YouTubeDisplay

Crim Law - moses' section

Criminal Law Video Question

YouTube du Jour

CRIME MOVIES

There are many dramatic movies with criminal plots or overtones.

Watch them with the fresh eye of a student of crimes and defenses.

Many crime films come to mind. Here are a few: The Maltese Falcon (1941), Double Indemnity (1944), The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946), Rear Window (1954), The Wrong Man (1956), Anatomy of a Murder (1959), Compulsion (1959), Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), Cape Fear (1962), Wait Until Dark (1967), Bonnie and Clyde (1967), In the Heat of the Night (1967), Bullit (1968), To Kill a Mockingbird (1968), Molly Maguires (1970), Dirty Harry (1971), The French Connection (1971), The Godfather I (1972), The Sting (1973), Serpico (1973), Magnum Force (1973), Death Wish (1974), Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia ( 1974), The Godfather II (1974), Warriors (1974), Conversation (1974), Chinatown (1974), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Marathon Man (1976), China Syndrome (1979), The Onion Field (1979), Breaker Morant (1980), Body Heat (1981), Blade Runner (1982), 48 Hours (1982), Rambo- First Blood (1982), Scarface (1983), Sudden Impact (1983), Once Upon A Time in America (1984), Blood Simple (1984), Commando (1985), The Jagged Edge (1985), Witness (1985), Something Wild (1986), Raw Deal (1986), Nuts (1987), Matewan (1987), Fatal Attraction (1987), The Untouchables (1987), The Big Easy (1987), Wall Street (1987), Lethal Weapon 1 (1987) and 2 (1989), The Accused ( 1988), The Music Box (1989); Die Hard 1 (1988), Mississippi Burning (1988), Goodfellas (1990), Another 48 hours (1990), Reversal of Fortune (1990), Presumed Innocent (1990), JFK (1991), The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Point Break (1991), Cape Fear (1991), Thelma & Louise (1991), Reservoir Dogs (1992), Patriot Games (1992), Carlito's Way (1993), The Firm (1993), Pulp Fiction (1994), Natural Born Killers (1994), The Professional (AKA Leon) (1994), Speed 1 (1994), Shawshank Redemption (1994), The Usual Suspects (1995), Murder in the First (1994), Seven (1995), Casino (1995), Kiss the Girls (1995), Fargo (1996), Ransom (1996), Priomal Fear (1996), The Devil's Own (1997), Sleepers (1996). The Ghosts of Mississipi (1996), The Chamber (1996), (Donnie Brasco (1997), LA Confidential ( 1997), Conspiracy Theory (1997), The Devil's Advocate (1997), A Perfect Murder (1998), American History (1998), Shadow of a Doubt (1998), Very Bad Things (1998), Heat (1999), Snow Falling on Cedars (1999), Double Jeopardy (1999) - based on misinterpretation of double jeopardy See Wiki, Eye of the Beholder(1999), El Mariachi (1999), Memento (2000), Training Day (2001), Oceans' 11 (2002), Thirteen (2003), Kill Bill - Vols. I (2003) & II (2004), Collateral (2004), Crash (2004), Man on Fire (2004), History of Violence (2005), The Departed (2006), American Gangster (2007), Michael Clayton (2007), No Country for Old Men (2007), Public Enemy (2009), etc. Of courase, there are many other good ones.

War movies, e.g., Platoon (1986), Saving Private Ryan (1998) are full of action, passion, and blood, but because they involve different rules, i.e., the rules of war, where players are trying to kill or seriously wound one another, they don't make great examples for our studies in criminal law.

There are lots of westerns with crime themes, e.g., The Ox-Bow Incident (1943), High Noon (1952), Shane (1953), The Searchers (1956), Gunfight at the O.K. Corral (1957), The Magnificant Seven (1960), How the West Was Won (1962), Fistful of Dollars (1964), Good the Bad the Ugly (1966), Once Upon A Time in The West (1968), The Wild Bunch (1969), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), Little Big Man (1970), Mc Cabe and Mrs. Miller (1971), Great Northfield Minnesota Raid (1972), Jeremiah Johnson (1972), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), Silverado (1985), Last of the Mohicans (1992), Unforgiven (1992), Lone Star (1996), Open Range (2003), and Lonesome Dove - TV Series, etc.

My Suggestion: During the criminal law semester, watch crime plot TV shows and movies with the fresh eye of a student of criminal law. Quite a few come up free on sites like Hulu, Crackle, and Google)

TOP

HOME

"YOU'RE GETTING ROBBED"

WEEK ELEVEN - MEDIUM LENGTH ESSAY QUESTION

BASED ON YOU TUBE DU JOUR VIDEO CLIP

This is an ungraded practice exam, but I will take a look at each person's effort for a reflection of demonstrated effort. Failure to turn an answer in will be considered as lack of classroom participation.

Turn in your answer to the question at the beginning of class on ______. Please be certain to put your name and your criminal law student number at the top of the first page and staple the pages together.

PROBLEM ONE for GROUPS A & B

(Based on the "You're getting robbed" clip above.)

You have a total of 25 minutes to write your answer to this 30-second video problem on no more than three letter-sized pages. Use the first 5 minutes of your time to make an outline of the answer you intend to write. Include the outline on the first page of your filing. This is a partial open book practice exam. You may consult the MPC, the TPC, UCL 5th and this web site.

Discuss the liability of the male convenience store proprietor (D1) and the female with the electric cattle prod (D2) under the common law, the Model Penal Code and the Texas Penal Code. If useful to your answer, you may assume that D2 is the wife of D1 and is also co-proprietor of the store.

Fully discuss and explain all possible crimes and defenses (including self-defense, defense of another, defense of property and defense of another's property) raised by the facts. If you conclude that some or all of the conduct is justified, consider under what legal theory(ies) either D1 or D2 could have justifably employed a greater level of force than was actually used against the hapless customer.

Cite relevant sections of the codes. Quote from UCL 5th or the web site

if helpful to your answer.

IF YOU WANT A SHORT EXPLANATION OF WHAT YOU COULD

HAVE MENTIONED RE DEFENSE OF PROPERTY UNDER THE C/L, MPC & TPC,

AFTER YOU HAVE FINISHED YOUR ANSWER CLICK HERE.

SUMMARY EXPLANATION SOLEY RE THE ISSUE OF USE OF FORCE TO DEFEND PROPERTY

COMMON LAW: Dressler's hornbook UCL5th covers this on page 264. A person [D =1 the shopkeeper or D2 = the woman ] in possession of real or personal property is justified in using nondeadly force against a would-be dispossessor if s/he (D1 or D2) reasonably reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent unlawful dispossession of the property. Under no circumstances at common law may a person use deadly force merely to prevent dispossession; however, situations such as this video scenario, e.g., apparent armed robbery, typically involve self-defense or defense of a third party. Defense of property entitles the defender at common law to use force to retain possession (rather than title) to personal or real property. A person may use no more force than reasonably appears necessary to defend his possessory interest in the property.

Applying the common law rule to the scenario, the argument for the shopkeeper (D1) and the female (D2) in the rear of the premises is that both, particularly D1 who is clearly in possession of the store's property, e.g., $ in the register, would be allowed to use nondeadly force in protection of the property. We don't know for sure from the short clip if D2 is also an employee of the store. If so, D2 would have a similar right to prevent dispossession.

MODEL PENAL CODE: Under Section 306(1)(a) MPC the storekeeper (D1) could rightfully argue that he had the justifiable right to use force upon the hapless customer (C) on the ground that D1 believed that force was immediately necessary to prevent C from trespassing against tangible movable property, e.g. the content of the cash register, that is in D1's possession.

If you view D1's conduct, e.g., spraying mace or pepper spray in C's face, hitting C in the shoulder with the baseball bat, or throwing the object at C when C was on the floor, as having employed deadly force against C, you could argue that the use of deadly force by S against C was justifiable under Section 3.04(3)(d) because S believed that C was attempting to commit robbery and either (1) had threatened deadly force against S or the use of nondeadly force to prevent commission of the robbery would expose S to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

Similarly, the use of force against C by the female (D2) who appears to be a co-worker is arguably justifiable under section 3.06 MPC which incorporates in one statute defense of property and defense of another's property. The argument would be that D2's use of the electric cattle prod was justifiable because D2 believed that such force was immediately necessary to prevent the trespass of C against the tangible movable property D2 believes to be in the possession of D1 or, if D2's relationship to the property is such that she believes she is in possession of it, in possession D2 herself.

If you view the electric shocks to C by D2 with the cattle prod to constitute deadly force and wish to justify the use of deadly force by D2, you can argue that D2 believes that C is attempting to commit or consummate robbery and has threatened deadly force in the presence of D2 or that use of force other than deadly force to prevent commission or consummation of the robbery would exposed D2 or D1 to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

As to a request for desistance, Section 3.06(3) MPC indicates that use of force for the protection of property is justifiable only if the actor, e.g., D1, first requests the person against whom the force is used , e.g., C, to desist from his interference with the property unless the actor, e.g., D1, believes (1) the request would be useless or (2) it would be dangerous to himself (s) or another person to make the request. Arguably, both of the exceptions to the request to desist would be applicable in the "You're getting robbed" scenario.

If you think that either D1 or D2 recklessly or negligently used otherwise justifiable force upon the customer (C), be sure to consider that Section 3.09 MPC provides that when the actor (D1 or D2) believes that the use of force upon or toward the person of another is necessary for any of the purposes for which such belief would establish a justification under Sections 3.03 to 3.08 MPC but the actor is reckless or negligent in having such belief or in acquiring or failing to acquire any knowledge or belief that is material to the justifiability of his use of force, the justification afforded by those Sections, e.g. use of force in self-protection under Section 3.04 MPC and use of force for the protection of property under Section 3.06 MPC, is unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which recklessness or negligence, e.g., reckless or negligent assault under Section 211.1or reckless endangerment under Section 211.2 MPC, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability.)

TEXAS PENAL CODE: Under the the provision of the TPC relating to use of force in protection of one's own property, Section 9.41 TPC, a person such as D1 who is in lawful possession of tangible movable property is justified in using nondeadly force against another, e.g., the customer C, when the person (D1) reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's unlawful interference with the property.

If D1's use of the mace/pepper spray, baseball bat, and/or thrown object constitutes use of deadly force against C to protect movable property, e.g., cash in the register, and D1 also reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent C's imminent commission of robbery or aggravated robbery or D1 reasonably believed that the use of nondeadly force to protect the property would expose D1 to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, then D1's use of deadly force against C would be justified.

Regarding the female (D2) who appeared to be an employee of the store, D2 could claim that she was justified in using the electric cattle prod against C to protect D1's property if D2 would be justified under Sections 9.41 or 9.42 TPC in using force or deadly force as the case might be respectively to protect her own property and D2 also reasonably believed that customer C's interference with D1s tangible property constituted attempted theft or D2 reasonably believed that D1 had requested her (D2's) protection of the property or D1 was D2's spouse or D2 resided with D1.

Whether there was use of deadly force by either D1 or D2 would depend on whether the force was intended or known by D1 or D2 to cause or in the manner of its use or intended use was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. See Section 9.01(3) TPC. "Serious bodily injury" is defined in Section 1.07 TPC as "bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."