A Lesson in Anti-Bullying: Demonstrated by our Favorite Bully- Biff Tannen

By

-

October 26, 2015

It’s probably safe to say that everyone has been bullied at one time or another in their life. Whether it was in elementary school, high school or at your place of work, someone has pushed you around, berated you, stole your lunch money, made fun of you or called you names. Nationally, more than 13 million American children will be bullied, making it the most common form of violence young people experience. Well, as this October is Anti-Bullying Month and the 30^th Anniversary of Back to the Future, the moon and stars have aligned perfectly and provided us with an opportunity to revisit Biff’s Bad Bullying Behavior.

Everyone remembers the movie Back to the Future, right? (How could you not??)

Quick synopsis- In attempt to evade the evil Libyan rebels seeking return of their plutonium from eccentric scientist Dr. Emmett “Doc” Brown, who used the plutonium to power the flux capacitor in his time-traveling DeLorean instead of building them a bomb.

Marty McFly jumps into the Delorean and upon reaching a speed of 88 mph (in the Puente Hills mall parking lot), 1.21 jigawatts of power sends Marty and the car back in time to November 5, 1955- the date parents’ first met. Marty then meets his future parents in high school and accidentally becomes his mother’s romantic interest. In an ensuing caper of errors, Marty must repair the damage to history by causing his parents-to-be to fall in love, and with the help of Doc Brown and find a way to return to 1985.

While helping his to-be father, George McFly, try to woo his to be mother in 1955, Marty inadvertently witnesses several occasions of George being verbally and physically abused by the school bully, Biff Tannen. The most memorable of which is:

This scene, despite Crispin Glover’s adorably dorky demeanor, makes everyone cringe and sink down in their seats. And if you’re like me, it makes you want to jump up and give Biff a swift kick to the boys (if you know what I mean.) However, what is sad is that George takes the knocking on his head, slap and verbal abuse from Biff with a smile and even joins in the laughter when Biff’s friend makes fun of Marty’s “life preserver” jacket. So, would Biff face any repercussions for his bullying behavior in 2015?

Well, what is bullying anyway?

“Bullying” is defined as any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or by means of an electronic act, and including one or more acts committed by a pupil or group of pupils, directed toward one or more pupils that has or can be reasonably predicted to have the effect of one or more of the following: (A) Placing a reasonable pupil or pupils in fear of harm to that pupil’s or those pupils’ person or property; (B) Causing a reasonable pupil to experience a substantially detrimental effect on his or her physical or mental health; (C) Causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with his or her academic performance; (D) Causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with his or her ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school. Cal. Educ. Code § 48900.

Bullying is different from harassment because the “bully” is not usually just one person with a grudge but is often a group of schoolmates, or people who were once thought of as friends. Bullying in the modern era is not just a message written on the men’s room wall “for a good time call…”, or name-calling in the schoolyard. Bullying, in the age of social media, is often fairly anonymous and because of the anonymity, typically more vicious and more likely to reach a wider audience, thereby, creating more bullies.

In November 1955, when George and Biff were in high school, bullying existed (obviously), but not much was done by the parents or the schools to deter this kind of behavior. In fact, if you were being bullied, you were likely to be told to turn the other cheek or “man up” and defend yourself (enter the Karate Kid).

However, in the wake of several high-profile suicides among students who were chronically bullied, and after two students, who said they were constantly bullied, attacked and opened fire on their fellow students at Columbine High School in 1999, various states started passing laws to stop bullying behavior among students. In the aftermath of the school shooting and in reaction to a local bullying-related suicide in the state, Georgia became the first state to pass bullying legislation and California followed shortly thereafter. In 2011, California passed the Safe Place to Learn Act located in the California Education Code §234(b) which provides that all students have a right to attend school without discrimination, harassment, violence, intimidation, and bullying and applies to students either at school, at a school function or in transit to or from school. Since then, there have been numerous amendments, revisions and new laws added to the books in California aimed at preventing bullying.

Now, how do these bullying laws affect Biff at all? Well, the answer is, they don’t…(wait for it)…yet. The scene shown above was off campus and while Biff is most definitely committing battery- willful force or violence used against another person, but the likelihood that George is going to go to the police and file a police report is slim to none and slim just left the bar.

Since Biff is basically a giant meathead, we assume that his bullying knows no bounds and would occur on campus and off. In those instances where he is bullying anyone on campus, or in transit to and from campus, the above-mentioned legislation would most definitely get Biff suspended, and eventually, expelled. Moreover, the “Under the Sea” dance is a school function, which would also fall under the above legislation. In addition to the many criminal charges Biff racks up while attempting to rape Lorraine in the car at the dance, Biff also continues his bullying of George and in doing so, almost breaks his arm.

While no one ever saw what happened, except Marty and Lorraine, schools today would have every inch of that parking lot under video surveillance, thus, enabling them to catch Biff in the act of yet more bullying. (With the amount of bullying by Biff just shown during the three days of this movie, I don’t see Biff even graduating from Hill Valley High School.)

Just to throw insult on injury- what does almost every human being on earth have in 2015? A cell phone! If this scenario were to occur today, we all know that Biff, his friends and all of those patrons at the diner would all have their cell phones out taking pictures and videoing George getting bullied by Biff. (Any video would also likely catch that Biff is having George do his work for him, which would lead to other disciplinary issues at school, but one issue at a time.) None of these people videoing the scene would bother to defend George, but all of these videos would wind up on Facebook, You Tube and other social media, leading to George getting ridiculed by even more people at school the next day. Moreover, why waste time bullying someone face to face, when you can do it all day on your cell phone or computer. We all know Biff would be mercilessly bullying George on any social media forum possible (as long as he knows how to work modern technology).

Luckily, thanks to the love of the internet and the cell phone, Biff Tannen and all of those lookie-loos sharing the video could be punished as well. Recently, Assembly Member Christina Garcia proposed AB 881, which becomes a law on January 1, 2015 and centers on protecting children from cyber bullying and reaches beyond the schoolyard to stop bullying wherever it occurs. Previous legislation was written before the explosive growth of electronic devices and instant communication, so AB 881 clarified that an “electronic act” means the creation OR transmission of any communication. This means kids who participate in cyberbullying can now be suspended for cyberbullying even if they were not the one who originated the document. (This bill was supported by the Junior League Long Beach, among others.)

Based on the current laws of California, and those effective in January 2016, Biff Tannen would be suspended…a lot, and most likely, expelled, for his bullying behavior.

Lessons learned here: Justice is sweet. High School sucks. Don’t be a bully, because you could end up in a pile of …

Doc Brown & Train Wrecking in Back to the Future Part 3

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 23, 2013

0

There will always be a place in my heart for Back to the Future. Who doesn’t like saying “88 miles per hour,” or “1.21 gigawatts”?

But Great Scott, Doc Brown would be a wanted man in at least two different centuries. Blowing up trains and promising terrorists you will make a nuclear bomb have substantial legal consequences. There is no “science experiment” defense.

Old California Justice is Really Heavy

There is little doubt that California Governor George Stoneman would have sent troops to capture Doc Brown after stealing and blowing up a train in the name of science.

There were just too many witnesses in Hill Valley who watched Marty & Doc flee the scene after the fight with Mad Dog Tannen to not connect the train robbery to them. Exhibit A to the fact people knew Marty McFly was involved was the fact that Shonash Ravine was renamed Eastwood Ravine (Marty McFly’s alias in 1885). Connecting the dots to Doc Brown would not be hard, especially if anyone found Doc’s not-to-scale model in his shop.

The most on point California law to prosecute Doc Brown was not enacted until 1891, six years after the destruction of Locomotive 131 at Eastwood Ravine. California Penal Code § 218 specifically addresses “train wrecking” and “acts intended to wreck.” The law states:

Every person who unlawfully throws out a switch, removes a rail, or places any obstruction on any railroad with the intention of derailing any passenger, freight or other train, car or engine, or who unlawfully places any dynamite or other explosive material or any other obstruction upon or near the track of any railroad with the intention of blowing up or derailing any such train, car or engine, or who unlawfully sets fire to any railroad bridge or trestle, over which any such train, car or engine must pass with the intention of wrecking such train, car or engine, is guilty of a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life without possibility of parole.

Cal Pen Code § 218.

There is no question that Doc Brown and his co-conspirator Marty McFly threw the train switch with the intent of destroying Locomotive 131 at Shonash Ravine. If Cal Pen Code § 218 had been in effect in 1885, Doc and Marty both would have been charged under this statute.

In 1885, Doc Brown would have been charged under California Penal Code § 587, which prohibits injuries to railroads and railroad structures. The code states:

Every person who maliciously does either of the following is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year:

(a) Removes, displaces, injures, or destroys any part of any railroad, whether for steam or horse cars, or any track of any railroad, or any branch or branchway, switch, turnout, bridge, viaduct, culvert, embankment, station house, or other structure or fixture, or any part thereof, attached to or connected with any railroad.

(b) Places any obstruction upon the rails or track of any railroad, or of any switch, branch, branchway, or turnout connected with any railroad.

The law was enacted in 1872 and is still in effect in 2013. The annotated code further states:

Under Pen C § 587, making it a crime for any person to maliciously place an obstruction on the rails or track of any railroad, the intent required for a violation is the intent to place an obstruction on the rails or tracks of the railroad, and the malice required is that which would negate an accidental and unintended obstruction. Thus, in a prosecution for violation of the statute, the court’s refusal to instruct that violation required specific intent was not error. People v. Bohmer (1975, Cal App 4th Dist) 46 Cal App 3d 185, 120 Cal Rptr 136, 1975 Cal App LEXIS 1765, cert den (1975) 423 US 990, 46 L Ed 2d 308, 96 S Ct 402, 1975 US LEXIS 3463.

Point of No Return to Court

Doc Brown and Marty McFly placed the DeLorean on the train tracks with the intention of pushing the Time Machine to the uncompleted tracks at Shonash Ravine. These facts should be enough to warrant charges under Cal Pen Code § 587. While this 1872 statute is not as on point as Cal Pen Code § 218 for the offense of train wrecking, Doc Brown could be charged and convicted of violating § 587 in 1885.

Double Back to 1985

The DeLorean’s destruction by the freight train creates a legal paradox that spins “proximate cause” in Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad right on its turntable.

Here are the legally relevant, and temporal, facts:

Marty McFly & Doc Brown placed the DeLorean on the train tracks in 1885

Marty & Doc intended to destroy Locomotive 131 in 1885

Marty returned to 1985 on same train tracks after the destruction of Locomotive 131

DeLorean destroyed by freight train in 1985

Would there be criminal liability in 1985 for the DeLorean being run over the freight train? Was there any danger of a train derailment or explosion? Cal Pen Code § 218 and § 587 are still in effect, thus creating interesting legal analysis.

The issue comes down to intent on whether Marty McFly could be charged under Cal Pen Code § 218.

Marty and Doc had the intent to destroy Locomotive 131 in 1885. They did not the malicious intent for the DeLorean to be hit by a train in 1985.

Would the intent of the 1885 conspiracy transfer to 1985 as one continuous event under the law for violating Cal Pen Code § 218?

The Hill Valley District Attorney could legally argue yes, since time was relative to Marty.

McFly was traveling in a fusion powered time machine on train tracks. It is foreseeable that a train could also be traveling on the same train tracks as the DeLorean at the same time.

However, there would be a very strong statute of limitations defense against § 218, because the events of 1885 were 100 years in the past, long past the time to prosecute Doc & Marty for the destruction of Locomotive 131 (Never mind the fact the witnesses were all dead and the DA would have to rely on 100 year old documents). There was no intent to derail a train in 1985, thus making the issue one of reckless driving, negligence by placing a car with a fusion powered device from the future on active railroad tracks, or possibly a violation of § 587(b) by placing the DeLorean on train tracks as an obstruction, if malice could be implied by the act of placing the car on the train tracks.

George McFly & the Defense of Others in Back to the Future

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 19, 2013

1

Hey you, get your damn hands off her.

I think you got the wrong car McFly.

No Biff, you leave her alone.

George McFly knocking out Biff Tannen during the rescue of Lorraine Baines is one of the most memorable scenes in Back to the Future.

George represented the quintessential wimp who found his backbone against his tormentor when the girl of his destiny was in danger.

DeLoreans and gigawatts aside, it is time to go where Doc Brown never traveled to: inside a courtroom at the Courthouse.

Was George McFly in the legal right to knock out Biff Tannen? Could Biff press charges because George was the aggressor for throwing a punch at Biff? Did George violate California Penal Code section 242 by committing battery on Biff?

The answer is No.

Moreover, Biff should be tried as an adult and go to prison.

Make Like a Tree & Go to Jail

George McFly has an extremely powerful legal defense against Biff Tannen: George saved Lorraine Baines from Biff committing sexual battery on her.

George interrupted Biff’s sexual battery of Lorraine (if not outright attempted rape). A Court would find under California law that 1) Biff intended to cause a harmful contact with Lorraine’s body that resulted in sexually offensive contact; 2) that Lorraine did not consent to the touching; and 3) that Lorraine was harmed by Biff’s conduct. California Jury Instructions 1306 Sexual Battery–Essential Factual Elements.

The facts clearly show Biff was caught committing sexual battery on Lorraine. Biff had his hand up Lorraine’s skirt to engage in inappropriate touching. Lorraine did not consent to the touching, as evidence from her physically resisting Biff and asking George for help; and Lorraine was harmed by Biff, again evidence by the struggle in the car.

All of these facts show Biff Tannen was engaged in criminal conduct causing actual harm Lorraine Baines.

The Power of Love (And the Defense of Others)

The law does not require anyone to rescue another. There are no hue and cry laws in the United States compelling anyone to take action when a crime is in progress.

If George McFly was either prosecuted or sued for being the aggressor in the attack on Biff Tannen, his attorney would effectively be able to argue George acted in the defense of Lorraine Baines. The “defense of others” defense is part of the concept of self-defense, which dates back to 1872 and the passage of California Civil Code § 50. The Code states:

Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one’s family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest.

As a preliminary matter, would the defense of others apply to George and Lorraine? Yes, even though they were only classmates and not yet married in 1955. The jury instructions and case law do not require a family relationship. For example, in the 1986 case of People v. Kirk, 192 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 15, (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1986), a man who thought a woman was being raped in a car was entitled to argue he acted in defense of others for drawing a gun on the possible rapist to allow the woman to get away.

To prove George acted in the defense of Lorraine, George must prove that he 1) reasonably believed that Lorraine was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully; 2) George reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger; and 3) George only used the amount of force that was reasonably necessary to protect Lorraine and himself. 2-3400 CALCRIM 3470.

George witnessed Biff engaged in the act of committing sexual battery on Lorraine. George could reasonably believe that Lorraine was in danger based on what he witnessed and Lorraine specifically requesting help.

The physical altercation between Biff and George was immediately after George told Biff to “leave her alone.” While Biff did tower over George, it was George who threw the first [failed] punch.

The situation slightly shifts from defense of Lorraine to self-defense as Biff started twisting George’s arm around his back. Lorraine’s action of jumping upon Biff and hitting him would also be in the defense of others defense, because Lorraine was attempting to rescue her rescuer. The shifting fight does not degrade into mutual combat, because of the timing from George’s first demand on Biff to not harm Lorraine to the final punch.

George’s knock out blow to Biff would squarely fall under the defense of others jury instructions, because the entire encounter centered on protecting Lorraine from Biff’s battery. While there were times when George was the one in danger, this was all because he was trying to save Lorraine. The entire sequence of events must be viewed as one event, which all relates back to George acting in defense of Lorraine from Biff.

George only used the force necessary to stop Biff, as evidenced by George taking Lorraine to the safety of the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance after knocking out Biff. This would meet the final requirement of the jury instructions.

The police should have been called by the school and Biff arrested. However, the amount of time it would have taken for George and Lorraine to give their witness statements would have precluded them from going to the dance, having their first kiss and falling in love. This would have caused Marty McFly to cease to exist, which possibly would have caused a universe ending paradox because of his involvement in the events leading up to George knocking out Biff.

The Flux Capacitor of Justice

Back to the Future is perhaps the only family comedy that involves a character being rescued from sexual battery. It is almost like viewers recognize the extreme wrong that is happening, but our only acknowledgement of it is wanting George to save Lorraine.

The severity of Biff’s criminal conduct truly makes George’s actions all the more important. George did not turn and run. He recognized the look of terror on Lorraine’s face and stopped Biff from doing more harm.

There is no question George McFly did the right thing in knocking out Biff.

The character’s actions were not just morally right, but no judge or jury would let Biff prevail in a case against George McFly.

That being said, it is very odd that the George & Lorraine McFly ever employed Biff to work on the family’s cars.

One would expect Biff to have a lifetime restraining order to stay away from the McFlys.

However, there is a special justice to a bully’s life reduced to waxing cars.