|
|
Join us each Tuesday as Bob Ingersoll analyzes how the law
is portrayed in comics then explains how it would really work.
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
THE LAW IS A ASS for 08/22/2000
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 57
Originally written as installment # 46 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 580, December 28, 1984 issue
It's nice to see that one's words can have a positive effect on the world.
Among the many comics I write about in this installment, is Fantastic Four # 275, "The Naked Truth." It deals with the efforts of She-Hulk to stop a sleazy skin mag publisher from running photos a helicopter pilot took of her nude sunbathing on the top of the Baxter Building. She-Hulk can find no legal means of stopping the publisher, so she crushes the publisher's safe, wherein he had stored the pix for safe keeping, so that it is a rocklike chunk of iron and no longer capable of being opened.
I happened to mention that there are other ways to handle the situation, law suits that can be filed that might deter such actions in the future alleging invasion of privacy and appropriation of likeness. And now, Jennifer Aniston has filed just such a law suit against a publisher, who ran photos of her sunbathing topless.
I didn't know Jennifer had studied my body of work. And to show my appreciation, I won't buy the magazine in question to study hers.
******
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 57
by
Bob Ingersoll
My prayers were answered. Comics put the law back into their stories, so I have something to write about. In fact, I'm sitting here with seven comics' worth of column fodder. I thank you. My wife thanks you. My empty checking account thanks you.
******
The courtroom scene first drew me to Defenders # 140. (Incidentally, what is Defenders going to do after the debut of The X Factor, which is to star all the members of the original X-Men? Defenders stands to lose both Beast and Iceman and a book featuring Cloud, Gargoyle, Moondragon, and Valkyre will be about as interesting as water flavored Jell-O. I'd rather read another giant robots fighting other giant robots mini-series.) But back on topic, that courtroom scene wasn't even close to accurate. I'll give some quick pointers on courtroom procedure the hope none of these mistakes will pop up again. (Of course, I also hope that didn't require a doctorate in sub-plots, and we all see how well that worked.)
1) Witnesses do not give testimony in narrative fashion, like the Old Ranger at a cookout. They testify by answering questions put to them one at a time by lawyers. And when they try, the lawyers for the other side object and ask the judge to order that the testimony be given in question-and-answer form. Yes, it's time consuming, but it serves a purpose. Question-and-answer testimony gives lawyers enough time object to improper questions, before they're answered and improper information comes out during the trial. (Actually, it serves a second purpose. It's a cute trick we lawyers use to make ourselves indispensable. And the purpose? Instant job security.) In Defenders # 140, Edna Mae Terry it testifying. But she doesn't answer questions, she tells a story, which is wrong enough. What's worse, she did so at the judge's request. Even if the creators didn't know better, the judge should have.
2) After Ms. Terry finishes testifying for the State, she's excused as a witness. Again wrong. Ms. Terry would not have been excused as a witness, until after she had been cross-examined. Not no how. Not no way. In fact, if a witness testifies and then is not available for cross-examination his or her testimony is thrown out. (Yes, it's another one of those job-security tricks.)
3) After Edna Mae testifies, the State's next witness was the defendant, himself. That can't happen. There's this little thing called The Constitution. And it has this little thing called the Fifth Amendment which absolutely forbids it a defendant from being compelled to testify against himself Which means the defendant in a criminal trial can't be called as a State's witness. Did you all get that? The defendant cannot be called as a state witness. I've already said this in an earlier column. Apparently some people missed it. People, please pay attention the first time. Don't keep making the same mistakes, I don't like the rather bovine act of rechewing my cud.
4) At some point during the trial, it is interrupted, when one of the spectators draws a gun an tries to kill the defendant, only to be subdued by Valkyre and her broadsword. There's a word to describe this scene; it's not unlike bovine cud, but a little cruder. The crime which is the subject matter of the trial scene in this book had worked up the town into near frenzy. It caused outbreaks of violence, riots and a neo-Nazi demonstration. When such cases come to trial, the police tend to suspect that someone my try something against the defendant. So the police search the spectators before they enter the courtroom, so that no one can murder the defendant. They go through metal detectors, are frisked, or are held upside down by their heels and severely shaken so that whatever's in their pockets falls out. (That latter is one of the many ways we fund courthouse renovation.) But the point is, the spectators are searched so that they can't bring guns into the courtroom. After all, if the defendant's killed before the verdict, the taxpayers' money has been wasted by the trial. And no politician wants to waste taxpayer money. Right?
Thus, I find it hard to believe that the man on page 18 could have entered the trial with a loaded gun. I flat out refuse to believe that Valkyre could have come in carrying a broad sword.
As I said, the courtroom first attracted my attention. Something else about Defenders # 140, "The Heartbreak Kid," kept it. What was the point?
The title character, Charles Grodin, er... Daniel Altherton Shepard, is a mutant, with the ability to siphon off other people's heartbreak and turn it into flames. (Not exactly up there powerwise, is it? I mean, the power might be great for the editor of Harlequin Romances, but Danny wouldn't last five minutes in the Danger Room.) Danny sensed heartbreak in Edna Mae Terry and tried to take it. Ms. Terry felt violated by this invasion of her memories. Her subconscious interpreted the incident as a rape. (I know the comic said assault. She meant rape. It's just that the Comics Code is too wimpy to allow the word rape.)
Danny was arrested and tried. In between he spent most of the comic being vile. He went out of his way to offend everyone in town. He destroyed his parents emotionally. During his trial he was even more vile. A spectator in the trial even tried to shoot him. Let's face it, Danny floated on stagnant ponds, when he wasn't being left on sidewalks by snails!
Finally, with Moondragon's help, (and when did she get standing to speak in that court?) Danny revealed his real purpose: to take everyone's heartbreak. (Amazingly enough everyone believed Danny and his trial immediately ended in his favor. My next client is going to try this shtick.)
Apparently to relieve heartbreak, Danny had to put everyone in town through hell for several weeks, so that their heartbreak would be more pronounced and he could grab it more easily. What a great power! Danny forces the people he loves to undergo weeks of paralyzing emotional trauma, just so he can seize it and expel it in a pyrotechnic display. He causes everyone needless heartbreak, just so he can later rid them of it. It was kind of like when they used to sic Godzilla on some other man-in-a-suit monster. The two of them would wrestle in downtown Tokyo and do more damage than the bad-guy monster could possibly have done alone. Same with Danny. He probably caused more emotional pain--under the guise of ridding it--then the town could possibly have had, had Danny simply minded his own business. He should have left well enough alone, set up a Fourth-of-July celebration for the fireworks, and spared his town the torment.
Not to mention us.
******
I liked Fantastic Four # 275, "The Naked Truth" and its story about She-Hulk trying to stop a sleazy skin magazine from printing pictures it got of her sunbathing nude. I liked it a lot. I'm a dirty old man! But I wanted to point out that, despite what the sleazy publisher of the magazine claimed, there is something that can be done, when a person's likeness is expropriated as She-Hulk's was so that nude pictures of her could run in a skin mag. (Okay, so a little more than her likeness was expropriated. The point is still valid.)
Yes, there are First Amendment issues, which complicate stopping the expropriation before it starts. There is, however, another tactic possible: sue for invasion of privacy.
A person's face, name, or privates are private. No one can use them in a commercial venture, without the owner's prior permission. Using unauthorized nude photographs of a person to sell magazines and announcing that fact with words like "She-Hulk Nude!" on the cover constitutes a commercial use without permission. The unwilling subject of such a display, can sue for invasion of privacy or appropriation of likeness without consent.
A famous Broadway and Hollywood star used this tactic, when outtake photos of a nude scene she did turned up in one of the various skin mags. She claimed that the magazine was making money by exploiting her likeness without her consent and without paying her. (Although, truth be told, it wasn't exactly her likeness that the people were looking at.) I don't know the exact result of the suit, but I do know that the local magazine distributor here in Cleveland razored the pictures out of the magazine and removed the star's name from the cover, before it distributed the magazine in question. If more such suits were filed; the expropriation of persons in the altogether would cease to be profitable, and would cease altogether.
Incidentally, if you're wondering who the star was. Wonder. I have no intention of invading her privacy.
******
I'm going to emigrate to Earth Marvel. I'll be rich inside a week.
In Hulk # 304 we meet Price Claringer, one of the "ablest [criminal] defense attorneys in the country." (Incidentally, am I just paranoid, or is Price's surname a little close to my own?) Claringer's clients, the U-foes, have been sitting in a federal prison for months, since Hulk # 254 actually, without being charged.
Claringer knows that this violates their constitutional rights. No one can be imprisoned by the government, unless he has been convicted of a crime or, at least, has been charged with a crime but can't make bond. It says so right in the Fifth Amendment.
So what does Claringer do? He makes speeches suitable for a high school civics class about the impropriety of holding people without charging them, then admits his clients' guilt and tells them to accept the government's plea bargain.
Whoopie!
Had I been the U-foes' attorney, I would have, at least, filed a writ of Habeas corpus. Everyone knows about Habeas corpus, it's taught in Law School 101. It demands that the government either justify the incarceration of an individual or release him.
With a Habeas filed, the government would either have to release the U-foes or charge them then a set bond. Vector, a millionaire, could have met the bond, and the U-foes would have been free pending trial. So, why didn't Claringer file it? I don't know. Ask him.
After I had sprung the U-foes, my success in the face of Claringer's failure, would have spread. Soon, I'd have more clients, than I'd know what to do with. Who knows, maybe I'd even refer some of the easier cases to Claringer.
******
I had a problem with Jon Sable, Freelance # 21 Duh, why else would I be talking about it?. Clara Bellows was convicted of a crime. Some of the most damning evidence against her was a bloody horseshoe found in her car. Then, Carla Bellows's conviction is overturned because of illegally seized evidence; I'll assume we're talking about the bloody horseshoe taken from her car.
When it comes to search and seizure issues, automobiles are special. They are easily moved, and their contents are easily disposed of. For this reason, years ago the Supreme Court created an automobile exception to the search warrant requirement. When a policeman has reasonable cause to believe that a car contains contraband, such as drugs, or evidence of a crime, such as a bloody horseshoe; the officer can search the car, without first securing a warrant. This allows the officer to secure the evidence, before someone can drive the car away and dispose of the evidence. For our purposes, reasonable cause means that the officer can give articulable reasons why he or she suspects the presence of the contraband or evidence. If he can give reasons, and the search isn't capricious, it is upheld.
There is practically no such thing as an illegal search of a car anymore. I doubt that the search in the Widow Bellows' case would have been invalidated or the evidence excluded. But in order for the ironic ending to work this story to work, we must believe that the Supreme Court would declare a search illegal and exclude the evidence. Our Supreme Court? The one with Burger and Rehnquist and O'Connor?
Gee, I didn't know that Jon Sable was high fantasy.
******
Next is New Triumph (Featuring Northguard) # 1. Don Thompson (you know, co-editor of CBG?) Has said that Northguard sounds like a brand of weatherstripping. He's right. But Northguard isn't a weatherstripping, he's the latest Canadian super-hero who wears a red-and-white, maple leaf motifed costume and takes his name from the Canadian national anthem.
Last week I filed a class action suit against a comic book for libeling the human race. This week I'm planning another class action suit; this one against New Triumph for the eye damage that trying to read their text page caused. Guys, there's 10 pitch type. There's the smaller 12 pitch type. There's the hard to read 15 pitch type. This text page was a microscopic 24 pitch type. This invitation to bifocals should never have been let out of the office.
New Triumph also offers the curious notion that Northguard gets his powers by exploiting a loophole in the laws of thermodynamics. Loopholes are clauses written into man-made laws, so that special groups, like the one writing the law, can escape the law. Who, or what, would write a loophole into a natural law? The Big Bang?
Finally, I must comment on the power of the Canadian toilet. On page 3 someone flushes a big, heavy .45 automatic down the toilet. Black holes aren't that powerful. If the commodes in Canada have that much suction power, next time I hit Niagra Falls, I'm holding it in, until I get back to the States. Those babies would suck me into the coriolis , as soon as I flushed.
******
In Superman: The Secret Years #1 tells a "hidden" story in Superman's past. In it, Lex Luthor has turned 21. So, when Superboy catches Lex in his latest criminal scheme, and one hardly worthy of Luthor's genius--using computers to transfer money from other people's bank account into his own, Supes tells Lex he won't go back to reform school for his crimes. He'll be tried as an adult and sent to prison.
Cute line; it would have worked, if Superboy stories still took place back in the thirties. (Is it just me? Am I the only one who's discommoded by seeing the same character who met Bonnie and Clyde now talking about Kojak?)
But, according to the book itself, Superman: The Secret Years takes place in 1976. The story occurred well after the 26th Amendment, the one which emancipated eighteen-year-olds. After the 26th Amendment states lowered their age of majority from 21 down to 18. Any eighteen-year-old who committed a crime in 1976 or '75 or '74 or '73 or '72 would have been tried as an adult and sent to prison. So, unless you want me to believe that Luthor did nothing between his eighteenth and twenty-first birthday, he would have been tried as an adult years ago.
Actually, even if he hadn't done anything recently, Luthor would already have been tried as an adult anyway. States have procedures whereby juveniles who commit serious crimes and are deemed not amenable to the juvenile justice system can be bound over and tried as adults and sent to adult prisons. Given Luthor's recidivism and the nature of his past crimes, I don't think the courts would still be treating Luthor with kid gloves.
One more thing, in this story Superboy knows that Luthor has transferred money from other people's accounts into his own, but waits to arrest Luthor until after he has withdrawn the money from his account, because there's no law against calling a bank's computer. True, there isn't. But there is one against calling the computer to make unauthorized money transfers from someone else's account into your own: theft. Superboy didn't have to wait for Luthor to withdraw the money he had already transferred into his account, the theft was complete as soon as Luthor transferred the funds. From that point, Luthor was exercising control over someone else's property without that person's consent.
******
It wasn't intentional. Honest. I didn't really save the worst for last. I've been going alphabetically and Vigilante # 14 just came up last.
Remember how I used to complain that Vig came dangerously close to murder, when he killed in self-defense. He's not close anymore.
He's a murderer!
Vigilante # 14,"Shadows," features a confrontation between Vig and a bad guy named Hammer. At the end of the story, Vig shoots Hammer right between the eyes and kills him dead. True, Hammer had tried to kill Vigilante earlier; first, with an axe and then with Vig's own gun. But Vig still didn't kill in self-defense.
At the time Vig killed Hammer, the fight was over. Moreover, Hammer was standing in the middle of an empty room and looked to be blinded by bright lights. It was at this point, with Hammer weaponless and helpless, that Vigilante put a bullet between Hammer's eyes.
A homicide is self-defense only when the man invoking self-defense defending himself has a reasonable fear that his opponent is presently able to kill him or cause him serious physical harm. Without these preconditions, it isn't self defense; it's murder.
Vigilante didn't have any reason to fear Hammer, when he offed him. Hammer had no weapons and was standing alone in the middle of an empty room. What was Hammer going to do, throw a linoleum tile? All Vig had to do was pick up the gun and order Hammer to surrender. If Vig wanted a little target practice, he could have shot Hammer in the leg to incapacitate him. But Hammer no longer posed a immediate threat of bodily harm. Vigilante no longer had to defend himself and self-defense was no longer applicable
Given the facts, it wasn't self-defense. It was murder plain and simple.
Gee, I think I've lost all respect for Vigilante.
BOB INGERSOLL
<< 08/15/2000 | 08/22/2000 | 08/29/2000 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
