Legality of moments in fiction; megathread?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I was thinking about various pop culture moments I felt compelled to ask questions about. I figure this site might be a good site to ask, given that both pop culture and the law are popular subjects here.

1. The Dark Knight: According to this film, a prosecution is "undone" if the prosecutor turns out to be a murderer. Is this true in real life?

2. Kevin Spencer: According to the show, even if a public defender can hear her client blackmail someone for money, over the phone, in a context for which the client had every reason to believe her lawyer was listening, said lawyer doesn't have to report it. Would they or wouldn't they?

Etc, etc... let's get the ball rolling here!

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Bumping because another one came to mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jMhV9iguXA#t=5m45s

Does a police chief's authority increase and/or mayor's authority decrease during an emergency?

I'm guessing that'd be the case, (and more so the former) what with a police chief being more likely to be experienced in emergency management, but as far as I can tell, The Simpsons is the only context in which I've ever seen the subject brought up.

[AiliailiA]

Bumping *snip*

Yeah, so much for "megathread"

I think this belongs in Arts and Fiction. You could ask a mod for a tow there, or just restart it there and let this one be locked.

[Farnhamia]

Bumping *snip*

Yeah, so much for "megathread"

I think this belongs in Arts and Fiction. You could ask a mod for a tow there, or just restart it there and let this one be locked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4emcNAf5lY

[Calladan]

I was thinking about various pop culture moments I felt compelled to ask questions about. I figure this site might be a good site to ask, given that both pop culture and the law are popular subjects here.

1. The Dark Knight: According to this film, a prosecution is "undone" if the prosecutor turns out to be a murderer. Is this true in real life?

2. Kevin Spencer: According to the show, even if a public defender can hear her client blackmail someone for money, over the phone, in a context for which the client had every reason to believe her lawyer was listening, said lawyer doesn't have to report it. Would they or wouldn't they?

Etc, etc... let's get the ball rolling here!

Well - given that I am the best legal mind in my back bedroom, not to mention the known universe (smirk) I would imagine that if it turns out you have been prosecuted by someone who is actually a fairly heinous criminal of some sort, you probably have a case for a retrial at least.

Given what happened in Arrow Series 5, it's not just The Dark Knight that seems to believe this - the later episodes were all about a plethora of cases being unwound because of the status of the person who prosecuted them.

And wow - I actually get to use a spoiler tag for a spoiler. I think that's a first

I would think a defender's first duty is to their client, and to get them off the charge they are defending said client against. If other charges come up during that time (blackmail, murder, world domination etc) are they really the business of the defender in question?

Arguably an *ethical* defender should report them, but - with all due respect to any lawyers out there - this is tv and ethical lawyers don't make for entertaining plot lines. So you have to balance realism with entertainment value, and I am pretty sure entertainment value is always going to win out.

[Calladan]

Meanwhile, I have one for the group (so to speak).

It first came up during The New Adventures of Superman, but does reoccur now and then :-

Mason Drake, the DA in Metropolis, disliked Superman because he was outside of the legal system. When he stopped criminals he didn't read them their rights, he didn't follow any type of procedure, and generally he used force of varying levels. Her worry was that one day the criminals would cotton on to this fact and argue that - under the Constitution of The United States - any arrest that Superman conducted would not be legal, because there were no Miranda rights, no procedures, no due process.

And if you watch the Vigilante programs (Superman, Supergirl, Arrow, The Flash etc) that does tend to be the case - for all the non "super" criminals they detain they don't tend to hand them over to the police - they just seem to drop them in prison, or knock them out and we don't find out what happens.

Would that be a problem? Would all these prisoners end up back on the streets because their rights were violated?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Thanks for moving the thread, Farnhamia.

Speaking of TDK, I was also thinking about the RICO law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rljtwchMGEs#t=45s

They mention that they can arrest everyone in an organization to charge them for a crime committed by the organization. Why then could they only arrest a few dozen Stratton Oakmont employees in Wolf Of Wall Street?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSo0nXaTfIc

EDIT: As for the Superman example... not familiar with that. Thanks for the clarification anyway though, Calladan.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Regarding Men In Black:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FkVXCCfg2A#t=22s

In this scene a law enforcement officer (feds, not police; but his partner is a former cop) points a gun at a suspect, threatening to shoot him if he doesn't tell the truth.

He follows through.

His partner then points the gun at him, threatening to kill him if he doesn't drop the weapon and put his hands on his head; the suspect's head grows back before we can find out whether or not said partner would've followed through. (It's a sci-fi movie.)

In real life, if a cop shot a suspect for lying to him and/or refusing to give truthful information, would his partner have the right and/or responsibility to arrest him, and/or to shoot him for refusal to surrender?

[Auristania]

I was thinking about various pop culture moments I felt compelled to ask questions about. I figure this site might be a good site to ask, given that both pop culture and the law are popular subjects here.

1. The Dark Knight: According to this film, a prosecution is "undone" if the prosecutor turns out to be a murderer. Is this true in real life?

2. Kevin Spencer: According to the show, even if a public defender can hear her client blackmail someone for money, over the phone, in a context for which the client had every reason to believe her lawyer was listening, said lawyer doesn't have to report it. Would they or wouldn't they?

!

1) NO. If a Witness is proven to be a liar then a new trial. If the Advocate did forbidden legal tricks to get their client acquitted then new trial. If the Advocate murdered a witness, that counts as a forbidden legal trick. If the Advocate murders some random person, it is irrelevant. These shenannigans lead to a NEW trial, NOT an immediate acquittal

Bad news: if you are rich, you don't get convicted.

2) Roman priests must keep Seal of the Confession absolutely.
Doctors, Lawyers, Protestant Priests, Journalists usually keep confidentiality, but there are limits. Most Prod Priests etc must report when their clients do big crimes. It depends on profession, nation etc.

Likewise, ifn you're rich, your minions won't report you.

3)

Does a police chief's authority increase and/or mayor's authority decrease during an emergency?

I'm guessing that'd be the case, (and more so the former) what with a police chief being more likely to be experienced in emergency management, but as far as I can tell, The Simpsons is the only context in which I've ever seen the subject brought up.

Usually. Depends on Jurisdiction. Each nation has its own Emergency Powers Act which says SOME official has extra powers.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I was thinking about various pop culture moments I felt compelled to ask questions about. I figure this site might be a good site to ask, given that both pop culture and the law are popular subjects here.

1. The Dark Knight: According to this film, a prosecution is "undone" if the prosecutor turns out to be a murderer. Is this true in real life?

2. Kevin Spencer: According to the show, even if a public defender can hear her client blackmail someone for money, over the phone, in a context for which the client had every reason to believe her lawyer was listening, said lawyer doesn't have to report it. Would they or wouldn't they?

!

1) NO. If a Witness is proven to be a liar then a new trial. If the Advocate did forbidden legal tricks to get their client acquitted then new trial. If the Advocate murdered a witness, that counts as a forbidden legal trick. If the Advocate murders some random person, it is irrelevant. These shenannigans lead to a NEW trial, NOT an immediate acquittal

Bad news: if you are rich, you don't get convicted.

2) Roman priests must keep Seal of the Confession absolutely.
Doctors, Lawyers, Protestant Priests, Journalists usually keep confidentiality, but there are limits. Most Prod Priests etc must report when their clients do big crimes. It depends on profession, nation etc.

Likewise, ifn you're rich, your minions won't report you.

3)

Does a police chief's authority increase and/or mayor's authority decrease during an emergency?

I'm guessing that'd be the case, (and more so the former) what with a police chief being more likely to be experienced in emergency management, but as far as I can tell, The Simpsons is the only context in which I've ever seen the subject brought up.

Usually. Depends on Jurisdiction. Each nation has its own Emergency Powers Act which says SOME official has extra powers.

Thanks for the info!

Another couple examples now. One regarding drunk driving. In a Dumb and Dumber scene, a cop pulls someone over for speeding and finds open beer bottles in the passenger's seat. He takes a sip out of one of them only to find out they were using it to store urine, not beer. However, would it be prosecutable/ticketable for them to be doing something that gives the impression that one is driving drunk? Would he have had the right to confiscate those bottles to send them all to the lab for proper analysis in case some of them had alcohol in them anyway? And also, shouldn't he have given them the breathalyzer anyway just in case?

Another is some anime I heard of through a YouTube video on messed up anime, where a character below the age of consent is alone with someone above it, and begins to undress, asking "if I yelled for help, what do you think would happen?" I think that's actually a good question. We've all heard of false rape accusations, but if someone isn't actually accusing someone directly, so much as falsely incriminating someone, what safeguards are there against that?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Another one; this one from Cracked. Spoiler alert for 50 First Dates, I guess.

Would it be legal for a neurotypical man to date a woman with memory problems? Would it be legal to impregnate her? (I assume the former but not the latter, and that either would result in a former social worker's scrutiny on whether or not he's exploting her condition.) This concept reminds me of Derpy X Doctor shipping, in the MLP:FIM fandom, where the cross-eyed, clumsy character Derpy (who is often presumed to be mentally retarded, though it's somewhat open to interpretation) is shown dating the intelligent Doctor Whooves. If she would otherwise need a caretaker, would it be okay for her boyfriend to assume that role instead, provided he's proven qualified for it?

And would it be the same with the sexes reversed?

[Calladan]

Another couple examples now. One regarding drunk driving. In a Dumb and Dumber scene, a cop pulls someone over for speeding and finds open beer bottles in the passenger's seat. He takes a sip out of one of them only to find out they were using it to store urine, not beer. However, would it be prosecutable/ticketable for them to be doing something that gives the impression that one is driving drunk? Would he have had the right to confiscate those bottles to send them all to the lab for proper analysis in case some of them had alcohol in them anyway? And also, shouldn't he have given them the breathalyzer anyway just in case?

Another is some anime I heard of through a YouTube video on messed up anime, where a character below the age of consent is alone with someone above it, and begins to undress, asking "if I yelled for help, what do you think would happen?" I think that's actually a good question. We've all heard of false rape accusations, but if someone isn't actually accusing someone directly, so much as falsely incriminating someone, what safeguards are there against that?

There is an episode of The West Wing where Charlie and...... oh I have forgotten his name - the kid that the Secret Service Agent CJ is dating was mentoring (being a Big Brother to) are in The White House on election day, and the kid brings his friend along. His friend was caught with an open can of beer in his hand while driving, even though he wasn't drinking, and his friend was over 18 and an American football player, so the kid wanted to see if Charlie could work his "White House magic" to get him out of trouble.

Which clearly indicates he was in some kind of trouble for having an open can of beer in his hand while driving, even though he wasn't under the influence or drunk.

(At least that is what the implication was from the situation in the episode).

[Calladan]

So here is a question that has always made me curious (it was prompted by an episode of Columbo).

Imagine I am a character in a film, and my name is Mrs Smith. And I want to murder Mrs Jones. Because I hate her. I just hate her with a passion. She is a feckless bitch who should die.

So I set up a plan to kill her in by blowing up her car by stuff a banana in the exhaust, then sticking a towel in the petrol tank and lighting it on fire.

I plan all this, and then I see someone dressed in Mrs Jones clothes get in the car, and I strike. The car doesn't start (because of the banana) and I blow the car up with a lighter and the petrol tank.

Except it isn't actually Mrs Jones. It's Mrs Moriarty, who borrowed Mrs Jones' clothes.

Here's my question :- murder is the specific intent to kill a specific person with premeditation and malice aforethought.

So if I actually kill the wrong person - someone I never met and never meant to kill - can I still be arrested, tried and convicted of murder? Or would it be some lesser crime (manslaughter maybe?)

I have always been curious about this. (Not because I plan to blow up a car, I promise, but just because murder is a very specific and very exact crime and I am curious just HOW specific and HOW exact).

[Auristania]

So here is a question that has always made me curious (it was prompted by an episode of Columbo).

Imagine I am a character in a film, and my name is Mrs Smith. And I want to murder Mrs Jones. Because I hate her. I just hate her with a passion. She is a feckless bitch who should die.

So I set up a plan to kill her in by blowing up her car by stuff a banana in the exhaust, then sticking a towel in the petrol tank and lighting it on fire.

I plan all this, and then I see someone dressed in Mrs Jones clothes get in the car, and I strike. The car doesn't start (because of the banana) and I blow the car up with a lighter and the petrol tank.

Except it isn't actually Mrs Jones. It's Mrs Moriarty, who borrowed Mrs Jones' clothes.

Here's my question :- murder is the specific intent to kill a specific person with premeditation and malice aforethought.

So if I actually kill the wrong person - someone I never met and never meant to kill - can I still be arrested, tried and convicted of murder? Or would it be some lesser crime (manslaughter maybe?)

I have always been curious about this. (Not because I plan to blow up a car, I promise, but just because murder is a very specific and very exact crime and I am curious just HOW specific and HOW exact).

British Law 20 years ago (they might have changed it since then) if you are committing a Felony and someone dies, then it still counts as murder.

Petrol tanks do NOT explode. They tested it on Mythbusters. Petrol only burns when there is air. Inside the tank there is too much petrol gas and not enough air. All you get is a little flame around the mouth of the tank. Use a bomb. Only a blasting cap will detonate C4.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Black Hawk Down implies that there are army captains who nag subordinates about not having been on church on Sunday. Since they are in a position of authority, and are putting pressure on public servants to attend religious services, would that violate the separation of church and state?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Gunsmoke implies an angry mob could free a prisoner at gunpoint. Couldn't they just get the faces of everyone in that mob and send the feds after them? Or would the Marshall's consent under duress imply that the mob was untouchable for what they did?

[Auristania]

Gunsmoke implies an angry mob could free a prisoner at gunpoint. Couldn't they just get the faces of everyone in that mob and send the feds after them? Or would the Marshall's consent under duress imply that the mob was untouchable for what they did?

Indeed they can and it is till a crime. Bad news, Marshall testifies, the Mob was led by Citizens A, B, C. All the Mob testify than the ringleaders were not even there.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Bumping after... huh, exactly half a year, what are the odds of that?

Anyway...

https://imgur.com/gallery/pd6FK

I think unverifiable anecdotes are to be treated as fictional until proven factual. However, if something like this were to happen in real life, would failure to warn the agent about the bull constitute attempted murder?

[Auristania]

Farmer DID try to warn Officer. But there are no witnesses to the warning. Use your mobile and RECORD giving him the warning.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Shouldn't you start with "but that field has a bull in there" instead of starting with telling the officer where to go?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So in Shrek, a major character is carried against her will when she refuses to leave the dangerous wilderness. Would "if I hadn't carried the victim, she'd be in greater danger" be considered a legitimate reason to do so, or no? Would it depend on the age of the person being carried?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The Sopranos has Christopher beating Adriana to within an inch of her life after she was falsely rumoured to have cheated on him. If this happened in real life, could all the guys who spread the rumour be charged collectively with reckless endangerment in addition to his assault charges?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGEmFpitjYw#t=40s

If in real life you, willingly or otherwise, caused someone to roll onto their back, would you have a duty to intervene if, as a result, they were choking to death on their own vomit?

I say this not to condone Walter's actions (on the contrary, it's because it's so depressing to watch that this scene stands out to me) but out of curiosity as to how the immorality and legality of the decision compare.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

From Liar Liar, if a marital prenup is deemed null and void by the fact that the younger participant was underage when she signed it, does that automatically disqualify him from custody of the kids? Does it depend on whether or not she lied about her age?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

WARNING: Profanity, gross punchline.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/140/883/ba2.jpg

If someone were to... defecate from high above (aircraft, tall tower, etc...) on the person or property of someone for whom they had a restraining order to keep away, would it be prosecuted as public defecation or as violating the restraining order?