No civilians hurt, and no hostages taken, at least.
I'm curious what you guys think of the notion of 'legitimate targets' (as in the argument that in war, soldiers on both sides are legitimate targets because they've volunteered their lives and so on) in non-wartime situations. Are the Heroes legitimate targets? (ie. are injuries caused to Heroes in the course of fighting crime not counted in to the villain's moral burden?)
Juron: The problem with this model of human rights is application; too often, it risks us enacting some irreversible punishment (for example, the death penalty, which I'm not in favour of for this reason) on someone who may later be shown to be innocent. 'Make the punishment fit the crime' too often requires us to be absolutely, perfectly certain about guilt, and we almost never are (I mean, we have a system where guilt is generally decided by twelve men and women in a room with all the evidence that has been presented to them; like you said in the other thread, humans are only human ^_--).
As an aside, I'm British, and generally over here we do think in terms of 'freedom of belief' and 'freedom of expression' rather than the older terms from the American Constitution. Except, of course, our Government is trying to take them away from us (this week, my university's philosophy department felt obliged to put out a press release saying it would never relay opinions of students to third parties, in response to stories in the press that some universities have been asked to monitor the opinions of Islamic students in case they have fundamentalist leanings. I want to emigrate, but I don't know if there's anywhere in the world where things are significantly preferable).