Laws Broken: Avengers - Sokovia Accords Illegal? (One Marvelous Scene x LegalEagle)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- In a world filled with superheroes, the most unrealistic thing in the MCU is a legal document.
For more “marvelous” legal commentary follow me on twitter: / legaleagledj
More videos on Facebook: / legaleaglereacts
If you’re thinking about LAW SCHOOL, check out the course I created to help you kick ass at the top law schools: www.legaleagleprep.com/
For more on super hero law check out my video Laws Broken: Dark Knight - • Laws Broken: Dark Knig...
Special thanks to the Cast:
Ultron: Dave Wiskus - / @dwiskus
Narrator: Patrick H. Willems - / patrickhwillems
One Marvelous Scene Contributors:
Nando v Movies: • One Marvelous Scene - ...
Captain Midnight: • One Marvelous Scene - ...
JustWrite: • One Marvelous Scene - ...
Hat Tip to the Legal Geeks on their analysis of the international and conscription aspects: thelegalgeeks.com/2016/05/10/w...
Here’s the version of the Sokovia Accords that I used for this video: marvelcinematicuniverse.fando...
When I saw Hawkeye wearing an ankle bracelet in End Game for his violation of the Sokkovia Accords I knew I needed to make this video. In a world where the world is imperiled and protected by superheros, how does one regulate those people? Especially in light of the Constitution. It’s a interesting question.
And between Captain America and Ironman, who was right about the Sokkovia Accords?
Find out today!
Stay until the end for a special post-credits scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
(clicking the links really helps out the channel)
Custom Suits: legaleagle.link/indochino
Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
▶ Why Indochino Suits? (50% off Premium Suits + free shipping) [legaleagle.link/indochino]: Off-the-rack suits NEVER fit right. Indochino makes fully custom suits that fit perfectly using any material I want, with all of the options I want. And they cost 1/3rd of what normal suits costs. I’ve purchased them with my own money for years, so I’m thrilled they are now a sponsor.
▶ Why Ties from TheTieBar? (Free shipping on orders over $50) [fave.co/2ImLY9I]: Normal ties are too fat. Skinny ties are too skinny. So these days I only wear ties that are exactly 2.5” wide. They are fashionable without being hipster. You see them in all of my videos. TieBar ties are perfect, come in every color I want, and never cost more than $19.
▶ Why these Tie Clips? [amzn.to/2WIQ6EE]: It’s really hard to find affordable tie clips that are the right size (1.5”), look good, and are great quality. These tie bars are all three. Plus the 3-pack gives a variety of styles. They pair perfectly with 2.5” ties from TheTieBar (above).
▶ Why these Pocket Squares? [amzn.to/2UfsKtL]: I like my pocket squares perfectly, well, square. Like straight-out-of-Mad-Men square. The only way to do that is with a stiffer material that keeps its shape. I’ve exhaustively tried dozens of pocket squares, and these are by far the best. It’s how I get the perfectly flat pocket square you see in my videos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever watched a movie and thought “that looks illegal.” It probably is! Welcome to Laws Broken, a series on LegalEagle where I tackle your favorite movies and show you how legally irresponsible they are.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ ➜ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta ➜ / stellathelegalbeagle
For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
Wow, evidently Korematsu was overturned last year in Trump v. Hawaii. Many thanks to you Legal Eagles who pointed that out. I learned something!
Objection! While Trump v Hawaii overturned Korematsu by name, Trump v. Hawaii actually AFFIRMED the doctrine introduced by Korematsu. The Korematsu Doctrine is: A racist law, primarily motivated by racism, with ample evidence of racism, whose effect is racist is still legal as long as the Government can argue a non-racist reason for the law. Trump v. Hawaii reaffirms this: The travel ban was found legal in spite of racist motivation and effect because the government argued a non-racist reason. Trump v Hawaii states: "The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority." Black in Koremastu states THE SAME THING: "Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race." Koremastu was not overturned: a racially motivated, racist in effect law is legal as long as the government can dream up a reason that's not racist (and doesn't inadvertently violate another Constitutional principle.) EDIT: I'm not saying anything about the court's specific ruling on Trump v. Hawaii. Rather, I'm just pointing out that Koremastu set a precedent and Trump v. Hawaii FOLLOWED the precedent. Trump v. Hawaii did NOT overturn Koremastu at all. That's all I'm saying, so please stop arguing Trump v. Hawaii with me, that's not my point. Also, I didn't dream this analysis up: A lot of legal scholars agree that Trump v. Hawaii affirmed Koremastu. If you google "Trump v. Hawaii Koremastu" all the legal websites argue pretty much the same thing, some going so far as to call Trump v Hawaii's "overturning" of Koremastu a "self-deception." If you want to argue about how Koremastu and Trump v. Hawaii are DIFFERENT please go ahead. But Trump v. Hawaii is settled law and I don't care about that case in isolation except how it relates to Koremastu.
can you do an episode on My Hero Academia?
I'm not certain that Ultron would be considered a product of Tony Stark because it would seem that Ultron has individuality. I think it makes more sense to regard Ultron as a person instead of a product. Is Tony responsible for Ultron in the same way that a parent would be responsible for their child? Should Ultron be regarded as a child?
Review Law Abiding Citizen
@@itsfoyne Whether or not A.I. could have personhood is not a legal challenge that has been considered yet. Ultron was extremely sophisticated autonomous tech, but ultimately in a legal sense he was just tech.
Curious how all of this applies to Thor, since he’s not a citizen of ANY country, nor is he even human.
Technically speaking. It doesn't. Unless the public and collective governments think Thor is actually from western-north Europe or America, which as we know, he isn't.
It is important to consider tho that Thor left almost immediately after Avengers 2. So if there WAS enough time before discussion of the Accords began, it may be reasonable to consider that Thor is no longer part of the Avengers, and might not return to Planet Earth.
Vision also it not a citizen of any country or a human
@@andrewthezeppo And so is Ultron. Yet, Ultron was created by Tony, so everything he did in Sakovia comes back to Tony. In addition, Vision was created by Ultron, so everything he did comes back to Ultron, which comes back to Tony.
Sort of strange, since the first time he was on Earth after Civil War he was a citizen of Norway (I think New Asgard is part of Norway, not sure though)
It was pretty clear they were targeting the Avengers which Thor is a part of so unless they will be willing to acknowledge Thor as the Crown Prince of Asgard and thus immune, which I don't think they would. Or they would be very reluctant to do so. The Sokovia Accords is just the Government's attempt to put superheroes under legislation thus bringing one of the variables in this changing world under their control.
MCU US Government: The avengers are too dangerous to stop major threats cus collateral damage
Also MCU US Government: Lets nuke NYC to stop Loki lol
Thought it was SHIELD's board that authorized the nukes?
Hydra
@@boshwa20 Lol oops, fair!
*Whispers* Heil Hydra
new york became a war zone the moment the portal opened. it wasn't the fact that loki was at large in the city. in the course of war time there is a clause in the constitution to allow the president to declare a state of national emergency and temporarily revoke certain rights of citizens.
Objection: You missed one. Given how many criminal provisions there are in the accords, forcing individuals to reveal their secret identities is almost certainly a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Needs a response
@@Phosfit Needs a reply
@@halite_g needs a response to the reply
Oh snap, SOLID point!
This is not self incrimination as there is no crime, simply identity, thus it’s a privacy issue not a 5th amendment one
Fan theory - The Sokovia Accords was backed by Hydra (still mixed with Shield) so they can figure out who and what secrets every enhanced human has that is foolish enough to sign it.
So Ross *is* a Hydra agent
Well, I know many don't care about Agents of Shield, but they dealt for a little while with this theme, and it's not really made by Hydra, but surely they took advantage of that (and other groups). Lists and registers of this kind always fall in the wrong hands... For reference, it's season 3 and 4.
@@MariaCalore I do consider Agents of Shield part of the MCU 'Sacred Timeline' (pre Loki episode 6, for more info on this note see that series) just is stuff that happened during and outside the films. Is cool to see a universe mapped out like this, though seemingly some don't want to admit it is part of it. Is what my theory was based on too, though yeah lists have a bad habit of that happening, even if it's for a good cause.
@@jayvhoncalma3458 His intentions do seem for the best of his country, although Hydra has had a track record of using that to get their means, even with those not suspecting it, like how in CA Winter Solder where Hydra was revealed to be mixed with Shield, and everyone looked at their ally as an enemy for a moment til lines were better drawn.
It was 😂its in the movies
It's interesting that Habeus Corpus is your number one problem with the Sokovia Accords since that's what sets Cap over the edge too. In Civil War, Tony and Steve seem to be very close to making a deal but when Tony mentions that Wanda is confined to the Avengers compound, Steve gets angry and decides not to sign. Steve is so American, he has a Constitution-sense and it was tingling.
Wanda may not be a citizen but immigrants still have constitutional rights. Something Tony glossed over in Civil War.
@@historymysteries4134 Except that according to Tony she is technically an illegal immigrant...
@@onyxrose4349 Sure, but that's not how the Constitution works. She still has rights.
Onyx Rose Yeah, that line “they don’t give visas to WMDs” was stupid. If she wasn’t a legal immigrant, how is she participating in international operations? She’s a) a refugee and b) a highly skilled person; she’ll definitely have a visa. Also, everyone has constitutional rights in America and everyone in the world has human rights (including habeas corpus)
@@historymysteries4134
Pretty sure the Patriot Act has to do with something here
Guys the best scene in the MCU is clearly Korg going "Piss off, ghost!"
Money where your mouth is: I want a 45 minute Lindsay Ellis video on that.
Seconded.
+Lindsay Ellis
Lindsay, Lindsay, Lindsay. Clearly, the *best* Scenes in the MCU are...
1. Black Panther saying, *"Let them try."*
2. Steve Rogers saying, *"I didn't come here for forgiveness. And, I'm long past asking for permission."* and
3. Peter Parker telling Tony Stark, *"You can't be a friendly neighborhood Spiderman if there's no neighborhood."*
Shout outs to
A. Drax: *_"WHY is Gamora?"_*
B. Hulk: *_"Hulk...SMASH!"_*
C. Quill: *_"You said it yourself, bitch. We're the Guardians of the Galaxy."_*
"Another Day, Another Doug."
@@LegalEagle Sustained
You could do a whole episode entirely on Iron Man 2's Congressional Hearing where the government tries to steal Tony Stark's intellectual property for itself. It's not TECHNICALLY a courtroom scene but... well, congressional hearings aren't far off.
I love this
The government can exercise eminent domain but in doing so they'll need to provide just compensation
@@kennethkho7165 You can't eminent domain intellectual property. It's for real estate only. Thank God.
@@IncredibleMD actually you can, the takings clause of the constitution says "private property", not just land. the intellectual property clause of the constitution recognizes it as private property.
I find it amusing that Stark brings on Spiderman but does not force him to reveal his identity despite Stark being on the side of the Sokovia Accords considering they clearly would require Spiderman to reveal he is Peter Parker.
Maybe there's an exception in there for non-adult superheroes :P
😊Fun Fact😊: In the comics during the Avengers Civil War saga, Peter Parker does reveal his identity because of choosing Tony Stark's side, the fallout from it (from what I remember was bad for him).
"That is legally problematic'' and thus this series was born
9:18, It's very vague what this means and the fact that they would use the word "power" in a legal document sounds so ridiculous. The current legal definition of "Power" is: "An ability to generate a change in a particular *legal* relationship by doing or not doing a certain act". So Ironman or Hulk have an "innate power" to affect change in legal relationships?
"Don't make Hulk angry. Hulk have power to divorce you!"
@@tomsko863 More like Divide you.
@@section13mediabranch34 Tear you apart*
@@tomsko863 SheHulk definitely has
"Shows why the lawyers are the real heroes in the marvel universe". Well She Hulk and Dare Devil are both lawyers so, sure...why not.
I'd imagine that Murdock is violating a *ton* of laws both generally and specifically as a lawyer, and would likely be disbarred if the public ever found out about his identity. By being proudly above-board about her superhuman identity and keeping everything on-the-books, however, She-Hulk is definitely the better example of a super-lawyer.
@@clockworkkirlia7475 I suppose Matt could always fall back on being a instructional trainer if truth of his double life finds him disbarred. Though as for She Hulk....I heard you have to be careful with what you read with her in comics nowadays. Some illustrators who were in charge of her have messed up her character in more modern issues.
@@blackmagician7645 Oh *no.* How so? I'm not up on her recent appearances.
@@clockworkkirlia7475 Meh. Matt's been outed and disbarred before. And got his license back.
Clockwork Kirlia They basically ruin her character and just made her Hulk but female
He should cover the court scene in Iron Man 2. I'd be interested in learning about the legal implications of a real life Iron Man suit, used an operated in the way that Tony Stark (a private citizen / civilian) uses and operates it in the films. As a "nuclear deterrent" as he puts it in Iron Man 2
It should be acknowledged that Hydra was in on it. It should also be acknowledged that Tony is mutli-billionaire and known techno genius, literally one of the smartest people in the world. If they forced Tony to surrender his suits or they would arrest him, he would probably sabotage them, make their blueprints as obscure as possible, and piss him off. And it wouldn't be politically correct to forcibly seize such a famous person's property without REAL reasons to do so.
YES, YES, YES. That trial scene!
Hopefully he does, I would be interested to see how that would be handled, especially since a real life Iron man suit isn't entirely outside the realm of possibility.
"Yes dear?"
That wasn't a trial scene. That was a Senate committee hearing where the Senator was trying to use a public forum to compel Stark to give up his property for use by the US government. It wasn't a court of law. If it was, Tony would have had a lawyer present, it would have been before a federal judge (it was neither a civil or criminal proceeding), and the US attorney would have been bringing charges against Tony, in the case of a criminal case. It was political theater, nothing more. The Senate couldn't legally compel Stark to give up the suit, and Tony knew it, so he said no. The only legal thing that would have occurred is it Tony ignored the summons before the Senate, during which he could be held in Contempt of Congress, but he didn't, he showed up.
I absolutely love the fact that this guy is an actual lawyer who passed the bar and yet hes like ooh I gotta record a RUclips video. _Chef's kiss_
It's called being an intellectual
@@IssyFishyy it's been 2 years, hope it's going well so far?
"Because everything is illegal".
Finally, the truth comes out.
I'm so sorry I didn't mean to take that pen from the DMV window. I'll put it back promise. *hides all the pillow tags stating it's illegal to remove this tag*
Nothing is true, everything is permitted
this is illegal you know
The truth come out! Does everything is illegal?
LegalEagle: The Sokovia Accords are illegal.
Captain America: I knew it.
Thor: ....that’s my line.
Russo brothers : em... spolier....
AsHalt the spoiler ban was lifted yesterday by Joe and Anthony Russo.
They are not so much illegal as unenforceable.
Captain America: I understood that reference.
Funny fact: Pre-Crime law enforcement is the main subject of the sequel to the Civil War comic event.
Yeah with the precog inhuman
Cap also got a taste of it in the winter soldier with project insight
@@matsko6527 Yeah but Project insight:
- Was as much Precrime law enforcement rather Hydra removing any obstacles in their way
- Never got implemented that's to Cap.
@@michadabrowski3120 Shields intention with it was more precrime though right?
@@matsko6527 Yeah, to neutralize that before they happen
I love how Tony’s response to “your harebrained invention killed my family” was to compel his own friends to assuage HIS guilt by being incarcerated for genetic and technological advancements.
Oh, thank goodness someone else noticed that. He created Ultron over their protests, and then pushed the Sokovia Accords on the over their protests. Kind of a theme with him, isn't it?
"We need to be kept in check." No Tony, YOU need to be kept in check.
@@Roguefem76 helped made Ultron*
Anyway hated how they always made tony out to be the bad guy when all he's been trying to do is protect earth.
But that's why tony is my favorite and most relatable human avenger. He's flawed and makes mistakes. Ones I believe a rich hero would try to make. Ones that even bite him and others back.
Cap just seems too perfect.
@@Roguefem76 It wasn't over their protests, they didn't even know about it until after he had already done it.
@@knightghost1782 Nonsense, he was the one who designed it AND talked Bruce into helping with it. Ultron was Tony's fault, stop trying to minimize his screw-up.
@@tron9683 He'd obviously pitched it to them before, and were you unconscious or high for the entire scene where they were literally FIGHTING to stop him from activating Ultron?
It's a good thing the government would never do anything illegal... 😐
It's very confusing when the authority that forces the rules of the constitution on society, is violating these rules ... against the whole society. Somewhere something has somehow gotten pretty wrong.
And that's why I won't register my guns. 👍 Ever.
Not at all!!!!!! Totally...
Manospondylus Gigas yeah but you just told everyone you have Guns .
Yeah, the video ends with concerns of Habeas Corpus, but didn't that right get signed away for US citizens with NDAA 2012?
"Laywers are the real superheros in the marvel universe"
Now that you mention it Legal Eagle does sound like a superhero name.
Daredevil mixed with Falcon?
You're thinking of Harvey Birdman - the greatest hero of all time.
Too bad most lawyers are villains in reality.
@@Bell_Matt Not Matt Murdock.
ROFL
So, as I discovered Marvel, RUclips recommended me this, and I am so happy. Ever since I checked out the Sokovia Accords on the Marvel wiki, I've been unreasonably enraged about it, especially the constant tracking and indefinite detainment without trial. Unreasonably because no real-life people are harmed by it, if it were real, I'd be throwing up.
But I think it works if you realise that the accords are not there to protect innocent bystanders, they are a way of gaining control over people who have extraordinary skills, strong will, powerful technology, and a good conscience. They can't be bought, so someone is trying to nerf them.
Jessica Jones: only really uses her super strength for self-defense and look for clues, not even a vigilante. Somehow still gets in trouble with cops more than most heroes.
I mean to be fair, the Civil War saga (both in the MCU and in the comics) is based around blatantly unconstitutional legislation to explore both the fictional "how would society react to the threat posed by superhumans?" and also the practical "why is authoritarianism persuasive, and why is it nonetheless wrong?"
The whole thing where an international treaty becomes a US law is pretty goofy. The UNCLOS isn’t a US law, neither is the Antarctica Treaty. These treaties bind the US thanks to UN supranationalism, but do not bind individual US citizens.
Got a few problems with this one, if you care to address them.
1) The Falcon flying suit was to my understanding, U.S. gov't property.
2) The War Machine High Tech Prosthetic was personal property of Tony Stark that was stolen by Rhodes and thereafter gifted to the U.S. military, apparently contingent on the terms that the military neither reverse engineers it or allows another pilot to use it.
3) there may be some wiggle room on Tony's responsibility for Ultron. Tony did not create Ultron, Ultron kinda... created himself, with the assistance of the mind stone whose properties were not fully understood at the time. Tony tells us that he was actually nowhere near creating an AI. Ultron was made possible by the Mind Stone, which was, at that time, property of (prince?) Thor, working in conjunction with a simulation designed to see if an AI was even possible. Here we get into diplomatic immunity, liability vs reasonable precautions, and other really sticky legalities. In the end, I would say that given the knowledge that Tony and the Avengers had at the time, Ultron *should* have been impossible, so Tony *should* get off the hook on that one.
That being said, I'm not a lawyer.
Love your content man.
Only the first suit Sam had was the government property, the one they stole. But the second one was made by Tony and given to Sam, which makes it Sam's property.
Thor was not aware that Tony was using the Mind Stone to creat an AI, so he should also get off Scott free as you say
Rhodey gave the Mark II suit back to Tony. Every suit Rhodey wore after was personally made for him by Tony.
True, no reasonable person would've anticipated the mind stone would go rogue
@@tron9683 Yeah but they all have USAF branding & numbers on them. So either Tony is putting military registration numbers & identification on private equipment (is that illegal?) or the armors are legal U.S. property
“a robot army lead by Ultron”
The entire army *was* Ultron
led by himself.
Which he led
All of them, against all of him
The avengers basically commited genocide by exterminating the ultron minority.
He still right tho
I , I kind of want there to be an MCU scene where you're defending the Avengers in court.
That would be fun!
Probably shoulda happened before Endgame!
I’d watch that! :)
@@jtarvid86
Captain Marvel took place before literally everything else so I don't see why not.
I imagine it as a post-credit scene
Cap needed you on his team. You’d fit right in with Hawkeye and Falcon!
Daredevil: "sorry we're late guys Danny wanted some Wendys...."
Luke Cage: "where is everyone?"
LegalEagle: "You can't own people"
Also LegalEagle: "Vision is Tony Stark's dog."
Vision is not "people". He is a robot and as such has no standing in court.
I like how despite the Sokovia Accords being ratified, no one ever followed them, not even the heroes who signed it.
the problem is that a lot of enhanced individuals were subjected to them. look at the Jessica Jones series, once you're taken to the Raft you're never heard from again.
After Infinity War, the Sokovia accords became a joke.
There is literally no one who would and could enforce the Sokovia Accords. It would be like China declaring that cars are banned in the U.S.A.
Have you seen Agents of SHIELD? I believe season 2 or 3 is deals with the fallout of the accords on the civilian level.
Darkfire Project, Agent of SHIELDS is joke series to begin with because the Netflix Original Marvel series are more consistent within the laws of the United States than the Agents of SHIELD series.
Captain America definitely needed a lawyer like you to back him up.
ElPayasoMalo but Captain America: Civil Trial doesn’t seem as exciting
high price lawyer.... stop give expensive decision...
@@PsychicSugar99 I'd still watch it.
@@PsychicSugar99 that sounds amazing actally.
Objection: The Falcon wings are government technology that Sam stole through Sharon in TWS.
Then that’s the only thing he could he tried for. He was still held without trial on the raft, which is a prison ship. Prison ships are supposed to be unconstitutional because of the revolutionary war prison ship martyrs.
I was going to point this out.
Iron Man suits, property of Tony Stark and Stark Industries
War Machine Suit, property of the US Government stolen from Stark Industries with modifications by Hammer Industries (yeah, Rhodey stole the base suit, people forget this)
Original Falcon Wings, experimental protype property of the US Government on loan to Sam Wilson for testing, destroyed during Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier or sometime after, as he was not present in Sokovia and had new gear in his next appearance.
Falcon Wings 2.0, Stark Industries upgrade over protype design (if the US Government wants to make an issue, the War Machine and Iron Patriot Armors being violations of Stark IP while Stark is a SHIELD authorized technology consultant sort of end that issue), first seen in Ant-Man, property of Stark Industries... all Falcon gear after this is Stark Technology based or Wakandan based.
@@glowhoo9226 The accords apply to advanced technology, including Sam’s wings. Breaking the accords means imprisonment without trial.
@@mariavi33 Which is literally illegal in the United States, one of the many reasons the Accords wouldn't be legally binding in the US.
@@frocat5163 Yes, but that didn't stop them from imprisoning the team Cap members they caught at the airport in a floating Geneva Convention breaking prison without any legal processes.
Now you can do a video on the absolutely bizarre execution of Vision's estate and the government mishandling of his remains in Wandavision. What even was that.
"Vision could be considered Tony's dog"
And he's a good boy, yes he is!
Does that makes his death in Infinity War a murder, animal abuse, or destruction of property?
Metrion77 all three
*was
@@Metrion77 yes
Objection!: Vision being considered chattel, Vision could be considered Tony's cow. And he's a good cow, yes he is.
Also: Thor, Prince of a sovereign nation of another planet.
Does he have diplomatic imunity?
Looool! Good point!
@@RuinedSilver I would argue the runes as well as the different testimonies of him across stories and fables apply as earthly documentation.
I would say no because black panther did not have it when he went to South Korea in his movie
maybe a cheat but could you argue that ...
"you want to apply earth law on the Aesir. try it see what happens"
Probably why he wasn’t in the movie
Honestly the avengers should have asked for their lawyers to look over the documents with them because based off the speech given to them by the general guy it didn't sound anywhere near as bad as you've explained it to be.
They were only given three days to read the document before it was to be ratified. Very shady on Ross's part.
yeah wheres daredevil when you need him
16:12 funny enough detaining people who haven't committed a crime yet was exactly what Civil War II was about in the comics, but this time Iron Man was *against* it
I remember in Civil War that when Captain America asked for a lawyer he was denied one. Also, instead of arresting Bucky for what they thought was the bomb attack and letting him get a lawyer, agents were told to just kill him after finding him. I wonder if any members of Hydra wrote or tried to enforce The Accords. They could orchestrate it so that The Avengers couldn't stop their plans.
At least, we know what is inside the Sokovia Accords.
A major problem in the original comic is that we never saw what was in the Registration Act. As such, the story is heavily impacted. Not that it was well done to begin with...
Perhaps it was Hydra after all. "Cut off one head. Two more shall take its place." Makes sense.
T. The movie is quite better than the comic in that spot!
@@jesusmagallonbarrera1124 I disagree.
Well, Captain America: The Winter Soldier was kinda all about how the real villain of the MCU was the American government.
Admit nothing.
Demand proof.
Lawyer Man to the rescue.
What All laws targeted at men the Metoo movement.
Having a why chromosomes testosterone makes you an inhansed indivual
@kevin weinz Denying everything can actually harm your defence. You're safer just admitting and denying nothing. Counter-accusations without proof won't help.
Team Cap!
In the comics, the incident that sparked the restrictions was on US soil and was not an international agreement. Those that didn't comply were sent to a prison in another dimension, so the Sokovia Accords were a slap on the wrist in comparison, and probably even a more heinous violation of constitutional rights.
Best scene in the comics series: As one of the detainees is being led to a cell, he drops a quarter and a nickel at the feet of one of the 'heroes' that were escorting them. "There's your thirty pieces of silver, Judas."
Oh, that was Daredevil who dropped the quarter and nickel and he calls Iron Man Judas
The "Sokovia Accords" are the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of the "Superhuman Registration Act" from the Civil War series in Marvel comics, and the Act applied ONLY to all enhanced individuals in the United States of America. In the comics people, like Mutants and their families, left the United States as a result, moving to other countries to seek protection (most notably Geosha, which was already a safe haven for Mutants).
Yeah but the MCU made it clear this was a United Nations registration act. So it's global.
Mutants were already subject to the rules that the Superhuman Registration Act subsequently applied to the rest of the superhumans. And they'd just recently been genocided down to enough people to fit in a large building. Which was guarded by building sized death robots in case any of them got any ideas about leaving that building.
It's why when people came to the X-Men asking for them to join a side during the Civil War, they laughed in their faces and slammed the door.
*Sees Sokovia Accords*
LegalEagle: "Now this is an Avengers level threat!"
You're absolutely right. The adoption of the Sokovia Accords is indeed the best scene in the MCU. Without the Accords, Cap and Tony could have teamed up and stopped Thanos in Infinity War and we never would have gotten Endgame.
Thanos with the gauntlet actually using it, would problably still won
@@pedroaugusto3602 I disagree. The Avengers working together with the common goal of getting the stones away from Thanos could have stopped him.
Yes, @@xanderm6090. Everyone would of been on talking terms at the very least instead of taking years to get back to talking terms with one another. I find that the Accords was the catalyst that destroyed SHIELD and the Avengers both. Who knew what would outright destroy both SHIELD and the Avengers in fell swoop would of been essentially closed door reactionary politics. If Captain America at least was allowed to help rebuild SHIELD after the Hydra Incident then chances are Thanos would of never gotten all six Infinity Stones, or at least the Infinity Stones here on Earth would of remained out of his reach for roughly the next century.
Even with they in talking terms, couldn't have stopped Thanos of getting the power stone, because was in Xandar and there were no hero there to stop him. So, 1 is down. Thor hadn't nothing to do with the Accords, neither did Hulk, so Thanos would still had attack them, killed Loki and taked the Space Stone. 2 are down and he is already the more powerful being, minus Celestials and Eternals, alive. And the reality stone falls in the same case: the collector was given the stone by Thor, who, as established earlier, had nothing to do with the Accords. So, it would probably still be stolen and he now he has the power, space and reality. The script in this point wouldn't change and he would still captured Gamora and the Soul Stone is down as well. The thing that the Accords actually affected was the Mind and Time stones, with Vision and Dr. Strange. But Thanos has 4 and he would probably won.
@@adamgray1753 forgot to adress you in my answer, sorry
I'd be interested in seeing you sort out all the legal chaos created by the snap/resnap from Infinity War/Endgame. People disappear for 4 years, presumably considered dead, and then return I'd expect headaches from property disposition, marital status, and who knows what else...
I would love to see this too. In fact, that's right where my mind went when they came back. Of course, the problems would all be undone from the time travel that was done to fix everything. It's so confusing when you involve time travel and timeline changes.
@@Moraenil
Endgame's timetravel didn't prevent the snap. It was forward travel to bring a solution, but it didn't change their past.
also what about the people that where not at home during the snap. the resnap might kill them again anyway. if they travelled they appaer in dangerous positions like the air or the middle of the ocean. also they would all be jobless now, no business would keep their job open for years let alone for someone declared dead
@@alexanderzack3720
It would be logical, except for the fact that the snap did an exact 50%, despite potentially snapping away pilots, surgeons etc.
It's assumed the stones had the ability to select the targets in such a way to *enforce* the 50% requirement instead of simply removing 50% and letting others die from a direct consequence.
So the reverse logic applies from bringing them back : Hulk wanted those people alive, the stones made sure they would survive the landing, so to speak.
@@laplongejunior valid point
You need to do a video on the fight between John Walker and the Dora Milaje. They're both in Prague. Wakanadans are in Prague to obtain Zemo who killed their king. Who was in violation of the Accords? If the UN sent John Walker to Prague to return Zemo to prison. Bearing in mind Wakanda have a personal reason for taking in Zemo and they initially caught him before he shot himself.
I really need a scene in the MCU where Legal Eagle represents a class action lawsuit against the Sokovia Accords.
I feel like that’d be a fun She-Hulk subplot!
Would be awesome to see Leagle Eagle as co-council with SheHulk to take down the accords
That would require during the review process a line where either be like 'who wrote this garbage, a hollywood producer?"
After Endgame *THERE'S PLENTY REASON TO GET RID OF THE SOKOVIA ACCORDS*
Someone start a petition
"Basically the U.S. is still in World War I."
That sounds correct.
Explains why we have fought in every country since 1918.
The active phase of WWI ended with the Armistice. I believe that we signed a separate peace with Germany, taking the trademark to Bayer Aspirin (eventually sold by its US owners back to Bayer, GmbH, originally a division of IG Farbenwerk), among other things, as reparations.
The Korean War "ended" with a Cease-Fire (basically the same thing as an Armistice) until the Current Leader (whatever Kim Jong whatever calls himself) repudiated that cease-fire, therefore we are still in an active police action against North Korea. Why a couple hundred nukes haven't flown to deal with him (lets face it, le stat c'est Him, just like with Napoleon or Hitler) and his nuclear inventory can only be only be traced to forbearance or moral cowardice.
Objection: The United States negotiated and signed a separate peace treaty(s) with each of the Central Powers individually.
Evidence:
A) The US.-German Peace Treaty (1921) wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/US_Peace_Treaty_with_Germany
B) U.S.-Austrian Peace Treaty (1921)
C) U.S.-Hungarian Peace Treaty (1921)
Edit: I couldn't find primary source links for the Austrian or Hungarian treaties, so I didn't include them.
@@MisterJackTheAttack Not every country, but when the US tries to take on Scandanvia it'll be the winter war all over again.
@@davidweihe6052 "Why a couple hundred nukes haven't flown to deal with him..."
Yes, I'm sure dropping a few hundred nuclear weapons on another country, one bordered by Russia and China no less, would be act free from serious international repercussions.
You should've been consulted for She-Hulk, I'd love to watch some actual legal drama going on with the Sokovian Accords. Could be interesting to see She-Hulk destroying the Sokovia Accords in court.
"The lawyers are the real superheroes in the MCU"
This dude predicted a certain cameo in No Way Home.
"the lawyers are the real heroes in the Marvel universe" Matt Murdock and Foggy Nelson will be glad to know this
You forgot She Hulk
Kolbjornelenano yea but she's not exist yet in MCU
Well, legal eagle doesn't think so.
@@ijal290 well he did when I made this comment :P
@Goddamn 47 weel she will have her series on disney plus
The whole "deeming people a threat before they do something" was literally the plot in Winter Soldier
Edit:holy lord this got more popular then i every expected
Sounds like Minority Report too
that's the whole issue with Civil War 2 plotline in Marvel comics.
My impression of the Sokovia Accords was to prohibit the US based Avengers from deploying into non-US territories without consent from those sovereign territories, and establishes that due to their enhanced condition, the individual Avengers are effectively pseudo-military even though they deploy without any other military equipment. This is really the point of the Accords. If the Avengers only ever deployed within the US probably nobody else would even care.
@@nurainiarsad7395 I saw it as them saying they are officially allowed to arrest superheroes whenever they like it. Because no matter what anybody says, it's practically impossible to determine whether was superhero guilty on the spot like that. The Incredible Hulk brings down a skyscraper, but is it because he's a monster? Or is it because the Scarlet Witch messed with his mind. You probably count on your fingers how many people wouldn't go ballistic if they had the Scarlet Witch messing with them.
@@nurainiarsad7395 The points of the Sokovia accords are to control enhanced people. And it's not just the US; it's in 117 countries. It legalizes the forced registration, tracking, and internment without trial of all enhanced people in all those countries.
The front page makes it clear that it's not just the Avengers:
“The Sokovia Accords: Framework for the Registration and Deployment of Enhanced Individuals”
If it were just for the Avengers, it would say that. Instead, it says “enhanced individuals”. So the Sokovia accords apply to all enhanced people, including civilians and even minors, in 117 countries.
That copyright joke in the RUclips segment was hilarious, great job.
Ultron: *Sounds like he's gonna murder everyone because he is*
Quote: *Sounds like a commercial for a hippie farm brand*
If, say, there was a big purple guy that wanted to destroy half the universe, wouldn't ANYTHING be self defense? You can't really retreat from the universe
If you, at any point, obtain the means by which he plans to destroy half the universe, you are compelled to retreat and prevent him from getting that by either running away more, or using self defense.
If you disable him at any point you are also compelled to not use force against him *cough* Peter Quill *cough*
Not destroy half the universe, just remove half of all life.
Is it really self defense though.
Self-defense
the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger
If it is only half of all life then there is a high probability that you or a family member will be unharmed. Since all life is accounted and "chosen" at random then there is a high probability than you will not be chosen.
William Winder Well, you must admit that the probability of everyone surviving is slim, also could humanity itself count as a loved one? imagine that there is a man with a gun, and he tells you that there's a 50% it's loaded, I would argue that it's self defense, even if the gun was not loaded. There is a violent action and a reasonable person would assume the worst.
@@williamwinder3466 it may not be self defense but it would still be legal to fight him in order to save the lives he was trying to take. There are laws protecting people who intervene and fight against someone who is attacking another person, even if that person you are trying to protect is a total stranger. So if the giant purple dude was trying to kill half of all life in the universe laws would still protect you if you fought against him even if you initiated the violence between the two of you.
Source: i have personally intervened in a robbery and attacked the person robbing someone i didn't know. I stepped in and started swinging on him and dazed him and then put him in a arm bar restraining him while the robbery victim called the cops and i held him there until they showed up. The robber tried to press charges against me because i ran up to him and punched him repeatedly without saying a word and the cops wouldn't even file them because i attacked him to stop him from robbing the other person and even though i threw the first punch, i was acting to protect someone else and there are laws protecting people who take that sort of action, so i faced no legal repercussions whatsoever despite me throwing the first punch against the guy and was even commended by the cops.
@@daltonevans3412 Yes one on one you would be correct. However when you take into account the absolutely astronomical odds perhaps not. Out of all life, not just people, but plants, animals, bacteria, I say that because he just says "all life" and doesn't make a distinction, the odds of any human being "chosen" are less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
You should SOOOO do a “get lawyered” on the Iron Man 2 opening court scene. Where the government tried to take his suits!
I actually think they had a point there though. Basically the question to settle is whether the suits are just regular arms or military hardware and let's face it... they turn him into the equivalent of a human fighter jet. They're not exactly your basic AR-15.
That would definitely be a good one to review because, there's a lot of legal questions to be asked about whether Tony Stark can legally build and own those suits, and the drones we see in the subsequent movies. And it's not just a right to bear arms/civilians having access to top tier military hardware, the fact that the suits can fly, and don't match the definition of any conventional aircraft, operating them puts him at odds with the FAA as well.
@@ccvcharger I am fairly sure as an inventor and arms dealer (stark industries) he probably had some legal rights to produce weapons, though I don't know if this would be under his right to do so, in either case him using the suit as he does is definitely not legal. (by Inventor I mean he was probably part of some military hardware creation's like the missile from the first movie, so its clear he has invented weapons before)
As I recall, that wasn’t technically a legal proceeding but a Congressional hearing. It has some of the trappings of a legal hearing but not all of them.
Yaaaaas
"We're going to take this fake law made purely for entertainment purposes and tear is a part"....and I'm here for it
This needs a follow-up after watching WandaVision and Falcon And The Winter Soldier.
I see why Cap opposed this, its just so... anti American, anti freedom. Like the example you gave about schools not being allowed to force students to salute the flag, people in America have freedom and rights, even if it conflicts with the nation itself.
I like the core aspect of that.
Ultimately, it comes down to not allowing the government to make your decisions for you. He's not going to stand by and do nothing when he should simply because the government says so.
@@XavionofThera I imagine that's what they had in mind when writing all that stuff in the american constitution.
In America, the Constitution does not give citizens rights, instead, it defends those citizens preexisting, God-given rights from the tyrannical proclivities of the government.
Unlike damn French and many South American constitutions that even right to be happy is given by the government.
In the comic book series that Civil War is based on, Tony comes off as completely the villain of the story.
*Objection* - When you stated that the Avengers' vigilantism is illegal, you presented images of the Battle of Wakanda in Infinity War, particularly of Bruce Banner using lethal force on aliens invading Wakanda.
The Wakandan Government - led by King T'Challa, invited/allowed the Avengers (including Bruce Banner) to join their forces in protecting the country for this particular war. As such, I would argue this is not vigilantism.
Even without that, it doesn't really count as vigilantism. It isn't about crime-fighting or justice, it was a war.
It would likely be considered the employment of mercenaries
Andrew agreed, at best, this would be considered a request for aid
@@thatonewaguy7841
Allies, not mercs
@Vic Viquor Being a mercenary isn't illegal. It's just the stuff that mercenaries tend to do, that's illegal. Lol
This is the most comprehensive and affirmative take down of the SHRA that I have ever seen. Thank you.
You could always do a crossover of Vision's rights vs being property like Data in Measure of a Man.
OBJECTION: Would Ultron still be considered a product if it could be proven to be a sentient/sapient being?
Refering to the court about datas court case about his rights as person, i think you must declare him a person, even if he is sentient being, it must be clarified in court. Marvel is on the same fictional territory as them.
DahVoozel at the moment the law isn’t prepared to handle that question
If he were legally shown to be a person, he could not then be bought or sold, as that would be slavery, and thus could not be a "product" in the United States per the 13th Amendment.
He feels pain and suffer? No. Law was made to prevent those and if it has none...
@@jonsnor4313 but we don't seem to be that far from an ultron type being
Most of the accidents responsible for the accords are the direct fault of the US government, and they are basically trying to shift the blame and pin it on the avengers.
Yea, actually that's kinda realistic.
What about all the laws targeted at men the Metoo movement or every war it MEN we're drafted. Having a Y Chromosomes giving testosterone makes you an inhanced indivual.
@@osmosisjones4912 Did you just spell "enhanced" as "in hasn't"? Don't worry, no one will be treating you as "enhanced", though maybe "special".
@@osmosisjones4912 In my opinion, there shouldn't be a draft at all. It wasn't feminist/metoo movement that put that in place, and I agree the draft is sexist. Either not at all (preferably) or for everyone.
The other laws you're talking about don't exist, unless you count stronger workplace harrassment laws?? Which, no. There will always be extremist in every group, but they don't represent the views of other members. They're just often the loudest and often the most seen/spread by the other side.
Only the fight in New York and the shield D.C. base were the government fault
In Africa hulk's rampage was scarlet witches fault but that still came back to hydra which was responsible for the D.C. event
Lastly cross bone's boom could have done worst damage if gone off in the middle of the square and if they didn't interfere he would have got a deadly virus wich would have killed even more people, and this is Also on hydra
James Burgess remember when shield / the Shadow Government tried to Newk New York
Your remarks about Vision being chattel make me wonder how you'd interpret the Zeta Project cartoon, where a U.S. government robot becomes sentient and becomes a staunch pacifist, actively rejecting his former programming and status as property. On the flip side, one of the agents pursuing him ends up disobeying orders and breaking laws as he becomes more and more obsessed with the chase.
2:30 - Let's set the scene
6:30 - N°1 - Compelled speech
7:40 - N°2 - Forced registration
8:30 - N°3 - Monitoring
9:55 - N°4 - The 2nd amendment
11:10 - N°5 - Freedom to associate
11:55 - N°6 - Freedom to travel
13:10 - N°7 - Vagueness
14:10 - N°8 - Imprisonement
14:45 - N°9 - Forced conscription
15:25 - N°10 - Habeus corpus
Thank you
Objection: captain America is an enlisted member of the US military and is therefore not necessarily a vigilante, but rather a member of the military violating orders when he just decides to do vigilante-type things. We never see him actually discharged on screen so we are left to assume that he’s still serving, his actions are likely still legal, but in violation of military orders
Objection: He was declared KIA therefore no longer part of the military.
I mean, wouldn’t his enlistment have expired about sixty-five years before the events of these movies?
Matthew Harvey potentially? I think it depends on whether or not the military would’ve regarded his time in the ice as essentially being a POW
POW/MIA personnel are paid (and eligible for promotion) for their time in that status. So Cap would have a ton of back pay, and would be a Sergeant Major surely by the 2010s when he was found. But your enlistment is only extended for pay purposes, and only through your recovery. It’s not put on hold, such that you have to keep serving. He’d be discharged as soon as he was medically ready.
@@matthewharvey3556 Sergeant-Major is a non-commissioned officer rank, whereas in the first Captain America movie Steve was addressed as 'Captain Rogers', implying that Captain was his rank as well as part of his codename, and therefore he was a commissioned officer.
Objection. If lawyers are the real superheroes of the Marvel universe, where is your video on Daredevil?
Theres a lot of eh interesting stuff in Dare devil.
I don't think he saw that one.....
This. Much of this.
He did one.
"Vision is like Tony's dog"
Ah hmm yes my dog too does the flying through walls and has above human intelligence.
(In case you couldn't tell I was joking)
So your dog is Krypto The Super-Dog?
Ha! Ha!
Does your dog at least have a crystal embedded in his/her forehead? ;-p
@@guardrailbiter Of course! Doesn't everyone's?
Thanos: I have the stones. Now to get a lawyer.
"So, legally speaking, Vision is like Tony's dog." Tony Stark is officially the John Wick of the MCU now that he went and killed Thanos and the entirety of his armies for killing his dog.
Technically, Vision had 6 creators:
1. Helen Cho created Vision's body infusing it with vibranium supplied by Ultron.
2. Ultron supplied a percentage of Vision's consciousness and personality.
3. Tony Stark supplied a percentage of Vision's consciousness and personality.
4. Bruce Banner supplied a percentage of Vision's consciousness and personality.
5. The Mind Stone functions within Vision as a weapon and as an alternator for...
6. The lightning of Mjolnir, which powers the Vision alongside the energy of the Mind Stone and is continually pumped throughout his system by the Mind Stone.
@@Catroo Helen Cho??????
@@jbrewerman2 dead
@@castergilgamesh1778 @Catnipkitty Helen Cho dead? She was alive in the new Avengers HQ at the end of Age of Ultron. Where did you get information that she died in MCU?
@@jbrewerman2 Helen Cho just operated the fabrication device that created his body. Someone who makes a new 3d printer wouldn't have ownership of anything printed by it and the IP would still remain with the person who created it.
Ultron is a robot and as such is not recognized a separate entity, so the company or person that created them would have all rights to creations by that AI until such time as they became a legally distinct individual. This is already seen in the real world where AI creates new things.
The Mind Stone is likewise not a separate entity as it is an inanimate object, and since it does not have a creator since it existed from the moment of creation then there is no one that can claim the Mind Stone as their own IP.
Mjolnir's lightning is just an energy source and being applied against the will of the creator and owner of the object would not give him any rights to it as a creator. Another energy source could have been fabricated and applied if chosen to do so.
The only person here with a real claim as part of the property would be Bruce, because he contributed to the code and programming that created Ultron, and subsequently created Vision.
Great and informative video as always, I would just like to add to the record that I got the impression that another reason why the Socovia Accords where set up was because SHIELD was destroyed back in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which essentially meant that the Avengers were technically not working under anyone, let alone a government body.
Up until The Winter Soldier I'm guessing that SHIELD took care of any bureaucracies and PR problems that might have occurred, including something like the inciting incident with Wanda that kickstarted the Accords.
It's hard to say though; the movies are vague about such details
That intro XD
"Im going to take your favorite shows and movies and destroy them by showing you that everything is illegal" lmfaoo
The best scene in the MCU was when LegalEagle got the infinity gauntlet and snapped half of all my fond childhood memories away.
"an accord is not a US law"
No... It's a Japanese sedan.... *buh dum tss*
H o n d a
Except that the US constitution did say that all treaties ratified shall have the force of the constitution/law. Goggle that. Although it must meet constitutional muster.
What if The Avengers each received a Honda Accord with Avengers colors made in Sokovia, and those are the Sokovia Accords
Literally made me LOL.. Good one
Nice 😉😉😉
A major issue with the accords is that the UN can't basically write new laws for its countries to follow lol
Minor objection: Tony paid the majority of damages from the Ultron incident, even before Sokovia Accords. I think he already took most of the liability
Objection:
The Falcon suit is property of the US government and the war machine suit was stolen and seized by said government. Tony just let Roady keep it.
One is stolen government property, and the other is stolen government property.
@@FulcanMal Falcon suit is stolen gov property, but War Machine is waaaay more complicated because the Mark 1 WM was actually the stolen and modified Mark 2 Iron Man (Stolen Stark property,) but then after that the Iron Patriot seems to have been whole original Gov property (even though it was obviously built by studying the stolen Mark 2 (Stolen Stark IP,) But then the next War Machine we see is in AoU which looks like it's just the Iron Patriot rechristened? Since I doubt the USGov would let Rhodey operate under the War Machine moniker the fact he's going by it now might mean this is the first case of WM being stolen US property (that is still based on stolen Stark IP) but every WM suit since then seems to be completely original Stark designed and owned, but Rhodey still seems to have his military rank when piloting them? Maybe Stark and USGov finally reached an agreement where Stark designs and builds WM suits and then licences them to the USGov for Rhodey to use in an official capacity?
War Machine was stolen, BUT. Because Tony never patented the armor, if someone got the suit or specs away from Tony regardless of HOW, they can then use that info to make their own suits and sell them without a problem. Because the War Machine was built off of the design of the MKII Iron Man armor, and then changed by Hammer Industries and AIM, the suit is no longer property of Stark Industries. As such, it ceased to be "stolen" property. The Falcon suit was stolen at first, but after the events of Winter Soldier, Tony added him to the Avengers, and updated the suit. (As a sub-point here, depending on what contractor originally MADE the Falcon suit, it might not even be stolen tech. If Stark made it originally, then he can just call it like Batman does, "borrowing" his stuff.
@@Phantom9252 Isn`t War Machine the property of the Hammer Industries?What ever happened to that company after Iron Man 2?If it collapsed because Justin Hammer was arrested,then it belongs to Rhody and only him now?
@@portul566 Hammer Industries was only contracted to arm it with new weapons. First thing Rhody did with the suit was to fly it to some kind of military base, so he claimed it for the US government.
The thing you have to remember about the War Machine armor is that it's wearer, Col. James Rhodes, is a Member of the Military, granting him access to specific Military weapons.
And that any foreign engagement in which he participates becomes de facto US Military action, i.e. the fight at the airport.
Isn't the War Machine armour Stark's though? (I haven't seen the Iron Man films, so I could be wrong.)
@@ariel_of_narnia4482 Rhodey stole a suit from Tony, who just let him keep it. Tony had every right to want it returned if he wanted, but at a certain point, it would probably just be considered a gift.
@@ariel_of_narnia4482 love that line from Nick Fury "Whoa, whoa, whoa. He took it? You're Iron Man and he just took it? The little brother walked in there, kicked your ass and took your suit? Is that possible?"
@@Sharikacat Not quite. Because it was then changed by Hammer, and was never patented by Tony first, it's no longer stolen once Hammer got hold of it, it actually becomes his property, which was then sold to the US Military. When they gave it to AIM, a similar thing happened. The War Machine suit was still property of Hammer Industries, (assuming that the company wasn't dissolved, put into bankruptcy, or subject to liquidation in the aftermath of the Expo incident), but, Iron Patriot was THEIR property, which was then sold to the government. Sadly, Tony couldn't take the suit back in either case if he wanted to. (Refer to the "Armor Wars" comic story in Iron Man for more)
I also feel like the way the treated team cap in the raft is a crime in itself, Wanda had a schock collar on for gods sake- also i feel like that can be discrimination because she, the only one with powers, was also the only one what was in a straight jacket and schock collar while the others did not.
The scene when Simba returns in the original Lion King is sort of a trial, I always wondered if scar's confession wouldn't be considered under duress.
I doubt it. He confessed freely to Simba, and then Simba forced him to tell everyone else so they could hear it from the tyrant's mouth so it was more believable.
Do something with Daredevil's netflix series sometime! Lawyer by day, vigilante by night. And he looks alot like you. It needs to be done!
This! I second this!
I agree with this
Who said he isn't Daredevil by night?
Agreed
Objection, misleading the viewers, they look nothing alike, motion to strike.
"That's why lawyers are the real heroes of the Marvel Universe"
Can't wait to see how She-Hulk is handled in her intro to the MCU
Calling it now we're at the least getting as a crossover episode an adaption of the storyline where Jen Walters aka She-Hulk had the uphill task of defending one Marcus "Marc" Spector aka Moon Knight a brutal anti-hero known by fellow heroes, and heroines for having a plethora of mental issues including both Schizophrenia, and Dissociative Identity Disorder when he's put on trial for beating mob boss to near death, and even states that a court-order psychiatric doctor is going to have field day when trying to assess whether or not Marc is sane enough to appear in court and stand trial, along with Marc's plethora of mental issues makes defending him in court a uphill task.
@@derrickhaggard that kinda sounds like Matt Murdock defending Punisher in court. Does it go down similarly?
@@tahmidhossain5838 Actually Jen manages to somehow win granted it was tricky due to the prosecutor using Marc's mental issues as a weapon along with the fact Marc was known by fellow heroes, and heroines to be a insane loose-cannon as another weapon to try and get Marc the guilty verdict.
@@derrickhaggard ... Here's the thing, we don't know if he'll meet any heros in his show or know any, I'd say the person against them would be Matthew Murdock
@@agentmysterious6682 I kinda fell out of watching Daredevil partway through season 3 but I wouldn’t be surprised if Matt Murdock was living out of a ditch by now.
I spit out my coffee when the Edward Snowden part came in. Lol 😂
Good job counselor.
The show Agents of Shield expanded the accords quite a bit.
Not only did it outlaw AI research, but a lot of the accords dealt with the issue of Inhumans, who the registration is aimed at since they are techically not human. So they got around a lot of laws in a really shitty way by denying a lot of people their human rights, or inhuman rights I guess.
So, the UN messed up big time? Sounds like an A+ on realism
And there the one who fired a nuke at new York
@@karstenschoenberg9736 that was the World Security Council, not the UN.
@@sam8404 is there a difference?
@@firestorm165 yeah, the WSC is made up of less people/countries and was also secretly controlled by HYDRA.
sam8404 no that was shield.
"Captain, we've got reports of something going on in Dallas."
"Avengers... Assem-"
"Wait, wait a sec... Texas doesn't want us there."
"... Lunch break anyone?"
I know some people say that law is boring, but I really enjoy reading and listening to laws and legal jargon !
I'm glad I'm not the only person that recognized that the Sokovia Accords would never be implemented in the real world, if "enhanced individuals" existed.
Objection: Wasn't Falcon's suit something provided to him by the military, that he "stole" to assist Cap?
Not the Version of the Falcon suit used in movies after the winter soldier. That suit was built by Tony Stark
@@janmelantu7490 True, but yeah I think the original was stolen from the US Army.
"Bird suit"
The suit was stolen in Winter Soldier. It was a recreation of Stark Tech from what I understand, so Tony owned enough of the patents involved to make Wilson one of his own. The Avengers get away with breaking a lot of laws and cause a lot of collateral damage, I'm not surprised people in that universe got pissed enough to want to regulate them.
@@sofiadragon6520 the avengers don't break any laws as they are hired by u.s. military idiot
Damn you legal eagle!! My wife is gonna be so pissed later today when I tell her that my reason to side with Captain America was absolutely correct. Hahahahahaha.
Thanks. XD
The Sokovia accords, and the comic book equivalent were always a case of "trying to force people to do things my way/the right way". It's one of those "good idea fairy" things where while the end goal is noble the methods are unworkable/immoral.
Don't tell your wife she was wrong, that's dangerous. It'd be safer just to ask for a divorce.
@@marhawkman303 lets not for get what happened to aunt May (in comics) after civil war (in comic)
@@marhawkman303 "In order to get UN backing, you have to agree to these terms" is immoral?
So apparently every treaty and contract ever is immoral?
Even the RUclips terms of service, we both agree on?
Do not even think that this is a proper representation. This a defense lawyers argument at best. Just some BS someone made up to entertain people on the Internet at worst.
@@christopherg2347 that's not what I said and you know it. I was saying that the basic idea is good, but the methodology behind making it work results in things that are not good.
@10:40 Objection! “Military Technology” is just technology, any and all technology can ostensibly be used for military purposes or not... the restriction of access to technology on the basis of it having specific military applications is both arbitrary and a violation of the individual right to property.
So as long as Captain America is a Captain in the Army. He can do as he pleases. Yet as soon as he stops being a Captain for the Army, he can't do whatever he wants. That kinda seems like an abuse of power and an abuse of office.
Reason 1: As a kid who does Model UN, I know the UN can't pass binding laws. There we're done video over.
Hence his explanation on ratification of the Accords by the Senate...
Not just the UN but most international bodies have no power to pass binding laws. Treaties always have to be approved by national governments.
Security Council resolutions are legally binding!
@@bronwenjamescrowther1128 No resolution passed by the UN is legally binding in the United States unless it is passed by Congress. They are considered treaties and treaties must be passed by congress. It was never mentioned to have been passed by congress and thus is null and void.
@@Mr.McMuffin I'm not a legal scholar or an American, so definitely defer to you and Mr Legal Eagle on how the US interprets, ratifies and enforces. That being said, I am pretty sure that Security Council resolutions are, especially with respect to threats of the peace, binding international law.
When I was watching it for the first time, I was glad Captain America refused to sign it cuz I was like “yo this shit hella illegal” lmfao (cap is my fav avenger)
As much as I like Iron Man, I was Team Cap from the start
@@blacklancer3255 sameee but I also love the winter soldier sooo
@@blacklancer3255 Tony was a sellout for signing the accords
Yeah, when Cap is saying something is immoral and illegal it's generally a good time to reevaluate your choices. Steve's usually been the moral centre of the team.
Not really iligal, Like Legal Eagle said, Stuff like monitoring and interment have precedent, Like in WW2 and the war on terror; Laws will be passed regardles of if they violate personal freedoms in times of political pressure and violent acts
I find it immensely hilarious clips from the Iron Man movies are used when Tony Stark was on the side of the Sokovia Accords.
Well, those clips are from _Iron Man 2_ lol. An interesting point is that, in the beginning, Tony was anti-government while Steve Rogers was pro-government; however, by the events of Civil War, they both were now on opposite ends.
Objection: The question of the second amendment seems pretty clear in regard to the weapons built and employed by the Marvel vigilantes. Only weapons that are in common use are protected under the second amendment and if a sawed off shotgun doesn't meet the standard for common use, I highly doubt that Iron Man's suit does. Not to mention that certain weapons integrated into the suits of Iron Man and War Machine are fully automatic.
Yeah, Tony's suit is far more than just a weapon, in the same way that an F-22 is. Hell, it could probably be considered a weapon of mass destruction.
Since tony is a weapons manufaturer he might have a permit. Probably not though.
Captain America: Class Action Lawsuit
just doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely
Suprisingly it kinda DOES...
Yeah it does! Captain America v. The Supreme Court
@@JohnSmith-ze6jm That is actually the idea behind the name 'Batman v. Superman'. It still sounds like a fight to the younger audience, but for those of us who understand it; it was meant to be like a court case.
@@ChineduOpara In fairness there were a few badass scenes in the movie, like Wonder Woman's entrance and Batman's rescue of Clark's mother.
Closest thing we got to a court case was like a 30 second hearing, unfortunately. Still, at least Superman's face didn't look so weird
@@ChineduOpara It would have been a bit weird though, considering he was dead. Too many people would lose their suspension of disbelief if Superman was still growing facial hair when he was dead.
Vision is like Tony's dog. Thanos killed Vision. Tony is MCU John Wick?
more like spiderman is Tony's dog and thefore that makes him John Wick
@@eternalsmiley1668 So, John Wick 3 is the last sequel?
*So What You Saying Is* they said that they might do a prequel TV series to show the origins of John Wick and the assassins world like the Continental and High Table
In this analogy does this mean that Wanda likes to.........
Ok ew.
@@twrampage I mean, MCU Vision and Wanda don't have children like they do in the comics. So MCU they could just be owner and pet.
I would honestly think that if 'enhanced individuals' such as the Avengers and their enemies existed, the US constitution in-universe would have been made differently to take that into account. After all, they've had examples of 'enhanced individuals' for centuries upon centuries.
As soon as you said the Senate had to ratify the Sokovia Accords my partner and I immediately started debating how Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy would argue this
OBJECTION!
Tony Stark and Colonel Rhodes may be able to claim the Iron Man suits as their intellectual property, but Sam Wilson explicitly states in The Winter Soldier that the wings he uses were part of a secret military project testing a form of winged jetpacks, which he then stole from a military fort in order to use them to fight alongside Captain America in Washington DC; because of this, Sam likely wouldn't have the concept of IP over his wings to protect him from that specific legal argument since he wasn't involved in their design or construction whatsoever.
Ah, but the wings he had by the time of civil war were stark tech and therefore at minimum avengers ip.
Yeah, but what's the statute of limitations on the theft of government/military property?
@@GoldenfoxxPrime knowing the government. ..None.
@@ryanalving3785 Might be some question as to weather or not the stark wing-suit was a derivative in some way of the original military design. Assuming they bothered to patent the tech, Tony would have to completely re-invent the wheel. As I think about it though he probably did considering his propulsion and alloy tech, etc, are a bit beyond military tech (theoretically). Considering that Stark's father worked closely with the military it is hard to say how all of the IP rights would work out exactly. For all I can remember the original suit may have been designed by the Starks for the military in the first place. I am sure it all gets a bit murky. Interesting how there are so many facets to consider in these questions and arguments.
@@GoldenfoxxPrime That implies they're still considered stolen property. Given that he's not a vigilante hiding from the law, that legal hurdle has probably been bypassed.
Here’s what I find funny
Tony- creates ultron
Ultron- kills thousands with the intent to wipe out the planet
Tony- gets off scott free
Falcon- doesn’t sign a document
Falcon- arrested without trial
Tony got off free because he’s rich, that’s accurate story telling
@Kajsa Stenergard Sånnaskolan 6B who else was responisble? You mean banner?
Not only poor but black....
if you’ve never seen it it sounds like 🐄 💩
True Story: once a few years ago some medication i was taking messed me up really bad... I don’t have any memory of how it started but i was a one point beating the hell out of what I believed to be a football team that to my impaired mind was trying to haze me and i was going to kill them before they could... the 6 of them fighting against me took 20 minutes before someone managed to tackle me and get hand cuff on me... I remember the hand cuffs because I remember thinking “oh good, they won’t expect me to dislocate my pinky’s metacarpal to take these off... i’ll wait for them to drop their guard and bite the throat outta the whoever’s closest when they do” next thing I remember is being hand cuffed to a gurney, IV in my arm... the football team had actually been 6 cops responding to a call about me tackling someone at random that i have no memory of... i was a bit banged up but aside from a few thorns that had gotten stuck in me during the fight I didn’t have a scratch on me... my medical problems were easy enough to verify and i was home in time for dinner. That is fantastic policing, i was dangerous and hostile and they managed to fix everything with the most optimal outcome i could have asked for... that’s the sort of policing BLM is asking for.
Sadly 2 weeks after my fight with the cops a black child about 6 miles east of there was standing in an empty park holding a BBgun pistol, the police never asked Tamir Rice to drop it or get on the ground, they simply raced their squadcar into the park, the passenger jumped out of the still moving car and fired several times before he even hit the ground... Tamir Rice was dead before he even knew he was interacting with the police, no one went to jail, the kid wasn’t even aiming the gun when he got shot, it was pointed at the ground by his side.... the difference in what we experienced is the issue
Tony is a rich white guy that shoots missiles around NYC
The Falcon is a black guy with a fancy glider... guess which one got in trouble?
@@jerkfudgewater147 Sir, this is a Wendy's...
@Kajsa Stenergard Sånnaskolan 6B imagine you were put in a position in which you are being told and threatened to sign accords to give up your freedom because your own coworker made a humongous mistake and you tried fixing it with him. Captain america and the rest of his team were never at fault for what stark and banner did. Banner regretted his decision and Stark doubled down on his tunnel *vision*
@Lady Seashell Bikini that was one of his main character development.
Edit: being guilty about Ultron and the calateral damage the avengers cause when they save the world. i.e he doesn't want to trade lives.
Whenever you say "legal eagles", I hear it as "League o' Legals" which also sounds cool.
I loved the Ken Burns' Civil War reference in the intro to a video about the Marvel Civil War movie. So good!