IPC and the Law?

[NebulaFlare]

Okay, so I'm working on one of my IPCs criminal records, and I just want to make sure this is plausible:

The IPC is a property unit, owned by a human. One day while they are out and about in the city of Mendell, a thug comes over and assaults the owner, with a dangerous and lethal weapon. The IPC intervenes, defending its owner - albeit a little too viciously. After the attack, paramedics are called to the scene, and the attacker is rushed away to the hospital, where he later dies of his injuries. The IPC is seized because of the death of the attacker, even if it was defending its owner.

What would this be classed as? Self-defense? Excessive use of force? Negligent Manslaughter on the owner's part? And who would receive the blunt of the law, the owner or the IPC?

If this was discovered to be an issue in the IPC where it could physically be unable to gauge how 'effective' its strikes were (It is a service unit, not a combat unit - it could not control it), would the IPC be forced for mandatory repairs, or would it be seized by the city and decomissioned? Or, would the owner have a say in keeping their unit from being scrapped as it is their rightful property, take the blunt of the blame themselves for not fixing the issue earlier, and seek out repairs for their unit?

In the end, the IPC was only defending its owner from a dangerous weapon, that could have severely wounded/killed their master. There was no malice in there.

How would the court handle a case like this?

[Bokaza]

Keep in mind, you think you are asking a simple question, but you are setting a premise for a deep philosophical one. I don't need to extrapolate it, but it's a series of questions that geniuses at the loreteam think they have answered, but they actually didn't. With the lack of solid rules for IPCs and laws, you can only extrapolate from the existing cases.

If you've read the mendell news, the whole position of the IPC as a living being is being questioned right now due to recent events. If it's determined that an IPC is an individual worthy of rights, it would technically be self-defense, as it was attempting to protect itself and its owner, with no willingness to kill.

Since it likely happened before the events in queston, its position is shifted one of a robot. In that case, it cannot be charged. It can only be labeled as working or melfunctioning. If its job was to defend its owner, then it was likely working properly. In that case there are two choices, the IPC melfunctioned and went to far, or the owner prefered excessive force. The blame depends on if the AI technically disobayed the owner's wishes. In case of the former, the blame on the owner is elevated, but the AI gets checkups and possibly scrapped as well. This is why the case 'unable to gouge' wouldn't work. It implies it had working sensors, if the sensors didn't work, it is labeled as malfunctioning and chopped in retribution. I

In case of the latter, the owner carries all of the blame, as the IPC functioned properly, within the parameters of its job. In that case, the owner takes the responsibility for the actions of its property. Mind you, you've skipped the question of excessive force. When the self-defense case is disputed, it usually goes to court, where the defendant needs to prove they've been justified in using that level of force. The IPC could technically make a case, irregardless of it being a machine or owner taking the blame, that it acted within bounds of the law when applying force.

HOWEVER, due to how law works, blaming just the IPC saying it malfunctioned sets a terrible precedent. It would be like legally saying that people don't kill, but guns do. It detaches the owners from the actions of its AIs, so it likely wouldn't happen.

Worst case scenario: The owner loses a lawsuit and is blamed for his IPCs actions, so gets charged with manslaughter. He gets a short prison sentence, and the IPC gets wiped.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

What Bokaza said is very on the point. There are no legal frameworks for it; everything is halphazardly tossed together in a legal blender. IPC's are a recent, very new technology with massive implications in their every aspect. It's going to take a long time for the courts to catch up, and that's the timeframe we find ourselves in - the messy 'in-between'.