There are many dilemmas superheroes face, but Thor Love and Thunder posed a new one: Do you empower kidnapped children to go full Ark of the Covenant on monsters hellbent on killing them? Does the act of empowering them to fight constitute child endangerment? If so, are there any defenses? 

Child Endangerment to Fight Shadow Monsters 

While Norse gods might have a different view of child endangerment, California defines the crime as follows: 

“Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.”

Cal. Pen. Code § 273a

The events in Love and Thunder saw Gorr kidnap the children of New Asgard in his quest to kill all gods in the universe by going to the Gates of Eternity. Thor journeyed to where the children were falsely imprisoned and had a choice: take the children home, which would have let Gorr complete his genocidal plan or empower the children to also fight Shadow Monsters. 

The legal issue is whether Thor willfully permitted the children to be placed in a situation where their health was endangered. The children were already kidnapped. If Thor took them from Gorr’s prison, the children would have been killed [along with every other Asgardian and other deity] by Gorr. However, powering up the children to effectively be child soldiers against Shadow Monsters meets the requirement for a child’s health to be endangered. While not a great choice, the empowered children were placed in danger. However, as soon as Thor liberated Stormbreaker, he gave it to Heimdall’s son Axl to return the children back to the safety of New Asgard. 

The Necessity to Defense for Giving the Children the Power of Thor [Limited Time]

The purpose of the Necessity Defense is public policy not to punish individuals despite proof on all elements of a crime. People v. Beach, 194 Cal.App.3d 955, 973 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)

In order to prove the Necessity Defense, the California Jury Instruction require the following: 

1. Thor acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to the children;

2. Thor had no adequate legal alternative;

3. Thor’s acts did not create a greater danger than the one avoided;

4. When Thor acted, he actually believed that the act was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil;

5. A reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances; AND

6. Thor did not substantially contribute to the emergency.

CALCRIM No. 3403.

The arguments for each element are as follows:

1. 1. Thor had to empower the children because there was insufficient time to return them to New Asgard before Gorr committed mass genocide; 
   2. Thor was no other option, because leaving with the children would have result in Gorr completing his mission to kill all gods, including the Asgardian children; 
   3. Thor’s actions kept Gorr for a mass killing and allowed the children to defend themselves; 
   4. Thor believed his actions were necessary to protect the children and lives of gods;
   5. A reasonable person would agree there were no other actions; and
   6. Thor did not contribute to the emergency, because the children had the power to defend themselves. 

Thor really needs a jury to accept there was no other option other than empowering the children to fight the Shadow Monsters. Given the scope of the failure to do so, and the fact the children were saved (and had one heck of a therapy session destroying their kidnappers), the Necessity Defense should be successful.