|
|
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 05/07/2002
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 143
Originally written as installment # 127 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 737, January 1, 1988 issue
Somewhere in the middle of this column, I lament the fact that my etymology didn't have an entry for the origin of the phrase, "couldn't cut the mustard." But it's a poor writer who blames his tools. For the record, since this column came out, I purchased a new etymology dictionary. A couple in fact. The Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins tells me that the phrase "cut the mustard," was originally a western phrase during the late nineteenth century. If something was "the proper mustard" it was genuine. Because of this, "cut the mustard" came into being to mean of good quality. So, obviously, "can't cut the mustard" would mean something of bad quality, something, or someone, that doesn't measure up.
Now, if I could just find out why the cowboys started using "the proper mustard" to mean genuine.
******
THE LAW IS A ASS
Installment # 143
by
BOB INGERSOLL
Sometimes mild mannered reporters aren't so mild mannered. Sometimes they're downright pushy. And sometimes, when they're pushy, they're guilty of a crime. When the reporters who have committed the crime are also comic book characters, that's when I come in.
I wear a badge.
It says, I grok Spock.
(I gotta get a new badge!)
Anyway, there I was reading Adventures of Superman # 438, when I saw a scene that bothered me. Clark Kent, Jimmy Olsen and Catherine Grant have gone to the circus. While they are there, an elephant runs amok. This, of course, proves that while elephants may have excellent memories, they have a lousy sense of timing. I mean, can there be a worse time at which to run amok than while Clark Kent is nearby? (Actually there is: when Superman is nearby. What's the difference? If you run amok with Clark Kent nearby, you get a few extra seconds of amok time, while Clark makes that lame excuse for disappearing to whomever he happens to be with then looks for someplace to change into Superman.)
The Action Ace stops the paroxysmal pachyderm. While doing so, Superman notices the elephant's hide is covered with deep, old scars. He suspects the animal has been beaten and often. Superman's suspicions are confirmed seconds later, when the elephant trainer comes on the scene and starts to whip the animal.
The Metropolis Marvel stops the sadistic stockkeeper. He then tells Cat she might get an animal welfare story out of the situation. Cat agrees.
At this point the circus ringmaster, who curiously enough was wearing clown's make-up--which should be good for a joke somehow, but I can't think of it--comes up and says, "You're not Catherine Grant of the Daily Planet, are you?" (A true Sherlockian deduction by the ringmaster. Superman just called Cat "Cat," Superman talked about a "story," and Jimmy Olsen is wearing a sweat shirt with the Daily Planet logo on it.) "You're not going to write a... negative story about this circus, are you?" the ringmaster asks obviously worried.
It was Cat's and Jimmy's answer that caused me the problems. "That depends on a couple of things..." says Cat. "Yeah! Like whether or not that goon you call a trainer is still working here this time tomorrow!" Jimmy adds. The ringmaster responds, "He's gone! As of right now!"
This exchange, as I said, bothered me. Here were Cat and Jimmy trying to force the ringmaster into doing something he didn't want to do by threatening to expose a fact the ringmaster didn't want exposed, unless the ringmaster did what Cat and Jimmy wanted him to do. (Did you follow all that? Good, now explain it to me!) I couldn't shake the feeling that Jimmy and Cat had committed a crime.
I checked.
They did.
New York Penal Law § 135.60 defines the crime of Coercion in the Second Degree. Why New York Penal Law? Because, I don't care if they claim Superman lives in Metropolis and the Teen Titans live in New York City. We readers have seen Superman flying around the Metropolis State Building and some torch-bearing statue in Metropolis Harbor. We know what city Metropolis really is and what state it's really in. So we know what law to apply to the situation.
Coercion of the Second Degree occurs when: "A person... compels or induces a person to engage in some conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in... by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, that actor or another will:... 5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or... 9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships."
Perhaps I'm being conclusory, but I think what Cat and Jimmy did certainly falls within the definition of Coercion in the Second Degree found above. I think they're guilty. Yes, I know I'm being every bit as pushy as I claimed Cat and Jimmy were. But, then, no one has ever accused me of being mild-mannered. In fact, no one has ever accused me of being any kind of mannered.
For the sake of expediency, let's just assume that Cat and Jimmy are, in the words of Mark Slackmeyer, "Guilty, guilty, guilty!"
Coercion in the Second Degree is a crime. It's not a major crime--only a Class A misdemeanor punishable by not more than six months in jail--but it's still a crime. Cat and Jimmy shouldn't have done what they did.
What about the fact that they were doing it for a good cause? I'm afraid that fact doesn't cut any mustard in New York. (Have you ever thought about that phrase, "Cut the mustard,"? Just how dull does a knife have to be, before it is unable to cut mustard? And where did the phrase come from, anyway? My etymology dictionary doesn't say. Does anyone out there know? And if they do, can they also tell me why I suddenly think I'm Andy Rooney?)
In Ohio we recognize certain affirmative defenses to the crime of coercion--that is a defense that says, I admit I committed the act, but my act was excusable and not criminal because certain factors existed. Self-defense is one form of affirmative defense. Insanity is another.
Among the affirmative defense to Coercion that Ohio recognizes in Ohio Revised Code {2905.12(C)(2) and (C)(4) are acting reasonably and with the specific intention to redress a wrong or injustice or to compel another to do something which the actor reasonable believes the person has a duty to do. I think what Jimmy and Cat did could easily fall within either affirmative defense.
Unfortunately, neither defense exists in New York. So no matter how humanitarian their goals were, Cat and Jimmy don't get a break. Insanity is an affirmative defense. Being card-carrying members of the ASPCA isn't.
I wouldn't worry about Jimmy and Cat too much, however. They won't be prosecuted. Who's going to bring the charges? The circus, which in order to prosecute is going to have to make public the very fact that they wanted to keep a secret and which Jimmy and Cat threatened to expose in the first place?
It would be rather counter productive, wouldn't it?
Bob Ingersoll<< 04/30/2002 | 05/07/2002 | 05/14/2002 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
