Honestly don't understand why people hate on your channel. You're honestly just a person who went to law school, has knowledge on a good majority of law in this country, whatever you don't know you look up, and when stuff goes sideways in this country you give your opinion.
Technically, in the 30s none of it would have been. And hundreds of witnesses seeing a man fight for his life from multiple armed assailants and killing ONLY the one that cornered him with a deadly weapon and holstering his gun immediately after (thereby not intimidating, threatening or intending to use unwarranted force) would be a clear defense for 2nd degree. Without footage, the whirling of the sword can be taken as an attempt to prevent his escape and force him into a fight or flight situation where he had no option of flight and a deadly weapon was being used against him. If Jones had a sword or dagger and threw it at the man and killed him there would be no way to argue that they weren’t in a legitimate sword fight initiated by the attacker who knew and accepted the risk to their life by attacking. I think any jury in the world would simply think this is a case of someone bringing a gun to a sword fight and coming out the victor.
It is in most action movies. I like to think in the real world it takes a bit more than the supervising Captain turning up and saying "It looks like a good shoot"....
@Phincter Tell it to imperial japan,they wanted to eat George H.W Bush,and ate some other soliders,Bush escaped.The officers that order that got hanged,and the soliders got arrested.
@mikejunior211 I also would like to see what Egyptian law looked like in the 1930's lol chances are Indy would not be prosecuted, if ever, until after the war and any crimes perpetrated where the losing side were the Nazis would get a pass I feel lol
@@alexanderchristopher6237 as far as i know the british museum is basically controlled by a board of directors at this point, i don’t think the government could force them to return the artifacts even if it wanted to... they implemented a few rules making that very difficult (the board must vote to approve the return no matter what). very slimy
@@Sorcerers_Apprentice one of my favorite John Oliver quotes about the British empire is "if denesh has 2 artifacts and johnny has no artifacts, how many artifacts is johnny about to have. The answer? Alllll the artifacts, denesh and his family can come visit them in the museum in London anytime they like" lol
LegalEagle: Indiana Jones would have to spend 84 years in prison Me, who had to have the Indiana Jones discussion with everyone who found out I was majoring in archaeology: Fair
I only had a single Archaeology class in college and the first thing the teacher said was it was nothing like the Indiana Jones movies, so I assume he had to deal with that question a lot too.
The one thing I can hypothetically bring to Indy’s defense is that the supposed relics in his home might be recreations he commissioned from skilled artisans. There’s no visual evidence one way or another as to whether they are real or fake, though. I would assume that would be decided via investigation of each item.
Maybe they're the worthless fakes that he's bought from less-than-reputable dealers over the years on the off chance that they're real. Museum doesn't want them, so he's stuck with them. At least, that's probably what he tells the IRS when tax season comes :P
Why not, it was legal. The brits put their flag on Indian soil and declared it theirs. Not their fault that the natives hadnt done that before, they probably hadnt invented flags yet, or speaking in a civilised language. Was there a treaty that prevented taking those artifacts? No! Was there a law in the British Empire that prevented it? No! Was it british property? Yes! By british law, all of the subcontinent belonged to them. Including artifacts, land, people, taxation rights and so on. The british too nothing from independent Rajs, except the independence of course, a minor, intangible thing not protected even by copyright laws since so many minor countries claimed to have it. Its just better for everyone that such mess would come to an end, ammiright?
On one hand, Matilda breaks and enters into Ms. Trunchbull's house. On the other, Ms. Trunchbull's house should be a cell after her repeated instances of abuse and attempted murder on minors.
I learned a few days ago that there's a trial movie called Legal Eagles. I wouldn't mind seeing a LegalEagle review of Legal Eagles. Yo dawg, I heard you like LegalEagle...
Objection: The scene with Indi and the Swordsman, you could reasonably argue that Indi was clearly exhausted after having previous encounters with people trying to kill him and, even with no other threats than the Swordsman, he could not reasonably be expected to have the ability to escape from an attacker that clearly was not energy drained. Now assuming Stand Your Ground applies, Indi has reasonable belief that his life is in danger as he was just assaulted by, presumably, the Swordsman's associates and was faced with an attacker wielding a deadly weapon (the Swordsman) with no real ability to escape the situation.
Objection as well, a good chunk of this film doesn’t take place in the United States so we may have to look at the laws of their various countries may have more jurisdiction then the US.
@@michaelnally2841 This taking place in Egypt which at the time is a brand new nation in terms of political objective may have laws in place but with no ability to reinforce them.
fun fact: this scene was improvised. there was supposed to be a battle between them. buy Ford had a food poisoning. so he just ask/said to spielberg, just let me shoot the bastard
@@Leto617 It's actually worse than that, if Indiana Jones hadn't interfered at the airport then the Ark would have flown to Berlin, where Hitler and his toadies would have been killed. Indy's incompetence saved Hitler.
Objection: When Dr. Jones defended himself from from his sword wielding assailant he clearly feared for his life. Considering he had just been assailed by multiple persons with knives and swords, and it was clear that those assailants were coordinating their attempts on Dr. Jones's life. Dr. Jones had every reason to believe that this assailant was in league with those who he had just avoided in the Marketplace and just as willing to use deadly force as they were. In his attempts to escape in the market place and find his companion Miss Ravenwood who he suspected had been kidnapped, he found himself confronted with this person brandishing a large sword clearly indicating intent to use it on Dr. Jones. When faced with this assailant who brandished a weapon with the intent of preventing Dr. Jones's escape Dr. Jones finally resorted to discharging his firearm into his assailant to safely extricate himself from this situation. Dr. Jones demonstrated a reticence to use force when avoiding his previous assailants and it was only when he had no other option that he resorted to the preservation of his life.
Also the crowd assembled only after he stopped indicating that they may have had intent to drive him in to this particular situation, and he also did not discharge his firearm further as the crowd dispersed or at any one other than the deadly weapon weilding assailant.
Although I'm an opponent of the "stand your ground" laws, generally-speaking, I agree with your comment. One more point: Not only was the sword-wielder seemingly intent on killing Indy, he was clearly an expert swordsman. This has to be relevant. He wasn't just a guy holding a kitchen knife.
@@amcconnell6730 But Egypt stole it from the Israelites to begin with -- and stolen property is always stolen. So I guess Israel gets it back in a decade or two? Assuming they can find it...
@@Icanhasautomaticcheeseburger The US and Israel are best buddies. The US is one of the main supporters of Israel's political existence and in the event that the US government held a Jewish artifact, it would absolutely return it the very second that Israel asked for it back. In fact, the question is not "would the US return a stolen artifact to Israel" but "How much money would the US spend to see an artifact returned to Israel for no direct benefit to the US". And while that dollar value differs depending on the exact timing and politics of the US, it is always greater than zero. The only reason the US would not return the Arc of the Covenant is if Israel didn't want it back right away. Such as if Israel needed time to build somewhere to securely house it. If a conservative Christian was in charge of the US, the amount of good publicity from returning the Arc of the Covenant to Israel would be insane. And not returning it, if that information ever leaked into the public, would warrant tremendous outrage regardless of who was in power.
Objection. Satipo's death was not on Indy's hands. Indy told him "Stay out of the light." Secondary objection: The fight in the market with the sword guy was unavoidable. The other people in the market would not have let him simply walk away. Indy's life was at stake so his actions were committed to save his life.
Objection: The encounter with the swordsman takes place in Egypt in 1936. U.S. laws would not be enforce there, yet those are the only laws being discussed.
There is another aspect to this incident too. Its pretty hard to say Indy WAS in fear for his life from the swordman; certainly doesn't look like it. However, he was in quite a LOT of actual danger. I have seen demonstrations that show pretty conclusively that an attacker taking the initiative can close a 20 foot gap and strike FASTER than his target can draw a gun and shoot. That said.... once he drew and aimed, he had the upper hand. So.... it really still is probably excessive. ofc... I also think that swordman looked rather inexpert and was probably at the very limit of his ability just doing what he did. But being an unpracticed actor is maybe less relevant.
@@Morridini the laws for murder apply the same way the ones for drugs do so yes it is possible to commit murder in a foreign country and face no charges. I wouldn't say you could go on a homicidal killing spree and they'd do nothing. but a basic case of self defense against some thugs would probably be ignored.
@@Morridini I mean, if you killed someone in a foreign country you'd have to face criminal charges in that country. Even if you managed to get back to the U.S. without getting caught, you'd either be extradited or be forced to serve your sentence in an American prison.
@@carpdog42 I think that there's another case here for Dr. Jones doing what he did. For starters, running away didn't look possible. He was hemmed in by people and didn't know if he'd even be able to get away, or if they were accomplices. But second, he had just gone through a bunch of fighting and was tired out. The man with the swords was fresh. Running, even if it was an option, may not have been a good option.
@@Morridini untrue in most cases , countries prosecute crimes committed on their territory...Indiana could get aid from the Amarican Embassy as Aid in his defense, its really unusual for any country to try to punish crime comited elsewhere...and remember that unless countries have a treaty for extradition countries will do everything to protect their citizens from being punished by other powers
@@l3gacyb3ta21Objection. Not relevant. The topic isn't about a theory, it's about laws broken by The Incredible and others. That's objective not subjective.
I think most of the reason why Jones isn't in jail for the actions within the movie (not touching the stuff that was only said as part of a backstory) is that the US government, maybe the president himself, gave Jones a pardon for the mission he was sent on.
Objection: The scene where he shoots the sword wielder occurred in Egypt in the 1930's and accordingly the incident would be judged under British colonial law's standard of self defence. If the Australian genocides are anything to go by Indy would have been just fine
by the 1930s egypt was an independent nation, and went through several constitutions during the period. lot of nationalism at the time, so a judge might not look kindly on a foreigner killing a local.
@TopoRoger1 while it is true that egypt was still in britan's sphere of influence at the time, it was no longer an offical protectorate and thus while britan could push the government to do or not do things, the domestic legal system was its own. So of indy was important enough for britan to interfere, then egypt would likely do as the said.. otherwise he would be covered by their independent legal system.
Also, the whole scene was made up on the spot, because Harrison Jones had dysentery, and couldn't handle the actual sword fight that he was supposed to do. He asked "can i just pull out my gun and shoot the guy?" And made movie history.
It would be much more interesting to address laws in the time and places where the movie was set. It would take a bit more research than basing it on modern laws in the US, but definitely worth it.
Honestly, I don't understand why they didn't just raise Marion's age up to 18 when she had a relationship with Indiana Jones? She could still be considered a "child" (or at least an ingenue in terms of inexperience,) and it wouldn't be considered illegal. I know it was the 20th century in the film's timeline, but I seriously doubt it would've flied back then (even if it was the "norm" that wouldn't change its legal status.)
@@sidereus95 You seems to underestimate the status of women in the society of the 1930's. For example, in France before 1945 (or 48, either way, way after the movie's date) you could legally marry a 13 years old girl. And CURRENTLY the legal sexual majority is 15.* *Note that since the 80's, adult/minors sexual relationships are severely scrutined and they must meet parental approval; even then, if the adult in question is a figure of authority (teacher, etc...) then it is be considered that the minor was not in a correct mind to give a proper consent. (basically the law was made so that you don't have those awkward situations liek in the US where teenagers get sentenced because one is 17 years old and 11 months and the other is 18)So yeah while it seems shocking today, the situation of Indy and Marian would only appears as moderately shoking to most people in 1936. And many would in fact put the blame on Marian....
1. Objections: - since the sword guys and his henchmen were pursuing Jones, it is unlikely he would have saved himself by walking away. - The airstrip was technically under governance of Germany, therefore the bare-chested Wehrmacht soldier was perfectly justified to attack or kill the intruder (Jones) - Jones is a US citizen and Germany is not at war with America. Therefore, all the attacks on German personel are just murders and assaults. - Opening of the Ark of Covenant should violate many, if not all, international threaties about religious objects.
@John Smith Wait, "invaded"? I'd assumed the German archeological expedition had permission from British/Egyptian government to operate in Egypt, complete with guards against marauding ... Bedouin or whatever.
As my archaeologist professors said about Indiana Jones: He’s a Pot Smasher. An archaeologist only interested in Treasure Hunting vs digging areas with consent and the intent to objectively study people’s burial artifacts. That didn’t stop a lot of professionals and ordinary people from looting and robbing graves in the early 20th century...
those graverobbers were working for physicians in training. _you_ come up with a better alternative for learning and studying the human body with that level of technology than an actual cadaver.
he seems to do both depending on what stuff from the expanded universe you go with... originally his grave robbing stuff was meant to be something extra he did to get more money for himself. a bunch of extra material including the raiders novelization talks about genuine archeology stuff he did but presumably we don't see that since it's not as interesting
Laws Broken : "The Blues Brothers", would be a fun episode. unpaid bar tabs, destruction of a shopping mall, fully automatic assault weapons, flame throwers and much more. Is the 18 years they get at the end realistic I feel it would be much higher.
I'm pretty sure it was originally called just 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. They only added the Indiana Jones part more recently so people clearly knew it was one of the movies in the series. Just a little pet peeve of mine.
Correct. Although, "more recently" still means since 2000, which means it's now been known as "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" for longer than it wasn't.
For what it's worth, the onscreen title has never been changed to include "Indy and". But in the late 90s the home-video packaging also tried to re-order the trilogy by numbering the 'volumes' so that Temple of Doom came first. Just make something new, George...
Objection: The Murders that were committed by Indiana Jones in this movie were mostly in the Kingdom of Egypt it would be Egyptian Law of that time period that would apply. Given the state of the world during that time period it's highly unlikely a newly formed Egyptian Government would go after Indiana Jones for Murder. I would also argue Indiana Jones could not be charged by The United States with any crimes related to the theft and/or possession of antiquities since The United States asked him to get The Ark and in the end took possession of The Ark.
Well didnt Trump "suggest" to voters to commit voter fraud a few weeks back . He is a part of the goveremnt is he not. And he bearly had time to end that sentce before other part of the goverment and law enforcemt said that IF they did that THEWY would be prosicuted and isnt the legal system supposed to be free from political influence?
@@ronhan9 in this case, since the us gvmt asked indy to do it, indy might be considered a privateer. Whether thats legal now, idk, but it might not be.
@@Number1Irishlad you are infact not ment to follow an unlawful order even if you are in the military. So a non military person following an unlawful request(not even an order) can duffer consequences.
@@Number1Irishlad under US law, privateers *can* exist (though they haven't since the Civil War), but only the president has the authority to issue a letter of mark, the document which makes a citizen into a privateer
@@theendofit that doesn't apply to crimes under foreign laws, though. Indy was working for US military intelligence. A necessary part of the intelligence world is breaking foreign laws to gain access to classified or otherwise sensitive information or materials. Since Indy is a civilian contractor under non-diplomatic cover, he would subject to the laws of the foreign nations he's working in, assuming they could catch him. But not American law. Read up Title 50 laws that govern foreign intelligence collection and covert action. Stuff like this happens all the time and is sanctioned by both the executive and legislative branches.
I think something that gets missed with the nostalgia goggles on is that Indy is not a paragon. In fact, the *only* difference between him and Belloq at the outset is that Belloq is a Nazi, and his arc in the film is re-examining his moral compass through the filter of the hunt for the Ark. Rewatching it as an adult brought a lot more depth than I recognized as a kid. I think the second movie messes this up by having him learn the same lesson again, except it’s canonically earlier.
Pretty sure the point of Indie vs other heroes at the time is the fact that he's kind of a scummy guy. Like yeah! the guy's an asshole. The kinda asshole I wanna be! Kinda thing.
@Sam Aronow... Additionally it isnt until the Last Crusade that he actually turns the corner to become a better man and seeks the grail for more than himself and profit, something the earlier Indy probably wouldn't do.
I don't think you can reasonably expect an attempt to flee in the sword fight, contrary to popular believe firearms aren't an instant win condition, they can be hard to aim and rechamber, and miss there are countless examples of officers missing multiple shots even point blank range, and an attempt to flee could have irreparably compromised his reaction time against a clearly far superior foe. When it comes to you're own life you're entitled to all the advantages you can get. The only thing I did think Jones should have done was wait for the man to start approaching, since making a fancy knife show wouldn't reasonably be a deciding factor in taking the shot.
OBJECTION! Per the Egyptian Penal Code of 1937*, Book 3, article 245: "No penalty at all shall be inflicted on whoever kills another or beats or injures him/her with wounds in using the lawful self-defense or legitimately defending his/her property and funds, or another person's life or property and funds. . ." Article 246: "The right of lawful self defense allows a person, in other than the exceptional cases defined hereinafter, to use the power necessary to obviate any act on one's life as prescribed in this law." The listed exceptions are: - when it is "possible to rely in due course on seeking the protection of the public authority men" (article 247) - "resisting a law officer when performing based on the duties of his office" (article 248) - premeditated killing, EXCEPT when done to prevent a murder, maiming, kidnapping, or rape (article 249) Since Indy is unable to contact local law enforcement, is trying to prevent a kidnapping, AND has pretty good reason to fear for his life, he should have no problem getting away with all the deaths in Egypt. *I know, I know, Raiders is set in 1936, but I couldn't find an online copy of the Egyptian Penal Code of 1919.
Wait, but what about when he knocks over the workers in his truck? I haven't seen the movie in a while, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just a result of his poor driving skills? I wouldn't think he'd have a defense against that, as the only reason he was in the truck was to try and catch the nazis...who were trying to kill millions of people. Ok, perhaps it's legal ;>
Yeah, I raised that exact objection about a week before you and he still won't respond. I honestly think our LegalEagle is too busy making his next videos to read comments anymore. My experience is that he has a tendency to ignore, willfully or not, comments and messages. I had a corporate accountant with a master's in taxation and decades of experience watch some of his tax related videos, they proceeded to tell me just how incorrect and poorly researched these videos can be. Given that he tried to apply US law to Egypt rather than taking the time to look up the relevant laws for the Jurisdiction, not to mention the assertion that Indy was being chased when he was clearly chasing kidnappers and their victim, I'm inclined to agree with the opinion of the aforementioned corporate accountant. At this point, I'm of the mind that any and all legal analyses on this channel are for entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously.
@@Icysnowman256 "Wait, but what about when he knocks over the workers in his truck?" He didn't drive over the workers, Indy was fighting with a nazi at the time and during that schuffle the truck veered at the side of construction site, knocking the ladders under some workers. No injury or death, was portrayed or implied. Only damage was for the half a dozen ladders and some random equipment. Crime? Nope, definately not.
@@10tailedbijuu he's using his expertise to review it based on American jurisprudence so people have a better understanding of American law. He's not an Egyptian lawyer. He's made that clear in most of his videos.
In one of my wife’s cultural anthropology classes when she was in college, they played the opening scene of Indiana Jones and then spent the rest of class talking about everything wrong with it (which was, spoiler...everything!)
I saw a history channel documentary where one of the professors they interviewed said that he did exactly that. I wonder how common this practice is...
9:13 The US government wouldn't likely prosecute Indy for removing the Ark from its country of origin because he was only doing what they themselves had requested/authorized him to do... some of their own "top men" had specifically hired him to prevent said valuable --- and militarily-advantageous --- artifact from falling into the hands of the Nazis.
The funny thing is, the whole point of that movie ("Mignonnes") is to criticize the oversexualization of pre-teen girls. In the US, "moral guardians" decided it's child porn. Maybe they should reflect on THEIR perception of pre-teen girls?
@@ilikechestnuts9085 of every review I've seen, no one agrees that that was what the movie was about. The movie was just about rebellion. The movie infact glorifies the sexualization of children as a form of liberty. So no, I disagree with you.
@@ilikechestnuts9085 Even if that was the point of the movie, it failed miserably. It still showed underage girls engaging in sexual acts like twerking. It's like releasing a wild animal in the middle of a busy city tell people that wild animals are dangerous.
See how your logic of "it's showing oversexualization, whatever the intent, so it is a crime of oversexualization" is pure stupid ? Then Rambo/Terminator's movie/all horror movie and about 80% of all american's action movie are crime encouragement as well as glorifying crime because they depict murder. "Sex crime" producers are also not only murderers but also rapist, because there is rape in it. Because you know : just as you said, if you depict something, that means you're validating it. And oh my god, the producers of "Hard candy" are in really, really, really deep mess... Go prosecute them!
Can you do a Laws Broken on the movie: Matilda! It's a part of my childhood nostalgia but, I recently rewatched it and saw how many illegal crimes the wormwoods actually committed.
According to a brief search via Wikipedia the Age of Consent in Illinois was raised to 16 in 1920 (16 Years before Raiders took place and 6 years before the relationship) so depending on when Marion's Birthday falls and exactly how precise the 10 years is since they last met it is possible it wasn't actually illegal!
yes both this and that later in Indiana Jones the Ultimate Guide they cemented/retconned Marion's Birthday to be March 23 1909 making Marion 27 in Raider and over the Age of Consent for Illinois at the time
Its never even implied that they had a sexual relationship is it? Not trying to make excuses by any stretch! A 27 yr old even flirting with a 15yr old, even back then, is still creepy.😬
The people accosted had no involvement in the kidnapping. Regardless of motives he's still attacking innocent people and potentially causing property damage as well.
@@Ivytheherbert but could the people be held liable for negligence or conspiracy? They should have heard Marian yelling for help and then effectively blocked Indy's path.
@@GarrettMoffitt As a historian who's met a lot of working archaeologists, I've never heard one legitimately having a problem with Indiana Jones. In fact, most got into the field because they saw movies like it as kids.
@@GarrettMoffitt almost all archaeologists my age and even a good bit older were in some way inspired by Indiana Jones, however we all also recognize that just about everything he does is pretty antithetical to modern archaeological ethics. No one thinks lowly of the movie character Indiana Jones, but we do think lowly of many of the archaeologists of his time that did many of the bad things he does in the film.
@@croesuslydias6488 "however we all also recognize that just about everything he does is pretty antithetical to modern archaeological ethics." Which is true for how many famous "real world archeologists" like Carter or Schliemann that were not always quite rigid in their methodology?? Yeah i know those wold have been a few years before Doctor Jones, but still, holding him to higher standards than actual grave robbers WITH licenses??? hmmmm... seems not legit.
So Spielberg felt conflicted enough about the use of guns in E.T. to edit them out later (and then undo the edits even later) but in Indiana Jones he was apparently fine with his hero's back-story including taking advantage of a 15 year old girl. Okay then.
@@teamjones8 Nah an adult has the obligation to refrain from engaging in sexual conduct with a person incapable of giving consent. And he knew she was a child
i mean, one thing was implied and rather vague, the other thing was shown and then there is the Point of the Target audieance which was totally different... and that the change came about 20 years later
SALLAH: Please, what does it always mean, this... this "Junior"? HENRY: That’s his name. Henry Jones...Junior! INDIANA: I like “Indiana”. HENRY: We named the dog Indiana. MARCUS: May we go home now, please? SALLAH: The dog? You are named after the dog? INDIANA: I’ve got a lot of fond memories of that dog.
One of the fun things we talked about in my college archeology class was that Indy was more of a looter than an archeologist because he's more interested in finding valuable items then recording his findings
@@fasdaVT We see a full "excavation" where all he does is break into an ancient temple and steal an idol. A real archaeologist would... I mean there are a lot of things a real archaeologist would do and they aren't that!
I think this is a safer call than the question of if he violated any particular law intended to stop artifact looting or grave robbing. Indeed, looking at the 3 Indiana Jones movies as a whole (And ignoring all Fan Fic and Fan Films), The artifact that generates the "Belongs in a museum" quote seems the safest of all. It was recovered in a US location, by people who weren't him. The damage to the archeological record was done, and he made multiple attempts to return it to authority figures, and even repatriate it when it appeared to be at sea being removed from the country or shipped internationally. Side question, Assuming that the cross arrived in Utah by either legal mechanisms, or, by crimes so far in the past as to be irrelevant, does that then become an American/US artifact? By far the worst look was the opening sequence of Temple, where he is clearly straight up trading a cultural item for a monetary commodity. This whole transaction is presumptively criminal, given the behavior of all involved, and in no way even resembles anything like archeological accepted practice. That said, is it an act that could be charged under any US law? At the time, or in present day? The McGuffin artifact doesn't appear to have been transported out of it's country of origin before leaving Indy's possession, let alone across any US state or national borders. I can certainly imagine it would be an offense under Chinese law, though, was the scene in question set in British ruled Hong Kong?
OBJECTION: Regarding attempting to flee from the sword guy, he is not standing there casually. He is clearly exhausted and no longer capable of attempting to flee at that point.
Fun fact: Harrison Ford was having some -- to put it politely -- intense _digestive distress_ that day and just improved the scene because he felt too sick to do a full on fight scene.
@Live Life Objection: the swordsman was within the reasonable range to present opportunity with lethal force, the sword is a clear indicator of capability, and his flourish is a clear display of intent. The crowd pushed Dr. Henry Jones Jr. in an attempt to kill or at least disorient him. The shot fulfilled it's intended purpose of neutralizing the immediate threat, with a side effect of dispersing the hostile crowd, allowing Dr. Henry Jones Jr. to reorient himself in his attempted rescue of Marion Ravenwood.
@@rogerbaker9353 Objection: Dr. Henry Jones Jr had time to make multiple shots for a less lethal body part, namely the man's sword-arm, and could've easily hit it simply wounding the swordsman.
The americans have no use for cultural items as they aren't familiar with the concept - if they come to your country to plunder, they take the gold and the oil...
@@arizonaexplorations4013 To be fair the french are also the ones who built hype for these things so before they were involved they wouldn't have been worth stealing to begin with because people didn't care, they were just... trash, really. Or worth the gold they were made out of. They have value because the french decided they did.
@@GriffinPilgrim You did? Last I checked, the US was still fighting at least seven conflicts... - Afghanistan since 2001 - Maghreb since 2002 - Horn of Africa since 2002 - North-West Pakistan since 2004 - Somalia since 2007 - Syria since 2014 - Yemen since 2015
Objection! My client (before I advised him to assert his 5th Amendment right and not incriminate himself further) never said anything to explicitly indicate that the relationship he was confessing to was ever intimate.
Your honor, he knew it was wrong, he was confronted with the knowledge of knowing it was wrong and not once did he challenge that statement, if it hadn't been intimate, then why not challenge it?
@@jacksonschanneljohannsen6478 it is certainly possible to construct a scenario where he used his Professor's daughter's teenaged infatuation with him for some lesser nefarious purpose. To help him cheat at an exam, perhaps?
My 20 year old grandpa started courting my grandma when she was 14… Evidently no one had a problem with this in Alabama. They got married as soon as he came back from WWII when she was 18
@jaredjams4267 Depending on country it isn't even frowned upon today. Here in Germany it's perfectly normal for 14yo girls to have boyfriends aged 19-21.
Ooh that reminds me of a movie that was done by Opening Arguments that I think Legal Eagle would enjoy but be really tired by watching. "Double Jeopardy" Where as the main character has been falsly convicted of killing her husband, since she found out that he's not dead she's allowed to actually kill him.
Indiana Jones reminds me a lot of a great line from Atlantis: The Lost Empire: "If you gave back every stolen artifact from a museum, you'd be left with an empty building."
Watching this reminds me of a story my Archeology professor once told the class about how he was working on an excavation down in Mexico and out of the jungle several jeeps pulled up and men carrying machine guns got out. They then questioned him and demanded to speak to the archeologist in charge to make sure they had the proper paperwork to be performing the excavation. My professor then took them to said person in charge and everything was good and they were allowed to continue on. The men were with the government, and had to make sure they weren't looters out to steal artifacts to sell, and from what my professor said he felt at the time that had the paperwork not been good that the men would have shot them, so countries do take this kind of thing seriously. Likewise had the men in the jeeps been looters themselves then they likely would have just shot them as well. He also discussed how one needs to have permission to remove and take back any artifacts from the site. In this case as a professor at a university he was permitted to take back a certain amount of artifacts for the university, but those artifacts had to be cataloged and approved by the proper people in charge. Basically he couldn't just take whatever he wanted, and as he put it normally the government doesn't want you taking anything really nice or good, like say a golden idol or things that could have real worth. My professor therefore presented them with a bucket full of pottery shards which they easily approved and he was allowed to take back. Apparently though previously the professor had used Elmer's glue to put said shards back together to get a complete pottery jar, then soaked it in water so it would go back to pieces. When he got back to the university he glued them all back together again and was able to put the full pot on display in the university museum.
Legal Eagle : "Monkeys cant be convicted of crimes" Me : "Note to self, look into genetic manipulation before committing a crime. Also is THAT legal advice?"
Lmao seeing as we are all just chimps with delusions of grandeur and anxiety problems, I'd say this would be a good defense in court. "Your honor, I plead not guilty due to being a primate!"
There is actually a history of animals or even inanimate objects being charged with crimes and taken to court. Look up Historia Civilis on TH-cam, he has a video about it.
Objection: while Indiana was being attacked by the sword fighter, he was chasing after a kidnapping victim who he likely feared for the life of. The aggressor was clearly acting as a distraction for this kidnapping. It was not merely self defense, it was also defense of another.
@@rocksfire4390 The swordsman was part of a group of multiple assailants actively coordinating in a pursuit to attempt to kill him. Given that Dr Jones had already attempted to retreat and was followed with intent to continue the attack, it had already been demonstrated that he would not be allowed to walk away.
I'm pretty sure the witnesses would be biased enough where it wouldn't matter if he was defending another person especially while traveling in a foreign country.
The temple he stole the idol from couldn't have been 'abandoned'. After all, how would the native population be able to recognise the idol if they had never seen it before. Therefore it should belong to them :)
Most christian artifacts look recognisably christian, because they are to depicting jesus on the cross. The same would be probable for natives recognising their god in the image of the idol, it would be resemble to other items they are knowing. Not to saying they have ever witness the one Indiana Jones found.
I was about to ask how the natives could have seen the idol when that would have required getting past all those traps, but then it occurred to me that the natives could be doing maintenance on the traps every now and then.
Is there any laws that pertain to the length of an artifact being lost before it becomes public domain? Otherwise any finds of artifacts found of a society that either doesn't exist or had migrated to another region if not found by that societies original descendents would be considered theft.
@@TheJackl317 No, most countries (today anyway) have laws forbidding the extraction of cultural artefacts without permission from the country's department of cultural affairs. Even if its in your own yard, it can still be considered looting. There are exceptions to this based on what the artefact is, but I know of Italian farmers who have gotten busted for searching for tombs buried beneath their fields and looting artefacts.
@@Blokewood3 this is a year old comment, but the idea that there's a bunch of people whose job is to like fix up traps in old tombs and pyramids and temples delights me to no end, and I want to watch that tv show. Like...there would be a ticketing system, right? To submit repair requests, like they do for normal buildings? And there would be janitors, and people who occasionally replace the old traps when they break (which of course involves not getting killed by the other traps).
10:10 from the first time i saw this movie i have never interpreted her words "i was a child" to mean she was underage. it has always meant she was naive and inexperienced in matters of the heart/body. there've been countless mentions just like this one in many tv shows and movies, none of which stipulated that the person was underage, but, rather, innocent and unsophisticated. think steve martin in The Jerk. also, i never really bought that indiana/marian had a sexual relationship, but that he broke her heart, which is why her father despised him.
Yes, I'm surrounded on all sides and there's a guy twice my size brandishing a sword half my size. Clearly I am not in enough trouble to use deadly force. Actually, Indy could have shot all his attackers in the marketplace but chose to save his ammo for the greatest threat there. So he was exercising a lot of restraint until he was too tired or too cornered to continue just punching.
Well, after what our eagle just said it was not enough to use deadly force. If I got that rigth the guy with the sword should have attacked him instead of just posing with his sword, like if he would charge at him I am pretty sure deadly force would have been justyfied
Indy was acting within his rights when he pulled the gun, but after that he was in the position of power, and pulling the trigger when the man with the sword was making no attempt to advance to striking distance constitutes excessive use of force
So you think a 27 year old White Male in 1924 would go to jail for consensual sex with a 15 year old? Yes, I understand it probably doesn't count of consent. Definitely today, but I don't know consent laws. I mean, if her father knew and did nothing, then nothing would come of it. Because this is the internet: I AM NOT DEFENDING HIS ACTIONS HERE. Just pointing out the realities.
@@GarrettMoffitt In late 1800's there was a christian feminist movement to basically double the age of consent. By 1926 all states, except Georgia (14), had an age of consent of at least 16, with 21 states having the age being 18. Also, it is just as likely her father didn't know about it.
From someone who used to be in law school I'm not lawyer I just went to law school and I didn't pass the bar but I absolutely love this channel this series
@@houseofaction more important question is what age Indy was BecAue he was a Teachers Assistent , still illegal yes but if he was 21 and she was 16 it’s not AS Bad
@@Dadofer1970 Script is typically not considered strong canon. Unless its on screen or in a publication, it shouldn't be. And in publication, Marion was 17-18, not 15.
I didn’t realize how rapey old movies are until I went on a Clint Eastwood western marathon. It’s very odd that no one ever brought it up back in the day.
It was all about sexual liberation. They were supposed to really like it in the end, see. If it was "legitimate rape", women were permanently damaged property, and they or their menfolk were supposed to go on a revenge rampage.
Yeah, that bothers me too... if you look at a movie set at a certain time period, the laws it's weighed against should be the laws of that period...not laws set decades later.
late comment. About Statutory rape: I'm not sure an outright sexual relationship was ever entailed. For all we know, it could have been an "innocent" relationship, which was then terminated by Indy leaving and breaking the young girl's heart ( and that was actually what he admitted to with his "I did what I did" = " I left")
@@mikejunior211 I'm no writer so I'm not entirely sure how scripts in movies work, but why would that bit of information be there? Also are you able to show us a source because now I'm curious.
A fist can absolutely kill you. The idea that "well, he was only threatening to punch my face into the pavement, so I can't use a weapon to defend myself" is questionable. It's a really hard line to draw, especially given that if the person knocks you unconscious, you are at their full mercy.
As we seen with the Treyvon Martin case. I can't remember the name of the guy who killed him who got off scott free. The guy was a POS though as we found out later, though he did one good thing that made the news iirc. The cuts on the back of his head weren't that bad, and I don't know if Martin was big enough or strong enough to actually kill. I'm on the fence with that one, but there's enough reasonable doubt to acquit.
Reverse text time. Ecnis eht Swej yllaretil did eht emas, neht eht Swej era elbisnopser rof eht emas ediconeg, edisa morf Eht Gnuoy Skrut (Nainemra ediconeg), Romdoloh, Giznad, Teivos Noinu, ot eman a wef.
@@timriggins70 Possibly excepting Japan, pretty much. They were the colonized nations, rather than the colonizers, and so never had the same opportunities for widespread theft.
@@gufosufo337 There is a big protest against Netflix for exibit this movie. Some people say it's a movie that shows sexualization of infancy. Some argue the movie itself claims against sexualization of infancy and tries to explore the empowerment of women and French version of the poster is not explicit, the Netflix version is explicit and wrong. I was hopping someone pointed this as a joke. I'm kind of lost in translation here.
@@gufosufo337 Yes. It is the same movie. The approach on the commercialization is different. I haven't watch it, so I can't tell about the content. But there is a great vid about Harrison Ford "predatory romance". His films usually have a lot of rape and abuse. (The usual for US cinema). th-cam.com/video/wWoP8VpbpYI/w-d-xo.html
@@constanza1648 I find this protest strange. Your music industry is filled with minors in skimpy clothes. Do I even have to say Britney spears? I believe she was about 12 when she started. And she isn't the only one.
Very entertaining as well as educational. Hope you'll tackle Matilda (1996) next, in which there is a lot to talk about Child Negligence and Cruelty as well as Illegal Car Sales.
Hard disagree, he couldn’t have escaped the crowd safely, as referenced by his attempt to escape and subsequent receipt of an assault. The guy had a sword, and Indy had no other reasonable option for self defense. The crowd is clearly proven hostile, his back is quite literally to a wall, and it could be argued that the flourishing the man with the sword did constitutes swinging at Indy. Whether or not a person is scared does not make their life any less in danger. An infant wouldn’t be scared of licking a power outlet, but the parents would still be liable, for instance.
My wife and I were just watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and I was incredibly irked by the entire premise behind Harry being in the Tri-Wizard Tournament - because Barty Crouch claims that Harry was entered into a “binding magical contract” against his will and without his knowledge, he now has to follow through with competing?! I would love to see a breakdown of this and some of the other “magical” legalities in Harry Potter - and what their ramifications could be compared to our Muggle laws!
I mean, the fact that magical laws are absolutely outlandish, extremely unfair and completely incomprehensible and governed by a bunch of uneducated, inept and often corrupt buffoons is one of the main themes throughout the book series.
Oh Harry Potter has a ton of shady stuff... both on the sides of things done TO HArry (basically kidnapped by Hagrid and left with his relatives without a proper adoption process, punished for Dobby performing magic without trial or chance to defend himself, kept in the dursley residence with the help of Order guards, attempted murder by Dementor via Dolores Umbridge, the Tournament, the blood quill torture and Moody using an unforgivable at the kids, the Slander through the Prophet and Minister, Snape accusing the kids of perjury without any consequences and the various atrocities from the last book "undesirable No 1" and all...) and by Harry like trapping his cousin in the snake "cage" while freeing the snake... brewing an illegal/controlled potion in book 2. flying the car, breaking into the Ministry in book 5 and more... oh and the DA was also illegal i guess. Some things apply to others as well, Ron getting hit with love potions from Romilda Vane's chocolates e.g., Luna being mercilessly bullied... and of course lots of child abuse sold as "humorous"...
Firstly, it's anyone's guess whether the Ministry for Magic has laws on the books that prohibit coercing someone into following a contract they've been bound to. But even if they did have laws about this, do you understand what a binding magical contract is? It's not a literal paper or verbal contract. It's the magic underlying certain actions or states (such as having your name chosen by the Goblet), which binds you to certain terms, and certain consequences for violating them. It's implied that such contracts can't be nullified. So there probably would have been very dire consequences if Harry had tried not to compete; if it was anything like an Unbreakable Vow, he would have died. It's not like they "made" him compete just because "them's the rules"; they "made" him compete because he was magically compelled to do so, regardless of what they did. I put "made" in quotes because they actually didn't _force_ him to compete at all. He could have refused, and let the magical contract bite him in the ass. But he didn't. He chose to compete. If you're thinking about liability, that falls squarely on Barty Crouch Jr., the one who put Harry's name in the Goblet without his consent. I think you'd be hard-pressed to place liability on the staff administering the Tournament, because they had taken reasonable and seemingly effective precautions to prevent such a scenario (the Age Line, only letting people submit their own name, etc.). They had no reason to think that anyone other than their own staff would be able to bypass these measures, and no reason to think that one of their own staff would actually sabotage the Goblet in order to submit a student against their will.
Objection: Disparity in numbers, an immediate history of being lethally attacked, an obvious display of lethal weapon with reasonable intent to harm, plus no where to retreat is absolutely a strong case for self-defense. Also, the defendant is in Cairo and not subject to American law, so there.
Egypt was no longer a British territory at the time so it raises a very big question on whether he gets away with this because no one actually stopped him or if given the chance he would have just been executed.
Objection your joke needs more biblical references like: The last time I was this early the tablets of God's commandments Moses brought down had not been cast down and their remnants placed in the Ark of the Covenant.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
👮♂️Should Indy go to jail?
🚨 Get DEEP SENTINEL, for 15% off (exclusively here!) www.deepsentinel.com/legaleagle/
Honestly don't understand why people hate on your channel. You're honestly just a person who went to law school, has knowledge on a good majority of law in this country, whatever you don't know you look up, and when stuff goes sideways in this country you give your opinion.
If they try he’ll simply play his theme become immortal and fly away
Please do The Boys gets Lawyered, I'd love to see how long homelander is going to jail for
Will you make a video on the SCOTUS situation? I'd like to hear your 2 cents. Thanks keep up the great work!
What about all the animals he killed that violated local or international laws smh
The worst part for Dr. Jones is that everything was caught on camera.
Technically, in the 30s none of it would have been. And hundreds of witnesses seeing a man fight for his life from multiple armed assailants and killing ONLY the one that cornered him with a deadly weapon and holstering his gun immediately after (thereby not intimidating, threatening or intending to use unwarranted force) would be a clear defense for 2nd degree. Without footage, the whirling of the sword can be taken as an attempt to prevent his escape and force him into a fight or flight situation where he had no option of flight and a deadly weapon was being used against him. If Jones had a sword or dagger and threw it at the man and killed him there would be no way to argue that they weren’t in a legitimate sword fight initiated by the attacker who knew and accepted the risk to their life by attacking. I think any jury in the world would simply think this is a case of someone bringing a gun to a sword fight and coming out the victor.
Dr. Jones, how do you plead?
Wasn't me
Caught in 4k too
@@yt.lilsantee nah, more like caught in 720p
I don’t like this at all. The real villains of the story are the people who Indy and Marion fight against. How anyone can’t see that is beyond me.
I think the Beverly Hills Cop trilogy would be a great series. His progression of law breaking is unreal.
And they acknowledge it in the movie a couple times so itd be cool to see if they made his violations as severe as they really were
Agreed!!
Excellent suggestion!
It is in most action movies. I like to think in the real world it takes a bit more than the supervising Captain turning up and saying "It looks like a good shoot"....
Like all cops.
"You can't do this to me, I'm an American!" What a classic line.
Allot of Americans don't realize how bad some countries are because they have never been outside the US
@Phincter Tell it to imperial japan,they wanted to eat George H.W Bush,and ate some other soliders,Bush escaped.The officers that order that got hanged,and the soliders got arrested.
@@retroliftsprs I have never been outside of the US but this is the main reason I don't complain about they US.
“I thought this was America! Isn’t this America!?”
@@retroliftsprs , what countries have you visited?
Witnesses that wouldn't be favorable to his defense? THEY CHEERED when he shot the swordsman and then helped hide him!
If the swordman was hired by the Nazis...Then everything was fair and square, because Nazis are scum.
@mikejunior211 I also would like to see what Egyptian law looked like in the 1930's lol chances are Indy would not be prosecuted, if ever, until after the war and any crimes perpetrated where the losing side were the Nazis would get a pass I feel lol
Yeah the swordman was dressed in black so everyone knew he was a bad guy ha ha ha.
@@SandmanGotBeer
Actually the movie takes place in 1936 before the war, Egypt was ruled by King Farkut I, I think, so Egypt was under the Sharia law
@@oscarf5433 I thought Egypt was still under British administration at that point.
1:50 "Is he allowed to steal artifacts from foreign countries and graves to fill his museum?"
*The British museum* : 👀
Ah, but Indiana Jones is a civilian. The British government is a government. They are the lawmakers.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 as far as i know the british museum is basically controlled by a board of directors at this point, i don’t think the government could force them to return the artifacts even if it wanted to... they implemented a few rules making that very difficult (the board must vote to approve the return no matter what). very slimy
@@alexanderchristopher6237 well the US government is a government and they hired Indy............
@@alexanderchristopher6237 the "archeologists" (more like grave robbers) who brought the British museum all that stuff were also private citizens
The Vatican : 👀
When he "musuemed" them from countries. Laughed hard at that one.
It's very British empire of him lol
@@djstringsmusic2994 PAH! Very "british empire" of him. ...I need to steal- I mean..."Museum" this one for future use! XD
When the British do, it's "museuming", when the Americans do it, it's "liberating", when anybody else does it, it's "plundering".
@@Sorcerers_Apprentice one of my favorite John Oliver quotes about the British empire is "if denesh has 2 artifacts and johnny has no artifacts, how many artifacts is johnny about to have. The answer? Alllll the artifacts, denesh and his family can come visit them in the museum in London anytime they like" lol
LegalEagle: Indiana Jones would have to spend 84 years in prison
Me, who had to have the Indiana Jones discussion with everyone who found out I was majoring in archaeology: Fair
He took the gold and destroyed the site... Let him rot.
Legit, Indiana Jones is a bad archaeologist. I should know, I HAVE A MASTERS. 😂
Every Archaeologist React to Treasure Hunt Movies video.
Cultural Resource Management Archaeology grad student checking in and sharing the pain
I only had a single Archaeology class in college and the first thing the teacher said was it was nothing like the Indiana Jones movies, so I assume he had to deal with that question a lot too.
The one thing I can hypothetically bring to Indy’s defense is that the supposed relics in his home might be recreations he commissioned from skilled artisans. There’s no visual evidence one way or another as to whether they are real or fake, though. I would assume that would be decided via investigation of each item.
Maybe they're the worthless fakes that he's bought from less-than-reputable dealers over the years on the off chance that they're real. Museum doesn't want them, so he's stuck with them.
At least, that's probably what he tells the IRS when tax season comes :P
@@Axius27interesting theory
@@Axius27 Yeah. Don't mess with the IRS. They'te the ones who took down Capone.
Legal Eagle: You can’t just steal artifacts and put them in a museum!
British empire: Haha, East India company go brrrrrrr.
British Museum goes.... shhhhhhh...
Why not, it was legal.
The brits put their flag on Indian soil and declared it theirs. Not their fault that the natives hadnt done that before, they probably hadnt invented flags yet, or speaking in a civilised language. Was there a treaty that prevented taking those artifacts? No! Was there a law in the British Empire that prevented it? No!
Was it british property? Yes! By british law, all of the subcontinent belonged to them. Including artifacts, land, people, taxation rights and so on.
The british too nothing from independent Rajs, except the independence of course, a minor, intangible thing not protected even by copyright laws since so many minor countries claimed to have it. Its just better for everyone that such mess would come to an end, ammiright?
@@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681 true, no flag no country.
Yes, but... Do you have a flag? No flag no country, cant have one.
law is backed by military force
I'd like to see a "Laws Broken" for Matilda. There's a lot of broken laws in that movie, and not just the laws of physics.
"Who's IN MAH HOUSE!?!?!?"
Yes! Yes! I would love to see a video on this. lol
I just saw that again last week
On one hand, Matilda breaks and enters into Ms. Trunchbull's house. On the other, Ms. Trunchbull's house should be a cell after her repeated instances of abuse and attempted murder on minors.
that's one of my favourite musicals. LegalEagle should do a breakdown for it.
I learned a few days ago that there's a trial movie called Legal Eagles. I wouldn't mind seeing a LegalEagle review of Legal Eagles.
Yo dawg, I heard you like LegalEagle...
I put a deposition inside your deposition so you can depose while you depose.
Objection: The scene with Indi and the Swordsman, you could reasonably argue that Indi was clearly exhausted after having previous encounters with people trying to kill him and, even with no other threats than the Swordsman, he could not reasonably be expected to have the ability to escape from an attacker that clearly was not energy drained.
Now assuming Stand Your Ground applies, Indi has reasonable belief that his life is in danger as he was just assaulted by, presumably, the Swordsman's associates and was faced with an attacker wielding a deadly weapon (the Swordsman) with no real ability to escape the situation.
Objection as well, a good chunk of this film doesn’t take place in the United States so we may have to look at the laws of their various countries may have more jurisdiction then the US.
@@michaelnally2841 This taking place in Egypt which at the time is a brand new nation in terms of political objective may have laws in place but with no ability to reinforce them.
@@Seriona1 Specifically The "Kingdom of Egypt" wich existed from 1922 to 1953 and comprised the modern day states of Egypt, South Sudan & Sudan..
Based
fun fact: this scene was improvised. there was supposed to be a battle between them. buy Ford had a food poisoning. so he just ask/said to spielberg, just let me shoot the bastard
Indiana Jones: "It belongs in a museum!"
Legal Eagle: "You belong in prison!"
and the movie would be roughly the same without him. The Nazis would have found the Ark, opened it and and died horribly
Leto617 Ah yes a Big Bang theory fan
Him: it belongs in a museum
Me: yes but which museum are you talking about
You could try to explain it to him, if only you spoke Hovito.
@@Leto617 It's actually worse than that, if Indiana Jones hadn't interfered at the airport then the Ark would have flown to Berlin, where Hitler and his toadies would have been killed. Indy's incompetence saved Hitler.
Objection: When Dr. Jones defended himself from from his sword wielding assailant he clearly feared for his life. Considering he had just been assailed by multiple persons with knives and swords, and it was clear that those assailants were coordinating their attempts on Dr. Jones's life. Dr. Jones had every reason to believe that this assailant was in league with those who he had just avoided in the Marketplace and just as willing to use deadly force as they were. In his attempts to escape in the market place and find his companion Miss Ravenwood who he suspected had been kidnapped, he found himself confronted with this person brandishing a large sword clearly indicating intent to use it on Dr. Jones. When faced with this assailant who brandished a weapon with the intent of preventing Dr. Jones's escape Dr. Jones finally resorted to discharging his firearm into his assailant to safely extricate himself from this situation. Dr. Jones demonstrated a reticence to use force when avoiding his previous assailants and it was only when he had no other option that he resorted to the preservation of his life.
Plus you can clearly see in various scenes that he was blocked in by the crowd. Preventing any attempts to escape.
Not to mention he was probably a little worn out from all the running and fighting.
Also the crowd assembled only after he stopped indicating that they may have had intent to drive him in to this particular situation, and he also did not discharge his firearm further as the crowd dispersed or at any one other than the deadly weapon weilding assailant.
Paris Spinelli thanks for saving my hero
Although I'm an opponent of the "stand your ground" laws, generally-speaking, I agree with your comment. One more point: Not only was the sword-wielder seemingly intent on killing Indy, he was clearly an expert swordsman. This has to be relevant. He wasn't just a guy holding a kitchen knife.
“The government would sue jones for stealing the ark” you forget the government hired Indy
There’d be a very low probability of conviction, based on that fact (witnessed by Brody)
The USA government hired Indy. The Egyptian government were the ones who lost the Ark.
@@amcconnell6730 Well at given time it was not exactly anything Egypt could do about it, British were still taking piles....
@@amcconnell6730 But Egypt stole it from the Israelites to begin with -- and stolen property is always stolen. So I guess Israel gets it back in a decade or two? Assuming they can find it...
@@Icanhasautomaticcheeseburger The US and Israel are best buddies. The US is one of the main supporters of Israel's political existence and in the event that the US government held a Jewish artifact, it would absolutely return it the very second that Israel asked for it back. In fact, the question is not "would the US return a stolen artifact to Israel" but "How much money would the US spend to see an artifact returned to Israel for no direct benefit to the US". And while that dollar value differs depending on the exact timing and politics of the US, it is always greater than zero.
The only reason the US would not return the Arc of the Covenant is if Israel didn't want it back right away. Such as if Israel needed time to build somewhere to securely house it.
If a conservative Christian was in charge of the US, the amount of good publicity from returning the Arc of the Covenant to Israel would be insane. And not returning it, if that information ever leaked into the public, would warrant tremendous outrage regardless of who was in power.
Objection. Satipo's death was not on Indy's hands. Indy told him "Stay out of the light."
Secondary objection: The fight in the market with the sword guy was unavoidable. The other people in the market would not have let him simply walk away. Indy's life was at stake so his actions were committed to save his life.
Objection: The encounter with the swordsman takes place in Egypt in 1936. U.S. laws would not be enforce there, yet those are the only laws being discussed.
There is another aspect to this incident too. Its pretty hard to say Indy WAS in fear for his life from the swordman; certainly doesn't look like it. However, he was in quite a LOT of actual danger. I have seen demonstrations that show pretty conclusively that an attacker taking the initiative can close a 20 foot gap and strike FASTER than his target can draw a gun and shoot. That said.... once he drew and aimed, he had the upper hand. So.... it really still is probably excessive. ofc... I also think that swordman looked rather inexpert and was probably at the very limit of his ability just doing what he did. But being an unpracticed actor is maybe less relevant.
@@Morridini the laws for murder apply the same way the ones for drugs do so yes it is possible to commit murder in a foreign country and face no charges. I wouldn't say you could go on a homicidal killing spree and they'd do nothing. but a basic case of self defense against some thugs would probably be ignored.
@@Morridini
I mean, if you killed someone in a foreign country you'd have to face criminal charges in that country. Even if you managed to get back to the U.S. without getting caught, you'd either be extradited or be forced to serve your sentence in an American prison.
@@carpdog42 I think that there's another case here for Dr. Jones doing what he did.
For starters, running away didn't look possible. He was hemmed in by people and didn't know if he'd even be able to get away, or if they were accomplices.
But second, he had just gone through a bunch of fighting and was tired out. The man with the swords was fresh. Running, even if it was an option, may not have been a good option.
@@Morridini untrue in most cases , countries prosecute crimes committed on their territory...Indiana could get aid from the Amarican Embassy as Aid in his defense, its really unusual for any country to try to punish crime comited elsewhere...and remember that unless countries have a treaty for extradition countries will do everything to protect their citizens from being punished by other powers
For the next "laws broken" episode, how about the Incredibles? There's a lot to unpack in that one.
Oh yeah, there's a whole lot to unpack, just in that montage at the beginning, where superheroes are forced to retire by the lawsuits and protests
@@TheNeXTGUI Film Theory isn't very good and often times wrong.
@@rhyanwalsh5713 Isn't that what a theory is?
@@l3gacyb3ta21Objection. Not relevant. The topic isn't about a theory, it's about laws broken by The Incredible and others. That's objective not subjective.
Rhydini The Great MatPat talks about the laws that might make it possible with suing a superhero. Laws aren’t subjective.
Here I was expecting grave robing and murder charges, until he dropped what Jones had done to a minor...
Oh no...
Yep, I actually knew about that one so I was just waiting for it.
He told her that she knew what she was doing, which tells me she made him think she was older.
Marty Keaton He knew her father, he probably knew her for years.
@@martykeaton182 even if that's the case (a big if), as LE points out, that's legally irrelevant.
@@adamrodger5351 Indy found out somehow and broke it off.
I think most of the reason why Jones isn't in jail for the actions within the movie (not touching the stuff that was only said as part of a backstory) is that the US government, maybe the president himself, gave Jones a pardon for the mission he was sent on.
So if Indi was in jail for 80 years or so in the 1930's that means he would have gotten out just in time to watch the cristal skull in theaters
@jbiehlable Maybe he could have watched it in the common room's tv or watch it in theaters if he got parol or something, idfk it's just a joke lol
At the ripe old age of 118!
@jbiehlable jokes aside, I'm almost certain that a 100+ year old man would get some privileges in prison.
Not to mention life sentence in an Egyptian jail. You do NOT wanna get into jail in Arabic countries, even these days.
@@adaptorperish1322 well Egypt was a British mandate. I think the British would've deported him back to the US
"Let's go to something more lighthearted"
Me: is it murder?
"murder!"
Oh hey that's the spoiler line from the start of the video
25-10= JAIL😹😹
Objection: The scene where he shoots the sword wielder occurred in Egypt in the 1930's and accordingly the incident would be judged under British colonial law's standard of self defence. If the Australian genocides are anything to go by Indy would have been just fine
by the 1930s egypt was an independent nation, and went through several constitutions during the period. lot of nationalism at the time, so a judge might not look kindly on a foreigner killing a local.
@TopoRoger1 At any rate, it's not America, so American law wouldn't apply.
@TopoRoger1 while it is true that egypt was still in britan's sphere of influence at the time, it was no longer an offical protectorate and thus while britan could push the government to do or not do things, the domestic legal system was its own.
So of indy was important enough for britan to interfere, then egypt would likely do as the said.. otherwise he would be covered by their independent legal system.
@@neeneko depending on when in 1936 raiders takes place there might still be separate courts under British control for foreigners
Also, the whole scene was made up on the spot, because Harrison Jones had dysentery, and couldn't handle the actual sword fight that he was supposed to do.
He asked "can i just pull out my gun and shoot the guy?"
And made movie history.
It would be much more interesting to address laws in the time and places where the movie was set. It would take a bit more research than basing it on modern laws in the US, but definitely worth it.
I agree
We need an Egyptian law scholar who knows how self defence was defined and applied there in 1936
Daaaaaaam i had no idea Marian was 15! I thought she was a college student. That's crazy that the creators did that intentionally
According to the novel, Indy was 28 at the time.
Honestly, I don't understand why they didn't just raise Marion's age up to 18 when she had a relationship with Indiana Jones? She could still be considered a "child" (or at least an ingenue in terms of inexperience,) and it wouldn't be considered illegal. I know it was the 20th century in the film's timeline, but I seriously doubt it would've flied back then (even if it was the "norm" that wouldn't change its legal status.)
@Brandon Neifert it really sounds like you’re making stuff up. Where did you study psychology?
She wasnt. That is simply the estimate presented to us by Legal Eagle. She was canonically 17 at the time.
@@sidereus95 You seems to underestimate the status of women in the society of the 1930's.
For example, in France before 1945 (or 48, either way, way after the movie's date) you could legally marry a 13 years old girl. And CURRENTLY the legal sexual majority is 15.*
*Note that since the 80's, adult/minors sexual relationships are severely scrutined and they must meet parental approval; even then, if the adult in question is a figure of authority (teacher, etc...) then it is be considered that the minor was not in a correct mind to give a proper consent.
(basically the law was made so that you don't have those awkward situations liek in the US where teenagers get sentenced because one is 17 years old and 11 months and the other is 18)So yeah while it seems shocking today, the situation of Indy and Marian would only appears as moderately shoking to most people in 1936.
And many would in fact put the blame on Marian....
1. Objections:
- since the sword guys and his henchmen were pursuing Jones, it is unlikely he would have saved himself by walking away.
- The airstrip was technically under governance of Germany, therefore the bare-chested Wehrmacht soldier was perfectly justified to attack or kill the intruder (Jones)
- Jones is a US citizen and Germany is not at war with America. Therefore, all the attacks on German personel are just murders and assaults.
- Opening of the Ark of Covenant should violate many, if not all, international threaties about religious objects.
"Opening of the Ark of Covenant" ... turns out to violate a higher Law.
Egypt was under the control of Great Britain. Germany had no right to bring in a company of soldiers into British controlled territory.
@@JayM409 Big oof
@John Smith Wait, "invaded"? I'd assumed the German archeological expedition had permission from British/Egyptian government to operate in Egypt, complete with guards against marauding ... Bedouin or whatever.
It may have been possible to get permission to bring a small group of guards, but not a full scale expeditionary force.
As my archaeologist professors said about Indiana Jones: He’s a Pot Smasher. An archaeologist only interested in Treasure Hunting vs digging areas with consent and the intent to objectively study people’s burial artifacts.
That didn’t stop a lot of professionals and ordinary people from looting and robbing graves in the early 20th century...
Link is an archeologists lol
those graverobbers were working for physicians in training. _you_ come up with a better alternative for learning and studying the human body with that level of technology than an actual cadaver.
Indiana Jones is a believeable Archeologist as much as CSI are believeable crime scene investigators.
Did someone say Roy Chapman Andrews? He would sometimes use dynamite to remove artifacts. When he was through with a site it was said to be RCAed.
he seems to do both depending on what stuff from the expanded universe you go with... originally his grave robbing stuff was meant to be something extra he did to get more money for himself. a bunch of extra material including the raiders novelization talks about genuine archeology stuff he did but presumably we don't see that since it's not as interesting
It's been 84 years since Indy was put in jail
... as an archaeologist I love everything about this ❤❤
He has now become an artifact himself.
@@PongoXBongo He probably would've gotten a presidential pardon.
“Generally in American cinema, we don’t like our protagonists engaging in questionable sexual behavior. We’re not the French”
Shots Fired! Lol
Though, not sure to which side the shots were fired...
@@LeSarthois they were fired at the French.
The biggest defence of any French person is: “at least I’m not American”.
@@gglreallysucks5512 as an american i hate americas prudishness
@@dragon22214 America is nowhere near as "prudish" as the rest of the world.
Laws Broken : "The Blues Brothers", would be a fun episode. unpaid bar tabs, destruction of a shopping mall, fully automatic assault weapons, flame throwers and much more. Is the 18 years they get at the end realistic I feel it would be much higher.
YES!!
"Use of excessive force in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers.......has been approved"
@@taylorlibby7642 One of the most under rated lines in any comedy film in my opinion.
I think flamethrowers are actually legal.
@@danielkrohn4980 Tbh I think the film was pre the assault weapons bad as well, but either way still not legal to try and kill your ex with them.
I have an idea: a series on how you would defend movie characters.
Yes!!!
Yes please
Have an actual People vs Movie Character series
That would be legal advice.
I'm pretty sure it was originally called just 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. They only added the Indiana Jones part more recently so people clearly knew it was one of the movies in the series. Just a little pet peeve of mine.
Correct. Although, "more recently" still means since 2000, which means it's now been known as "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" for longer than it wasn't.
@@angelavestlee1 I had the tapes back in the 90s and it just had Raiders of the Lost Ark
@@angelavestlee1 see Kumagoro's comment
They renamed it to keep the original three pictures together in the Blockbuster Video.
For what it's worth, the onscreen title has never been changed to include "Indy and". But in the late 90s the home-video packaging also tried to re-order the trilogy by numbering the 'volumes' so that Temple of Doom came first. Just make something new, George...
Me: It's going to be tough to go through all the crimes in Indiana Jones.
LegalEagle: Actually it's going to be super easy, barely an inconvenience.
Me: is this a cross-over episode!
@@rhyanashah128 Crossovers are tight!
And then Indy did a backflip, snapped the bad guy's neck, and saved the day! Then went to jail for it.
@@rhyanashah128 unfortunately not and I'm gonna need you to get aaaalllll the way off of my back on this one.
@@Zumoari okay. Let me get off of that thing really quick.
Objection:
The Murders that were committed by Indiana Jones in this movie were mostly in the Kingdom of Egypt it would be Egyptian Law of that time period that would apply. Given the state of the world during that time period it's highly unlikely a newly formed Egyptian Government would go after Indiana Jones for Murder.
I would also argue Indiana Jones could not be charged by The United States with any crimes related to the theft and/or possession of antiquities since The United States asked him to get The Ark and in the end took possession of The Ark.
Well didnt Trump "suggest" to voters to commit voter fraud a few weeks back . He is a part of the goveremnt is he not. And he bearly had time to end that sentce before other part of the goverment and law enforcemt said that IF they did that THEWY would be prosicuted and isnt the legal system supposed to be free from political influence?
@@ronhan9 in this case, since the us gvmt asked indy to do it, indy might be considered a privateer. Whether thats legal now, idk, but it might not be.
@@Number1Irishlad you are infact not ment to follow an unlawful order even if you are in the military. So a non military person following an unlawful request(not even an order) can duffer consequences.
@@Number1Irishlad under US law, privateers *can* exist (though they haven't since the Civil War), but only the president has the authority to issue a letter of mark, the document which makes a citizen into a privateer
@@theendofit that doesn't apply to crimes under foreign laws, though. Indy was working for US military intelligence. A necessary part of the intelligence world is breaking foreign laws to gain access to classified or otherwise sensitive information or materials. Since Indy is a civilian contractor under non-diplomatic cover, he would subject to the laws of the foreign nations he's working in, assuming they could catch him. But not American law.
Read up Title 50 laws that govern foreign intelligence collection and covert action. Stuff like this happens all the time and is sanctioned by both the executive and legislative branches.
I think something that gets missed with the nostalgia goggles on is that Indy is not a paragon. In fact, the *only* difference between him and Belloq at the outset is that Belloq is a Nazi, and his arc in the film is re-examining his moral compass through the filter of the hunt for the Ark. Rewatching it as an adult brought a lot more depth than I recognized as a kid. I think the second movie messes this up by having him learn the same lesson again, except it’s canonically earlier.
Belloq also stole the McGuffin after Indy went through all the hard work twice, which is classic villain stuff.
The second movie is actually a prequel. That’s why he is such a jerk in it.
Pretty sure the point of Indie vs other heroes at the time is the fact that he's kind of a scummy guy. Like yeah! the guy's an asshole. The kinda asshole I wanna be!
Kinda thing.
@Sam Aronow...
Additionally it isnt until the Last Crusade that he actually turns the corner to become a better man and seeks the grail for more than himself and profit, something the earlier Indy probably wouldn't do.
@@ceresbane nah ill pass on the whole rape thing as somthing people want to be.
I don't think you can reasonably expect an attempt to flee in the sword fight, contrary to popular believe firearms aren't an instant win condition, they can be hard to aim and rechamber, and miss there are countless examples of officers missing multiple shots even point blank range, and an attempt to flee could have irreparably compromised his reaction time against a clearly far superior foe. When it comes to you're own life you're entitled to all the advantages you can get. The only thing I did think Jones should have done was wait for the man to start approaching, since making a fancy knife show wouldn't reasonably be a deciding factor in taking the shot.
OBJECTION!
Per the Egyptian Penal Code of 1937*, Book 3, article 245: "No penalty at all shall be inflicted on whoever kills another or beats or injures him/her with wounds in using the lawful self-defense or legitimately defending his/her property and funds, or another person's life or property and funds. . ."
Article 246: "The right of lawful self defense allows a person, in other than the exceptional cases defined hereinafter, to use the power necessary to obviate any act on one's life as prescribed in this law." The listed exceptions are:
- when it is "possible to rely in due course on seeking the protection of the public authority men" (article 247)
- "resisting a law officer when performing based on the duties of his office" (article 248)
- premeditated killing, EXCEPT when done to prevent a murder, maiming, kidnapping, or rape (article 249)
Since Indy is unable to contact local law enforcement, is trying to prevent a kidnapping, AND has pretty good reason to fear for his life, he should have no problem getting away with all the deaths in Egypt.
*I know, I know, Raiders is set in 1936, but I couldn't find an online copy of the Egyptian Penal Code of 1919.
Wait, but what about when he knocks over the workers in his truck? I haven't seen the movie in a while, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just a result of his poor driving skills? I wouldn't think he'd have a defense against that, as the only reason he was in the truck was to try and catch the nazis...who were trying to kill millions of people. Ok, perhaps it's legal ;>
Yeah, I raised that exact objection about a week before you and he still won't respond. I honestly think our LegalEagle is too busy making his next videos to read comments anymore. My experience is that he has a tendency to ignore, willfully or not, comments and messages. I had a corporate accountant with a master's in taxation and decades of experience watch some of his tax related videos, they proceeded to tell me just how incorrect and poorly researched these videos can be. Given that he tried to apply US law to Egypt rather than taking the time to look up the relevant laws for the Jurisdiction, not to mention the assertion that Indy was being chased when he was clearly chasing kidnappers and their victim, I'm inclined to agree with the opinion of the aforementioned corporate accountant. At this point, I'm of the mind that any and all legal analyses on this channel are for entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously.
36 should be Last Crusade, Raiders IMO is completely set in 1934
@@Icysnowman256 "Wait, but what about when he knocks over the workers in his truck?" He didn't drive over the workers, Indy was fighting with a nazi at the time and during that schuffle the truck veered at the side of construction site, knocking the ladders under some workers. No injury or death, was portrayed or implied. Only damage was for the half a dozen ladders and some random equipment. Crime? Nope, definately not.
@@10tailedbijuu he's using his expertise to review it based on American jurisprudence so people have a better understanding of American law. He's not an Egyptian lawyer. He's made that clear in most of his videos.
In one of my wife’s cultural anthropology classes when she was in college, they played the opening scene of Indiana Jones and then spent the rest of class talking about everything wrong with it (which was, spoiler...everything!)
I saw a history channel documentary where one of the professors they interviewed said that he did exactly that. I wonder how common this practice is...
I’d love to see a Laws Broken: The Simpson’s Movie
EPA! EPA! EEEEEEPA!!!!!
Trapping an entire city in a glass dome is definitely breaking some type of law.
@@gengarzilla1685 Numerous, probably.
@@gengarzilla1685 not to mention the laws of physics around that giant glas dome
Public nudity comes to mind.
9:13 The US government wouldn't likely prosecute Indy for removing the Ark from its country of origin because he was only doing what they themselves had requested/authorized him to do... some of their own "top men" had specifically hired him to prevent said valuable --- and militarily-advantageous --- artifact from falling into the hands of the Nazis.
"We're not the French" I'm not French or american and this still hurts.
Wow, I did not expect the war that happened as a result of my comment
The funny thing is, the whole point of that movie ("Mignonnes") is to criticize the oversexualization of pre-teen girls.
In the US, "moral guardians" decided it's child porn. Maybe they should reflect on THEIR perception of pre-teen girls?
@@ilikechestnuts9085 of every review I've seen, no one agrees that that was what the movie was about. The movie was just about rebellion. The movie infact glorifies the sexualization of children as a form of liberty. So no, I disagree with you.
@@ilikechestnuts9085 Even if that was the point of the movie, it failed miserably. It still showed underage girls engaging in sexual acts like twerking. It's like releasing a wild animal in the middle of a busy city tell people that wild animals are dangerous.
ILikeChestnuts I’m gonna make a movie about oversexualization of children by oversexualizing them, makes sense. My god you are dumb
See how your logic of "it's showing oversexualization, whatever the intent, so it is a crime of oversexualization" is pure stupid ?
Then Rambo/Terminator's movie/all horror movie and about 80% of all american's action movie are crime encouragement as well as glorifying crime because they depict murder.
"Sex crime" producers are also not only murderers but also rapist, because there is rape in it.
Because you know : just as you said, if you depict something, that means you're validating it.
And oh my god, the producers of "Hard candy" are in really, really, really deep mess... Go prosecute them!
Can you do a Laws Broken on the movie: Matilda!
It's a part of my childhood nostalgia but, I recently rewatched it and saw how many illegal crimes the wormwoods actually committed.
LegalEagle watching clip:
Also me: FRAUD!!!
Absolutely doesn't forget about Ms. Trunchbull either.
Oh Yeah. Matilda does show a lot of broken laws. The Laws of Physics.
"Luckily for you I'm not going to go off the deep end about maritime law." Translation: "But I totally could if I wanted to." Boss lawyer move.
thats not a translation but rather a continuation of the statement
I made a sad "Awh" when he said that, I wanted a Maritime law ramble.
I was hoping for him to go off the deep end about maritime law though.
"Yoooou're a crook, Captain Hook..."
According to a brief search via Wikipedia the Age of Consent in Illinois was raised to 16 in 1920 (16 Years before Raiders took place and 6 years before the relationship) so depending on when Marion's Birthday falls and exactly how precise the 10 years is since they last met it is possible it wasn't actually illegal!
yes both this and that later in Indiana Jones the Ultimate Guide they cemented/retconned Marion's Birthday to be March 23 1909 making Marion 27 in Raider and over the Age of Consent for Illinois at the time
Its never even implied that they had a sexual relationship is it? Not trying to make excuses by any stretch! A 27 yr old even flirting with a 15yr old, even back then, is still creepy.😬
@@zachtonack848 Thats good! Still a liiiittle creepy though haha
When he overturned those baskets, I'm kinda shocked that the fact he was trying to liberate a kidnappee is not a defense.
It would probably taken into consideration during sentencing. A minor fine.
The people accosted had no involvement in the kidnapping. Regardless of motives he's still attacking innocent people and potentially causing property damage as well.
@@Ivytheherbert but he didn't know that?
@@daydodog So? Is he allowed to just attack random people if they happen to be in the general vicinity of a crime?
@@Ivytheherbert but could the people be held liable for negligence or conspiracy? They should have heard Marian yelling for help and then effectively blocked Indy's path.
Who doesn't love Indiana Jones? Apparently, actual archaeologists...
actual archaeologists with a stick up there ass. Some people can distinguish the different between fictional movie and reality.
@@GarrettMoffitt As a historian who's met a lot of working archaeologists, I've never heard one legitimately having a problem with Indiana Jones. In fact, most got into the field because they saw movies like it as kids.
@@GarrettMoffitt almost all archaeologists my age and even a good bit older were in some way inspired by Indiana Jones, however we all also recognize that just about everything he does is pretty antithetical to modern archaeological ethics. No one thinks lowly of the movie character Indiana Jones, but we do think lowly of many of the archaeologists of his time that did many of the bad things he does in the film.
@@croesuslydias6488 "however we all also recognize that just about everything he does is pretty antithetical to modern archaeological ethics."
Which is true for how many famous "real world archeologists" like Carter or Schliemann that were not always quite rigid in their methodology?? Yeah i know those wold have been a few years before Doctor Jones, but still, holding him to higher standards than actual grave robbers WITH licenses??? hmmmm... seems not legit.
To be honest most actual archaeologists don't have to fight off Nazis.
Adding a clip of Ryan George was super easy, barely an inconvenience.
adding clips of Ryan Geroge is tight
@@SunnyGoodbye Wow wow wow
I will need you to get aaaall the way off of LegalEagle's back.
So you have a LegalEagle "Laws Broken" episode for me?
Then Indiana Jones did a backflip, snapped the bad guys neck, and saved the day
So Spielberg felt conflicted enough about the use of guns in E.T. to edit them out later (and then undo the edits even later) but in Indiana Jones he was apparently fine with his hero's back-story including taking advantage of a 15 year old girl. Okay then.
Good point
The 15year old started it and was the one who loved indie
@@teamjones8 Nah an adult has the obligation to refrain from engaging in sexual conduct with a person incapable of giving consent. And he knew she was a child
@@teamjones8 "The 15 year old started it" is not the great defense you think it is
i mean, one thing was implied and rather vague, the other thing was shown and then there is the Point of the Target audieance which was totally different... and that the change came about 20 years later
OBJECTION: The *dog's* name was Indiana.
Touche
His dad even said in the third movie:you named yourself after the dog?!
“We named the dog Indy.”
SALLAH: Please, what does it always mean, this... this "Junior"?
HENRY: That’s his name. Henry Jones...Junior!
INDIANA: I like “Indiana”.
HENRY: We named the dog Indiana.
MARCUS: May we go home now, please?
SALLAH: The dog? You are named after the dog?
INDIANA: I’ve got a lot of fond memories of that dog.
😄
"Americans don't like our protagonists engaging in questionable sexual behavior"
* James Bond had entered the chat *
James Bond is British.
@@robertjarman3703 of course. But he has had an overwhelming impact on american film and american pop culture.
@@robertjarman3703 additionally, some of the movies have been partially written and produced by americans
@@AlbintheOctopus * Matt Helm has entered the chat *
@@robertjarman3703 yet americans love it.
One of the fun things we talked about in my college archeology class was that Indy was more of a looter than an archeologist because he's more interested in finding valuable items then recording his findings
I read somewhere that actual archeologists would be more interested in the mechanisms of the temple than on the idol.
On the other hand we see him like for a total of 4 days.
@@fasdaVT We see a full "excavation" where all he does is break into an ancient temple and steal an idol. A real archaeologist would... I mean there are a lot of things a real archaeologist would do and they aren't that!
I think this is a safer call than the question of if he violated any particular law intended to stop artifact looting or grave robbing.
Indeed, looking at the 3 Indiana Jones movies as a whole (And ignoring all Fan Fic and Fan Films), The artifact that generates the "Belongs in a museum" quote seems the safest of all. It was recovered in a US location, by people who weren't him. The damage to the archeological record was done, and he made multiple attempts to return it to authority figures, and even repatriate it when it appeared to be at sea being removed from the country or shipped internationally. Side question, Assuming that the cross arrived in Utah by either legal mechanisms, or, by crimes so far in the past as to be irrelevant, does that then become an American/US artifact?
By far the worst look was the opening sequence of Temple, where he is clearly straight up trading a cultural item for a monetary commodity. This whole transaction is presumptively criminal, given the behavior of all involved, and in no way even resembles anything like archeological accepted practice. That said, is it an act that could be charged under any US law? At the time, or in present day? The McGuffin artifact doesn't appear to have been transported out of it's country of origin before leaving Indy's possession, let alone across any US state or national borders. I can certainly imagine it would be an offense under Chinese law, though, was the scene in question set in British ruled Hong Kong?
@@sircracked The opening of Temple of Doom was set in Shanghai I believe
Had to watch this twice because I couldn’t stop laughing at: “You know, kinda like the Taliban.” Damn that was well played.
2:08- Objection- counsel is speculating that Dr. Jones' personal collection of artifacts were stolen and not legitimately purchased.
or awarded/gifted
also they could be replicas.
@@DarthRagnarok343 In fact they are replicas 😁
OBJECTION: Regarding attempting to flee from the sword guy, he is not standing there casually. He is clearly exhausted and no longer capable of attempting to flee at that point.
Also he was attacked multiple times before, why would mr sword guy be different
Fun fact: Harrison Ford was having some -- to put it politely -- intense _digestive distress_ that day and just improved the scene because he felt too sick to do a full on fight scene.
@Live Life Objection: the swordsman was within the reasonable range to present opportunity with lethal force, the sword is a clear indicator of capability, and his flourish is a clear display of intent. The crowd pushed Dr. Henry Jones Jr. in an attempt to kill or at least disorient him. The shot fulfilled it's intended purpose of neutralizing the immediate threat, with a side effect of dispersing the hostile crowd, allowing Dr. Henry Jones Jr. to reorient himself in his attempted rescue of Marion Ravenwood.
@@wmdkitty To be more accurate Harrison had been playing to much Oregon Trail and was suffering more like dysentery.
@@rogerbaker9353 Objection: Dr. Henry Jones Jr had time to make multiple shots for a less lethal body part, namely the man's sword-arm, and could've easily hit it simply wounding the swordsman.
"can he steal artifacts and put them in a museum" well, as an american, no. But as a british, it is highly encouraged
The americans have no use for cultural items as they aren't familiar with the concept - if they come to your country to plunder, they take the gold and the oil...
Don’t forget the French. The British first learned of this career choice from Napoleon in Egypt.
@@arizonaexplorations4013 To be fair the french are also the ones who built hype for these things so before they were involved they wouldn't have been worth stealing to begin with because people didn't care, they were just... trash, really. Or worth the gold they were made out of. They have value because the french decided they did.
Hey, we've...mostly stopped doing that...
@@GriffinPilgrim You did? Last I checked, the US was still fighting at least seven conflicts...
- Afghanistan since 2001
- Maghreb since 2002
- Horn of Africa since 2002
- North-West Pakistan since 2004
- Somalia since 2007
- Syria since 2014
- Yemen since 2015
Objection! My client (before I advised him to assert his 5th Amendment right and not incriminate himself further) never said anything to explicitly indicate that the relationship he was confessing to was ever intimate.
Your honor, he knew it was wrong, he was confronted with the knowledge of knowing it was wrong and not once did he challenge that statement, if it hadn't been intimate, then why not challenge it?
@@jacksonschanneljohannsen6478 it is certainly possible to construct a scenario where he used his Professor's daughter's teenaged infatuation with him for some lesser nefarious purpose. To help him cheat at an exam, perhaps?
My 20 year old grandpa started courting my grandma when she was 14… Evidently no one had a problem with this in Alabama. They got married as soon as he came back from WWII when she was 18
@jaredjams4267 Depending on country it isn't even frowned upon today. Here in Germany it's perfectly normal for 14yo girls to have boyfriends aged 19-21.
They admit to a relationship, never said anything about sex though.
FYI: I have a book on slang from the 1930's. The term "top men" was an reference to Army Intelligence.
Missed this series, politics makes me depressed about the future but critiquing the legality of movie character's actions always makes me smile.
Fiction > Reality
Why not both?
Another hero killed by facts.
You need to do The Fugitive and work out how long he would get for doing all of the things he does to prove his Innocence.
Or any action movie where they accidentally kils hundreds by driving insane in order to save one person
I been wondering about that for 15 years
Ooh that reminds me of a movie that was done by Opening Arguments that I think Legal Eagle would enjoy but be really tired by watching. "Double Jeopardy" Where as the main character has been falsly convicted of killing her husband, since she found out that he's not dead she's allowed to actually kill him.
@@U1TR4F0RCE which isn't even what double jeopardy means but makes for entertaining fare
@@verde7595 yep, and to make things even more entertaining she breaks a lot of other laws trying to kill her husband.
This is actually entertaining. I like that he analyzes and tallies the crimes, instead of just saying whether it would or wouldn't be legally possible
Objection: "Let's declare this self defense, so take one away."
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works!
Indeed: it would negate the addition of another one, but would not take one away.
I think the idea is that justified Nazi-punching is worth a point in Indy's defense.
@@MisterNohbdy Alltho he did immidiately after that do some manslaughter against innocent civilians.
Indiana Jones reminds me a lot of a great line from Atlantis: The Lost Empire: "If you gave back every stolen artifact from a museum, you'd be left with an empty building."
This especially applies to the British
I mean, that depends on the type of museum... I'd say a museum of natural history probably has a good chance of having some legally acquired exhibits.
You could display artifacts from your own country.
Watching this reminds me of a story my Archeology professor once told the class about how he was working on an excavation down in Mexico and out of the jungle several jeeps pulled up and men carrying machine guns got out. They then questioned him and demanded to speak to the archeologist in charge to make sure they had the proper paperwork to be performing the excavation. My professor then took them to said person in charge and everything was good and they were allowed to continue on. The men were with the government, and had to make sure they weren't looters out to steal artifacts to sell, and from what my professor said he felt at the time that had the paperwork not been good that the men would have shot them, so countries do take this kind of thing seriously. Likewise had the men in the jeeps been looters themselves then they likely would have just shot them as well.
He also discussed how one needs to have permission to remove and take back any artifacts from the site. In this case as a professor at a university he was permitted to take back a certain amount of artifacts for the university, but those artifacts had to be cataloged and approved by the proper people in charge. Basically he couldn't just take whatever he wanted, and as he put it normally the government doesn't want you taking anything really nice or good, like say a golden idol or things that could have real worth. My professor therefore presented them with a bucket full of pottery shards which they easily approved and he was allowed to take back. Apparently though previously the professor had used Elmer's glue to put said shards back together to get a complete pottery jar, then soaked it in water so it would go back to pieces. When he got back to the university he glued them all back together again and was able to put the full pot on display in the university museum.
If Indy got 84 years and served it all he'd be getting out right around now
Legal Eagle : "Monkeys cant be convicted of crimes"
Me : "Note to self, look into genetic manipulation before committing a crime. Also is THAT legal advice?"
Lmao seeing as we are all just chimps with delusions of grandeur and anxiety problems, I'd say this would be a good defense in court.
"Your honor, I plead not guilty due to being a primate!"
There is actually a history of animals or even inanimate objects being charged with crimes and taken to court. Look up Historia Civilis on TH-cam, he has a video about it.
I think it is legal advice
I really don’t know why he has to put his political beliefs in this video it’s clear what he is getting at if you follow politics at all
And in biological terms: we ARE Monkeys, even if creationists would highly disagree, but they don't know shit.
Objection: while Indiana was being attacked by the sword fighter, he was chasing after a kidnapping victim who he likely feared for the life of. The aggressor was clearly acting as a distraction for this kidnapping. It was not merely self defense, it was also defense of another.
Also he seems too tired to run away from the guy with the sword.
@@Altrantis
he didn't have to run away, he only had to WALK away.
@@rocksfire4390 The swordsman was part of a group of multiple assailants actively coordinating in a pursuit to attempt to kill him. Given that Dr Jones had already attempted to retreat and was followed with intent to continue the attack, it had already been demonstrated that he would not be allowed to walk away.
I would have been curious how Cairo law compares to US law on his subject.
I'm pretty sure the witnesses would be biased enough where it wouldn't matter if he was defending another person especially while traveling in a foreign country.
The temple he stole the idol from couldn't have been 'abandoned'. After all, how would the native population be able to recognise the idol if they had never seen it before. Therefore it should belong to them :)
Most christian artifacts look recognisably christian, because they are to depicting jesus on the cross. The same would be probable for natives recognising their god in the image of the idol, it would be resemble to other items they are knowing. Not to saying they have ever witness the one Indiana Jones found.
I was about to ask how the natives could have seen the idol when that would have required getting past all those traps, but then it occurred to me that the natives could be doing maintenance on the traps every now and then.
Is there any laws that pertain to the length of an artifact being lost before it becomes public domain? Otherwise any finds of artifacts found of a society that either doesn't exist or had migrated to another region if not found by that societies original descendents would be considered theft.
@@TheJackl317 No, most countries (today anyway) have laws forbidding the extraction of cultural artefacts without permission from the country's department of cultural affairs. Even if its in your own yard, it can still be considered looting. There are exceptions to this based on what the artefact is, but I know of Italian farmers who have gotten busted for searching for tombs buried beneath their fields and looting artefacts.
@@Blokewood3 this is a year old comment, but the idea that there's a bunch of people whose job is to like fix up traps in old tombs and pyramids and temples delights me to no end, and I want to watch that tv show.
Like...there would be a ticketing system, right? To submit repair requests, like they do for normal buildings? And there would be janitors, and people who occasionally replace the old traps when they break (which of course involves not getting killed by the other traps).
10:10 from the first time i saw this movie i have never interpreted her words "i was a child" to mean she was underage. it has always meant she was naive and inexperienced in matters of the heart/body. there've been countless mentions just like this one in many tv shows and movies, none of which stipulated that the person was underage, but, rather, innocent and unsophisticated. think steve martin in The Jerk. also, i never really bought that indiana/marian had a sexual relationship, but that he broke her heart, which is why her father despised him.
SAME lmao, i always thought she was naive and believed some romantic promises that he broke. but he's right the text of the film proves me wrong 😭
Came here to make the same comment.
She doesn't mean it like that, it's not statutory rape because it's before 1930 the age of consent in the United States was 16
@@marcuspacheco3815 The movie takes place in 1936 so "Five years ago" would actually be 1931.
@@RunawayTrain2502 it was ten years ago so 1926
LAWS BROKEN: WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT
Quite a lot. And that's just the physics
Just making that movie should have been illegal.
@@lookingbehind6335 Objection: "Who Framed Rogger Rabbit" is a great movie! :p
I'd be curious to see you do this with The Mummy. The Brendan Fraser one. I've long preferred Rick O'Connell to Indiana Jones.
Love that movie.
He doesn't even pretend to be any sort of academic. He's just in it for the killing and money.
He needs to do this, but with Scooby-Doo (the old animated series). It always fascinated me to guess how many laws they broke in every episode.
Search "the crimes of Scooby-Doo" and you'll see someone else has tried that with the first season.
“And by museum, I mean jail.” I love it.
Yes, I'm surrounded on all sides and there's a guy twice my size brandishing a sword half my size. Clearly I am not in enough trouble to use deadly force.
Actually, Indy could have shot all his attackers in the marketplace but chose to save his ammo for the greatest threat there. So he was exercising a lot of restraint until he was too tired or too cornered to continue just punching.
Well, after what our eagle just said it was not enough to use deadly force. If I got that rigth the guy with the sword should have attacked him instead of just posing with his sword, like if he would charge at him I am pretty sure deadly force would have been justyfied
Indy was acting within his rights when he pulled the gun, but after that he was in the position of power, and pulling the trigger when the man with the sword was making no attempt to advance to striking distance constitutes excessive use of force
"25 - 10 = JAIL"
Hmm, math checks out. Jail it is!
So you think a 27 year old White Male in 1924 would go to jail for consensual sex with a 15 year old?
Yes, I understand it probably doesn't count of consent. Definitely today, but I don't know consent laws. I mean, if her father knew and did nothing, then nothing would come of it.
Because this is the internet: I AM NOT DEFENDING HIS ACTIONS HERE. Just pointing out the realities.
@@GarrettMoffitt In late 1800's there was a christian feminist movement to basically double the age of consent. By 1926 all states, except Georgia (14), had an age of consent of at least 16, with 21 states having the age being 18.
Also, it is just as likely her father didn't know about it.
thats right i learned at a priest seminar that everything in the double digits is a affront against the lord, so prison it is
rape in the 1930' is considered a mis understanding
Really, nobody replied *15* yet?!?
Was "I'm not going to go off the deep end on maritime law" an intentional pun? because if so, it was very good
From someone who used to be in law school I'm not lawyer I just went to law school and I didn't pass the bar but I absolutely love this channel this series
"Indiana Jones belongs in a museum. And by a museum, I mean jail".
...
"Mommy, why can't daddy come home?"
"Well, sweetie, daddy's...in a museum."
But Indiana was acting as a government agent for most of the movie, so would he really be in trouble?
True.
that fact does not make you immune to law most of the time if you are caught the government will deny any knowledge of your actions or motives
Troy Porter Ah the government will deny that...
Ah yes, if you're caught. If you're not caught, you'll be given the title "Big Boss" and be viewed as a hero.
SteveN “kept you waiting, huh?”
Finding out Indy is a guilty violating a 15yr old has made this the scariest Halloween of my life.
she was actually 17 in the canon series
@@houseofaction more important question is what age Indy was BecAue he was a Teachers Assistent , still illegal yes but if he was 21 and she was 16 it’s not AS Bad
@@houseofaction The lawyer notes that the script makes her younger than 17. This was later retconned in writing to make it "canon".
@@Dadofer1970 Script is typically not considered strong canon. Unless its on screen or in a publication, it shouldn't be.
And in publication, Marion was 17-18, not 15.
@@khamjaninja. They thought it would be exotic. And yeah, it still surprises Americans that *Europeans* have their age of consent between 14-16.
I think it’d be fun to see a Legal analysis of Clue
Every person in that movie breaks at least one law
Objection!: we just don't know if the sword guy, or the people in scaffoldings, survived their injuries or not.
Sustained. Particularily the people with the scaffoldings had a pretty good shot at surviving their fall.
Does sound more like wanton endangerment
I'd love to see a Terry Gilliam short about sword guy going to the hospital, recovering, and questioning his life as a swordsman.
I'm pretty sure the swordsman is dead, lol
I didn’t realize how rapey old movies are until I went on a Clint Eastwood western marathon. It’s very odd that no one ever brought it up back in the day.
Feminists did. But people reacted to it pretty much the same way they do now.
It was all about sexual liberation. They were supposed to really like it in the end, see. If it was "legitimate rape", women were permanently damaged property, and they or their menfolk were supposed to go on a revenge rampage.
Viewer: "That law didn't exist back then!"
LegalEagle: *"I'm gonna pretend I didn't hear that."*
@Climate Change will Kill us All !!! I admire your single minded focus.
Yeah, that bothers me too... if you look at a movie set at a certain time period, the laws it's weighed against should be the laws of that period...not laws set decades later.
late comment. About Statutory rape: I'm not sure an outright sexual relationship was ever entailed. For all we know, it could have been an "innocent" relationship, which was then terminated by Indy leaving and breaking the young girl's heart ( and that was actually what he admitted to with his "I did what I did" = " I left")
I think Lucas an Spielberg wrote in the script the relationship was sexual... Which doesn't make Indy a creep.... It makes Lucas and Spielberg creeps.
@@mikejunior211 I think Spielberg was against it. It was Lucas who was pushing it……ew
@@mikejunior211 The audience didn't see the script. I've seen this movie a bunch of times and this is the first I've heard of a 'sexual relationship'
This is what I've always thought.
@@mikejunior211 I'm no writer so I'm not entirely sure how scripts in movies work, but why would that bit of information be there? Also are you able to show us a source because now I'm curious.
You should do a video on why Sovereign Citizens are full of it.
Why? The only people who believe sovereign citizens aren't full of shit are sovereign citizens-and I doubt they watch LegalEagle.
ooof. that could be a whole channel, though it would be nice to see debunking with better presentation than, say, virgo triad
Yes please
Darthane Because it’s always funny to make fun of them.
It doesn't take a legal expert to know why they are full of it.
A fist can absolutely kill you. The idea that "well, he was only threatening to punch my face into the pavement, so I can't use a weapon to defend myself" is questionable. It's a really hard line to draw, especially given that if the person knocks you unconscious, you are at their full mercy.
Black people have their knockout games.
As we seen with the Treyvon Martin case. I can't remember the name of the guy who killed him who got off scott free. The guy was a POS though as we found out later, though he did one good thing that made the news iirc. The cuts on the back of his head weren't that bad, and I don't know if Martin was big enough or strong enough to actually kill. I'm on the fence with that one, but there's enough reasonable doubt to acquit.
“He tried to commit genocide against the entire world by arming the Nazis with the arch of the covenant.” This is officially my favorite sentence.
The Four Horsemen xD you’re right. I’m not sure if it was auto correct, or if in my haste, I misspelled the word. Either way, I stand corrected.
Reverse text time.
Ecnis eht Swej yllaretil did eht emas, neht eht Swej era elbisnopser rof eht emas ediconeg, edisa morf Eht Gnuoy Skrut (Nainemra ediconeg), Romdoloh, Giznad, Teivos Noinu, ot eman a wef.
@The Four Horsemen Ark of the Covenant.
The scene when Simba returns in the original Lion King is sort of a trial, I always wondered if scar's confession wouldn't be considered under duress.
Which system of law does the jungle court use.
@@HappyBeezerStudios Trial by combat, and Scar lost 🙂
These are wild animals so the law wouldn't apply.
"Is Indiana Jones allowed to steal foreign artifacts to put in a museum?"
All Western nations: *sweating profusely*
Hey, America never stole any *foreign* artifacts.
We made sure we stole the land they were on first.
It was legal at the time.
Are Eastern nations 100 percent innocent?
@@timriggins70 Possibly excepting Japan, pretty much. They were the colonized nations, rather than the colonizers, and so never had the same opportunities for widespread theft.
@@ZeteticPhilosopher But on some alternate Earth out there they probably did as they colonized the western nations
"We're not the French"
That's a serious yikes
Please explain
@@gufosufo337 There is a big protest against Netflix for exibit this movie. Some people say it's a movie that shows sexualization of infancy. Some argue the movie itself claims against sexualization of infancy and tries to explore the empowerment of women and French version of the poster is not explicit, the Netflix version is explicit and wrong.
I was hopping someone pointed this as a joke. I'm kind of lost in translation here.
@@constanza1648 so cuties, but french.
@@gufosufo337 Yes. It is the same movie. The approach on the commercialization is different. I haven't watch it, so I can't tell about the content.
But there is a great vid about Harrison Ford "predatory romance". His films usually have a lot of rape and abuse. (The usual for US cinema).
th-cam.com/video/wWoP8VpbpYI/w-d-xo.html
@@constanza1648 I find this protest strange. Your music industry is filled with minors in skimpy clothes. Do I even have to say Britney spears? I believe she was about 12 when she started. And she isn't the only one.
Very entertaining as well as educational. Hope you'll tackle Matilda (1996) next, in which there is a lot to talk about Child Negligence and Cruelty as well as Illegal Car Sales.
Hard disagree, he couldn’t have escaped the crowd safely, as referenced by his attempt to escape and subsequent receipt of an assault. The guy had a sword, and Indy had no other reasonable option for self defense. The crowd is clearly proven hostile, his back is quite literally to a wall, and it could be argued that the flourishing the man with the sword did constitutes swinging at Indy. Whether or not a person is scared does not make their life any less in danger. An infant wouldn’t be scared of licking a power outlet, but the parents would still be liable, for instance.
The legal doctrine I made up called “But, it’s only a Nazi” applies here. See Wasserman V Wolfenstein 3D 1997.
That seems very similar to the case of "Dudepool v Rictofen", which is still ongoing from 2009.
My wife and I were just watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and I was incredibly irked by the entire premise behind Harry being in the Tri-Wizard Tournament - because Barty Crouch claims that Harry was entered into a “binding magical contract” against his will and without his knowledge, he now has to follow through with competing?! I would love to see a breakdown of this and some of the other “magical” legalities in Harry Potter - and what their ramifications could be compared to our Muggle laws!
I understood magical law to be more like laws of physics: completely binding, unable to be interpreted, and not written by man.
This deserves more likes. I want to see that breakdown as well.
I mean, the fact that magical laws are absolutely outlandish, extremely unfair and completely incomprehensible and governed by a bunch of uneducated, inept and often corrupt buffoons is one of the main themes throughout the book series.
Oh Harry Potter has a ton of shady stuff...
both on the sides of things done TO HArry (basically kidnapped by Hagrid and left with his relatives without a proper adoption process, punished for Dobby performing magic without trial or chance to defend himself, kept in the dursley residence with the help of Order guards, attempted murder by Dementor via Dolores Umbridge, the Tournament, the blood quill torture and Moody using an unforgivable at the kids, the Slander through the Prophet and Minister, Snape accusing the kids of perjury without any consequences and the various atrocities from the last book "undesirable No 1" and all...) and by Harry like trapping his cousin in the snake "cage" while freeing the snake... brewing an illegal/controlled potion in book 2. flying the car, breaking into the Ministry in book 5 and more... oh and the DA was also illegal i guess.
Some things apply to others as well, Ron getting hit with love potions from Romilda Vane's chocolates e.g., Luna being mercilessly bullied... and of course lots of child abuse sold as "humorous"...
Firstly, it's anyone's guess whether the Ministry for Magic has laws on the books that prohibit coercing someone into following a contract they've been bound to. But even if they did have laws about this, do you understand what a binding magical contract is? It's not a literal paper or verbal contract. It's the magic underlying certain actions or states (such as having your name chosen by the Goblet), which binds you to certain terms, and certain consequences for violating them. It's implied that such contracts can't be nullified. So there probably would have been very dire consequences if Harry had tried not to compete; if it was anything like an Unbreakable Vow, he would have died. It's not like they "made" him compete just because "them's the rules"; they "made" him compete because he was magically compelled to do so, regardless of what they did. I put "made" in quotes because they actually didn't _force_ him to compete at all. He could have refused, and let the magical contract bite him in the ass. But he didn't. He chose to compete.
If you're thinking about liability, that falls squarely on Barty Crouch Jr., the one who put Harry's name in the Goblet without his consent. I think you'd be hard-pressed to place liability on the staff administering the Tournament, because they had taken reasonable and seemingly effective precautions to prevent such a scenario (the Age Line, only letting people submit their own name, etc.). They had no reason to think that anyone other than their own staff would be able to bypass these measures, and no reason to think that one of their own staff would actually sabotage the Goblet in order to submit a student against their will.
Objection: Disparity in numbers, an immediate history of being lethally attacked, an obvious display of lethal weapon with reasonable intent to harm, plus no where to retreat is absolutely a strong case for self-defense. Also, the defendant is in Cairo and not subject to American law, so there.
Egypt was no longer a British territory at the time so it raises a very big question on whether he gets away with this because no one actually stopped him or if given the chance he would have just been executed.
Although not a British territory, the country remained under British control until 1956.
Legal Eagle: Again we see there is nothing in your childhood which I cannot take away.
Underrated comment
Last time i was this early, the Ark hadnt been lost.
Strange, we have TOP MEN working on it.
Well,according to Graham Hancock it's still in Ethiopia. Allegedly...
Objection your joke needs more biblical references like: The last time I was this early the tablets of God's commandments Moses brought down had not been cast down and their remnants placed in the Ark of the Covenant.
Here is the next movie
Indina Jones: Dateline Edition with Chris Hansen
Why don’t you have a seat.
@@Soul74 You do realize that such an episode would end with Indie getting away after an action packed chase scene? :p
Or killing himself once he’s caught.
@@justincoleman3805 Unlikely. Indie's personal healthcare plan is "I drank from the Holy Grail in the 1940s."
day 14 of asking legal eagle to react to all the court cases from the show Community
You are the true hero
Absolutely. Considering we’re in the darkest timeline currently
Yes
Fully agree
Three months later and he still hasn't. It makes me so Changry...