Home Blog Page 76

Could Velociraptors Be Used in War?

0

InGen’s military weapons branch in Jurassic World had the goal of producing Raptors to be used by the military. Could Raptors be weaponized like a meat-eating drone? Would the use of Raptors in combat be a war crime?

Oddly enough, it looks like the use of the animals would be legal, but that would likely be short-lived until their first military use.

Animals and National Defense

The military has used animals in the past for national defense. The US Navy has done extensive work with dolphins for decades. US Law allows the Secretary of Defense to authorize the taking of not more than 25 marine mammals annually for national defense. 10 USCS § 7524(a). There are specific requirements on the treatment of “Ensign Flipper” and “Skipper Sammy the Seal,” such as humane treatment. 10 USCS § 7524(b). Moreover, endangered species may not be taken for the military program.

There is the infamous article from Parade Magazine in 1978 that recounted a story denied by the Naval officer it was attributed to, stating:

“Some of the most valuable members the U.S. Navy are dolphins trained to defend American naval bases.

During the Vietnam war, squads of killer dolphins pulled guard duty at our billion-dollar Cam Ranh Bay base, now reputedly controlled by the Soviets. According to James Fitzgerald, former chief of the CIA’s Office of Dolphin Research: “With their built-in sonar, the dolphins detected enemy demolition divers on sabotage missions. They impaled them with long hypodermic needles connected to carbon dioxide cartridges. The frogmen just blew up.’

One of these days the Navy is going to release the account of how “some 60 North Vietnamese frogmen were nullified.’ “

Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int’l (D.Md. 1981) 525 F.Supp. 585, 595, quoting Parade Magazine, Our Unsung Heroes, Sept. 10, 1978, at p. 8.

Regardless of whether or not “killer dolphins” were used in Vietnam in what sounds more like science fiction than fact, the military has a history using marine mammals for national defense.

Would the Army use Raptors? While there is a General who would be tempted to drop 20 Raptors on an ISIS camp, Raptors are not like dolphins or seals. Marine Mammals are not known for EATING people. There is a high risk that the use of Raptors in combat would end with every human fighting not to be a hot lunch for a Rambo Raptor.

MilitaryRaptors_Featured

Are Raptors Prohibited Weapons?

International treaties prohibit the use of chemical weapons, poison gases, and biological weapons (See, Geneva Protocol, Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court).

There is nothing really on point with animals used for hand-to-hand combat, since we generally see service dogs being used to help soldiers for security, rescue, or bomb detention. History lacks stories of Stalin’s Killer Bear Brigades defeating Nazis at Stalingrad. Military planners have moved long past Calvary riding horses and replaced them with helicopters. As such, modern warfare lacks tales of elephants used as tanks.

This does not mean there cannot be cruelty to animals in war. However, the use of Raptors could be allowed because there is a lack of anything prohibiting it. That being said, as soon as the first iPhone video of a Raptor chewing on a terrorist hits social media, expect that to change in the fictional universe of Jurassic World.

Closing Arguments for Season 1 of Daredevil

0

Daredevil is a very unique comic book adaptation for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. First, Wilson Fisk was not a villain out for genocide, but urban renewal through government redevelopment projects after the events of Avengers. Second, the hero is a lawyer with enhanced senses after being blinded with ninja skills. Sets a high bar for all lawyers besides following all our ethical obligations.

Judge Matthew Sciarrino, Novelist and Political Consultant Gerry O’Brien, and I dive into the many issues of Daredevil, from trial advocacy, New York City campaigns, to RICO.

We’re Going to San Diego Comic Con to Discuss Star Wars Law!

0

July 12 marks the third anniversary of The Legal Geeks. We are celebrating with our FIRST San Diego Comic Con appearance. We are presenting Tatoonine Law: The law of Star Wars on July 9 at 730 PM in room 26AB with US Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal.

Are you curious about the ownership history of R2D2 and C3PO? What are the rights of a clone? Can a Medical Droid can commit malpractice? Then go to San Diego with us and learn the ways of the law.

Termination of Streamers’ Employment Raises Contract Questions

0

Following the recent League of Legends East Coast Convention, eight streamers were fired from the popular group of live-streamers known as Team2G.  For those unaware, live-streamers are individuals who stream themselves playing video games online for profit through services like Twitch.tv.  The terminated streamers had allegedly violated their contracts by failing to attend the entirety of the convention and for “excessive partying.”  However, many of the circumstances surrounding the streamers’ termination are unclear.  Allegedly, the streamers had never signed an employment contract and were only informed that such a contract existed upon termination, when the team manager stated that she had signed the contracts on their behalf.  If true, such actions raise questions as to whether the terminations were appropriate and whether valid contracts actually exist.

Most states treat employment as “at will,” meaning that an employer can terminate an employee at any time and for almost any reason.  The employer cannot terminate the employment of an employee on the basis of membership to a protected class, like race, sex, national origin or age.  However, the terms of an employment contract can specify the circumstances by which an employee may be terminated.  Should such language exist in an employment agreement, then any deviation from the specified circumstances would be improper.  Although the manager for Team2G cited contractual violations as a reason for termination, the very existence of an employment contract, and its terms, could be questioned.

The streamers allege that they have never seen, much less signed, an employment agreement with Team2G and that they were only verbally instructed as to how many hours they were required to stream per month.  In order for a valid contract to exist, there must be an offer, consideration, acceptance, and mutual assent to the contract’s terms.  Such a discussion about hours of work may lead to a valid oral contract, assuming that consideration was also discussed.  Performance of the verbal obligations would further exemplify the existence of said verbal contract.  Yet, the streamers were allegedly informed that written employment agreements did exist and that they were signed by the manager on their behalf.

If Team2G’s manager did sign the streamers’ contracts on their behalf, then it is likely that no valid written employment agreement actually exists.  Concerning the written contract, the offer would be the opportunity to work for Team2G and the consideration would be the stated payment for the streamer’s services.  Normally, acceptance and mutual assent are exemplified by signing a contract after reading and understanding the contract’s terms.  Assuming that the manager signed the contracts on behalf of the streamers without their explicit consent, and the streamers had no knowledge of the existence of the contract or its terms, it likely cannot be argued that the streamers accepted the contract and assented to its terms.  Due to those defects, it would be difficult to uphold the alleged written contract as valid.  Therefore, the oral contract between the streamers and Team2G would likely govern. As the oral contract does not contain restrictions on termination other than that provided by Federal and State law, Team2G would likely be able to legally terminate the streamers’ contracts.

Unfortunately, the Team2G situation is not atypical.  Many individuals in the gaming industry work as players, streamers, and content creators without valid, written contracts.  The lack of contracts, and knowledge of one’s legal rights pertaining to oral contracts, has allowed professional gamers to be taken advantage of by scrupulous business owners.  In the Team2G situation, a written contract may have offered the streamers some protection by defining the scenarios where they may be terminated.  Despite its sizeable industry, professional gaming is still in its infancy and has yet to embrace the legal standards that other industries take for granted.  Until professional gaming adopts the basic legal standard of utilizing contracts for employment agreements, and ensures that said contracts are legal, professional gamers will continue to be taken advantage of.

Roger Quiles is an attorney from New York City with a practice focusing in business, entertainment, and eSports law. A die-hard gamer since Super Mario Bros., Roger now represents professional gamers, tournament producers, and the businesses that serve them. Up, up, down, down, left, right, left right, B, A, Start. 

(Photo used under creative commons from Eurritimia)

Inside Out of Jurassic World

0

It is time to talk about the summer hits Jurassic World and Inside Out. Jess takes on the issues of Inside Out while I take on the issues of Jurassic World. Can parents let their child walk to school in a big city? What is the liability for a dinosaur attack? Moreover, why would middle class parents getting divorced have at least five attorneys working on the case?

Quint’s Duty to Brody and Hooper on the Orca as a Common Carrier

2

Jaws is not just the story of a killer shark, a career-ending political cover-up, and two boys who cause a mass panic at the beach, but the liability of a common carrier. The movie is one giant bar exam for would-be lawyers to bite down hard and thrash about on.

Quint was contracted by the Chief Martin Brody (after forcing Mayor Vaughn after the 4th of July shark attack to approve the funds) to kill the shark. Quint took Chief Martin Brody and Matt Hooper on the Orca for the “Sea Hunt.”

The fact Quint took passengers for hire on the Orca would make the vessel a “common carrier” under the law engaged in commercial fishing. Common carriers in Massachusetts, “owes to its passengers the highest degree of care in the anticipation and prevention of violence from its employees, other passengers, and even strangers, as is consistent with the nature and operation of its business. The test is foreseeability of harm, but the carrier is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers, nor is it obliged by law to foresee and to guard against unlikely dangers and improbable harms. Quigley v. Wilson Line of Massachusetts, Inc. 338 Mass. 125, 128 (1958) (Citations omitted).

Quint grossly violated his duty of care to his passengers after finding the shark. Despite the fact Quint needed a bigger boat, he continued following the shark out to sea. Quint continued to hunt the shark after the night attack on the vessel, which broke multiple planks below the waterline, causing flooding in the engine compartment.

Jaws_BiggerBoat_Shark_Ocean

Quint took two intentional actions that demonstrated total disregard for the safety of his passengers: 1) destroying the radio with a baseball bat and 2) burning up the bearings in the main engine by cruising at full speed with the engine compartment flooding. These two actions rendered the vessel non-operational and destroyed their ability to call the Coast Guard for help.

Quint’s actions were intentional that risked the lives of both Brody and Hooper. A jury would take a bite out of Quint’s Bumbershoot Policy and rightly attached punitive damages that would sound like nails on a chalkboard for his intentional conduct. Moreover, the Coast Guard would pull his Master’s License for such dangerous actions. However, this is moot a point considering the shark took a love bite out of Quint.

The Fake Shark Fin of Panic at the Amity Beach

0

The movie Jaws tells a tale of two brothers with a shark fin who scare the heck out of a lot of swimmers. Naturally, the younger one blames the older one after they are caught causing a panic at the beach.

The boys committed the crime of disorderly conduct. The law states that:

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor”

Commonwealth v. Feigenbaum 404 Mass. 471, 474 (1989), citing Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580, 587-597 (1975).

The boys acted with purpose to cause alarm with all the swimmers in the water that created a hazardous condition in the form of a panic as all the swimmers left the water. There was absolutely no legitimate purpose to their actions.

While Massachusetts law does not specifically address a panic with a mass evacuation, Oregon law has the following statute:

(A) No person shall cause the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

(1) Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;

(2) Threatening to commit any offense of violence;

(3) Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

ORC Ann. 2917.31.

The boys’ actions of entering a swim area with a shark fin could qualify as an “offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.” Their plan was to scare people. This action caused “alarm” as people rushed out of the water. This action would violate the statute and would be a misdemeanor. ORC Ann. 2917.31(B)(2).

The boys would not be tried as adults, but there is no doubt the juvenile court would throw the book at the boys for causing a panic with a fake shark fin. Moreover, the parents could be sued civilly for their children’s conduct, which would likely put their home in jeopardy as the main funding source for damages.