My read of it is that until the target's weapon is leveled at a target, they aren't allowed to shoot unless they're using tasers or capsicum spray.

Action beats reaction every time. There is no way to get the first shot off if you wait for the other guy to move first. A person with a knife can clear 20' and stab you in the heart before you can draw and shoot them. The FBI proved this. Mythbusters did too.

Han didn't need to shoot under the table, he could have easily drew and shot Greedo before Greedo could even pull the trigger. Action beats reaction every time.

Is any Star Wars debate 6 degrees of Han Shot First?

I had this issue during a d20 Star Wars campaign. My PCs were bounty hunter mercs for hire. They had no issues killing innocents for their own gain. My first step was having them recruited by a crime organization to give them some more structure (giving them jobs) instead of going off on their own which eventually led to grand larceny and murder. When that didn't work exactly as planned, they bumped into some Rebels and were eventually recruited to the good side. Their actions quickly turned more sane.

Is your key issue not wanting a dark campaign at all or just want some appropriate punishements?

Try mental games to move their gaming personalities towards good? Their violent actions accidentally kill a child or orphan another? They feel horrible. A small poor colony has been ransacked and taken over by a pirate group. The players end up helping rid them of the pirates and the colony now thinks of them as heroes. The players feel good. Then, the Black Sun sends them a request for a mission to exterminate the small colony since the pirates were actually Black Sun agents. The PCs do the right thing (hopefully) again taking the side of the colonists. Of course this would end their Black Sun affiliation so won't work if that is not what you had hoped for. The players then use their criminal skills to smuggle the colony and its assets away to a hidden location and become their guardians from the nefarious Black Sun.

Just remember that PCs in this game are not shining lights in the darkness. When you can have characters that have Specializations like Assassin and Marauder, that should tell you that they are not required to play nice with others. And also, Han shot Greedo in cold blood. He's the iconic character for this game (along with Chewbacca, Boba Fett, and Lando), and he committed murder within his first few minutes on the screen.

From a legal standpoint I must chime in. Greedo was committing Aggravated Assault (threatening with deadly force) against Han. In self-defense, Han shoots Greedo. A modern US court would likely find Han innocent of any charges, especially regarding Murder (self-defense, stand-your-ground, etc). Tatooine's legal system probably has even more liberal interpretations when it comes to crime and weapons.

Greedo may have had his blaster on Stun. For that matter, Han certainly could have put his blaster on Stun, so his use of deadly force cannot be claimed as self-defense by modern sensibilities. Also, was Greedo a licensed bounty hunter in pursuit of a legal bounty? If so, his changes the self-defense argument.

Unless Han had the opportunity to closely examine Greedo's blaster to determine that, *and* the ability to ensure that the selector switch couldn't be flipped, there's absolutely no difference between the two states. Being attacked by someone with a tazer gives rise to a valid claim of self-defense, because you have no way to know whether they're going to stop having *only* stunned you, or if that's going to be their opening to do worse. Also, since Greedo was working for a Crime Lord, rather than legitimate law enforcement, his status as a licensed bounty hunter would be immaterial from that perspective. (Working for the mob doesn't give you law enforcement powers, or the associated civil/criminal immunities.)

The legal threshold (in the US) for use of lethal force in self defense is this: Would a rational person be in fear of grave bodily harm or death, based on what they know at the time? Some states require that you attempt to retreat first *if* you can do so in safety. Others concede that a person committing or threatening to commit a violent offense against you has *less* right to be in a public space, and do not require an attempt to retreat. But regardless of that, the duty to retreat only exists if it can be done without exposing yourself (or others) to danger.

Han had a bounty hunter who was working for a criminal known to feed his enemies to animals pointing a gun at him with no plausible way to escape without being shot. Han had a perfectly valid reason to shoot first, and very little reason to be concerned about a conviction. (Especially when you take into account just how little 'law & order' there seems to be on Tatooine.)

Ben killed someone as a blaster was being drawn to attack him and/or Luke. He's in the clear as well.

From a legal standpoint I must chime in. Greedo was committing Aggravated Assault (threatening with deadly force) against Han. In self-defense, Han shoots Greedo. A modern US court would likely find Han innocent of any charges, especially regarding Murder

U.S. courts generally find people Not Guilty rather than Innocent, but I agree that Han didn't murder Greedo, but acted in self defense, from an ethical standpoint even if not a legal one.

In U.S. courts, there's no legal distinction between being innocent and being found 'not guilty', because you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If guilt is not proven, and a finding of 'not guilty' is returned, then you remain, as initially presumed, innocent in the eyes of the law.

Now, Special Edition Han is a different story. Special Edition Greedo took a shot at Han from like a yard away and missed, so he clearly wasn't a real threat to Han, but Han killed him anyway. Special Edition Han is one cold dude.

Are you actually arguing that someone who has *actually* shot at you, is less of a threat to life & limb than someone who has merely threatened to? Really? Honestly? It doesn't matter if they've missed, they've gone from aggravated assault (through the threat of force) to attempted murder (through the active use of force). If you're clear to shoot in self defense (as Han was) *before* the shot, then you're certainly clear to do so *afterwards*, regardless of whether the shot inexplicably misses.

Seriously. The armed assailant *missing* doesn't, in any way, shape or form, diminish the nature or magnitude of the threat. It amplifies it, because they've moved past the mere *threat* of deadly force to the *use* of it.

That's true. They mostly just use holo technology, which doesn't even have color (and its resolution is pretty crap). Their computer technology and our's is completely different. Pretty much everything is black base screen with a few colors (remember the view of the Death Star approaching Yavin?) or holo-projections.

I believe that is more because the original 3 were filmed in the 70's 80's than because that was a purposeful representation of the tech.

True, but the techie in me would just say that holo-transmission bandwidth, especially for wireless FTL transmissions, just can't handle the load. You're constantly scanning in 3D and transmitting faster-than-light. Since we can't do that (yet), we have no idea what kind of limits there are.

For the other graphics though (wireframes of Endor, Death Star, and shield) I wish they'd go back and re-render

Actually, those are *good* representations for a multi-group briefing, because they convey the necessary information without burying it under and amongst unnecessary information. The individual strike teams almost certainly had objective-specific briefings which went into more detail.

My read of it is that until the target's weapon is leveled at a target, they aren't allowed to shoot unless they're using tasers or capsicum spray.

Action beats reaction every time. There is no way to get the first shot off if you wait for the other guy to move first. A person with a knife can clear 20' and stab you in the heart before you can draw and shoot them. The FBI proved this. Mythbusters did too.

Han didn't need to shoot under the table, he could have easily drew and shot Greedo before Greedo could even pull the trigger. Action beats reaction every time.

Is any Star Wars debate 6 degrees of Han Shot First?

Actually, action only beats reaction *most* of the time. Often enough that it's a good rule of thumb, but it's not a hard and fast guarantee.

Han had to deal with a thumb break holster, and an awkward draw position, while sitting with a gun leveled at him, by someone with their finger on the trigger. Honestly? He's lucky Greedo didn't spasm when he got hit. At that range, Han would likely have been hit anyway. Han did it right, using his free hand to distract Greedo with obvious, but non-threatening movement, so that he could discretely pull his blaster, since Greedo would have been reacting to the movement *toward* the gun, not the movement of drawing the gun.

We should probably stop comparing US law to the law on Tatooine. Tatooine has essentially nothing in common with the US, being an entire planet with little to no government oversight, vast swatches of land either uninhabited or inhabited by an isolated peoples (Tusken Raiders/Jawas), and a large amount of freely operating criminal organizations that, aside from whatever the Empire decides to put out there at any given time, run things.

We should probably stop comparing US law to the law on Tatooine. Tatooine has essentially nothing in common with the US, being an entire planet with little to no government oversight, vast swatches of land either uninhabited or inhabited by an isolated peoples (Tusken Raiders/Jawas), and a large amount of freely operating criminal organizations that, aside from whatever the Empire decides to put out there at any given time, run things.

So...more like the lawless sections of Mexico?

We should probably stop comparing US law to the law on Tatooine. Tatooine has essentially nothing in common with the US, being an entire planet with little to no government oversight, vast swatches of land either uninhabited or inhabited by an isolated peoples (Tusken Raiders/Jawas), and a large amount of freely operating criminal organizations that, aside from whatever the Empire decides to put out there at any given time, run things.

So...more like the lawless sections of Mexico?

More like 1870's Washington Territory, 1820's Texas, or current Somalia. Some lawmen, but nowhere near enough; lots of crime.

We should probably stop comparing US law to the law on Tatooine. Tatooine has essentially nothing in common with the US, being an entire planet with little to no government oversight, vast swatches of land either uninhabited or inhabited by an isolated peoples (Tusken Raiders/Jawas), and a large amount of freely operating criminal organizations that, aside from whatever the Empire decides to put out there at any given time, run things.

So...more like the lawless sections of Mexico?

More like 1870's Washington Territory, 1820's Texas, or current Somalia. Some lawmen, but nowhere near enough; lots of crime.

Actually, the moisture farms seem to be overall secure aside from any attacks by Tusken Raiders. Major settlements also don't seem to have a lot of violent crime, but it's a major stop over for smugglers.

Actually, the moisture farms seem to be overall secure aside from any attacks by Tusken Raiders. Major settlements also don't seem to have a lot of violent crime, but it's a major stop over for smugglers.

I imagine not even crime lords like Jabba would want to mess with the moisture farmers, since they're basically the planet's primary source of water. If they all pack up and leave the thugs will have to farm their own moisture, and if they wanted to do that they'd have become moisture farmers instead of thugs in the first place. And as for the settlements, most major crime organizations aren't much into violent street crime - that's not where the big money can be found.

Major settlements also don't seem to have a lot of violent crime,

Han does kinda blow a guy away in a bar and no-one bats an eyelid.

For that matter, Obi-Wan chops a dudes arm off in the same bar on the same day and the place is still open.

Han does kinda blow a guy away in a bar and no-one bats an eyelid.

For that matter, Obi-Wan chops a dudes arm off in the same bar on the same day and the place is still open.

It does make you wonder whether anyone in Mos Eisley ever heard of a health code, doesn't it?

Han does kinda blow a guy away in a bar and no-one bats an eyelid.

For that matter, Obi-Wan chops a dudes arm off in the same bar on the same day and the place is still open.

It does make you wonder whether anyone in Mos Eisley ever heard of a health code, doesn't it?

The bartender grinds Greedo up and turns him into a drink for Jabba the Hutt. Where does that fall under the health code?

In U.S. courts, there's no legal distinction between being innocent and being found 'not guilty', because you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If guilt is not proven, and a finding of 'not guilty' is returned, then you remain, as initially presumed, innocent in the eyes of the law.

"Not guilty" means the state didn't prove its case, it doesn't mean that you didn't do whatever it is you were accused of, i.e., that you are innocent. That can be a meaningful distinction. As an example, a few years ago a woman here in West Virginia was convicted of murder for killing her husband. She appealed to the state Supreme Court and was successful on her appeal. Her case was sent back to have an immediate acquital entered on the grounds of self-defense -- in other words she was now found not gulity. After that she petitioned the original trial judge to have the original arrest expunged, and the court turned her down , based on the seriousness of the allegations. She appealed that decision, but this time the Supreme Court turned her down .

Are you actually arguing that someone who has *actually* shot at you, is less of a threat to life & limb than someone who has merely threatened to?

Under normal cirumstances, no. But with Greedo, maybe. I mean he was like three feet away and missed. Doesn't that sound more like "lovable scamp" than "ruthless bounty hunter"? Heck, it might not have even been a real blaster. He was probably carrying around a fancy flashlight that the other bounty hunters gave him so he could feel important.

Action beats reaction every time. There is no way to get the first shot off if you wait for the other guy to move first. A person with a knife can clear 20' and stab you in the heart before you can draw and shoot them. The FBI proved this. Mythbusters did too.

Han didn't need to shoot under the table, he could have easily drew and shot Greedo before Greedo could even pull the trigger. Action beats reaction every time.

Is any Star Wars debate 6 degrees of Han Shot First?

Actually, action only beats reaction *most* of the time. Often enough that it's a good rule of thumb, but it's not a hard and fast guarantee.

Han had to deal with a thumb break holster, and an awkward draw position, while sitting with a gun leveled at him, by someone with their finger on the trigger. Honestly? He's lucky Greedo didn't spasm when he got hit. At that range, Han would likely have been hit anyway. Han did it right, using his free hand to distract Greedo with obvious, but non-threatening movement, so that he could discretely pull his blaster, since Greedo would have been reacting to the movement *toward* the gun, not the movement of drawing the gun.

Yeah I should have been more clear. I didn't mean something like a person reacting by running across a room and picking up a gun will beat the guy with a gun already in his hand reacting to this. I meant with all things even (or nearly even) the reactor will lose.

From time to time I get in a debate with new young officers about their problem of shooting an armed man with a gun in his hand that is not actually pointing it at them yet. I use a finger pistol drill to show the officer the peril of waiting for the man to actually try to shoot you before pulling the trigger. I play Han in this scenario, with my "gun" in my lap not pointing at the rookie. I tell him to point his finger at me (Greedo). I tell him to simply yell, "bang", when I start to move the hand (simulated gun) in my lap up and aim it at him. EVERY time I'm able to move my hand, point my finger at the rookie, and say, "bang", before he can simply react and say, "bang".

Try it with your friends and see. Good geeky stuff.

Han unsnapped his holster and had his hand on his gun. Even if he was a rookie gunslinger (he wasn't) he had a very good chance of clearing his pistol and shooting Greedo before Greedo could pull the trigger. His hand wave and, "I bet you have", distraction would have sealed it for Greedo. When I'm playing the finger draw game with rookie "Greedo", the Greedo sees my gun and knows I'm about to draw and shoot him at any moment. The Greedo in Star Wars couldn't see Han's gun and didn't even know for sure if Han had his hand on his gun ready to draw. Han easily wins even if he shoots above the table.

In U.S. courts, there's no legal distinction between being innocent and being found 'not guilty', because you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If guilt is not proven, and a finding of 'not guilty' is returned, then you remain, as initially presumed, innocent in the eyes of the law.

"Not guilty" means the state didn't prove its case, it doesn't mean that you didn't do whatever it is you were accused of, i.e., that you are innocent. That can be a meaningful distinction. As an example, a few years ago a woman here in West Virginia was convicted of murder for killing her husband. She appealed to the state Supreme Court and was successful on her appeal. Her case was sent back to have an immediate acquital entered on the grounds of self-defense -- in other words she was now found not gulity. After that she petitioned the original trial judge to have the original arrest expunged, and the court turned her down , based on the seriousness of the allegations. She appealed that decision, but this time the Supreme Court turned her down .

Yes, and when the state can't prove it's case (beyond a reasonable doubt), then you are legally *innocent*, since that is the presumed status absent a finding of guilt.

Getting an arrest record expunged is a totally different animal. Having succeeded on appeal, and been found 'not guilty', she can now *honestly and truthfully* answer "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?". (Barring some other conviction that you didn't mention.) This is the case even though she *was* convicted at one point, because the successful appeal negates that.

Once again: Presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you are not found guilty, there is nothing to override that presumed innocence, therefore you remain innocent.

And going back to the charge vs. conviction, she wasn't charged with killing someone. She was charged and tried for *murder*. If it was self-defense, then it wasn't *murder*, even though she killed someone. Don't get the two terms mixed up. They're different in *extremely* important ways, murder always involves killing, but killing does *not* always involve murder.

Action beats reaction every time. There is no way to get the first shot off if you wait for the other guy to move first. A person with a knife can clear 20' and stab you in the heart before you can draw and shoot them. The FBI proved this. Mythbusters did too.

Han didn't need to shoot under the table, he could have easily drew and shot Greedo before Greedo could even pull the trigger. Action beats reaction every time.

Is any Star Wars debate 6 degrees of Han Shot First?

Actually, action only beats reaction *most* of the time. Often enough that it's a good rule of thumb, but it's not a hard and fast guarantee.

Han had to deal with a thumb break holster, and an awkward draw position, while sitting with a gun leveled at him, by someone with their finger on the trigger. Honestly? He's lucky Greedo didn't spasm when he got hit. At that range, Han would likely have been hit anyway. Han did it right, using his free hand to distract Greedo with obvious, but non-threatening movement, so that he could discretely pull his blaster, since Greedo would have been reacting to the movement *toward* the gun, not the movement of drawing the gun.

Yeah I should have been more clear. I didn't mean something like a person reacting by running across a room and picking up a gun will beat the guy with a gun already in his hand reacting to this. I meant with all things even (or nearly even) the reactor will lose.

From time to time I get in a debate with new young officers about their problem of shooting an armed man with a gun in his hand that is not actually pointing it at them yet. I use a finger pistol drill to show the officer the peril of waiting for the man to actually try to shoot you before pulling the trigger. I play Han in this scenario, with my "gun" in my lap not pointing at the rookie. I tell him to point his finger at me (Greedo). I tell him to simply yell, "bang", when I start to move the hand (simulated gun) in my lap up and aim it at him. EVERY time I'm able to move my hand, point my finger at the rookie, and say, "bang", before he can simply react and say, "bang".

Try it with your friends and see. Good geeky stuff.

Han unsnapped his holster and had his hand on his gun. Even if he was a rookie gunslinger (he wasn't) he had a very good chance of clearing his pistol and shooting Greedo before Greedo could pull the trigger. His hand wave and, "I bet you have", distraction would have sealed it for Greedo. When I'm playing the finger draw game with rookie "Greedo", the Greedo sees my gun and knows I'm about to draw and shoot him at any moment. The Greedo in Star Wars couldn't see Han's gun and didn't even know for sure if Han had his hand on his gun ready to draw. Han easily wins even if he shoots above the table.

I'll go ahead and make my point more clear. Yes, action *usually* beats reaction. Often enough that you could even say action *almost always* beats reaction. But you *can't* truthfully say that action beats reaction *every time*, as you did.

Yes, by the time Han had his hand on his gun, and had the strap unsnapped, it was almost certainly too late for Greedo, unless Greedo decided to pull the trigger and put Han out of his misery. However, had Han gone for a quick, rather than stealthy, draw under those same circumstances, it's as likely as not that Greedo would have been the one flipping a few credits to the bartender on his way out.

Why? Because Han had to deal with a) the retention strap on his holster, b) clearing his pistol from the holster, and c) a comparatively awkward, seated draw from a leg holster, while sitting in a booth. (This limits his ability to pull backwards, because a solid, unmoving surface is there.)

If that process took more than 1 second (not unreasonable given the circumstances involved in the draw), Greedo would potentially have had the time necessary to pull the trigger on his blaster before Han could bring his blaster on target. (I don't buy into any version of the movie where Greedo is actually seen shooting, because it is plainly obvious that his blaster is pointed at Han's torso, and a blind 3 year-old could make that shot.)

Action beats reaction when the action takes less time than the speed of reaction (which ranges from about .5 to 1.5 seconds in most people). Han had the upper hand in the reaction-time race *only* because he successfully distracted Greedo while he got his blaster ready. If he had *failed* at that, Greedo would have been aware of Han's attempt to bring the blaster into play.

Action beats reaction every time. There is no way to get the first shot off if you wait for the other guy to move first. A person with a knife can clear 20' and stab you in the heart before you can draw and shoot them. The FBI proved this. Mythbusters did too.

Actually, action only beats reaction *most* of the time. Often enough that it's a good rule of thumb, but it's not a hard and fast guarantee.

Yeah I should have been more clear. I didn't mean something like a person reacting by running across a room and picking up a gun will beat the guy with a gun already in his hand reacting to this. I meant with all things even (or nearly even) the reactor will lose.

I'll go ahead and make my point more clear. Yes, action *usually* beats reaction. Often enough that you could even say action *almost always* beats reaction. But you *can't* truthfully say that action beats reaction *every time*, as you did.

Not in melee, it doesn't. Prepared reaction (parries) beat attacks most of the time. The surest sign of skilled melee is that one beats the parry right off. Baton vs knife, the aggressor usually is the one injured. Sword and board, attacking leaves you open, and the shield beats the sword most of the time (the exact ratio depending upon relative skills, but even a novice blacks more than he gets hit with. Rapier vs Rapier, again, the game is won usually by getting the other guy to actually attack so you can riposte. Most unarmed martial arts also have more advantage to reaction; the most effective techniques involve grabbing the incoming attack and using it against the other.

Only with firearms is it more common that action beats reaction, and that's more a matter of being unable to react to the bullet, because you can't accurately perceive the attack itself before it has already hit. Equally relevant for blasters, but not a general truth.

Heck, even hockey goalies stop more than they let in.

Yes, and when the state can't prove it's case (beyond a reasonable doubt), then you are legally *innocent*, since that is the presumed status absent a finding of guilt.

Getting an arrest record expunged is a totally different animal.

If by "innocent" you mean nothing more than "has not been convicted of the crime," then I guess I agree, but I'd say that's a pretty narrow definition of "innocent.". Yes, not getting the arrest expunged is a different issue, but it's an issue of a government official treating the defendant differently because the government official believes the defendant isn't innocent of the crime for which she was acquitted. Legally innocent, sure. But as a practical mater, just not guilty.

Police, prosecutors and judges regularly consider crimes defendants have been accused of and either just not convicted of or even acquitted of when deciding how to treat those defendants in subsequent interactions. That's before we even talk about the general public.

And going back to the charge vs. conviction, she wasn't charged with killing someone. She was charged and tried for *murder* If it was self-defense, then it wasn't *murder*, even though she killed someone. Don't get the two terms mixed up.

I wasn't getting the terms mixed up, I just didn't elaborate on the elements of the crime, in part because I'm not sure off hand what specific murder offense she was convicted of, but I'm certain that whatever specific offense it was, killing her husband was involved.

Yes, and when the state can't prove it's case (beyond a reasonable doubt), then you are legally *innocent*, since that is the presumed status absent a finding of guilt.

Getting an arrest record expunged is a totally different animal.

If by "innocent" you mean nothing more than "has not been convicted of the crime," then I guess I agree, but I'd say that's a pretty narrow definition of "innocent.". Yes, not getting the arrest expunged is a different issue, but it's an issue of a government official treating the defendant differently because the government official believes the defendant isn't innocent of the crime for which she was acquitted. Legally innocent, sure. But as a practical mater, just not guilty.

Police, prosecutors and judges regularly consider crimes defendants have been accused of and either just not convicted of or even acquitted of when deciding how to treat those defendants in subsequent interactions. That's before we even talk about the general public.

Not being convicted of a crime is the only manner in which *most* people are innocent. Seriously, give your particular state laws a good read some time, you'll probably find out that you have committed a number of misdemeanors over the years. Maybe even a stray low-grade felony or two. It's shocking what all is *sometimes* illegal under the wide variety of circumstances we call life. For example: Ever find some random object worth more than $20, and *not* turn it in at the local police station? In some jurisdictions you've committed theft. This includes a stray bit of currency stuck to something on the side of a busy road.

Even aside from that, when you're dealing with the legal system, the only aspect of guilt that matters once you're involved is whether you've been convicted. Yes, cops & prosecutors will pay more attention to a suspect with a long list of prior arrests, but that's a matter of playing the odds, not of any particular underlying *legal* cause. Up until the moment that you are convicted (or plea out) you are, from the perspective of the law, innocent. This changes not a single bit even if you've been arrested and put on trial dozens of times. Until you have a conviction, you're innocent.

On the other hand, if after the trial you are found guilty for the first time, but the judge sentences you more harshly because you've been arrested, but *not* convicted, in the past, then you have solid grounds to have the sentence revised under appeal.

The lack of distinction between 'innocent' and 'not guilty' is something I can't stress harshly enough, because all too often I've heard people say something along the lines of, "Of course he's guilty, why else would they have arrested him?". Even from the newscasters and other 'talking heads' who really ought to know better *and* be properly informing those who don't.

And going back to the charge vs. conviction, she wasn't charged with killing someone. She was charged and tried for *murder* If it was self-defense, then it wasn't *murder*, even though she killed someone. Don't get the two terms mixed up.

I wasn't getting the terms mixed up, I just didn't elaborate on the elements of the crime, in part because I'm not sure off hand what specific murder offense she was convicted of, but I'm certain that whatever specific offense it was, killing her husband was involved.

Yes, but again, if it was self-defense (as found on appeal), then it wasn't a *crime*, so there is nothing to consider her guilty *of*. Harvesting vegetables involves killing. So does a fatal shooting of the person who was trying to assault, kidnap or **** you, your spouse or your child. So does running over your ex in a blind rage. Of those three, only one is considered murder in the US.