grave, they were still murdered.

- If you had a witness or video evidence, then you could probably still convict the person in question of murder.

Hard to prove the person isn't just onconcious unless it is very brutal.

Edited by wade_wilson22

I believe it's still murder. This question they are asking in the title is flawed. Of course it's still murder! The real question is...

Although what if the murderer brought him back to life? Does it make up for it?

Check out this forum http://marveldcforum.com

Posted by thejman251

@tupiaz said:

Nope it isn't. Let us try to do this in real life. a person is on the trial on even convicted the person the repairs without us knowing how that has happen (and that is often the case. The population don't know how the heroes or villains cmes back. So wouldn't we think it would be fair that the person got released (or has to get charged with assault instead? Would we really have a legal system where you could get convicted for murder when the people was walking around and was alive. How the person got back to life seems irreverent the attacker just failed at killing who he/she wanted to kill.

@thejman251 said:

- Yes, if they were murdered and they came back from the grave, they were still murdered.

- If you had a witness or video evidence, then you could probably still convict the person in question of murder.

Hard to prove the person isn't just onconcious unless it is very brutal.

- I agree.

- However, hospital evidence such as being declared legally dead, and being officially buried would probably suffice.

- In addition, adequate video evidence would suffice as well.

Edited by tupiaz

@tupiaz said:

Nope it isn't. Let us try to do this in real life. a person is on the trial on even convicted the person the repairs without us knowing how that has happen (and that is often the case. The population don't know how the heroes or villains cmes back. So wouldn't we think it would be fair that the person got released (or has to get charged with assault instead? Would we really have a legal system where you could get convicted for murder when the people was walking around and was alive. How the person got back to life seems irreverent the attacker just failed at killing who he/she wanted to kill.

@thejman251 said:

- Yes, if they were murdered and they came back from the grave, they were still murdered.

- If you had a witness or video evidence, then you could probably still convict the person in question of murder.

Hard to prove the person isn't just onconcious unless it is very brutal.

- I agree.

- However, hospital evidence such as being declared legally dead, and being officially buried would probably suffice.

- In addition, adequate video evidence would suffice as well.

I kind of agree however it depends on how the hero/villain returns. Does he/she return by digging him/her self back from the grave it could be justified that the coroner came up with the wrong conclusion.

Posted by thejman251

@tupiaz said:

@thejman251 said:

@tupiaz said:

Nope it isn't. Let us try to do this in real life. a person is on the trial on even convicted the person the repairs without us knowing how that has happen (and that is often the case. The population don't know how the heroes or villains cmes back. So wouldn't we think it would be fair that the person got released (or has to get charged with assault instead? Would we really have a legal system where you could get convicted for murder when the people was walking around and was alive. How the person got back to life seems irreverent the attacker just failed at killing who he/she wanted to kill.

@thejman251 said:

- Yes, if they were murdered and they came back from the grave, they were still murdered.

- If you had a witness or video evidence, then you could probably still convict the person in question of murder.

Hard to prove the person isn't just onconcious unless it is very brutal.

- I agree.

- However, hospital evidence such as being declared legally dead, and being officially buried would probably suffice.

- In addition, adequate video evidence would suffice as well.

I kind of agree however it depends on how the hero/villain returns. Does he/she return by digging him/her self back from the grave it could be justified that the coroner came up with the wrong conclusion.

- It could be justified that the wrong conclusion was reached however, that would require certain evidence and a certain scenario to go with it.

Posted by tupiaz

@thejman251 said:

- It could be justified that the wrong conclusion was reached however, that would require certain evidence and a certain scenario to go with it.

True but taht the person is alive wouldn't it change the charge from murder to attempted murder? I mean when a person dies on the hospital the charges is change from attempted murder to murder. Shouldn't the same be done the other way around?

Edited by thejman251

@tupiaz said:

@thejman251 said:

- It could be justified that the wrong conclusion was reached however, that would require certain evidence and a certain scenario to go with it.

True but taht the person is alive wouldn't it change the charge from murder to attempted murder? I mean when a person dies on the hospital the charges is change from attempted murder to murder. Shouldn't the same be done the other way around?

- I'm not sure about that. We don't exactly have much examples in this scenario to go on and i doubt that it's currently covered by the U.S. law, or the law of wherever you live.

Posted by stevencarver_

The better question is if one kills themselves and comes back to life, is it still considered suicide?

This is an infinitely more interesting question. The act of murder still happened and is recorded (at least in our comic wikis), so it's murder no matter the following circumstances. Suicide would be a little different though. Suicide is often regarded as a permanent solution to a temporary problem, but what if it wasn't a permanent solution? The killing act still happened, but the consequences have changed. It's also different because suicide involves only one person and their choices, while murder must include two or more people.

Posted by queenfrost_

Lol yes of course it is. The murderer doesn't know at the time if the hero is coming back, they still have every intention of murdering. The law still sees this as murder. Coming back to life is a separate issue and doesn't affect the murderer's original intention.

Posted by Crimsonlord53

So what about logan killing Jean/Dark phoenix is that mercy or murder?