Okay, if you asked me to put together an awesome mix tape of songs released in 1988 or years earlier, this would be my mix tape for you (I’ll give a copy to Star Lord for Guardians II as well).
Who Owns the Infinity Stone from Morag?
Star-Lord is introduced in Guardians of the Galaxy landing on the “abandoned planet” Morag. In an homage to Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star-Lord finds the Infinity Stone behind a locked door and suspended in a field of energy.
The immediate legal issues: Did Peter Quill, aka Star-Lord, commit burglary on Morag? If so, who was Star-Lord stealing from?
Burglary at common law was breaking and entering into the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony. Modern statutes now define burglary as any building and it does not have to be at night. See, Black’s Law Dictionary iPad App, 9th Edition.
Larceny is the unlawful taking of someone else’s personal property. Id.
Peter Quill effectively picking the lock to the vault with the Infinity Stone meets the modern definition of burglary, because he entered the locked vault with the intention of taking the Infinity Stone, which would be larceny, thus meeting the felony requirement of burglary.
While the common law elements for both crimes are meet, there is a huge defense that potentially makes committing each crime impossible: Morag was abandoned. Meaning all of the property on the planet was also abandoned.
Abandoned property is property that the owner voluntarily surrenders or disclaims. Id. A person who finds abandoned property is entitled to keep it. See, Michael v. First Chicago Corp., 139 Ill. App. 3d 374, 382, 487 N.E.2d 403, 409 (1985).
In the case of Morag, it appeared everyone on the planet had been dead for a long time or left for another world. The Infinity Stone was neither lost or mislaid, but left in the vault of an abandoned planet.
As the planet Morag was abandoned, so goes for all claims of property on the planet. As such, Star-Lord could not have committed either burglary or larceny, because the Infinity Stone was also abandoned on Morag. As the finder of abandoned property, the Infinity Stone was rightfully Star-Lord’s property.
Conversely, Korath the Pursuer and his men committed attempted robbery on Star-Lord when they tried to take the Infinity Stone by force.
What Legal Issues Are in Guardians of the Galaxy?
Guardians of the Galaxy is not just an adventure in spotting Easter Eggs across the Marvel Universe, but the law as well.
What parental rights are at issue with Star-Lord’s father? What crimes has the Collector committed? Could Thanos adopt Gamora and Nebula?
Jessica and Josh take the Milano into the deepest regions of the galaxy to explore these issues and more.
Thanos, What to Know Before You Adopt
Thanos, the Mad Titan, adopted both Gamora and Nebula as part of the back story in Guardians of the Galaxy. In a powerful demonstration of how NOT to act in the best interests of a child, Thanos adopted both children after killing their families.
In further proof of telling a child “I love you just the way you are,” both Gamora and Nebula were physically altered, including bionic implants in Nebula. Both were taught how to be assassins, including the use of swords and firearms.
Great example on how NOT to be Dad of the Year.
What to Know Before You Adopt
“Adoption” is the creation of a parent-child relationship by two parties who usually are unrelated. Adoption legally creates all of the rights of being a parent and child, from the responsibilities of a parent and intestate succession. See, Black’s Law Dictionary App, 9th Edition. Each state has its own set of laws on adoption.
There is no way any judge on Earth would have permitted the adoption of either Gamora or Nebula by Thanos. The giant reason is Thanos killed the families of both women while they were children. While it was true that both young women were orphans, no judge will give custody to the person who murdered the biological parents.
Granted, the only reason Thanos was physically successful in adopting Gamora and Nebula was he destroyed their worlds and respective legal systems.
Generally speaking, someone is suitable to adopt a child if: 1) They are at least 10 years older than the child; 2) Will treat the child as their own; 3) Will support and care for the child; 4) Has a suitable home for the child; 5) Agrees to adopt the child. (See, California ADOPT-200 Adoption Request and CA Family Code 8600-8622).
No Court Investigator will find a floating asteroid as a suitable home for a child. Moreover, living on an asteroid likely does not have the support and care a child needs for proper development, to say nothing of socialization. Furthermore, subjecting a child to bionic implants and weapons training could in no way be in their best interests. The bionic implants would be a form of child abuse through unnecessary medial experiments. The weapons training would child endangerment where a child could actually lose an eye.
Thanos would quickly be rejected as suitable parent to adopt any child. The denial of his adoption application would likely result in the destruction of the courthouse, so best to have the Avengers, Adam Warlock, Captain Mar-Vel, and SHIELD on hand. It would also be wise to have the children appear remotely for the hearing, so they would be safe in the event of violence.
The Legal Geeks Awesome Mix Tape Volume 1
The music to Guardians of the Galaxy is out of this world. What songs would you take to outer space?
Here is my list for The Legal Geeks, Vol 1.
Please share your playlist in the comments.
The Collector’s Collection of Crimes
The Collector in Guardians of the Galaxy held living beings on display in his “collection.” These beings appeared to be in a conscious stasis, because they could move around in their chambers, but were not aging. Moreover, there was no food or bathroom facilities, which implied they would not need to eat while in the chambers.
The prime evidence that those in the chambers were not aging was a Soviet space dog on display. The Soviet space dog program was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, meaning Cosmo the space dog had been on display for 50 to 60 years.
That is a long time to wait for someone to throw a tennis ball.
The Collector did not just have a 60 year old dog who could have played fetch with Khrushchev on in his collection, but living beings. These individuals effectively would become ageless, but held in a small cell like a museum exhibit.
The Collector could be subject to the cosmic equivalent of false imprisonment, kidnapping, and torture. Given the fact the Nova Corps had similar legal definitions for theft and murder, universal laws are not limited to gravity.
False imprisonment is when a person confines a person to stay; the confided person did not consent to being retained; and the confinement was accomplished through violence or menace. CALJIC 9.60.
The Collector could be charged and convicted of false imprisonment, because those locked in the display cases were by their very nature confined. It is highly unlikely anyone consented to being on display, as evidenced by the former assistant imprisoned as an example. This is also evidence of the Collector committed acts of violence, given the condition of the former assistant. Moreover, the second assistant stated she was a “slave.”
Kidnapping under common law is the act of forcibly abducting a person from their own country and sending them to another. Black’s Law Dictionary iPad App, 9th Edition.
Living life forms who are abducted from their planet and held within the decapitated head of a Celestial would meet the common law definition of kidnapping, because they had to be removed from their planet and taken in space to the Collector’s base.
There is a strong argument that the life forms held by the Collector were “tortured” in the exhibit chambers. One legal definition of torture is causing suffering for any sadistic purpose. Cal Pen Code § 206. The Collector held “people” in glass chambers without food or any external stimuli for potentially decades or centuries. There was no way for any of them to leave their chambers. This imprisonment could be considered torture, because they were held for the Collector’s extreme obsessive compulsion to collect “people” and imprisonment them beyond their natural lifespan with no chance of escape.
The only way that kidnapping, false imprisonment, and torture could be worse would be forcing all of the prisoners to watch Howard the Duck.
The Legality of Animal Experimentation on Rocket Raccoon
Rocket Raccoon. The harsh, emotionally scarred raccoon, who just wants to be petted. Rocket was an ordinary raccoon who was experimented until he had greatly enhanced intelligence, could walk upright, and talk. No wonder he likes making weapons and inflicting pain.
Would it be legal (assuming the aliens who performed the experiments have law similar to any state in the United States) to experiment on Rocket until he was no longer an ordinary raccoon? Does giving a raccoon intelligence, speech, and bipedal movement amount to animal cruelty?
Virtually all states prohibit animal abuse and cruelty. The state of New Jersey specifically prohibits many forms of animal abuse. N.J. Stat. § 4:22-26(a)(2) specifically states that it is illegal to “Torment, torture, maim, hang, poison, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, cruelly abuse, or needlessly mutilate a living animal or creature, or cause or procure, by any direct or indirect means, including but not limited to through the use of another living animal or creature, any such acts to be done.”
As a preliminary matter, statutes prohibiting cruelty to animals that state “any living animal” have included “raccoons and any dumb living creature.” People v. Thomason, 84 Cal. App. 4th 1064, 1067 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2000), citing Wilkerson v. State (Fla. 1981) 401 So.2d 1110, 1111).
No cruelty of animal case with animal experimentation addresses enhancing intelligence, giving the ability to speak a human language, or opposable thumbs. The cases do speak to torture or medical tests.
In a case where a high school student performed cancer-inducing experiments conducted on live chickens, the Court held the law was NOT violated, because “whatever discomfort was experienced by the animals was only of a transitory, temporary nature and not cruelty prohibited by the statute.” New Jersey Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Board of Education, 91 N.J. Super. 81, 219 A.2d 200, 1966 N.J. Super. LEXIS 581 (Cty. Ct. 1966), affirmed by 49 N.J. 15, 227 A.2d 506, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 201 (1967).
If the experiments on Rocket for simply for the sake of cruelty, thus lacking scientific value, the scientists who enhanced him would have broken the law in the United States. If however, the experiments were done in the name of science (perhaps looking for a cure for Dementia or those suffering from paraplegic injuries), the tests might be legal. The test would turn on whether Rocket’s discomfort was “transitory, temporary nature and not cruelty prohibited by the statute.” Id. However, the film Guardians of the Galaxy noted that the experiments were illegal, but not why illegal. The law could have been designed to avoid a Rise of the Planet of the Raccoons scenario and not prohibiting animal cruelty.
It is legally untested whether giving a raccoon bipedal movement and opposable thumbs would be “mutilation.” While Rocket was fundamentally altered with bionics, he went from being a wild animal to being able to function with creatures of vastly higher brain functions and abilities. However, his enhancements could be considered “mutilation,” as he was surgically altered beyond his natural state. By way of comparison, if a mad scientist give a human being duck feathers, webbed feet, a bionic duck call, and the ability to float, there is no question a Court would find that person “mutilated.”
The issue with Rocket is returning him to his natural state would effectively require lobotomizing him. Putting him through another horrific procedure would leave him in a worse condition, since he would lose the ability to speak and function in society.
The experiments on Rocket have a slight chance of being legal, however, much would depend on the nature of the experiments and whether Rocket’s suffering was transitory and temporary in nature.