|Reviews for Unrefined Metal|
| Difdi chapter 12 . 4/18
From a legal standpoint, rally permits allow you to obstruct traffic. If you can somehow avoid obstructing traffic (say, by having all your sign-carrying protestors on a forcefield platform 15 feet off the ground) you wouldn't need a permit at all. Obstruction of traffic is the ONLY reason laws requiring a permit for a protest rally survive constitutional challenge.
Most police actions against protests take the form of orders to disperse so traffic is not obstructed, when the protest exceeds the area covered by the permit or the duration of the permit. In some cases, police will try to trick the crowd into becoming unruly (or even send agents provocateur into the crowd to pose as rowdies), but if the crowd remains within the terms of their permit and peaceful, there is nothing the police can legally do to end the protest.
Legally. Nothing prevents them from breaking the law, and under normal circumstances, who is going to arrest the police for it? Who is going to indict and prosecute them for it when it was often the prosecutor's office that ordered them to do it (or was at least fully onboard with whoever did)? Things change considerably though, when the crowd has the means to effectively fight back against an illegal attack by police. You often see this in real life with pro-firearms open carry protests, where EVERYONE has at least one pistol with them, and most are carrying rifles - the police don't pull ANY of their usual color of law rights violations, because they're well aware that all it takes to start a full-on battle that they might well lose is a single gunshot.
A single gunshot is, after all, how the American Revolutionary War was kicked off one morning in April of 1775.
| Difdi chapter 11 . 4/18
From a legal standpoint, the PRT MIGHT try to claim that the Wards are a paramilitary force and therefore subject to the rules for soldiers speaking in uniform to the public, but it would be an uphill battle. First and foremost, because many Wards would be too young to enlist in the military, and anyone too young to enlist cannot be legally conscripted. The PRT and Protectorate are both civilian agencies, so it would be difficult on that basis to claim that the Wards, as Junior Protectorate, would be military when the Protectorate is not. The closest real life equivalents of the PRT and Protectorate are the FBI and the US Marshals Service, respectively.
But even a soldier remains a citizen, and when off duty has most of the same rights a non-soldier does. Members of civilian government agencies have all the rights of non-soldier citizens, except they have voluntarily waived their right to freedom of speech where it pertains to classified information. If a Ward is not a soldier, then the worst punishment the PRT could impose on Gallant is firing him - and even a soldier would only suffer administrative punishment at worst for speaking his mind and conscience in public.
There's another angle to consider - US soldiers and all government officials (elected and non-elected) swear oaths to obey and defend the Constitution. Violating that oath is grounds for immediate termination of employment for a civilian agent and dishonorable discharge for a soldier. Both swear to defend the Constitution from (among other things) domestic enemies of that Constitution, and directly opposing it - such as by illegally retaliating against someone for exercising a right guaranteed by it - makes exactly such a domestic enemy.
| Difdi chapter 10 . 4/18
A lawsuit against the judge would be impossible in the US court system. Police, prosecutors and judges are shielded from civil liability - police have what is called qualified civil immunity, which means that in order to sue a cop for something they did on duty, you must first prove to a judge that what the cop did was not only illegal but that the cop knew or reasonably should have known it was illegal. If you cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt - a HIGHER standard of evidence than what is required to win a civil lawsuit - the judge will dismiss your lawsuit unheard.
Judges and prosecutors have absolute civil immunity. That means that even if you can prove that they broke the law and knew they were breaking the law, you cannot ever sue them for it. As soon as a judge hears that the defendant in your lawsuit is a judge or prosecutor, they will dismiss your lawsuit and prohibit you from refiling it - attempting to refile it anyway will result in your arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.
Civil immunity won't protect against criminal charges, but private citizens cannot prosecute criminal court cases, only government prosecutors can do that - it used to be possible for any citizen to litigate a private prosecution, but all 50 states and the federal government got rid of those laws decades ago.
New Wave may be able to arrest the prosecutor and judge in Canary's trial for violating her rights - federal civil rights laws define any conspiracy to violate constitutional, civil or statutory rights within the borders of the United States under color of law (which is exactly what a kangaroo court trial is) to be a felony punishable by ten years in prison, and it wouldn't just be the judge and prosecutor who could be arrested, it would be everyone in the Department of Justice and PRT chains of command that issued, passed on or carried out orders for Canary to be railroaded.
But even if they do make such a set of arrests, unless New Wave/Apexius can find a federal prosecutor and a federal grand jury to indict the judge and prosecutor handling Canary's case for constitutional rights violations, there is nothing preventing a different corrupt judge and corrupt prosecutor from picking up where the previous set were cut off. Being charged with federal crimes does not guarantee a conviction no matter how guilty someone is, and a corrupt judge could always dismiss the criminal charges without giving a reason. If convicted, a corrupt judge might sentence the conspirators to the minimum sentence ($100 fine). If worse came to worst, the President could pardon the conspirators.
The way the deck is stacked against Canary, it will be EXTREMELY hard to stop her from being Birdcaged by direct action, no matter how they reveal the corruption, short of breaking her out. And attempting to do so will likely have them fighting Dragon and The Guild on top of mundane police, the PRT and the Protectorate, since Dragon is required to obey the orders of any government official, even if that official orders her to break the law.
So the protest rally approach actually has the best shot at working, especially if they use it as a wedge to get the media talking about the corruption in the court system. And if it doesn't work, and they feel strongly enough about it, they could still go for direct action after Canary is falsely convicted - it wouldn't even be technically illegal for them to break her out, since convicting someone the way she was in canon is itself a criminal act.
| Difdi chapter 6 . 4/18
Your math is wrong by about three orders of magnitude. One gram of antimatter reacting with one gram of ordinary matter produces approximately 1.810 to the 14th power joules, which is a yield of just under 43 kilotons, not 48 megatons. Armsmaster is highly unlikely to make that sort of error, especially if he's checking his figures via Protectorate or PRT computer systems.
| Difdi chapter 3 . 4/18
Well, I can think of worse reasons for a father to trigger.
| luger 7 chapter 1 . 4/4
Is refined metal a variation of heavy metal?
| Tisaku chapter 6 . 3/9
Armsmasters antimatter calculations were a bit off. Energy release yield for one gram is ~43 kilotons. Explosive yield is lower due to neutrino production.
| ggf1 chapter 1 . 3/7
yet another great story from you.
| Wrin chapter 12 . 3/5
I had fun with this, and I'll definitely read more if you post it. Thanks!
| Mathax chapter 1 . 2/26
you are actually doing something about canary. Good for you looking forward to more
| shugokage chapter 12 . 2/26
Definitely an impressive job on this chapter!
| Pedro52 chapter 12 . 2/4
| Silverscale chapter 12 . 1/30
Just because they are mucking up the dirt you piled up and tried to hide, does not mean you are not responsible for the mess occurring in the first place.
| Laxard chapter 1 . 1/27
Great story so far. Especially for a fix-fic.
| Smiling Seshat chapter 1 . 1/25
It's a great idea and seems well-done so far. However, I think you should add a bit more description, be it describing where the characters are or what expressions they are making. The story feels a bit robotic with a lot of telling instead of showing.
I'll be binge-reading this to see how things go.