Steve Chu and I are lifelong Star Trek fans. Join us for geeking out over Star Trek Picard and the many legal issues presented in the first three episodes.
Remembrance
Maps and Legends
The End is the Beginning
The Mandalorian as a Guardian – Time to Update the Tax Withholdings
I. Introduction
As I watched the Mandalorian, Season 1, there were clearly some tax issues raised, which I’m sure you all thought while you were watching as well. Something along the lines of “why is Disney so focused on ensuring tax literacy through the guise of this excellent TV show?” Well, this post deals with that so, be forewarned, SPOILERS AHEAD, as I will discuss the conclusion of the season and it’s interaction with tax law. Let’s get started shall we.
II. Background
At the conclusion of season one, the Child is placed in the hands of its[1] Mandalorian protector, much the same way Mando was protected by a Mandalorian guardian as a child/youngling. Once a youngling is taken under the care of a Mandalorian, the Mandalorian creed demands the Mandalorian care for the youngling and raise them as their own. This is the way. Mando therefore has an obligation to raise the Child in the Mandalorian religion and belief, meaning *fingers crossed* we are going to get the child in traditional Mandalorian armor in the coming season (I for one can’t wait to see a Mandalorian helmet with ears!).[2] What this really means is that Mando has potentially adopted the Child, or even if there is no actual adoption, the Child has been placed in the care of Mando, and will be considered a dependent for tax purposes.
Now that Mando has a new dependent in the household, he has some paperwork to do. The end of a year (or TV season) and life changing events are always a good time to review your tax withholdings.
III. Tax Withholding Generally
Individual federal income taxes are a “pay as you go” tax meaning that individuals are required to pay in a minimum amount on their account during the year, either through estimated quarterly payments, or as applicable to most individuals, through tax withholding on wages paid by employers. Generally speaking, taxes are withheld from employee paychecks by the employer and remitted to the federal government on the employee’s behalf.[3] For simplification, let us make an assumption that the guild and its members operate in an employer/employee style relationship.[4]
IV. Wage Withholding As the Tax Withholding Mechanism
The amount of an employee’s tax withholding is determined by the elections the employee makes on Form W-4. Form W-4 allows employees to determine the appropriate amount of withholding from their employer. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recommends that employees review their withholding determinations annually, but especially when the employee experiences “life changes” such as marriage, divorce, birth or adoption of a child, home purchase, retirement, etc.[5]
a. Wage Withholding by Employer
Employers are required to withhold income tax from wages, salaries, or other compensation paid to employees at rates designed to equal the tax liability that is anticipated will be imposed on these payments.[6] At periodic intervals the employer must report and pay over to the IRS the amounts withheld from its employees.[7] This withholding helps to ensure that tax compliance is automatic and funded, helping to eliminate the compliance gap associated with tax compliance. Considering the number of individual returns filed, this withholding funds the majority of the tax collection made by the US Treasury Department.
While the Employer will remit the tax withheld from the employee’s wages, the employer is directed how to withhold on behalf of the employee based on Form W-4. Each employee is required to furnish their employer Form W-4 which communicates the withholding status of each employee.[8] On the basis of the information provided on Form W-4, the employer withholds the appropriate amount of tax, and files a quarterly return of employment taxes withheld on Form 941.[9] The employer also provides the employee with a Form W-2 reflecting the total wages paid and amount of tax withheld on or before January 31 after the close of the calendar year.[10] The amounts of tax withheld are remitted to the IRS quarterly or deposited with a depository bank authorized by the IRS pursuant to a specified depository procedure based on the total amount of taxes withheld.[11]
This is the Guild’s responsibility; however, they operate under the direction of Mando as to how much to withhold per pay period. And Mando’s life has changed, as he is now the guardian of the Child, so his withholding exemptions should be adjusted accordingly.
b. Wage Withholding Exemptions and Employee Adjustment of Form W-4
Assuming that Mando takes the IRS advice and reviews his withholdings on an annual basis, he will need to update his withholding calculations in order to account for the new dependent in his life.
i. Determination of Whether the Child is a Dependent
As depicted within the Mandalorian, the Child does not appear to have a family (that we have seen), it has been kidnapped, not once, but twice, with the second kidnapping resulting in the Child’s connection with Mando. Therefore, we will assume that there is no other family for the Child, and that Mando is currently its appropriate (and dare we even say lawful) guardian.
Generally, a dependent is an individual who is either a qualifying child or a qualifying relative of the taxpayer.[12] The taxpayer has the burden of proving that a person claimed as a dependent exists and qualifies as a dependent.[13] Here, Mando needs to demonstrate that the Child is a “qualifying child” for IRS purposes.
ii. Qualifying Child
A qualifying child, with respect to any taxpayer for any tax year, is an individual who satisfies five conditions.[14] First, the individual must bear a qualifying child relationship to the taxpayer.[15] Second, the individual must have the same principal place of abode as does the taxpayer for more than one-half of the tax year.[16] Third, the individual must meet the age requirements.[17] Fourth, the individual must not have provided more than one-half of his or her own support for the calendar year in which the tax year of the taxpayer begins.[18] Fifth, for tax years beginning after 2008, the individual must not file a joint return, other than a joint return filed solely as a claim for refund of estimated or withheld taxes, with the individual’s spouse for the tax year beginning in the calendar year in which the tax year of the taxpayer begins.[19] In Mando’s case, the only items that really need examination are the first (qualifying relationship); second (principle place of abode); and third (age requirements).
1. Qualifying Relationship
A qualifying child relationship exists if the individual is any of the following:[20] (i) a child of the taxpayer;[21] (ii) a descendant of a child of the taxpayer;[22] (iii) a brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the taxpayer;[23] or (iv) a descendant of a brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the taxpayer.[24]
These appear to be difficult roles for Mando to slot into with regard to the Child. Mando seems to look more like a “foster parent” than an adoptive parent at this stage in the series. Generally speaking, “foster child” describes a relationship in which a child is not living with either of the child’s natural parents and has not yet been legally adopted.[25]
Foster children are considered part of a household, and therefore eligible for determination of being a qualified child if the foster child is “a member of the household for more than one-half of the period after the individual’s birth, adoption, or placement for adoption or in foster care or before the individual’s death.”[26] Being a “foster child” means that the Child is considered a “child of the taxpayer.”[27] This effectively demonstrates that foster children can be considered dependents if they are members of the household. As such, we can treat the Child as a “qualifying relative” to Mando.
2. Principle Place of Abode
I mention this only because I think that Mando sleeps in his ship. That seems uncomfortable, but that seems to be the case. So, yeah, looks like they share the same principle place of abode. But, let’s explore.
To meet the residency requirement, the qualifying child must have the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the tax year. A person’s “principal place of abode” is the primary or main home or dwelling where the person resides.[28] So, a flying ship, so long as they are both residing in it should qualify.
If, during a taxpayer’s tax year, the taxpayer adopts a child, a child is lawfully placed with a taxpayer for legal adoption by that taxpayer, or an eligible foster child is placed with a taxpayer, the residency requirement for a qualifying child is treated as met if the taxpayer and the child have the same principal place of abode for more than one-half of the portion of the tax year as required for a qualifying child following the placement of the child with the taxpayer.[29] So, as long as Mando and the Child are together, if they spend more than ½ of their nights together in that cramped ship, again, they should meet the residency requirements.
Interestingly, a qualified kidnapped child is treated as having the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer (yes, this exists in the internal revenue code).[30] A qualified kidnapped child is a child of the taxpayer who satisfies two conditions.[31] First, the child must be presumed by law enforcement authorities to have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of the child’s family or the taxpayer’s family.[32] Second, the child must have had, for the tax year in which the kidnapping occurred, the same principal place of abode as did the taxpayer for more than one-half of the portion of the year before the date of the kidnapping.[33] This treatment ends as of the taxpayer’s first tax year beginning after the earlier of the calendar year in which there is a determination that the child is dead or the calendar year in which the child would have attained age 18.[34]
Here, while it is safe to assume that the Child was kidnapped at some point (and possibly even kidnapped by Mando), the relationship has shifted, and Mando is more in line with a foster parent, so that analysis should be applied. However, during the period when the Child was first kidnapped, its biological parents could have relied on the kidnapped child statute to maintain their dependent tax deduction. What a wild universe.
3. Age Requirements
This one is tricky. Technically, the Child does not meet the age requirement as it is 50 years old. However, if you take a human average life and the average life of the Child’s species, then there may be an argument that the Child’s age (50) is not a hindrance to making the Child a dependent.[35]
The age requirement is met if an individual satisfies any one of three tests, so long as the taxpayer claiming the individual as a qualifying child is older than the child.[36] The first test is met if the individual has not attained the age of 19 as of the close of the calendar year;[37] the second test is met if the individual is a student who has not attained the age of 24 by the end of the calendar year;[38] and the third test is met if the individual is permanently and totally disabled[39] at any time during the calendar year.[40] The IRS has ruled that, for these purposes, a child attains a particular age on the child’s birthday.[41] In addition to satisfying one of the three tests above, a taxpayer claiming the individual as a qualifying child must also be older than the child.[42]
Here, the Child has both obtained an age older than the highest available student age (24) and at the ripe young age of 50, is potentially older than Mando (although that is not free from doubt). Utilizing the rationale for converting the Child’s age into human years, we see that the Child is effectively only 5, and thus we are able to drive the Child’s age within the qualifying ages, and drive Mando’s age in excess of the Child’s, meaning that we can make the case that the Child and Mando satisfy the age requirements of IRC §152.
c. Impact of Determining the Child is a Dependent
Introduction of a new dependent into one’s life, such as the Child for Mando, is a major life event, as well as a major tax event. Mando could previously claim an additional allowance for a dependent and may still qualify for the Child Tax Credit, Child Care Tax Credit and other tax breaks. For tax years beginning before January 1, 2018 an individual taxpayer was allowed one personal exemption themselves and one for each dependent. For tax years prior to 2018, the exemption was $4,050 per dependent. After passage of the tax cuts and jobs act (TCJA) personal exemptions were eliminated and the standard deduction was increased. This means that the deduction for personal exemptions such as for a taxpayer, a taxpayer’s spouse, and a taxpayer’s dependents is $0 for tax years 2018 through 2025.[43] While dependent deductions are no longer available, the Child Tax Credit is still available, and the value has been increased from $1,000 per child to $2,000 per child. If Mando can’t qualify the Child for the Child Tax Credit, he could possibly still take a benefit from the credit for other dependents, which is significantly less than the child tax credit, but hey, it’s not nothing ($500 per qualifying dependent).
Additionally, for Mando, if he ultimately adopts the Child, he is eligible for the adoption tax credit. However, this post is not about the tax benefits of having kids, it’s about how to update your W-4 if you are a Mandalorian who happens to foster or adopt a young force powerful creature. The addition of a dependent in your life may still allow Mando to reduce his withholding to account for the added tax benefits, providing him more in his pocket from his paycheck. While the elimination of the personal exemption will reduce the benefit Mando sees in his after tax paycheck, Mando should still update his tax forms after adding a dependent to his household.
d. How to Update Form W-4
As shown above, the Guild, as Mando’s employer, has an obligation to withhold and remit taxes on Mando’s behalf, collected from his salary. The amount of the withholding is based on the Form W-4 Mando provided the Guild, and the number of allowances he claims. While Mando is fearless in gun fighting scenarios, he should be similarly confident when it comes to updating his W-4. The IRS has made it relatively easy to calculate one’s allowances in order to determine what the appropriate withholding is.
Previously, withholding allowances and total withholding was determined by walking through the worksheet provided on the 2nd page of Form W-4. In certain instances, there are additional instructions available from the IRS; however, that is relatively uncommon. When Mando decides he needs to update his withholdings, he will likely follow the workbook available at IRS.gov through the “Withholding Estimator” in order to determine what his appropriate withholdings should be, now that he is the guardian of a youngling.[44] This tool allows Mando to answer some questions to determine what his allowances are, and what his withholding should be.
Withholding allowances are a tool used by the IRS in determining appropriate withholdings based on current marginal rates. “Withholding allowance” specifically refers to an exemption from tax which reduces how much income tax an employer deducts from an employee’s paycheck. The relationship between exemptions and taxes are inverse. The more allowances claimed the less tax will be withheld from the employee’s paycheck. The inverse is also true, because the fewer exemptions claimed will result in greater tax withholding from the employee’s paycheck.
As noted, Mando now has a new dependent, so he likely has a higher number of allowances to claim, meaning he will have less tax withheld, and more cash in his pocket per paycheck.
V. Conclusion
Ultimately the end of the Season or the End of the year is always a good time to reassess things. Similarly, when there is a significant life change that occurs, it is a good time to review the items that impact your life, in particular your financial life. Now that Mando has adopted the Child, he should revisit his Form W-4 and determine if he needs to update his allowances to ensure that his tax withholdings match his estimated tax due, keeping additional dollars in his pocket, to ensure that he can keep the Child flush in fresh frogs thanks to an influx of funds.
[1] My daughters and I have a running debate about the gender of the child, as it’s never actually revealed, so we will leave it as “it” for these purposes.
[2] My wife and I also have a philosophical debate currently raging as to whether the titular “Mandalorian” is actually Mando, or the Child, as the Child ends up a Mandalorian youngling when he is placed in the guardianship of Mando in the last episode of season 1. Just another layer of credit that the show deserves. It’s really good
[3] Independent contractors and individuals who are not employees have their compensation reported via Form 1099.
[4] A savvy attorney would have structured the activities as those of independent contractors, and considering that payments are made solely based on bounties, it is realistic to conclude that the Guild and the bounty hunters that do work for it would be considered independent contractors, but for these purposes, we will assume that the guild operates as an employer, and Mando is considered an employee.
[5] See IRS “Tax Withholding for Individuals”, available at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/employees/tax-withholding (last accessed 1.19.2020).
[6] Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §3401; IRC §3509.
[7] IRC §3501; Treas. Reg. §31.6011(a)-4.
[8] Treas. Reg. §31.3402(f)(5)-1(a).
[9] IRC §3501; Treas. Reg. §31.6011(a)-4.
[10] Treas. Reg. §31.6051-1.
[11] IRC §6302(c).
[12] IRC §152(a).
[13] See Brown v. Commissioner, 61 T.C.M. 2832, 2833–34 (1991); Lerch v. Commissioner, 53 T.C.M. 1101, 1119 (1987), aff’d on other issues, 877 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1989).
[14] IRC §152(c)(1); Prop. Reg. §1.152-2(a).
[15] IRC §152(c)(1)(A); Prop. Reg. §1.152-2(b).
[16] IRC §152(c)(1)(B); Prop. Reg. §1.152-2(c).
[17] IRC §152(c)(1)(C); Prop. Reg. §1.152-2(d).
[18] IRC §152(c)(1)(D); Prop. Reg. §1.152-2(e). See Kho v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2019-18 (foster children who did not have same place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one half of tax year, and for whom taxpayer did not provide more than one half of support for calendar year in which tax year begins were not eligible qualifying children or qualifying relatives).
[19] IRC §152(c)(1)(E); Prop. Reg. §1.152-2(f).
[20] See e.g. §152(c)(2); Prop. Reg. §1.152-2(b).
[21] IRC §152(c)(2)(A).
[22] IRC §152(c)(2)(A). See also Cowan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2015-85 (because Tax Court determined that T can no longer claim X as her qualifying child, X’s child cannot be considered T’s qualifying child by virtue of being descendant of X).
[23] IRC §152(c)(2)(B).
[24] IRC §152(c)(2)(B).
[25] See, e.g., O’Neal v. Wilkes, 439 S.E.2d 490 (1994). There is a full body of case law on what constitutes a foster child, so we will not focus on it here. We can just assume that Mando is the foster parent of the Child.
[26] Prop. Reg. §1.2.-2(d)(4).
[27] IRC §152(f)(1)(A)(ii) (defining “child” as “an eligible foster child of the taxpayer”).
[28] See e.g. Prop. Reg. §1.152-4(c)(1).
[29] Prop. Reg. §1.152-4(d)(2).
[30] IRC §152(f)(6)(A) (flush language); Prop. Reg. §1.152-4(e)(1).
[31] IRC §152(f)(6)(A).
[32] IRC §152(f)(6)(A)(i).
[33] IRC §152(f)(6)(A)(ii).
[34] IRC §152(f)(6)(D).
[35] The current average human lifespan is 79 years. Yoda, the only other creature in the star wars universe who appears to be of a similar species to the Child lived to be over 800 years old. If you divide 800 and 50 by ten, to get human equivalent years, the Child would be the human equivalent to 5 years old. Clearly within the age limitations for IRS purposes.
[36] IRC §152(c)(3); Prop. Reg. §1.152-2(d).
[37] IRC §152(c)(3)(A)(i).
[38] IRC §152(c)(3)(A)(ii).
[39] IRC See §22(e)(3).
[40] IRC §152(c)(2)(B).
[41] Rev. Rul. 2003-72.
[42] IRC §152(c)(3).
[43] IRC §151(d)(5), added by the 2017 tax act, Pub. L. No. 115-97, §11041.
[44] See IRS “Tax Withholding for Individuals”, available at https://www.irs.gov/individuals/employees/tax-withholding (last accessed 1.19.2020); https://www.irs.gov/individuals/tax-withholding-estimator (last accessed 1.19.2020).
The Great Fire of Romulus
On July 19, 64 AD, flames erupted near the ancient chariot-racing stadium known as the Circus Maximus. Fueled by oils and other flammable goods in the merchant’s sector, as well as the tinder provided by poorly constructed and overlapping shanties, the fire raged for nine days. Over two thirds of the city was destroyed, causing a refugee crisis of unseen proportions. The populace blamed Emperor Nero for the disaster, Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and the event became so fraught with controversy it went down in history as the Great Fire of Rome.
True to form, Star Trek cleverly paid homage to the crisis in Star Trek (2009). The movie explains that, in the prime timeline, the Romulan homeworld is destroyed by a devastating supernova that eradicates over ninety percent of the Romulan race. One of the few remaining Romulans, Captain Nero, seeks vengeance against the Federation for what he perceives as a deliberate failure to intervene. Like its real-world inspiration, the Star Trek movie offers a glimpse into the social and emotional impact of such a cataclysmic event. Rather than address the political and moral crises that arise in the aftermath of such events, however, the movie focuses only on Nero and his singular, unhinged quest for vengeance. While this made for an exciting action story, it failed to deliver on any deep exploration of moral, political or social questions related to events like these: the very thing Star Trek does best.
This may be about to change. Star Trek fans have received confirmation that the new Star Trek: Picard series will address the destruction of Romulus and the failures of the Federation leading up to and following the crisis. The Countdown comic books offer a glimpse into the difficulties then-Admiral Picard faced in his mission to evacuate the doomed planets. The focus on the virtuously conflicted Picard as well as the promise of a “less utopian” Federation promise a more thoughtful, critical look at the treatment of refugees and other sociopolitical implications of extinction level events.
It couldn’t come at a better time. Natural disasters and climate-related crises are displacing people at record levels and are only continuing to get worse. The treatment of asylum seekers has become a controversial topic in the United States and other developed countries, fueled by the rise of nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment. The current legal system surrounding refugees is ill equipped to handle current levels of displacement, much less future projections.
Indeed, under current international law the Romulans wouldn’t even be considered refugees. Article 1(A)(2) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as an individual who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence who is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. People displaced by natural disasters or other crisis events are not considered refugees, and do not have the basic rights of refugees outlined in the 1951 Convention.
Even if these rights did apply, they would not help the Romulans much. The basic right afforded to refugees in the international law context is known as “non-refoulement,” or the prohibition against the return of refugees to territories in which their life or freedom would be at risk. This right does not guarantee asylum to refugees, nor to aid or quarter in any meaningful way. And even this right has its limits: any person who threatens the “national security” of the host country may not claim protection under this principle. As the Trump administration’s Muslim ban demonstrates, this exception can be construed broadly. Given that the Romulans have a history of conflict with the Federation, and are widely perceived as an aggressive and warmongering people, it would be entirely unsurprising to see Federation planets refuse to receive Romulan refugees on similar grounds.
Perhaps, in this future world, the principles of unity and cooperation established by the Federation will win the day. But even the most utopian of ideals has its detractors. In 2018, the U.N. approved the Global Compact on Refugees. This non-binding compact set out measures to share responsibility to help those who are forced to flee their countries because of conflict or persecution, and ease the burden on the small number of nations that host the majority of refugees. In an effort to elicit the cooperation of richer, less affected countries, the well-meaning document seeks to recast refugees as an economic benefit to nations that receive them. It does little to impose any actual obligations or goals for global cooperation during refugee crises. Despite this, the United States is one of two countries that refused to join the compact.
Throughout the show’s history, Star Trek has shown a unique ability to hold a mirror to our world and reflect on the social and moral conflicts contained therein. It will be interesting to see where the show goes with such rich material as a basis for exploration. Perhaps one day we can, ourselves, escape the Mirror Universe and make the vision of a more egalitarian society “so”. I, for one, will be eagerly watching the series with earl grey, hot, in hand.
How to Defend Ben Solo
Ben Solo was very busy as Kylo Ren commiting murder, war crimes, kidnapping, torture, and workplace bullying. Did the Dark Side: 1) Destroy Ben Solo’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong? or 2) Make him act under a delusional compulsion? Judge Carol Najera and Sylvia La Rosa joined me to discuss the possible defenses for Ben Solo for the crimes he committed as Kylo Ren.
A Fist Full of Mandos
What do you do if your space shrimp fishing village is attacked by bandits? That is the question that the residents of a village on the planet of Sorgan find themselves in during the events of Episode 4 of Disney+’s The Mandalorian. Now, if you haven’t seen the show you should check it out because it’s quite good. If you want to watch the show before reading this article I won’t blame you, and you probably should, but if you want to plow ahead then I’ll try to make this as spoiler free as possible. That said, here’s the spoiler summary from the show so far: The Mandalorian (or Mando), a bounty hunter, was hired to return a bounty. The bounty turned out to be internet sensation Baby Yoda. Mando decided he didn’t want the Baby experimented on, so he steals him from the remnants of the Empire and goes on the run. Thus, he finds himself on Sorgan confronted by two space shrimp farmers. This brings us back to the original question, what do you do if you find your village attacked by Klatoonian raiders? Well, you really only have a few options: option 1 you run away and find somewhere else to live, option 2 you do nothing and keep giving them what they want from your village and hope they don’t kill you (hint: probably not your best option), option 3 you rally the villagers and fight back, option 4 you hire a professional bounty hunter who’s a bit down on his luck and protecting the internet’s new cutest thing ever. Guess which option these guys picked. If you guessed option 4, you are correct (incidentally, if you guessed option 3 you’re kind of right but it wasn’t what we were going for so half points).
Now, let’s make a slight tweak to the show here and make Mando a law abiding citizen who doesn’t really want to go out and straight murder these raiders for money. Does Mando have some legal justification that will let him keep his newfound law abiding attitude and still take the payment the villagers offered him? It might surprise some to learn that the law does make some accommodations for the use of deadly force that might let Mando take this job without looking at the next rest of his life in a New Republic prison. They are called justification defenses and in broad terms they all look like this: the Defendant (Mando in our case) says, “yes I killed all those raiders but I was legally justified in killing them because of …” whatever specific defense applies. Let’s look at three justification defenses and see if they’ll help our friend Mando out of the dilemma he finds himself in. All three of these defenses are fairly standardized across the jurisdictions (at least at the basic level we’re going to cover here) so I’m going to use Oregon’s laws as examples. If you want the law where you live, check your local law library. Also, at this point it seems worth a reminder that in real life by the time you’ve gotten to the point of considering what defenses might apply to an action you are already in deep trouble so take a few steps back and avoid trouble where at all possible. Now, back to the Mando.
The first defense we should consider is perhaps the most famous, Self-Defense. In its purest form a case of self-defense looks like this. You’re minding your own business sitting in a bar, maybe getting hired to run some passengers off world, when all of a sudden a Rodian drops in across from you and points a blaster at your head. Were that Rodian to say something about your dead body being the idea of the situation you would be fully justified to shoot him first. Let’s break this down into the elements of the defense. Looking at Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 161.209 we see that a person is entitled to use self-defense when they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of having unlawful physical force used against them and that they may respond with whatever degree of force they believe is reasonably necessary. Subject to some limitations, but we’ll get back to that later. Applying the self-defense rule to our bar example above: our hero reasonably believes that the Rodian is imminently going shoot him, because the Rodian has just told him that’s the idea. There’s nothing lawful about shooting someone in a bar because they have a bounty on their head placed there by a crime lord (look, if it’s not obvious at this point that we’re talking about Han and Greedo in the cantina during A New Hope you might want to go watch the original Star Wars movies). So, Han reasonably believes he is going to be killed unlawfully by Greedo and he gets to shoot him in self-defense, but what about Mando and the raiders? Well, we run into one problem right away. Unlike the cantina example the Raiders aren’t threating Mando himself so self-defense is out. Luckily, there is another. No, not another Skywalker (well yes apparently one of those too) but another defense.
Closely related to self-defense is the defense of others. It has the same elements, reasonable belief, imminent treat, and reasonable response but you are acting in defense of someone else instead of in defense of yourself. This looks more like what Mando might rely on to attack the raiders. The villagers are certainly in danger and it is reasonable for Mando to believe that they are. The trouble is, there is very little to indicate that the danger is imminent. Put another way, it is not an imminent threat for me to type in this article that I’m going to shoot you. I don’t own a gun and I don’t know who you are or where to find you. You have no right to self-defense against me because of that line in an article you read online (keep that in mind please). Similarly, even a vague threat from the raiders that they’ll be back isn’t enough for a threat to be imminent. When we make justification defenses available in the law they are meant to be available as last resorts.
The final justification defense we might look at is defense of property. ORS 161.229: A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief (damaging or destroying someone else’s property) of property. At first blush, this looks promising for Mando. The raiders are certainly committing theft and criminal mischief against the villagers. The trouble Mando will run into in asserting defense of property is that it limits the use of deadly force which is, if we’re being honest, Mando’s go to. See ORS 161.229. The limit on deadly force is something of a reflection on our values as a society. You aren’t privileged to kill someone over property because we value life more than stuff, at least that’s the theory. Mando would be privileged to use deadly force if, and only if, he were defending the premises and not the stuff there, which he is by the end of the episode. He is privileged to defend the premises by deadly force if necessary because by this point he is trying to prevent the raiders (who are trespassing) from committing a felony by force or violence (wholesale murder of the village). There’s a problem though, Mando and Cara Dune baited the raiders into attacking. This would make sense if you’re a mercenary hired to protect a village, but it would also negate any self-defense claim. Recall that you are only privileged to use self-defense if you are in danger, but you are lose that privilege if you provoke that danger with the aim of then being able to defend yourself. For example, if you attack a raider camp with the aim of provoking them into attacking you so that you can defend yourself, you do not get to claim self-defense when you then kill all the raiders and destroy their AT-ST. The reason for this is of course because we don’t want to make it legal for someone to provoke someone into a fight just so they could beat or kill them and then claim self-defense. Self-defense is designed to be a rare event reserved for those situations when you are truly under threat and don’t have a choice other than to defend yourself.
The real problem we run into in this analysis is that when legislatures create these types of justification defenses they are created for individuals not communities. For the protection of communities we typically create police forces or militaries depending on if we’re looking to protect from internal or external threats respectively. These laws simply weren’t made for the situation the Sorgan farmers found themselves in and unfortunately we don’t get enough background on the planet to know what form of government it might have and if that government has any protection to offer the farmers. It seems clear though that rather than looking at justification defenses for the assaults, murders, and various other crimes Mando commits (or allegedly commits) it makes more sense to look at this as a quasi-governmental action to protect the village. If you look at in that light, a sovereign entity like the village is perfectly at liberty to protect its sovereignty from outside threats like other governments or raiders. Sovereignties can do things like preemptive strikes or hiring mercenary forces that individuals can’t and under those parameters Mando and Cara’s actions were entirely justified.
Neglect on Navarro: Charges Against the Empire for the Abuse of The Child
The finale of The Mandalorian contained twists, turns, and a fair share of action to send off the series’ characters at the end of their first season. However, much of the action centered around the Mandalorian’s small travel companion and his pursuit by the remnants of the Empire. Despite the innumerable atrocities committed by the Empire, none were more prevalent in this chapter than the abuse suffered by Baby Yoda (we use this name for convenience and acknowledge that the life form may have no relation to Yoda whatsoever). So how exactly could the New Republic hold the Empire accountable in this scenario?
** Spoilers for The Mandalorian Ahead**
From the very first chapter, the Empire has been on an intense man(baby?)hunt for the young bounty. However, it was not until this chapter that they took him into their custody. At the end of the seventh chapter, we see two scout troopers gun down Kuiil before making off with Baby Yoda. This is in itself likely constitutes a crime.
Reckless Endangerment
Connecticut defines reckless endangerment as when a person, with extreme indifference to human life, recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of serious physical injury to another person. C.G.S. § 52a-63(a). Given that we see smoke rising from Kuiil’s body at the end of the seventh chapter it’s safe to assume that the scout troopers fired on him while he was attempting to get Baby Yoda back to the Razor Crest. The shots surely created a risk of serious physical injury to Baby Yoda as it clearly resulted in the death of Kuill. Not only could one of the shots have hit Baby Yoda, but the resulting crash (unseen, but assumed since Baby Yoda was found on the ground) could also have caused serious physical injury.
Risk of Injury to a Minor
It is not as clear if the scout troopers could be charged with risk of injury to a minor. Connecticut’s charge for risk of injury to a minor makes it a crime to place a child under the age of 16 in a situation where that child is at risk of life endangerment, injury to health or moral impairment, or to otherwise do anything likely to cause impairment to that child’s health or morals. C.G.S. § 53-21(a)(1). From chapters one and two, we know that the bounty was originally described to the Mandalorian as being 50 years old. Despite the fact that Baby Yoda objectively acts like a child, there is little question that he does not fit the age requirement under this law. As a result, and even though the shots fired at Kuiil could represent a risk of life endangerment to Baby Yoda, it is unlikely that the scout troopers could be charged with risk of injury to a minor.
Kidnapping
The more obvious charge here would be kidnapping as it was the scout trooper’s clear intent to whisk Baby Yoda back to the clutches of the Empire. Kidnapping in the first degree and the second degree both require the abduction of another person. C.G.S. §§ 53a-92a – 53a-94. However, to be kidnapping in the first degree the abduction has to be for a ransom, for inflicting physical injury or sexual abuse, for accomplishing the commission of a felony, or for terrorizing the victim or a third person. Id. It is clear from the troopers’ actions that Baby Yoda was abducted, as we see in the opening minutes of the eighth chapter. In that scene we see the scout trooper played by Jason Sudekis (now disowned by Second City Theater for his reprehensible actions) physically punch Baby Yoda.
At this point, not only can we establish the assault of Baby Yoda (the cause of physical injury to a person with the intent to cause such harm see C.G.S. § 53a-61), but this also satisfies the second element of kidnapping in the first degree since Baby Yoda certainly suffered from physical abuse. In fact, given that this kidnapping occurred with the use of firearms (regardless of how inaccurate any of the shots may be), this would constitute kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm. C.G.S. § 53a-92a. This charge carries a mandatory one year sentence that cannot be reduced.
Liability for the Empire
There is little doubt that the scout troopers could be held criminally liable for their actions against Baby Yoda. Were it not for the actions of the recommissioned nurse droid IG-11 those scout troopers would still be at large. As a result, they cannot be held responsible for their crimes. However, the Empire, or its remnants, may also be held liable for those same actions. Although most jurisdictions hesitate to extend vicarious liability to employers for the criminal acts of their employees, individual employers can still be held liable on conspiracy charges in certain circumstances. Conspiracy is described as follows:
A person is guilty of conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy. C.G.S. § 53a-48.
Presuming the scout troopers were acting under the orders of Moff Gideon when they absconded with, and subsequently held Baby Yoda, then it could be presumed that Moff Gideon had agreed with them to commit the kidnapping. In fact, although we do not see this in the show, it can be presumed that Moff Gideon ordered the scout troopers to obtain Baby Yoda. Given that the scout troopers were successful in their attempt to whisk away Baby Yoda, this would suffice in committing an overt act in pursuance of the kidnapping of Baby Yoda. Likewise, Moff Gideon, or anyone directing the actions of the scout troopers, could be held liable for conspiracy of other criminal acts of the scout troopers if it can be shown that persons supervising the scout troopers agreed to engage in such conduct. For example, since the scout trooper (Jason Sudeikis) only hit Baby Yoda in retaliation for being bitten (understandably), no one else in the Empire had conspired with the scout trooper to commit that act. Thus the elements for conspiracy to commit battery would not be met.
While Baby Yoda is safe, at least for the moment, we cannot ignore the great harm he was subjected to in the season finale at the hands of the Empire. It will be up to the New Republic to hold the last remnants of the Empire responsible for their actions. Even if Baby Yoda’s age doesn’t make him a child according to the risk of injury to a minor statute, the public will still not stand for this travesty.
Is Dr. Smith Falsely Imprisoned on the Jupiter 2?
When you are Lost in Space, what do you do with a stowaway that has committed everything from identity theft to murder? In the case of the Robinson family on the Jupiter 2, they lock that person in a storage compartment. Don’t worry, the “prisoner” gets fed and escorted to the bathroom while handcuffed.
Problem: Is that legal? Sure, the Robinson family is literally lost in space, but that does not give license to just violate civil rights. On the flip side, you can’t have a manipulative psychopath running around. Think of the risk to the children.
Is Confining Dr. Smith to a Storage Compartment False Imprisonment?
False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another. Cal. Pen. Code § 236. This can be further described as a false arrest, where there is an unlawful taking of a person into custody. Roberts v. City of Los Angeles, 109 Cal.App.3d 625, 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). As neither of the Robinson parents are law enforcement, it is easy to see the confinement of Dr. Smith as a false arrest and thus false imprisonment. However, that ipso facto analysis would ignore the fact Dr. Smith has committed many crimes ranging from murder aboard the Resolute, identity theft, false impersonation, fraud, battery upon Will Robinson by tying him up, false imprisonment of Will Robinson, and kidnapping Maureen.
Maureen and John Robinson have a strong argument they have placed Dr. Smith under citizen’s arrest. The law states a private person may arrest another:
-
- For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
- When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
- When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
Cal. Pen. Code § 837.
Dr. Smith kidnapped Maureen when Smith forced Maureen to the alien wreck in season 1, episode 9, Resurrection. That crime was committed in Maureen’s presence, since she was the victim of the crime. That is grounds enough to confine Dr. Smith. Add in the crimes against Will Robinson, it is amazing Dr. Smith was not tossed out an airlock. However, the fact Dr. Smith was placed in confinement, demonstrated an intent to follow due process and not the collapse of civil society, despite the fact of being lost in space. If the family is ever reunited with the Resolute, Dr. Smith can be turned over to the authorities for her crimes.