All responses must be A) sincere, B) polite, and C) strictly watsonian in nature. If "watsonian" or "doylist" is new to you, please review the full rules here.
No edition wars or gripings about creators/owners of works. Doylist griping about Star Wars in particular is subject to permanent ban on first offense.
We are not here to discuss or complain about the real world.
Questions about who would prevail in a conflict/competition (not just combat) fit better on r/whowouldwin. Questions about very open-ended hypotheticals fit better on r/whatiffiction.
So, either the minimum crime he would kill someone for, or the maximum crime he would not kill someone for.
So, he doesn’t kill people for petty crimes, so any and all of those are out for a minimum death sentence.
I’m going to go for his minimum crime being armed robbery, even if no one was killed. Armed robbery, they’re threatening a bank teller, cashier, etc with death in order to steal. So it’s not the theft that causes him to kill the person but the deadly threat of an innocent person’s life for money. Not necessarily that he’d hunt them down, but if he’s present he’s just going to stop it by putting the robbers down.
Maximum crime that he wouldn’t kill for, probably second degree murder for revenge for a “justifiable reason”. While normally murder is enough to draw his attention, he’d probably look the other way if the revenge was for a serous enough reason.
Like … would The Punisher kill Dexter Morgan, the serial killer who kills serial killers? Or would he pat him on the back and applaud Dexter’s forensic work to ensure that he did not kill an innocent?
What you have to remember is that The Punisher has rendered himself as judge, jury, and executioner. So he would assess every case individually.
It’s case by case, but generally he prioritizes violent and organized crime. Violent because it’s direct and obvious harm to innocents, organized because his family was killed in mob crossfire (and it’s easier to kill more birds with fewer stones depending what ordinance Frank’s packing at the time).
If you’re a drug dealer it depends what you’re selling. Weed and maybe some party drugs won’t put you in his crosshairs, but harder and more inherently dangerous stuff like heroin probably will.
Frank doesn’t give a shit about sex work as long as it involves consenting adults. If you try to add kids and/or human trafficking into the mix he’ll probably beat you to death with a baseball bat (see Daredevil Season 2).
If you’re a so-called supervillain, it probably depends on how often civilians are hurt in your collateral damage and whose rogues gallery you’re in. If you ignore taking hostages and just rip a bank vault open yourself before Spider-Man webs you to a lamppost then you’re probably low-priority for the Punisher, but if you’re lethally throwing projectiles into the bodies of Daredevil’s loved ones then Castle would also love a shot at you.
There’s another element that’s sort of a grey zone, and that’s only if you’re someone as influential as Kingpin. Punisher would love to kill Fisk, but hesitates to actually do so on the grounds that it would create a massive power vacuum and lots more chaos as a result.
I think a major point is the question "Can you make the victim whole?" For example, let’s say you burgled someone’s home. He might (would) give you a paddling, but if he could get the victims property back or otherwise reimburse them that might be the end of it.
But when it comes to crimes that cause permanent harm to someone, then good luck. So pushing hard drugs, violent crimes and similar get a hard response. The lines get a bit more fuzzy if you commit a "lesser" violation against someone Castle considers more vulnerable. Lets say you rob the home of elderly, or otherwise fragile person. Castle is highly likely to think that the emotional harm you’ve caused could never be healed. Then you’re likely fucked.
Misdemeanors, and most nonviolent felonies. Frank views it as his duty/penance to eliminate the worst elements of society, and he draws a very firm line between the innocent, the merely stupid/selfish, and the malevolent and cruel; the first is always off-limits, the second is generally the same, and the third are his hit list.
Comments
Reminders for Commenters:
All responses must be A) sincere, B) polite, and C) strictly watsonian in nature. If "watsonian" or "doylist" is new to you, please review the full rules here.
No edition wars or gripings about creators/owners of works. Doylist griping about Star Wars in particular is subject to permanent ban on first offense.
We are not here to discuss or complain about the real world.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Being a stoned, jaywalking, tax-evading distributor of fireworks that are illegal in the state you’re in.
So, either the minimum crime he would kill someone for, or the maximum crime he would not kill someone for.
So, he doesn’t kill people for petty crimes, so any and all of those are out for a minimum death sentence.
I’m going to go for his minimum crime being armed robbery, even if no one was killed. Armed robbery, they’re threatening a bank teller, cashier, etc with death in order to steal. So it’s not the theft that causes him to kill the person but the deadly threat of an innocent person’s life for money. Not necessarily that he’d hunt them down, but if he’s present he’s just going to stop it by putting the robbers down.
Maximum crime that he wouldn’t kill for, probably second degree murder for revenge for a “justifiable reason”. While normally murder is enough to draw his attention, he’d probably look the other way if the revenge was for a serous enough reason.
Maybe being a vigilante?
Like … would The Punisher kill Dexter Morgan, the serial killer who kills serial killers? Or would he pat him on the back and applaud Dexter’s forensic work to ensure that he did not kill an innocent?
What you have to remember is that The Punisher has rendered himself as judge, jury, and executioner. So he would assess every case individually.
Petty theft especially if no one is getting threatened, littering, jaywalking, basically anything that doesn’t cause literal harm to a person.
He only kills violent criminals that hurt innocent people.
So basically just don’t hurt anyone and he won’t care.
Leaving classified information that reveals corruption, war crimes, or cover ups of other major crimes.
It’s case by case, but generally he prioritizes violent and organized crime. Violent because it’s direct and obvious harm to innocents, organized because his family was killed in mob crossfire (and it’s easier to kill more birds with fewer stones depending what ordinance Frank’s packing at the time).
If you’re a drug dealer it depends what you’re selling. Weed and maybe some party drugs won’t put you in his crosshairs, but harder and more inherently dangerous stuff like heroin probably will.
Frank doesn’t give a shit about sex work as long as it involves consenting adults. If you try to add kids and/or human trafficking into the mix he’ll probably beat you to death with a baseball bat (see Daredevil Season 2).
If you’re a so-called supervillain, it probably depends on how often civilians are hurt in your collateral damage and whose rogues gallery you’re in. If you ignore taking hostages and just rip a bank vault open yourself before Spider-Man webs you to a lamppost then you’re probably low-priority for the Punisher, but if you’re lethally throwing projectiles into the bodies of Daredevil’s loved ones then Castle would also love a shot at you.
There’s another element that’s sort of a grey zone, and that’s only if you’re someone as influential as Kingpin. Punisher would love to kill Fisk, but hesitates to actually do so on the grounds that it would create a massive power vacuum and lots more chaos as a result.
I think a major point is the question "Can you make the victim whole?" For example, let’s say you burgled someone’s home. He might (would) give you a paddling, but if he could get the victims property back or otherwise reimburse them that might be the end of it.
But when it comes to crimes that cause permanent harm to someone, then good luck. So pushing hard drugs, violent crimes and similar get a hard response. The lines get a bit more fuzzy if you commit a "lesser" violation against someone Castle considers more vulnerable. Lets say you rob the home of elderly, or otherwise fragile person. Castle is highly likely to think that the emotional harm you’ve caused could never be healed. Then you’re likely fucked.
Misdemeanors, and most nonviolent felonies. Frank views it as his duty/penance to eliminate the worst elements of society, and he draws a very firm line between the innocent, the merely stupid/selfish, and the malevolent and cruel; the first is always off-limits, the second is generally the same, and the third are his hit list.
Downloading a car.
Judging by the equipment he uses he must be in active contact with a bunch of arms dealers and smugglers.