The First Order in the Star Wars Resistance episode “The Doza Dilemma,” hired interstellar pirates to kidnap Torra Doza. Could the First Order and pirates be charged with conspiracy to commit piracy and piracy?
Looking to international and United States law for guidance, the answer unquestionably is YES. US law states:
“Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.”
18 U.S.C.S. § 1651.
The “high seas” are defined as “open waters of sea or ocean, as distinguished from ports and havens and waters within narrow headlands on coast.” United States v Rodgers 150 US 249 (1893).
Looking to international law, the Convention of the High Seas states that piracy includes, “Any illegal acts of violence, detention or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed.” 1958 U.S.T. LEXIS 31, Article 15, section 1.
The Colossus is an operational refueling station on the ocean planet Castilon. The Colossus is either adrift or holding station in open waters, far out of sight from any ports or harbors. The location of the Colossus meets the statutory requirements of being on the “high seas” given the nature of Castilon being an ocean planet.
The pirates Valik and Drell were smuggled aboard the Colossus in a shipping container. They were released from the container and gained access to the Aces’ Tower with the assistance of Synara San in order to kidnap Torra Doza. International law recognized piracy as “any illegal acts of violence.” Kidnapping is an act of violence that is recognized as one form of piracy, along with being held hostage, tortured, or murdered. See, United States v. Said, 798 F.3d 182, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2015).
Valik and Drell forcibly took Torra Doza from her quarters. Doza was then transported by over the Castilon Ocean in a small vessel to the pirates’ mother ship. These actions would constitute an act of violence on the high seas. As such, all of the elements of piracy are met in the kidnapping of Torra Doza.
The First Order cannot escape liability by claiming their retention of the pirates never placed them on the high seas, because the prohibition against piracy on the high seas has universal jurisdiction. Those who stay ashore who are part of a conspiracy cannot escape liability for the actions of co-conspirators on the high seas. See, United States v. Ali, 718 F.3d 929, 937 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
The issue of the First Order double-crossing the pirates does not absolve the First Order of being an active participant in the conspiracy to kidnap Torra Doza. It is merely a lesson that there is no honor among thieves.
Star Trek Discovery season 2 opened with Brother, which captured the essential qualities of Star Trek. The episode is about a phenomenon that could be a massive threat that brought Captain Christopher Pike onboard the USS Discovery.
Our heroes discovered the USS Hiawatha, a medical frigate that had crashed on an unstable asteroid where the crew expected to find the red anomaly of unknown origin. The Hiawatha was lost ten months earlier during the Klingon War. The Away Team found the heavily damaged hull and met Commander Jett Reno. Reno was the engineering officer who had kept injured crew alive with “alternative” medicine based on her engineering skills and crash course in medical texts. For example, one crewmember she nicknamed Valentine needed a heart transplant, so she used the heart of a dead Bolian in jar with a pump system to keep the patient alive.
Did Commander Reno get consent from the patients for her engineering based medical treatments? Are there any defenses for her in the event someone sues for her “ipsumpathy” emergency medical procedures?
Duty to Inform Patient of Possible Consequences of Medical Treatment
Doctors have a duty to inform a patient of possible consequences of a medical procedure and secure informed consent of their patients. This is a defense to a malpractice action. Exceptions for not securing consent include a patient being unconscious; a doctor reasonably believed that a medical procedure should be undertaken immediately and that there was insufficient time to fully inform the patient; and procedure was performed on a person legally incapable of giving consent and there was insufficient time to obtain informed consent for that person. See, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2397(a)(1) to (3).
As fast as you can say, “Damn it, Jim, I am a doctor, not an engineer,” you can notice a problem for Commander Reno: she was an engineer, not a doctor.
Medical Treatment After a Vessel Accident
Commander Reno has a valid defense if any of her medical decisions are questioned under a “Good Samaritan” law for vessels involved in a collision, accident, or other casualty. Vessel operators in an accident have a duty to render aid to persons affected by the accident that is practicable and necessary to save them from the accident, provided they could do so without serious injury to their own vessel. Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code § 656(a).
Anyone who in good faith renders assistance at the scene of a vessel accident without objection by any person assisted, shall not be held liable for any civil damages sought for any medical treatment, provided the assisting person acted as a “an ordinary, reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.” Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code § 656(b).
Commander Reno was likely the third or fourth person in command of the USS Hiawatha. It is highly likely the Captain and First Officer were killed in the attack that crippled the vessel; the commanding officer does not normally abandon ship while anyone is left aboard. It is highly likely Reno was in command due to death or injury of the bridge officers. Reno bravely stayed with the “sinking” ship, because the remaining injured could not be evacuated to escape pods.
Reno could argue she reasonably believed she had a duty to save the injured officers after the crash as the officer in charge of the vessel. The injured officers had varying life threatening injuries that would have resulted in death if not treated. As in the case of Valentine, the officer who needed a heart transplant, he would have died but for Reno piggybacking his heart to a Bolian heart. Reno went beyond what a reasonably prudent person would do, to what an exceptionally brilliant person would do in order to save life. While Reno lacked a medical degree, she clearly was resourceful and should avoid any liability if she did not seek consent before her unorthodox emergency medical treatments.
The better question is what awards to nominate Reno for her gallant conduct in saving the lives of others. That is one of the defining characteristics of Star Trek and it is great to see it again each week.
Star Wars Resistance honored Kaiju films such as Gorgo and Gappa: The Triphibian Monster with the episode Bibo. The story focused on Neeku Vozo adopting a small creature that smelled horrible and ate anything. Neeku named his new pet Bibo.
Bibo’s odor caused Neeku’s coworkers distress. The creature also caused vaudevillian shenanigans on the Colossus. Could Neeku be financially responsible for any damages caused by Bibo?
The first issue is determining whether Bibo is a domestic animal that is not abnormally dangerous or a wild animal. The distinction matters, because if Bibo is a domestic animal, then Neeku would be held to a negligence standard. If a wild animal, the Neeku could be strictly liable for any damages caused by Bibo.
The general rule for domestic animals that are not abnormally dangerous, which includes the owner not knowing the animal to be abnormally dangerous, is the owner is subject to liability for any harms done by the animals if the owner 1) intentionally causes the animal to do harm or 2) is negligent in preventing the harm. See, Restat 2d of Torts, § 518 (2nd 1979).
The standard is different for wild animals, because a “wild animal is presumed to be vicious and since the owner of such animal…is an insurer against the acts of the animal to anyone who is injured…” Baugh v. Beatty, 91 Cal. App. 2d 786, 791, 205 P.2d 671 (1949) (case involving an attack by a chimpanzee).
Bibo was found in the wreckage of a Z-95 Headhunter that was recovered from the Karavian Trench. Given the deep-sea nature of Bibo’s natural habitat, he clearly is a wild animal and not a domestic one. Just a dolphin might be highly intelligent, they are wild animals and not kept as pets.
Bibo is comparable to someone keeping a juvenile marine mammal or bear cub as a pet. Yes, they are cute and adorable, but they can grow-up to be a large and deadly animal. Just like Gorgo. If Neeku had kept Bibo, he could have subjected himself to personal liability for the little guy eating somebody’s ship.
Neeku was encouraged to feed Bibo to the Rokkna attacking the Colossus, when bystanders believed the leviathan fed on Bibo. This raised issues of cruelty to animals, with people willing to sacrifice Bibo for their own safety. It is a felony to maliciously maim or torture a living animal. See, Cal. Penal Code § 597. Feeding a defenseless animal as some sort of blood sacrifice to a giant creature, no matter how smelly, arguably would be the intentional and malicious killing of that animal.
In the true Jedi tradition, Neeku found a peaceable solution to the crisis of Bibo’s mother attacking the Colossus by reuniting parent and child. Let’s just hope no one sues Neeku for Bibo’s mom attacking.
Bumblebee is a beautiful tribute to everyone who grew up playing with Transformers in the 1980s. The film is set in 1987 in a fictional California town that looked like Santa Cruz located in San Rafael, with heavy homages to pop culture, TV dinners, and the theme song from the animated Transformers movie. However, there are more than a few moving violations in Bumblebee. Put on your seatbelts, because there are spoilers ahead.
Vandalism
Memo talked Charlie into seeking revenge after a mean girl taunted Charlie about the death of her father. The instrumentalities of vengeance were to “TP” and “egg” the mean girl’s house. Bumblebee, who had suffered a traumatic brain injury after being assaulted by the Decepticon Blitzwing, escalated the revenge operation by destroying the mean girl’s car.
Vandalism is the malicious defacing with graffiti, damaging, or destroying, or real or personal property. Cal. Penal Code § 594(a)(1) to (3). Hitting a car with eggs is the intentional damaging of property. Moreover, Bumblebee’s dance moves on the car crushed the vehicle. There is no way around the fact the heroes engaged in a criminal conspiracy to conduct vandalism on a spoiled brat who cruelly mocked the death of Charlie’s father. While the victim most likely lacked a soul, the good guys are not supposed to seek revenge. That is to say nothing about using a mentally diminished Autobot as a henchman. Charlie had recently turned 18 and could be prosecuted as an adult. The issue of recognizing legally Bumblebee as a person aside, there could be a good insanity defense argument due to Bumblebee’s reduced mental capacity.
Reckless Driving
Bumblebee failed to stop for a police officer after escaping from their act of vandalism. Bumblebee engaged the officer in a high-speed chase that included going off the side of a cliff, hanging on the guardrail, and automotive gymnastics in a tunnel. Ideally self-driving cars do not drive like like our favorite VW Autobot.
It is established law that police officers have a duty to stop a vehicle that they observe on a public street where a violation of the Vehicle Code is evident. See, People v. Evans, 240 Cal. App. 2d 291, 298 (1966). A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Cal. Veh. Code § 23103(a). If Bumblebee qualifies as a person, there are serious issues that he engaged in reckless driving and the police officer had a duty to stop Bumblebee for the Vehicle Code violation. If Bumblebee is not legally a person, then Charlie who was in the driver’s seat, arguably lost control of her vehicle literally and figuratively, and should be held to account.
California law states that anyone operating a vehicle with the intent to evade a police officer, or willfully attempts to elude a police officer, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The punishment is up to one year in jail. See, Cal. Veh. Code § 2800.1(a). As the police officer in pursuit had 1) one red light visible that Charlie and Bumblebee saw; 2) sounded his siren; 3) the police car was distinctively marked (in 1980s flare); and 4) the police car was operated by a police officer in a distinctive uniform, there is no question that Charlie and Bumblebee could be charged with evading a police officer. There could be additional charges for attempting to elude the police officer with a willful disregard of the safety of others (such as driving off the side of the road). Cal. Veh. Code § 2800.2.
Charlie and Bumblebee had a duty to stop when they saw a police officer was pursuing them for their exhibition of speed. They failed to do so and instead embarked on a high speed chase in violation of the law that has been on the books since the 1970s. These laws are not meant to be a buzz kill (no relation to the Autobot), but to keep people from getting killed.
Mandatory Seatbelt Laws
California enacted mandatory seatbelt laws in 1985 (see, Cal. Veh. Code 1361 § 1.5, now Cal. Veh. Code § 27315) and was effective on June 1, 1986 after being amended. This law was enacted with the intent to reduce highway deaths and injuries by wearing seatbelts. Current law requires that persons under 16 years of age “shall not” be a passenger in a car on the highway unless restrained by a seatbelt. Cal. Veh. Code § 27315(e). Fines for not wearing a seatbelt are $20 for a first time offense not more than $50 for each additional offense. Cal. Veh. Code § 27315(h).
The Watson family car did NOT have seatbelts in 1987. Moreover, this is a worrisome fact that the family car owned by a NURSE did not have seatbelts installed in order to comply with the law. While not discounting the threat of giant robots trying to eliminate all of humanity, Sally should get seatbelts.
Stored Communications Act
The US Government arguably violated the 4th Amendment and Stored Communications Act (SCA) by allowing the Decepticons Shatter and Dropkick to access data networks and communications.
The SCA was enacted in 1986 and prevents “providers” of communication services from divulging private communications to certain entities and individuals. It “creates a set of Fourth Amendment-like privacy protections by statute, regulating the relationship between government investigators and service providers in possession of users’ private information. Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52832 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2010). Without taking too deep a dive into the definitions of Remote Computing Service (RCS) and Electronic Communication Service (ECS), these existed in 1987. The fact the government enabled the Decepticons to access both Remote Computing and Electronic Communications Services was a violation of the Stored Communications Act and an unlawful search of everyone in the Western United States.
Bumblebee is a Fun Ride
The 1980s Transformers cartoon was must see TV in my childhood. I fondly recall racing to finish homework in order to watch the show when it came on at 400pm. The Bumblebee movie does a wonderful job capturing everything fun about Transformers and is worth a trip to the theater to see it.
Go see Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse. The film is a testament to all Spider-Man comics and a complete joy. Major spoilers ahead true believers, so don’t read any further until you see the movie.
The Kingpin of Earth-1610 commissioned Dr. Olivia Octavius to build an inter-dimensional collider to find identical versions of his late wife and son. The experiments caused a breach into multiple different universes, allowing property from different realities to crash into the New York of Earth-1610. Multiple versions of Spider-Man and other web-slingers were also pulled into Earth-1610 against their will.
What are the possible causes of action against Wilson Fisk for his experiments?
The issue of property damage on Earth-1610 is the most lineal one to analyze (well, excluding what Kingpin did to Peter Parker of Earth-1610). New York case law examining property damage from intentional blasting has strict liability for property damage. Spano v. Perini Corp., 25 N.Y.2d 11, 17-18 (1969). Case law originally allowed a defendant to avoid liability if they could show they took reasonable care to avoid injury, however that view was rejected, because someone who engages in blasting should NOT be able to “to impose this risk upon nearby persons or property without assuming responsibility therefor.” Spano, at *18, rejecting Booth v. Rome, W. & O. T. R. Co., 140 N.Y. 267 (1893).
The inter-dimensional collider experiments were inherently dangerous activities, in the same category as blasting operations. As such, Wilson Fisk would be held liable for injuries caused to neighboring property with or without trespass. Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 163 Misc. 2d 594, 595 (App. Term 1994). The only issue is how to prove damages were caused by the inter-dimensional collider experiments.
Plaintiffs would need to prove that “but for” the inter-dimensional collider experiments, their property sustained damage. This could include that prior to the time of the experiments, their property did not have any damages, and after the experiments their property was damaged. This could be from testimony, but cell phone photos, street camera footage, and other evidence to document property condition might be required to show the damage was caused by property from an alternate reality crashing into the subject property in the lawsuit
One possible complexity is that the alien property that caused the damage returned to its reality after the threat was neutralized, which would require plaintiffs to present evidence with photos or video of the damage. While it would be ideal to have actual footage or alternate realities crashing into damaged property, a court likely would not require that much proof given the extreme nature of the incident.
The harder question is for individuals on alternate Earths to sue Wilson Fisk for damage to their realities. There are substantial service of process and forum non conveniens issues in seeking relief for damage caused in mirror universes.
The Netflix holiday movie The Christmas Chronicles starring Kurt Russell raises interstate issues of child endangerment. Did Santa Claus knowingly endanger the lives of Teddy and Kate Pierce on their Christmas Eve adventure?
Child Endangerment in Massachusetts
Teddy and Kate Pierce stowed away in Santa’s sleigh on Christmas Eve near their home in Lowell, Massachusetts while trying to surreptitiously document Santa’s existence on videotape. After surprising Santa in flight, Kate was ejected from the sleigh, recovered in free fall, and the trio nearly had a midair collision with an airliner, and ultimately crash-landed outside of Chicago, Illinois.
Massachusetts law defines child endangerment as follows:
Whoever wantonly or recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child or wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2½ years.
For the purposes of this section, such wanton or reckless behavior occurs when a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his acts, or omissions where there is a duty to act, would result in serious bodily injury or sexual abuse to a child. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard of the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 265, § 13L.
If Santa Claus sees you when you are sleeping and knows when you’re awake, how did he not the whereabouts of the Pierce children? If Santa Claus knew the children were in the sleigh, and proceeded to take them across state lines with the above-mentioned risks, he did so with full knowledge of their presence. There is a strong argument that such conduct recklessly created a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, specifically Kate nearly free falling to her death, and the near midair collision with an aircraft (to say nothing about the risk of life to the airline passengers).
If Santa Claus was somehow unaware of the Pierce children, there is a strong defense that he did not endanger them, because the risks of injury were created by the children’s conduct of stowing away and surprising Santa Claus, thus being the proximate cause of the dangerous inflight situations.
Child Endangerment in Illinois
The issue of child endangerment was fundamentally changed after Santa Claus and the Pierces crashed in Chicago, because Santa Claus had actual knowledge of the children.
Stealing a Stolen Car
17 year old Teddy Pierce absconded with keys to a stolen red Dodge Charger, which Teddy drove for Santa and Kate Pierce in their search for the reindeer and missing bag of toys.
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is when an adult directs or compels a minor to commit an offense that is either 1) a felony when the minor is under 17 years old; or 2) a misdemeanor when the minor is under 18 years old. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/12C-30(b).
Theft includes someone knowingly obtaining control over stolen property. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/16-1(a)(4). Theft of property exceeding $10,000, but under $100,000 value, is a Class 2 felony. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/16-1(b)(5).
The value of a Dodge Charger is at least $28,000, Teddy Piece could be convicted of a Class 2 felony in Illinois. As such, given Santa’s influence over Teddy, Santa could be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor for the theft of the Charger.
High Speed Police Chase
Santa Claus was in a high-speed police chase with Teddy Piece in the Dodge Charger. A person commits child endangerment if they cause a child to be placed in circumstances that endanger the child’s life or health. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/12C-5(a)(2). Engaging in a high-speed chase is without question endangerment of a child. The same could be said for telling Kate Pierce to ride magical reindeer without a saddle, which placed her in risk of falling off a galloping reindeer.
It’s a Christmas Miracle
The Christmas Chronicles is a delightful family holiday movie. The reason for alleged crimes were pivotal to a specific character’s redemption. There is also a strong argument that Christmas magic actually negated all the risks to the children, thus eliminating the essential elements of endangerment for any charges to be filed against Santa Claus. Legal analysis aside, be sure to watch Kurt Russell as Santa Claus this year.
