Growing up is hard, but for a Force Sensitive child in the Star Wars universe, it means being hunted by the Empire. In the Star Wars Rebels episode “The Future of the Force,” our heroes protect human and Ithorian infants from the Seventh Sister and Fifth Brother.

The treatment of Younglings has been problematic since The Phantom Menace. It appeared the Jedi would take children from their parents who were strong in the Force. It is not clear that the parents always consented to their children to be raised by the Jedi or if it was mandated by law. From a certain point of view, it appeared the Jedi adopted Younglings, severing parental rights to their children. The Jedi effectively put Plato’s Republic in practice with the Community of Women and Children, with the state raising the children to serve the collective good.

Severing parental rights without parental consent is a complicated process. Courts must find parental custody would be detrimental to the child by clear and convincing evidence. Cal Fam Code § 3041. Raising a Force sensitive child might have its challenges, but the Jedi would need more than “The child could turn to the Dark Side,” in order to take away parental rights without consent.

Star Wars Rebels sent a very different message. The Inquisitors Seventh Sister and Fifth Brother were abducting Younglings strong in the Force. Just as there are always two, the Inquisitors committed at least two crimes: kidnapping and child abduction.

Kidnapping is the forcible taking of a person. Cal Pen Code § 207. Child abduction is the taking of a child by someone who does not have a right to custody of that child. Cal Pen Code § 278. One Court explained the difference between the crimes as follows:

There is a fundamental difference between kidnapping, Cal. Penal Code § 207, and child abduction, Cal. Penal Code § 278, in terms of the person targeted by the offense; the first is a crime against the person being kidnapped, the second against the parents of the child abducted. If there is evidence that a defendant’s conduct is aimed at both, there is no reason why he or she should not be prosecuted under both statutes.

In re Michele D. (2002) 29 Cal 4th 600.

The Inquisitors committed both crimes in “The Future of the Force.” The human Youngling was forcefully taken from her grandmother. The grandmother had legal custody of the child and the Inquisitors had no legal right to custody. Taking the Youngling was child abduction from the grandmother and kidnapping of the Youngling herself (plus assault, battery, and possibly murder).

The Inquisitors attempted to take the Ithorian infant from his mother, making their actions attempted kidnapping and child abduction (and actual assault and battery on the mother).

Our Rebels were well within their right to rescue the Younglings under the “defense of others.” Granted, they did sort of carjack that speeder flown by the Ithorian, but we’ll let that one slide with a necessity defense.

Darth Vader does not lack imagination when it comes to targeting civilians and killing Imperial Ministers in order to crash a Rebellion. Were his actions in the Star Wars Rebels season two premier legal?

Lord Vader took the following actions to entrap the Rebels:

Used Minster Tua as bait;

Killed Minster Tua in a shuttle rigged with explosives;

Raided and arrested refugees in Tarkin-town; and

Placed a tracking device on a shuttle to follow the Rebels back to their Fleet.

Law enforcement cannot willfully use murder of suspected traitors as a means to entrap criminal suspects. While Minster TUA had planned to defect to the Rebellion given the threat on her life, killing her without a trial would violate the Fourth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and Eighth Amendment on Earth (warrant for arrest, right to a speedy trial, and prohibition against cruel and usual punishment). Minster Tua was denied the right to defend herself in court, the right to counsel, a trial by her peers, and executed by explosives without any form of due process.

The Empire clearly views civil rights as an impediment to effective law enforcement. The State certainly has the right to set sting operations to capture criminals, however this does not permit the intention killing of individuals to carry out the arrest of others.

Darth Vader ordered the arrest of refugees in Tarkin-town in order to draw out the Rebels. There are precedents for squatters in public lands being arrested, such as the US Army routing the March of the Bonus Army or police in San Jose clearing out the homeless living in Shanty Towns on public areas. However, these actions are normally taken out of concern for public welfare after reports of high crime or safety concerns. Such police actions are often not taken well by the public, can be viewed as cruel, or in the case of President Herbert Hoover, cost him the 1932 Presidential Election after ordering General MacArthur to use the Army on World War 1 Army veterans. No one wins re-election when there is marshal law and fires burning in the Washington, DC.

Governments have a duty to protect its citizens from public and private nuisances that can originate from Shanty Towns such as Tarkin-town. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that the mayor of Philadelphia was justified in ordering the destruction of a “Shanty Town” that was (1) composed wholly of highly combustible materials, (2) insufficiently provided with chimneys or protected against fire, (3) occupied as a bar-room, (4) the resort of disorderly persons, and (5) located so close to governmental buildings as to imperil them. Fields v. Stokley (1882) 99 Pa. 306, 309.

Vader made MacArthur look like a sissy in the Imperial attack on Tarkin-town. There was no evidence that the refugees in Tarkin-town were squatting on public lands or a danger to public safety with the construction of the village. They might have violated zoning requirements if they were within a city, but Tarkin-town appeared well removed from Capital City on Lothal. Furthermore, the refugees did not appear to pose the public health hazard that would come from living in a Hooverville.

Even if there were public health and safety violations, enforcing those laws with Imperial Storm Troopers, possible airstrikes by Tie Fights, mass arrests, imprisonment in labor camps, or sending refugees to the Spice Mines of Kessel, would be grossly excessive force. What was their crime, not dying in the first place?

The Empire’s Doctrine of Fear takes “laws with teeth” to a new level. Moreover, Darth Vader claimed at the end of Revenge of the Sith that he had “brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.” Executions without trials and military attacks on citizens are a very unique view of “peace, freedom, and justice.” Such extreme uses of force would justify in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” A Rebellion is not just very logical result of such tyranny, but the Doctrine of Fear would cause mass recruiting for the Rebellion.

Let’s just hope Ahsoka Tano does not die horribly fighting Darth Vader this season.