The Monster Under the Bed by Brandon Shane is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
The Monster Under the Bed
“Embrace your fear.”
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Marcy is as usual but considering the scissors, I understand that she is quite pissed and that she demands explanations. Probably, the way is quite shocking but still.
Tim is underwhelming a lot in this page considering he is in his place.
So far, Tim has displayed all the manly strength of a wet noodle.
He folded to the threats of Marcy & Craig at the school.
He was willing to betray the secret of Shadow’s reality (and Nox’s).
He has been complicit in the restraint of Shadow.
He has earned all the respect due to an oyster (sprinkled with lemon juice and crushed betwen back teeth).
Except, of course, that Shadow is absolutely in the wrong here.
You dismiss breaking into someone’s house with frickin’ scissors far too easily. And worse, since they were Tim’s scissors, she effectively framed him for breaking into a classmate’s house with ill intent. Tim’s lucky Marcy confronted him directly, he could be facing charges. People don’t look kindly on teenage boys who break into the bedrooms of teenage girls.
She betrayed Tim badly. Frankly, she’s lucky he hasn’t cut her out of his life. Certainly he needs to make it clear that if she pulls a stunt like this again she’s out.
Life is not a frickin’ John Hughes comedy (thank god). Tim is being exceptionally mature, so far.
Couldn’t agree more. Shadow is getting what she deserves right now. And I love Shadow, but I won’t make excuses for her.
Yeaaahhh, Shadow committed “break & enter” through an established entryway (under the bed) that’s not available to anybody except Noxians.
What exactly was “broken”?
I have previously made the point that “framing” is an action requiring intent. Shadow had no intent to blame Tim for the intrusion into Marct’s room.
She was careless with the scissors.
Any prosecutor would need to PROVE Tim’s presence in Marcy’s room, especially as there’s an alternate explanation. (Proof=evidence =”that which can be seen).
Betrayal also requires intent.
Where is the explanaion of Shadow’s intent to blame Tim? Oh, there isn’t any? Then there’s no “betrayal”.
Shadow *was* careless and there are implications that Tim MIGHT have been there, but that’s not actually ‘evidemce” as such.
Betrayal most certainly does NOT require intent.
One can be betrayed by the careless, inconsiderate actions of another easily. And while ‘framing’ someone usually implies intent, the fact of the matter is that you can do that inadvertently too. Just by being careless and extreme, Shadow put Tim in jeopardy by creating a situation that couldn’t be explained any other way than by exposing Shadow for what she is.
You can argue semantics, but at the end of the day she did something bad and endangered someone she cares about and this is her comeuppance.
That being said, let’s hope it doesn’t end with anyone lopping off hair…
Shadow breaks into people’s houses every night to scare them.
And yet, we love her.
Well, she has to eat – fear … right?
Thank you. We can love someone all day long, but wrong is wrong.
Marcy, no, we’re de-escalating right now. We can escalate later.
Oh, right! It’s already been a while, I completely forgot that all of that happened only one day ago
Gotta love shadow blushing. Though I gotta say this can all be solved with a threescore…just saying
I’m saying that from the beginning 😉
And they should probably invite Midnight, too, I ‘d hate her feel left out…
One problem, the handle of the scissors are spread open, which means that the blades should be open too. If the blades aren’t open, then those handles should be closer together. *IE where that plastic bit on the round handle is touching the other one.
That’s not a problem in itself. Scissors with one angled handle definitely exist. The problem is, it wasn’t the case on earlier pages.
Girls and women will draw blood when it comes to their hair.
Marcy’s smarter than I thought she’d be.
Final reply to Lucas
In my response of 11th Nov I agreed the “break and enter” bit ( even though it was an entry from a freely avaible (to noxians), so, eally not, but…
In 1970 (or so) I saw a lovely BMW (R69S) that I wanted, The key was in the ignition. I didn’t steal it, even though I wanted it. By your logic, i should have been charged with theft just as you want to convict Shadow of a haircut she didn’t perform.
It doesn’t matter that she performed it or not. The fact is she was GOING to had Marcy not woken up and made Shadow bolt and drop the scissors (which I will just point out also put Tim in trouble so that’s ANOTHER thing she’s guilty of). The point is she’s WRONG for that even if she didn’t actually do it. If I attempted to murder you and, for whatever reason, didn’t go through with it would I not still be guilty of attempted murder? Would I not still get in trouble for trying to kill you? Would you not want me to deal with the consequences of trying to kill you and doing other wrong things in the name of doing so?
You wouldn’t be charged with theft btw. You would be charged with ATTEMPTED theft. Trying to do something wrong (and failing) is still wrong.
Actually scratch that. You wouldn’t be charged with attempted theft since in your example you only wanted a car that didn’t belong to you. But that is a bad example. A better example would be if you wanted the car, broke the window to get in, and turned the key in the ignition only for the car to not start. Then you decide to get out of the car and beat a hasty retreat before anyone noticed what you were doing. That would be attempted theft and in Shadow’s case that would be attempted battery (unlawful touching of another person). Sorry for the multiple posts.
“You wouldn’t be charged with attempted theft since in your example you only wanted a car that didn’t belong to you.”
EXACTLY RIGHT!! (Except the BMW R69S is a motorcycle – I would NEVER want any form of stink-box)
I “quoted” that hypothetical case BECAUSE it exactly paralleled the case in point.
You can’t rewrite the facts as presented to fake a case against Shadow.
I didn’t do it, Shadow didn’t do it.
There is no valid offence (other than the “unlawful entry” and even that’s arguable because it’s a public entry to any and all Noxian females.)
You could try to hang that charge of stealing scissors, but I would call Tim to refuse to press charges and s0 that charge is lost.
You really don’t see difference between “thought about doing X” and “was trying to do X, but forcibly stopped by a third party”?
I know, with the air polluted by so much hubris and solipsism some poisoning is to be expected, but such fallacies…
Yeah I don’t know how else to simplify it. It seems like he’s defending Shadow pretty hard, but it’s obvious she’s the guilty party.
She was TRYING to do it. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF GOING INTO HER ROOM. She would have succeeded if Marcy hadn’t woken up. SHE’S STILL WRONG FOR TRYING.
The unlawful entry may be fine for Noxians to do, but that doesn’t mean it’s not illegal and wrong for humans. In the human world, it’s wrong to break and enter.
Tim would refuse to press charges anyway because they’re friends and he would rather she avoid jail unless it’s for something truly heinous, but what Shadow did is just petty stuff. But stealing his scissors is still wrong and that’s all I’m saying.
“Trying to do something wrong (and failing) is still wrong.”
NOT trying and neither succeeding nor failing isn’t a chargeable offence, either.
Shadow was taked out of any attempt by Middy.
But…she DID try. She tried to cut her hair, but she ran away. You’re making that up.
No. It isn’t attempted murder without some sort of attempt, eg a stab wound. Verbal threats are a different crime, eg, sending a text “I’m going to kill you”. Not sure what crime brandishing a knife would be, that fits with the current image fairly nicely.
We’d have thousands arrested every day if poorly thought out wishes to kill politicians was illegal. Who hasn’t done that. They’d find some sort of charge to be sure. Just not attempted murder.
I don’t need to successfully stab someone to be guilty of trying to stab someone. If you came at me with a knife, but you missed or something that’s still an attempt. Why is this complicated for people to understand???
Also, Marcy’s not trying to stab Shadow if that’s what you were getting at. She just happened to have a sharp object close to her face making Shadow uncomfortable. It only looks like she’s gonna stab Shadow if you look at that image with zero context.
The difference between our viewpoints, rws, appears to me that lucas is judging on moral grounds (hence his constant insistance on WROGNESS, rather than facts)
This may work if one judges on emotional values, but it’s no basis for a legal dfinition of guilt or innocence.
Except I am using facts. It’s a fact that Shadow stole Tim’s scissors. It’s a fact that Shadow snuck into Marcy’s room without her permission or knowledge. And it’s a fact that she was going to use those scissors on her hair as she slept. Unless I’m mistaken, she is in fact guilty of all these things. I’ve only been saying that she’s wrong for doing these things and is rightfully being confronted on these things now.
“… was going to…” and THERE’S your problem!
It was an action she DID’NT perform, so it’s an act of which she is not and cannot be guilty.
Your emphasis on the morality (wrogness) off her actions and glossing over the fact that NOBODY committed an assault (until Craig, Marcy and Tim assaulted Shadow) is where your argument is flawed.
But she’s guilty of the intent. The intent matters. I disagree that you don’t think it matters. It matters quite a bit to Marcy. The fact she was going to do that to Marcy should be enough to put her in trouble. Attempting to do something bad to someone else and falling short is still a bad thing to do.
The whole reason Shadow is being interrogated right now is because of what Shadow tried to do (and did in the case of stealing the scissors and sneaking into Marcy’s room).
I’ll disagree there. Part of the reason is Craig’s tendency to be a bully, his ongoing resentment at being bested by “a gurrl” who defended Tim quite successfully. Part is Marcy’s desire to confront and demolish (figuratively) a potential rival for Tim’s attention. He’s just another notch on her bedpost but she doesn’t like being fobbed off (refer P. 165) so she teamed up with the bully to cause whatever mayhem she could.
“…I’m not some crazy psycho bitch…”
Well, Marcy, the evidence is against you on that score.
Be that as it may, what’s happening now is a direct result of Shadows actions.
Intent, by itsef, is no a legal offence.
There would be even MORE convicts in North America if it were so.
It is a legal offense. Attempted murder is still a crime for example.
Intent (without any related action) just isn’t.
As there was no cutting if hair then “intent” or the “guilty mind” or if you prefer the Latin “mens rea” just isn’t relevant.
There was no assault upon Marcy. (perhaps you should quote the page no. which shows the act of cutting or the effect of the cut-off hair?)
The state of Shadow’s mind when she took no action is a nothing.
On the other hand, Marcy and Craig (and Tim) actually lay inn wait for Shdow and then asaulted her.
That’s incontrovertible!
There may have been no actual assault on Marcy, but she was still wrong for trying regardless and she was 100% wrong for stealing Tim’s scissors and sneaking into her room which led to this whole situation. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’d advise you to look up something called “mens rea.”
Your advice is not accepted.
Know that most legal jurisdictions (those based originally on English Common Law) have modified their own interpretations of ‘mens rea” so there’s no universal application of the doctrine.
I do realise that you may be living under a system which criminalises inrent without action, but I can only advise that you should migrate to a jurisdiction where the law has not yet been so perverted.
It sounds like an authoritarian Paradise but a hell for ordinary people, reminiscent of the Terror in Pari in the late 18thC when the system of anonymous denuciation was all that was needed to send a person to the guillotine.
Reply to Tomokatu
Your advice is not accepted.
I won’t need to migrate anywhere because I more or less understand how the law in my society works and I won’t have any trouble avoiding causing my own mess in the first place. Which is more then I can say about Shadow here. Anyway, we’re not getting anywhere here so here’s to a nowhere back and forth argument.
I’m waiting for Brandon to do the big reveal. Marcie is actually a Noxian.
Shadow quickly noticed that Ruth is one of them. Ruth, Shadow and Midnight had an opportunity, and at least two of them paid attention to Marcie when she’s conscious. So, very unlikely.
Maybe you’re wrong and maybe I’m right. As I remember Ruthie let her cover slip and Shadow noticed. Mr. Obvious aka Timmy still doesn’t know Mommy is a Noxian or, he does know and refuses to believe it. Only Brandon knows for sure and he’s not telling. Maybe we should slather him with Tuna and let a horde of hungry Bengal cats torture him for spoilers?
I think you mean oblivious. Obvious means only choice. Oblivious means not paying attention/ ignorance of facts
waaaaaaaay baaaaaaack in the day-like in the 1960’s, we used the term for someone who didn’t have a clue. That’s the problem with these young whipper snappers……
She really didnt let her cover slip. Noxians dont have a scent, which is the how shadow found out.
Oh and her voice.
Hi there^^
Could you please remove my name “krobonil” from the Fan-Art section?
My customers see NSFW-content when they’re searching up my name. Thanks a lot and feel free to upload all the other tracks I did once in a while ago – just without my name please.
A lesson on compartmentalization for us all.
Twenty? More like twenty-one!…
…thousand.
“it seems you thought Shadow was going to be the only one willing to draw blood!”
That’s where you’d be mistaken
When chicks fight there’s always blood on the ground.
For Tomokatu: I fully disagree with you, but I won’t be changing your mind anytime soon. I think Shadow deserves this treatment because of what she did and what she tried to do. You don’t and I don’t understand why. But we’ll leave it at that.
So here is my two cents. While i agree what shadow did was wrong, and i agree with your arguments of intent and attempted battery (an attempt that was foiled by a third party like you said but its still an attempted crime) I don’t believe shadow deserves to be unlawfully detained against her will and threatened by a sharp object. Those scissors are WAY too close to her eye to be safe.
uk law: burglary with intent to commit grievous bodily harm is a thing with a maxuimum sentence of 14 years. Good luck trying to persuade a jury you were just going to cut her hair when you are standing over her with a weapon capable of causing serious injury that you carried there with you.
{Hehehe} Apart from the fact that Brandon has already specified that this tale takes place in CANADA not the UK, so the legal system will be different in detail, I’m sure that the Ancient and Honourable Society of Barbers, Hairdressers & Peruquiers will be astounded and irritated that you’re prepared to consider the cutting of hair (even if unwanted and unauthourised) to constitute Grevious Bodily Harm.
Burglary of a premises requires the unlawful taking away of goods. That was not what Shadow was doing.
I’d advise you to start cutting your own hair in future because I wouldn’t trust any high-street barberthat close to my throat once THAT opinion gets around.
Can you hear the clippers already? Have you heard of Sweeny Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street? A NARSTY piece of work!
knowing the law might keep you out of trouble at some time in the future if you find yourself in uk or Canada.
1) no need to fear barbers. I specifically said good luck persuading a jury all you were going to do was cut her hair.
2) a quick search indicates Canada law is (unsurprisingly) very simlar to uk law. “348 (1) Every one who
(a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,”
3) As in th UK no actual ‘breaking’ is required. entering through an opening permanent or temporary without permision (pretty sure that would fall under lawful justification) “350 For the purposes of sections 348 and 349,
(a) a person enters as soon as any part of his body or any part of an instrument that he uses is within any thing that is being entered; and
(b) a person shall be deemed to have broken and entered if
(i) he obtained entrance by a threat or an artifice or by collusion with a person within, or
(ii) he entered without lawful justification or excuse by a permanent or temporary opening.”
I’m rather surprised that anyone volunteers to be dragged down and beaten with experience immediately after a demonstration of how this works. =)