The Curse of the Friend Zone

By

-

October 22, 2014

The phrase “I love you like a brother [or sister]” is one of the most traumatic things a person can hear. Sleepy Hollow drove home the emotional damage of being “friend zoned” with the strange case of Mary Wells, the Weeping Lady.

There are no cases on point for “friend zoning” someone as a cause of action for emotional distress.

However, in the case of Mary Wells, we learn her jealousy for Crane saying “I love you like a brother loves a sister,” resulted in her confronting Katrina during the Revolutionary War, falling to her death, then becoming an evil spirit that would drown women interested in Ichabod Crane.

Mary’s first victim is Caroline, the nice lady from the Revolutionary War re-enactment who has taken to making shirts for Crane, plus turning butter. Mary attempted to drown Abbie, who Crane is able to rescue, which required Hawley to give Abbie CPR.

Did Hawley have a legal obligation to perform CPR on Abbie? No, there is no duty to rescue, unless there is a special relationship between the parties. Moreover, it is difficult to say a librarian would have had a duty to rescue Abbie from drowning in a magic revenge portal to the river in the library, there could have been a duty to render CPR aid since Abbie technically is a business invitee in the library.

Hawley did not have a legal duty, but his actions to perform CPR would have been protected by the New York Good Samaritan Law. As Courts have explained, “[t]he broad goal of the Good Samaritan Law is to prompt aid by people under no duty to act who otherwise might be dissuaded by the prospect of ordinary tort liability.” Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc., 20 N.Y.3d 342, 348 (N.Y.2013).

Now would Crane be responsible for Mary’s murder or Caroline? No, because magical actions of revenge would be a superseding act that is simply not foreseeable for telling someone “I am not that into you.”

Do Not Ask "Do You Like Boys or Girls" in a Job Interview

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 14, 2014

0

Gotham once again teaches a great legal lesson, this time with how to conduct a job interview. Fish Mooney separately interviewed two different female singers to perform in her nightclub. Fish bluntly asked each woman whether they like “boys or girls,” to which both answer “boys.” At that point, Fish asked each woman to “seduce her.”

There are questions you should not ask on a job interview. Sexual orientation is a big one. For example, California law states it is unlawful “for an employer, because of . . . religious creed . . . or sexual orientation of any person . . . to bar or to discharge the person from employment . . . or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Erdmann v. Tranquility Inc.,155 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1159 (N.D. Cal.2001), citing Cal. Gov. Code § 12940.

New York has similar employment prohibitions:

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:

For an employer or licensing agency, because of an individual’s age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, marital status, or domestic violence victim status, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

NY CLS Exec § 296(1)(a)

Fish crossed a second interview “no no” in asking each women to seduce her as part of the interview. This easily could be found to be a “quid pro quo,” in that a sexual favor was asked in exchange for employment. This is a form of sexual harassment and is prohibited by law. Both women could demonstrate a claim of “quid pro quo,” because both suffered an adverse job consequence as a result of refusing the unwelcome sexual advances of a supervisor. Reed v. Hunt Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20774 (S.D. Ind.Nov. 11, 2003). The “adverse job consequence” each suffered was not only NOT getting the position because of merit, but being asked to fight each other.

It should go without saying that even in a cutthroat job market, no prospective employer can ask job candidates to have a death match. Moreover, even though this is Gotham, you cannot hire nightclub singers to seduce and kill someone. Questions relating to employment performance are fair game, but you cannot ask job candidates about their sexual orientation and then a seduction demonstration.

Self-Defense & Brainwashing on Agents of SHIELD

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 8, 2014

0

Can Donny Gill claim he acted in self-defense for freezing the Moroccan innkeeper and HYDRA agents? While fear of brainwashing and threats of force would justify self-defense, Gill committed multiple acts of unjustified murder on Agents of SHIELD.

Self-defense requires that a person, “where from the nature of the attack, the assailed person believes, on reasonable grounds, that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or of receiving great bodily harm from his assailant, he is not bound to retreat, but may stand his ground, and, if necessary for his own protection, may take the life of his adversary.” People v. Zuckerman, 56 Cal. App. 2d 366, 374 (Cal. App.1942).

In the opening scenes of Agents of SHIELD, Gill is confronted by the innkeeper who serves him a drink, followed by two HYDRA Agents. The innkeeper made a passing comment that tipped off Gill to possible danger from HYDRA or SHIELD. After which, Gill froze the innkeeper.

The HYDRA Agent that confronted Gill was seated and apparently did not have a weapon drawn or pointed at Gill. The second HYDRA Agent also did not have a weapon drawn. However, Gill almost immediately froze the first HYDRA Agent where he sat at the table. While exiting the area, Gill knocked over the frozen innkeeper, shattering the frozen body.

It is difficult to find the lethal use of force was valid against the innkeeper, because there was no evidence the innkeeper was in anyway a threat to Gill. No weapon was drawn, nor other signs of threatening Gill.

The same can be said for the HYDRA Agent.

The best argument Gill could make was that the brainwashing he experienced was so horrible, he feared for his life to be taken back to such torture. Looking at the CIA brainwashing projects, the Agency funded research in project MKULTRA “to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing and interrogation techniques.” The program lasted from the 1953 through the 1960s that included biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior, plus the highly horrific administration of LSD to unknowing test subjects. CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 162-163, footnotes 1 and 2 (U.S.1985) [The FOIA case was brought by my Constitution Law professor at McGeorge, University of the Pacific]. These sort of experiments are now illegal and the prospect of enduring “treatments” more horrible MKULTRA might sway a jury.

Could a jury find that Gill’s brainwashing was so tortuous that a hybrid self-defense and insanity defense could justify his actions (a form of a battered-spouse syndrome due to his torture)? Perhaps, especially given HYDRA’s standing order to kill those who do not join them.

However, the “I Did Not Want to Be Brainwashed by Evil Immortal Nazis” Defense would have trouble with Gill boarding the HYDRA cargo ship to go on a killing spree.

Gill would have an effective insanity defense after his brainwashing was “triggered.” A jury could find that Gill was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his act or was incapable of knowing or understanding that his act was morally or legally wrong. 2-3400 CALCRIM 3450. However, his actions prior to having his brainwashing being triggered would be extremely difficult to justify the legal use of force.

Attack of the Balloons on Gotham

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 7, 2014

0

Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot…which is why weather balloons strike terror into their hearts.

Well, not really, but Gotham again poses interesting legal questions in The Balloonman. The city is extremely corrupt, with police taking bribes and treating the Bill of Rights like it is an inconvenient obstacle to beating suspects. Throw in politicians on the take from the mob, a Cold War developing between crime bosses, plus the mayor illegally arresting children to be interned “upstate,” and it is no surprise a civil servant lost his mind. His weapon of choice to extract justice: weather balloons.

The Red Balloon

This might surprise you, but my legal research search for “weather balloon” w/p murder OR homicide OR manslaughter did not yield any search results. Apparently, no one has tried “balloonicide” in a capital case yet besides on the Prisoner.

That being said, killing the corrupt police officer would have been first degree murder in New York (assuming New York State since Gotham looks like Manhattan), because the suspect intended to cause the death of a police officer engaged in his official duties (which included beating another suspect, but that illegal act does not negate the fact the victim was a cop on the clock). NY CLS Penal § 125.27(1)(a)(i).

It’s Raining Men

What about the poor lady walking her dog that is killed after the balloon pops and the victim falls to Earth? Her death would be at least second degree murder, because the suspect intended to kill the police officer, causing his body to fall back to Earth, evidencing a “depraved indifference to human life” and recklessly engaging in conduct that caused a grave risk of death to the dog-walking victim. NY CLS Penal § 125.25(2).

There is no way the Balloonman could NOT have excepted weather balloons to fall back to Earth. Gravity is a law of physics that cannot be ignored. The fact the Balloonman was launching human beings somewhere between 60,000 to 105,000 feet into the air would mean the bodies would fall that distance in return (also the velocity of a 180 pound person in free fall from 60,000 traveling at 9.81 meters a second would likely leave a crater). This conduct showed a “depraved indifference to human life” and would be enough for a jury to convict the Balloonman for second degree murder of the woman walking her dog.

Star Wars Rebels: A New Legal System

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 4, 2014

0

Star Wars Rebels is a fantastic feeling of stepping back into Star Wars in 1977. Hats off for creating the same feeling of awe in discovering the Force, the view of a Tie Fighter Pilot in the cockpit, and Storm Troopers missing at point blank range. We even have Ezra yell, “It’s a trap!” Well done.

Rebels is an excellent look at the laws of the Empire.

Sure, the Imperials have a great sense of fashion, but it is a nightmarish legal system.

In the opening minutes of “Spark of the Rebellion,” we see a merchant farmer harassed by Imperial officers, because “all trade must be registered with the Empire.”

After being knocked to the ground, with an inspection officer eating some of the farmer’s fruit, the merchant is charged with treason.

A government has a very strong interest in regulating sales of food to ensure it is fit for human consumption and proper sales licenses. However, charging someone with treason for not filling out forms for street sales of fruit is nightmarish. At best this should be a county fine, not a firing squad by a militarized Department of Agriculture.

Our Rebel heroes stole blasters and other items from the Empire. This act would not just be grand theft, violate a ton of gun-related laws, but also terrorism in arming the residents of Tarken Town (who likely had they property taken in Eminent Domain proceedings without just compensation). However, the entire heist provides a huge look into the Empire’s law enforcement procedures.

The Empire does not use a police force, but its military to conduct law enforcement. While the Rebels did steal the crates from Storm Troopers, the responses to the theft was ordering an air strike to end a high speed chase. By way of comparison, police helicopters are not armed with air-to-surface missiles to fire on anyone fleeing from a crime scene.

We also learn the “Kessel Mines” are slave labor camps for political prisoners of the Empire. The fact there are slave labor camps for “traitors” makes the Empire sound a lot like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and every other totalitarian country. It is likely the Wookiees sent to Kessel were not tried for their “crimes” and merely sentenced administratively by the arresting officer (perhaps for indecent exposure). The Empire is a government without any sense of due process, because if there was, any good lawyer would defend those Wookiees with the Chewbacca Defense.

The Politics of Agents of SHIELD with Gerry O’Brien

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 3, 2014

0

Could President Ellis have a chance for re-election after his Vice President committed treason AND HYDRA’s helicarriers crashing in the Potomac?

Veteran politic consultant Gerry O’Brien shares his real world experience on the politics of the fictional Marvel Universe.

And both Gerry and Josh are not afraid to geek-out over the new season of Agents of SHIELD.

Can the Gotham Police Beat a Confession to Save 30 Kids from Being Eaten?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 1, 2014

0

Oh, Gotham. Thank you for presenting such a wonderful legal issue on whether it is “OK” for the police to beat a confession from someone in order to save 30 kids from being sold overseas to be a meal. Or worse. We never really learned what the Dollmaker had planned for the children.

While the orphans, the public, politicians, and press, would not have a problem with Detective Bullock beating a prisoner with a phone book to find out where kidnapped children were being held, a Court would begrudgingly say, “Don’t Do that Again.” Any thing learned from the suspect would tainted as “fruit from the poisonous tree” and in admissible in Court. The bad guy would walk because of the beating.

Police can conduct a search without a warrant when there are “exigent circumstances,” namely imminent and ongoing danger to life. Additionally, police can question someone arrested without giving them Miranda Rights if there are “overriding considerations of public safety.” New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984). This generally involves finding bombs left around town or where a loaded gun was left in a field. However, it is rare to find a modern Court giving a judicial thumbs up to police brutality.

Which brings us to Detectives Harvey Bullock and James Gordon. The police arguably did not gain the exact location of the warehouse from the suspect, because Gordon figured out what the images were to identify the company logo. Even if the beaten suspect described the logo, there is an argument the information was available from the original child victims and if Bullock also saw the truck in the gunfight. As such, the information would have been available from independent sources other than the unlawful interrogation.

There is no question Bullock and Gordon had “exigent circumstances” to search the warehouse for the missing children without a warrant. However, there really is no way around a 1983 action against Bullock and the police department for beating someone in custody.