RWBY General Discussion

Eruption Fangs video wasn't just feeling a character was wasted.

EF had been leather pantsing the hell out of Adam for ages, and was upset that the show didn't portray his version of the character.

In general it'd be more comparable if people had made this idea from her design that Phyrra was a Large Ham Blood Knight and thus hated when she turned out not to be that

I'm picturing P-Money trying to act like Nora now, say as a result of bet or something, and it is utterly adorable. Thank you.

While eruption did let is fanboism get over him a couple of time(he did saw blake as adam morality chain in his short rather adam toxic influence on her) but that complain was one people still hold him, that being a yandere stalker is a waste of him.

Also he is right in one thing: moonslice make not sense.

On the "self defence" point raised last page:

@Dacool1here

That last point actually pisses me off more than is perhaps appropriate. But if there is anything you take away from this thread it's this; there is no "non-lethal" place to shoot a human being. A gun puts a hole in the body where a hole shouldn't be, and there are a lot of places on the body where a hole is going to be lethal. Shoot Adam in the legs? Good job, you just severed his Femoral artery, he's going to bleed to death in a minute. Shoot him in the arm? He has two of those and the other one his burying your sword in your gut. Body? There are so many critical organs there you're just as likely to lethally wound him than non-lethal. And you still need to balance the fact that Adam is currently rushing to kill you with the sword; any wound that doesn't drop him gives him a chance to kill Blake.

Also hitting the exact point you want to with a gun is damn hard even on a gun range in a calm situation. Attempting to shoot at a small target on a rapidly approaching man is ludicrous, that is why military and police training is always to shoot the centre of mass.

Also; Yang uses a fucking shotgun. The last gun you'd want to use as a precision weapon.

Again, Adam was rushing to grab Blake's broken sword to kill her. The threat of harm was very much active, and again there is no such thing as using non-lethal force with a gun.

For me whatever it was self defense is irrelevant since Adam make clear it was a fight to kill.

What is relevant is....well that, IS a fight to kill, is the first time a hero have with their own hand kill someone, the closer was roman dying and it was is own fault(if you ask me, ruby should kill roman but that is another thing) and if that killing really have a impact or serve is purpose.

Edited by Soble on Feb 25th 2020 at 7:56:24 AM

Oldie-but-goodie:

• Vernal: Let's see what the Schnee name really means.
• Weiss: I'm more than a name.
• Vernal: Hmm... prove it.
• Narrator: Her honor, courage, and unyielding spirit drive her to the battlefield!

In regards to the self- defense thing: I am a lawyer but its for German law so it may not be 100% applicable for the US law, which I assume people are taking as a reference point for the laws regarding self defense in Remnant. But as far as I know in regards to self-defense German and US law are very similiar, so I think I can at least offer something of value.

@Shaoken

While every shot at a person can be lethal there still is a significant difference in the probabilty if you shoot someone in the legs or in the chest/head. And, depending on the exact situation, legally you may be required in self defense to aim for areas that have a smaller chance of beeing lethal. (Sidenote though: If the shot at a so called non-lethal area does turn lethally, that does not retroactively make the self-defense illegitimate, that risk is on the attacker not on the defendant.

On the actual topic: The threat was not dealt with. Adam was going for Blakes sword to kill her, and considering we dont really know Blakes aura level he might have if he had gotten the sword before her. They just barely were faster. In such a split-second moment there was no time to go for an an attack on Adams non-lethal areas without seriously impairing the probability of a succesful defense. The defendant doesnt have to risk serious injury to defend himself or another person. This applies to both Blake and Yang in this situation. In my opinion both would be justified by self-defense.

Even if you argue that the limits of self-defense are violated in this case, this would likely be a case where even if Blakes and Yangs defense is not legally justified, it would not be punishable due to a lack of culpability as they violated the limit of the self defense out of fear in a high stress situation.

(Though again I am unsure how much any of this applies to Us law, I only have studied German law. However based on my sense of justice this seems like the right result in general.)

Was Adam EVER what people wanted him to be?

I was watching a RWBY crack video and even there they play up how Adam COULD have been a morally complex "Doing evil for the right reasons" type.

I get being disappointed that they never went there with it. But he sounded like such a loser even in Volume 3. He was never particularly dignified or intimidating.

Edited by GNinja on Feb 25th 2020 at 3:01:54 PM

Since I'm the one who screwed up by opening up the can of worms, I'll finish it.

Getting dangerously close to thump territory, but this is what I imagine should have happened during the Adam fight:

• Adam talks about how he was branded by the SDC.
• Yang and Blake fight Adam.
• Adam's aura breaks.
• Yang walks up to Adam and punches him unconscious. Then Yang and Blake can hug. Blake can cry because Adam was abusive, rather than the fact that her hand was forced. Ditto Yang, but she can say "It's OK now."
• Yang/Blake takes out her scroll and calls the airship. The group pilots the airship to the cliff and lands it successfully. (Okay, maybe not possible.)
• The airship calls the Atlas Military, who take Adam into custody.
• Adam then gets arrested and gets justice for his crimes.

Until his confrontation with Blake, I genuinely thought Adam would have some shades of that. Blake's early comments about him don't paint him Bastard Boyfriend and despite him being "hurt" by Blake leaving he didn't make any overt moves to go after her (which is noticeable considering Tuskcon). His initial refusal to Cinder's offer suggested some kind of standards, which apparently amounted to little.

After the encounter at Beacon I at least thought he would have been a interesting under the belief that Adam would have more hands on and probably effective villain balanced out by Yan Dere tendencies.

From what I've seen of the whole thing the people raising a fuss about Adam being killed are similar to the ones upset that Yang wasn't acting like a stereotypical PTSD victim when confronting said Goat boy. They either miss or ignore clear character traits in favor of their headcanon.

"But he sounded like such a loser even in Volume 3. He was never particularly dignified or intimidating."

He get to be in black trailer and there is stuff like refusing to work with cinder a first that give the impresion he have some shade of honor, not much but better than this diet kylo ren.

"They either miss or ignore clear character traits in favor of their headcanon."

Whay traits? oh how yang PTDS reduce to a vision or just looking sad her arm every know and them?.

This is something that I just thought about, but how on earth does Oscar know how to fly an airship (even if he is Ozpin?) Or is it just a case of him having a Universal Driver's License? Unless Ozpin learned piloting, I find it very hard to believe.

Edit: By "is Ozpin", I mean, Ozpin in Oscar's body. Regardless, it still merits the question, IMO.

Edited by Dacool1here on Feb 25th 2020 at 11:15:20 PM

At this point, should we get an actual psychologist to examine whether or not Yang has PTSD cuz I'm tired of a bunch of no names and Youtubers argue about it like they're experts. I'm not joking, its gotten this annoying.

(2) Ozpin probably was Remnant's Wright brothers (yes, both of them) and Oscar likely inherited the skill.

It's kind of sad knowing that Ozpin's voice will eventually fade and merge into Oscar. I keep wondering if Oscar's hair will bleach and he'll just start talking like Ozpin, or if it's a full transformation for Ozpin into Oscar, and Oscar will just start adopting his mannerisms and skills (the cane-walk, the magic, the loyalty, the prestige, the pipe smoke rolling off the bodies of those unlucky enough to catch his hands).

They can't keep doing the Ozpin-Oscar connection forever. Eventually one of those VA's will be out of a job. But, then, Rooster Teeth is pretty good about re-purposing VA's. (Pyrrha's dead but her VA is Carolina in RVB; Felix died in RVB but his VA is Jaune in RWBY).

Tell me about it. But that's what you get when a bunch of people only look at media interpretations for a somewhat complex psychological condition. They look for the common signs fed to us by media and when they dont show up you get the youtube (and essay format in here) think pieces on how the writers dont know what they're doing, Yang recovered too quickly, she can't really have it blah blah blah while either forgetting or ignoring a crucial part of Yang's character; Yang is and has always been a fighter. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that a woman known to put herself in the front line for the sake of her loved ones cant shrug off her trauma to be there for her friends?

For the record, her case is a mild one.

I'd be down for some "Real Psychologist/Relationship Counselor watches RWBY anime" videos.

Edited by Soble on Feb 25th 2020 at 11:21:51 AM

This advice flies in the face of what is taught to police and military. There is no such practice as "shoot to incapacitate." If you have to shoot someone you shoot them in the torso, centre if mass, to ensure that you hit what you're aiming for. Shooting at arms or legs is a good way to miss and have your bullet hit something else.

Guns are lethal weapons. If you expect one to be used non-lethally then you fundemenally misunderstand what the purpose of a gun is. That's why they give police less-than-lethal weapons and tools so that they have more options before they have to shoot someone, but in any situation where using a gun is permitted then killing the target is also permitted. If killing them us not appropriate to the situation then using a gun is the wrong course of action.

This is not the case in Germany in regards to the police in Germany. Shoot to incapacitate" is an established practice, though of course other weapons and tools are preferable and any use of guns is highly restricted in the first place.

We also were talking about the self defense rights of private citizens, where options are more limited, not police or military .

Regardless I cant really speak about the technicalties regarding human biology or gun physics myself. I can simply state what is settled case law in Germany. And that undeniably has the important distinction between shoot to incapacitate and shoot to kill as an aspect of self defense. And based on actual cases, I have no reason to doubt its validity.

Edited by Paulus42 on Feb 25th 2020 at 1:09:43 AM

Without knowing the definition of "shoot to incapacitate " in Germany (in the UK a officer shooting someone in the centre of mass is defined as shooting to incapacitate, even though that is highly probable to result in the targets death) I can comment more as to that case. But in the U.S. and other countries it's always taught to shoot centre of mass to ensure you hit what you're aiming for. Attempting to non-lethally shoot someone has been dismissed as impracticle due to the difficulty involved in hitting a smaller target reliable and his many places are lethal to be shot in.

It's also baffling that police, who are held to a higher standard, shoot centre of mass to ensure they hit their target and not something behind their target, but civilians would be expected to pull off shots deemed impossible. Not to mention that someone full of addreline could push through a shot to the arm or the leg long enough to hurt someone.

tl;dr version: all training with guns teaches to shoot centre of mass to ensure the bullet only hits the target. Shooting to wound arms or legs runs the risk of missing and hitting someone else.

You bring up questions regarding absolute basics of requirements of self defense (risk of missing, risk of hurting someone else, etc) in a discussion regarding the legal consideration of specific situations, where those basics requirements are assumed to be adhered to. You are not participating in a legal discussion regarding an interesting legal situation and instead are arguing against its practical plausibility. And in that regard I can only say that it does have legitimate practical relevancy, even if you rightly point out with the correct reasons why it often does not.

Considering the situation aiming to just injure Adam would more likely got someone injured or killed. Adam was disarmed but he was wasn't looking to remain that way and worse time to let your guard down is when someone is making a final stand.

I wouldn't have minded if it scarred them.

But instead...

"Lololol selfie time!"

This was the man who put them both through utter hell. The fact Blake even felt bad about doing it is just a testament to how good a person she is.