>>101350947>that came after the fact that the cops were under orders to shoot to killBarnes was basically a fugitive not far from shoot-on-sight RoE to begin with. The shoot-on-sight order didn't really change much; the manhunt itself is what put Barnes in immediate danger, which could have been avoided if Barnes had went to Cap for help sometime before CW.
>Cap is then more or less immediately proven right when the villain, who had already successfully pulled off a bombing under everyone's nose, literally walked in the front door, disabled an entire city, then walked out.Ironically setting forth the events of the movie. If Bucky had died, the hunt for the other Winter Soldiers + the airport battle wouldn't have been necessary, and half the Avengers wouldn't be fugitives from the law. The only thing Cap proved is that the Avengers are just as flawed and unstable as the political bodies he doesn't trust. After saving Bucky, nothing Cap did really benefited anyone but Bucky. Sure, they caught Zemo, but what good does that do anyone but Everett and Bucky? The only reason Zemo was such a long term threat is specifically because of Cap's actions, playing directly into his hands.
Besides, you still haven't addressed the main problem with the assessment that Stark was the antagonist; the Accords-sanctioned Avengers suffered literally no consequences for signing the Accords, operate as usual (with basically no restriction or oversight, if Spider-man's continued sponsorship is any indication) and nobody even seems to take the Accords seriously to begin with anyway. The only problems that arose from the accords are the ones that tie directly back to Cap himself, which ironically paints him a bit more of a belligerent jackass than Stark, retroactively speaking. The one actually suffering from restrictions seems to be Team Cap themselves, only legal/practical rather than purely political, which is ironic considering restrictions were exactly what they were opposed to.
