John wasn’t committing a felony at the time, and I don’t think anti-duress is a thing, so did Robinson’s threats have any legal standing?
John wasn’t committing a felony at the time, and I don’t think anti-duress is a thing, so did Robinson’s threats have any legal standing?
Comments
Reminders for Commenters:
All responses must be A) sincere, B) polite, and C) strictly watsonian in nature. If “watsonian” or “doylist” is new to you, please review the full rules here.
No edition wars or gripings about creators/owners of works. Doylist griping about Star Wars in particular is subject to permanent ban on first offense.
We are not here to discuss or complain about the real world.
Questions about who would prevail in a conflict/competition (not just combat) fit better on r/whowouldwin. Questions about very open-ended hypotheticals fit better on r/whatiffiction.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
One day paid suspension, three years after investigation, and public pressure.
Criminally, no. I suppose an ambitious DA could try to charge him with involuntary manslaughter by saying that John was engaged in vigilante actions which led to Ellis’ death. But given that Ellis put himself in that situation voluntarily and Hans’ plan was to kill the hostages anyway, any halfway decent lawyer could make the argument that Ellis would have been just as dead even if John had surrendered.
John would have been putting himself in mortal danger by giving himself up, I doubt any judge in the world would assume he had a duty to take on that exposure.
Plus it wouldn’t even save the life of Ellis in the end, their plan was to herd the hostages onto the roof & kill them all by explosion anyway.
Ellis was so clearly out of his depth in that scenario it’s painful to watch him come to the realization of what everyone, including John on the radio, knows just before he dies…
Many of John’s actions during the movie are technically felonies, so a ridiculously overbroad application of the felony murder rule could apply. In practice, it would only occur if the DA was vindictive or corrupt, such as if Ellis’ wealthy family wanted John in jail as a scapegoat for his death.
He would have the necessity defense, which would balance against the argument that his actions caused the terrorists to kill a hostage. A prosecutor could argue that his actions created a greater danger than if he had done nothing. I do not believe any jury would vote to convict him of a crime though.
Legally, is McClane a vigilante? He’s off-duty, but he was just visiting the building to see his wife, and the cops can confirm that. Could a lawyer say he’s just a really lucky, ballsy hostage who fought back?