Can Banthas be Used as Live Bait?

January 5, 2021

The Mandalorian, season two, Chapter 9, The Marshal, included Tuskin Raiders using Banthas as live bait for hunting a Krayt Dragon. Would such a use of a domesticated animal violate any cruelty to animal laws in the United States?

Cruelty to animals in California is defined as follows:

(a) “ …every person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of a crime punishable pursuant to subdivision (d).”

(d) A violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is punishable as a felony by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Cal. Pen. Code § 597.

Leaving a bantha out for a Krayt Dragon as a snack, is intentionally leaving an animal to be killed by an apex predator, which sounds like cruelty to animals. Moreover, the waiting for a Krayt Dragon to strike is clearly freighting for the bantha, which could make it qualify as torture. However, that is not the end of the analysis. Animals such as worms are used as live bait in fishing, which has been rejected as a slippery slope for being cruelty to animals. See, In re William G, 52 Md. App. 131, 133 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1982).

Given the massive size of a Krayt Dragon, coupled with the ability to tunnel and spray acid venom, it is fair to compare a bantha being used as bait like a worm to catch a fish. However, it is worth noting that the bantha were not being used like a “bait animal,” which is when a small dog, cat, or raccoon, is placed in front of a treadmill for a “fighting dog” to chase for exercise. See, Ware v. State, 949 So. 2d 169, 174 n.7 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). Those situations would clearly be cruelty to animals, but nothing like that happens with a bantha being used with explosives to kill a Krayt Dragon.

Legal Analysis of Airplane!

Josh Gilliland

January 2, 2021

We said goodbye to 2020 with our review of Airplane! Join Jessica and I for our legal analysis and review of this cult classic.

Legal Review of The Mandalorian Chapter 9

Josh Gilliland

November 2, 2020

Gabby Martin, Thomas Harper, Nari Ely, and I sat down to review the first episode The Mandalorian, season 2, The Marshal. Needless to say, we loved it. Wait until you have watched The Marshal before listening to our analysis. We cover the legality of killing a dangerous wild animal, the defense of others, and a lot of contract law.

Is it Justified Homicide to Kill a Sleeping Vampire?

Josh Gilliland

October 29, 2020

The law for self-defense and defense of others requires that someone “must actually and reasonably believe in the necessity of defending oneself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.” People v. Thinn, D074397, at *10-11 (Cal. Ct. App. July 23, 2020).

Does that apply to a vampire asleep in their coffin during daylight hours?

In the classic Hammer film, Horror of Dracula, Dr. Van Helsing kills both a bride of Dracula and Jonathan Harker, who had been transformed into a vampire, while they were asleep in their respective coffins. Was that justified homicide?

Determining the answer requires understanding self-defense. Case law explains:

“Self-defense is perfect or imperfect. For perfect self-defense, one must actually and reasonably believe in the necessity of defending oneself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. [Citation.] A killing committed in perfect self-defense is neither murder nor manslaughter; it is justifiable homicide.” (People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal.4th 987, 994.) Although a person acting in imperfect self-defense “also actually believes he must defend himself from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury,” that belief is unreasonable. (Ibid.) “Imperfect self-defense mitigates, rather than justifies, homicide; it does so by negating the element of malice.” (Ibid.; see People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132 (Simon).)

People v. Thinn, D074397, at *10-11 (Cal. Ct. App. July 23, 2020)

The crux of the issue is whether Dr. Van Helsing believed that he needed to defend himself against imminent peril to protect his life. This is problematic with a sleeping vampire, because they are asleep. Moreover, self-defense cannot be asserted if the “defender” was the one who created the dangerous situation, such as committing a felony. People v. Greer, B287247, at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2019). The “sleeping vampire” situation could be one of an imperfect self-defense, where the use of deadly force was unreasonable. People v. Villanueva, 169 Cal.App.4th 41, 50 n.7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).

If vampires were considered “human” under the law, Dr. Van Helsing has some serious problems in making an effective self-defense argument. First, Dr. Van Helsing entered Dracula’s castle without permission, so he is trespassing. Secondly, he killed two vampires while they were asleep. The fear of imminent death is highly questionable under such circumstances. Dr. Van Helsing would at best have an imperfect self-defense argument, provided he could get around the trespassing issue. One argument would be he was searching for his friend Jonathan Harker as his reason for entering the castle.

The counter to whether Van Helsing’s actions were justified is the fact vampires are undead creatures that murder humans in their sleep for food. Van Helsing could argue that the vampires were not human, thus not persons under the law. As such, the good doctor was eradicating a dangerous animal that was a risk to human life, so the issue of self-defense is irrelevant when slaying sleeping vampires.

The Crimes of Ygor

Josh Gilliland

October 25, 2020

Bela Lugosi’s role of Ygor in Son of Frankenstein and Ghost of Frankenstein is a character study in evil. Not just run of the mill random acts of ill will, but cold and calculated malice to kill all of the jurors who had originally convicted Ygor for death.

Profile in Deceit

In Son of Frankenstein, “Old Ygor” is introduced lurking around the town of Frankenstein. Yes, that means “Frankenstein” is used interchangeably with a person, a town, and the Creature. Ygor introduced himself to Baron Wolf von Frankenstein by spying on him. These acts would be an invasion of privacy, which is when a person physically and knowingly, “enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission…or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8(a).

Ygor appealed to Dr. Wolf von Frankenstein’s ego in securing the doctor’s help in reviving the comatose Creature. Ygor represented only that the Creature “does things for me.” The specific definition of “things” was killing the jurors who had convicted Ygor. By the time of Dr. Frankenstein’s entrance, the Creature had killed six out of eight jurors by striking them so hard their hearts burst.

The failure to define “things” was fraud in convincing Dr. Frankenstein to heal the Creature. Ygor suppressed the fact that the Creature had committed six murders, which was material information that Dr. Frankenstein should have known about before reviving the Creature. See, Cal. Civ. Code § 1710(3).

A Conspiracy for Murder

Ygor and the Creature worked together in performing three additional murders. These murders included Frankenstein’s butler and the two remaining jurors. Ygor played music where he was publicly visible, giving himself an alibi for the deaths.

A conspiracy is when two or more people conspire to commit a crime. Cal. Pen. Code § 182(a). Coconspirators can be responsible for the criminal harms “they have naturally, probably and foreseeably put in motion.” People v. Luparello, 187 Cal.App.3d 410, at p. 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). For Ygor and the Creature, they intended the two jurors to be killed. The Creature even went so far to make one of the murders look like an accident (which goes to show the Creature understood the wrongfulness of his actions).

The death of the butler was not planned by Ygor working with the Creature, so at best, Ygor could be charged with second degree murder.

Kidnapping of Children

The children Peter Frankenstein (Son of Frankenstein) and Cloestine Hussman (Ghost of Frankenstein) were placed in mortal danger by the Creature. The facts for each are radically different.

The Creature kidnapped Peter Frankenstein (Wolf’s young son) after Wolf had shot Ygor. Ygor was believed dead, as the way the story ended showed there were no plans for a sequel. Kidnapping is the forcible taking of a person. Cal. Pen. Code § 207(a). The Creature picking up Peter and carrying him to the lab meets the required acts for conviction. However, as Ygor was incapacitated and had not planned a kidnapping with the Creature, the kidnapping is not a natural and probable consequence of their conspiracy.

The Creature took Cloestine Hussman from her room and wanted her brain put in his body. Ygor stated that the Creature taking the child was something he could not stop the Creature from doing. While Ygor and the Creature were clearly collaborators, Ygor is best classified as an accessory-after-the-fact. Nothing was done to return Cloestine to her family, meaning everyone in on the plan to give the Creature a new brain had assisted in the kidnapping of a child.

If I Only Had a Brain

Dr. Ludwig von Frankenstein planned to transfer the brain of his slain associate Dr. Kettering to the Creature’s body. This would have been cosmic justice, with the victim taking the body of his killer. However, Ygor convinced Dr. Theodore Bohmer (Dr. Frankenstein’s colleague who had once been his professor) to switch Dr. Kettering’s brain with Ygor’s brain. This would be the worst case scenario of the amoral murderer getting an undying body.

The musical brains are again fraud. Dr. Frankenstein was intentionally misled to place Ygor’s brain in the Creature’s body. Unfortunately for Ygor, his blood type was not compatible with the Creature’s body and he immediately went blind.

Ygor’s Opus

All of Ygor’s actions were based on revenge for those who had sentenced him to death. His ability to hoodwink both sons of Frankenstein was impressive, since one would have expected Ludwig to have learned from both his father’s and brother’s mistakes.

Could Angry Villagers Blow Up Castle Frankenstein…Legally?

Josh Gilliland

October 5, 2020

The Ghost of Frankenstein picks up right where Son of Frankenstein left off: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein deeded the Frankenstein estate to the village. Unfortunately for the village, things were not going well, so the villagers logically deduced that they are all had been cursed by the Frankenstein Castle. The Mayor attempted to talk the villagers out of the being cursed non-sense, but when threatened with being voted out of office, the Mayor let the villagers go rampage their way to the castle with dynamite.

The Mayor does not win a Profile in Courage. That said, was it within the powers of the local government to empower angry villagers to blow up the Frankenstein Castle?

Baron Wolf von Frankenstein had deeded the Frankenstein Estate to the village. This was within the Baron’s rights to deed the property and get out of town due to the “unpleasantness.” As such, the village now owned the Frankenstein Estate.

Normally there are land use committees that develop plans to use public property. While local city council meetings can be chaotic, they do not normally end with a mob armed with explosives and torches. Moreover, buildings with historical significance can also require additional review in order to be approved for demolition. See generally, San Diego Trust Savings Bank v. Friends of Gill, 121 Cal.App.3d 203 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981).

Consider that in San Jose, California, a demolition permit requires: a completed Building Permit Application that shows 1) a plot plan with the the building site and distances to property lines and to structures on the site, such as pools, septic tanks, detached garages, etc; 2) Non-buildable areas; 3) For any buildable area, hire a licensed engineer to prepare and wet-stamp a demolition, drainage, and compaction plan; and 4) Secure other Clearances.

The reason for all of these rules should be clear: no one wants Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) being blasted all over where people live. The villagers who decided to blow up Castle Frankenstein did not get that memo on the dangers of manmade chemicals.

It is well-established law in California that it is a crime to maliciously place dynamite in a building with intent to destroy it. People v. Cole, 28 Cal.App. 448, 451 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915). The intent of these laws should be self-explanatory: blowing up buildings results in chunks of said building flying and hitting other buildings (and human beings) with great velocity. These laws are in place to protect the public welfare so no one gets hit with a high-speed door/rebar/brick/stove/glass/etc.

There was zero permitting process in Ghost of Frankenstein. The location where life was created from dead corpses would have historical significance, albeit one riddled with grave robbing and murder. However, that dark history is not a reason to give way to anarchy. Laws are in place to protect public safety, which includes people using explosives to blow-up a castle. No good comes from lawlessness, which was evidenced by the villagers freeing Frankenstein’s Creature, which had been encased in sulfur. If they had not resorted to being an angry mob, the Creature would not have been released from his sulfuric tomb. And the fourth Universal Frankenstein film would have been over in 5 minutes.

Would Reformatting the Autobots to be Decepticons be a War Crime?

Josh Gilliland

September 29, 2020

The new Transformers animated series on Netflix War for Cybertron Trilogy posed law of war questions in “Siege”: Would reformatting the Autobots into Decepticons with the Allspark be a war crime?

Looking at international law of Earth, codified as law in the United States as 18 U.S.C. § 2441, we can arrive at the following determinations:

The War Crime of Torture (18 U.S.C. § 2441(A)):

The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

The process of reformatting an Autobot was admitted to “look painful.” This would meet the requirement inflicting severe physical pain. The reason for causing the severe pain would be racially motivated on the basis of being Autobots. The wildcard here is all of the Autobots on Cybertron being within the custody or control of the Decepticons. Can control be exercised on a planetary scale? If the answer is yes, then this would meet all the elements of torture. If not, this charge would come close but fail.

The War Crime of Cruel or Inhuman Treatment (18 U.S.C. § 2441(B)):

The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.

The analysis here is similar to torture. Yes, the reformatting process would cause pain and suffering. The issue here is whether there can be control on a planetary scale.

The War Crime of Performing Biological Experiments (18 U.S.C. § 2441(C)):

The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.

The concept of “biological” experiments on living machines is one beyond human science and law. If Transformers have “biology” in a way that can meet our understanding on Earth, what the Decepticons were planning would meet the spirit of the law.

The War Crime of Murder (18 U.S.C. § 2441(D)):

The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

Murder is not applicable, as the Autobots were not being killed in the reformatting process.

The War Crime of Mutilation or Maiming (18 U.S.C. § 2441(E)):

The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.

The Decepticons reformatting all Autobots would be mass mutilation of an entire race, including those not engaged in hostilities.

The War Crime of Intentionally Causing Serious Bodily Injury (18 U.S.C. § 2441(F)):

The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.

Reformatting all Autobots would cause serious bodily harm and meet the requirements of this war crime.

There is another war crime hiding in plain sight: Genocide. One normally would think genocide involves death, but with reformatting Transformers, this crime is more than meets the eye. Genocide is “whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such, kills members of that group.” 18 U.S.C. § 1091(a)(1). The reformatting process would eliminate the Autobot race. Even if the there were still living Transformers after the reformatting, there would be no more Autobots. They would be extinct, their race destroyed by the reformatting. This is genocide without a body count.

1...91011...105 Page 10 of 105