Tom do you think in the first case age and health played a big factor in the case. As it could easily be argued had the older man not followed the younger assailants they could have returned to continue the assault. And do property lines effect the"stand your ground/castle doctrine"? Ie does it just encompasses your house or does it include all property the house is on? As a gun owner, military veteran with brothers in blue, its part of training is to fire until the threat has ended...and with the current laws its difficult to know ones limit as to what one can or can't do to defend themselves as the laws are not 100% clear as normal.
I've been on the fence about getting skillshare already, might as well pull the trigger now and give you some extra support.
Před 3 lety+7
Your audio is super quiet while you are speaking but super loud at the beginning and end. Please use your sponsor 'Skillshare' to learn how to do audio correctly. Thanks!
Im posting this here so it dosent gets lost in all the other comments but can you react to "The Trial of Charles I (1649)" by Historia Civilis whould be pretty appreciated if you did
In relation to "receiving no punishment" my dad was on a jury for a criminal case in which an ex husband violated a restraining order by stepping on the ex wife's property. Their kids were at the wife's house and they called their dad and asked him to drop off their sleds because it was a snow day. He stopped in front of the house and called them to come and get the sleds, but he was unable to get an answer, so he walked up and left the sleds on the front porch and immediately walked back to his car and left. So he technically stepped on the property. During the jury instructions they were told that they had to find him guilty if he violated the protection order, including just stepping on the property. So they pretty much had to find him guilty. But their recommended sentence was a $1 fine. The judge followed the recommendation.
The judge who signed the original protection order belongs in prison. No government should ever be allowed to tell a father he cannot go to the home where his kids live. If ex wife is scared of dad she can give up custody then dad has no reason to go near her.
@@AttorneyTom I know you feel like if you don't yell that people won't be able to hear you(like in Honey I Shrunk Them Kids) but this is a text based comment on the CZcamss so there is no need to become angry and yell.
Police claiming they have the power to grant you immunity is one of those things that, to me, feel like would result in the overturning of a conviction since the information you provided was based on a false understanding of pretexts. While they should not be shackled to the truth all the time, Police should not be permitted to misrepresent material facts to anyone they have detained or are interviewing. Agreeing to grant immunity when they do not have the power to or do not actually intend to sounds a lot like Fraud.
Idk, from a certain perspective, it's about as legal as undercover work, such as that of a sting operation. Is it illegal _then_ for the cops to lie to people guilty of criminal activity? (Not that that makes it cool for them to lie to people in custody, but I don't think it is always necessarily illegal or unjustifiable. I definitely have mixed feelings about it.)
The police are allowed to lie to you. Do not trust anything a police officer says. They will try to get you to admit to committing a crime. Never believe anything a cop says if he’s trying to get you to admit to a crime. Duh!
What's funny is that Thomas Greer the old man who shot the robber, actually got no charges and in the State of California nonetheless. Dude was incredibly lucky to not get a charge
My uncle went to his place of business, there was 3 men armed with guns and woman breaking in. He shot 3 of them. The first guy who died was ruled self defense. The second guy who died who was second degree murder dropped to manslaughter. The third who was wounded was assault with a lethal weapon. The second guy and third guys were running. Mind you the conditions of this encounter changed quickly, likely seconds, from self defense to murder charges.
(This scenario is somewhat based on the dream I had last night) Let's say someone is threatening to torture you before they kill you while having a gun, and all you have is a sharp object like a knife or a pair of scissors. Not wanting to deal with whatever the person has planned for you, you use the sharp weapon you have to commit "self die". What type of charges would go against the person? Would they still be charged for murder even though their intended victim "commited die" before they could get to them?
They would definitely be guilty of false imprisonment, and depending on the state you are in, by falsely imprisoning you they could be guilty of attempted murder and attempted assault as that act is in furtherance of the crime of murder and assault.
@@nicholascopsey4807 In Canada where I come from this would be a murder charge or at the very least a charge for aiding or abetting a suicide which could be up to 14 years in prison. In America is looks to be about the same.
@@itshunni8346 is there such a crime in any state? The reason I used attempted murder and attempted assault is because the only reason the guilty party didn’t go through with the crime of murder and assault is because you took your own life first.
Kidnapping is a felony with a reasonable risk of death (torture as well, duh) and a death that occurs during and related to the commission of such a crime usually falls under the felony murder laws that many US states have. (Federal law specifically includes kidnapping.) If the getaway driver can be charged with murder, I'm sure a torturer would be as well.
Witches don't burn on contact with water, they melt. But your bigger concern would be the negligent homicide charge for dropping your house on her sister.
If someone breaks in to your house and they get killed as a result while fleeing would that count as felony murder for the perpetrator since they caused the initial felony that lead to a death?
I’d argue that since the crime was over and they weren’t in a position where it’s legally defensible to shoot them, the death was the result of illegal action from others and not the original perp
@@Bhubnipz unfortunately it's generally on both parties in this case, anyways as far as the murder in question the guy wasn't even charged, so... It depends at least in that jurisdiction the prosecution decided it wasn't murder
@@Bhubnipz right, and the 80 year old had to chase them to shoot the lady how are you going to the danger if you feel threatened. They probably didn't charge him because of his age and maybe the history of the criminals
Everyone is hammering on the typo, which made me think, what was the most catastrophic typo ever made in law? I know at least one bill had to be passed again because they forgot the word "not"... It comes up in certain contracts where it can change the meaning too.
Not a typo but a big mistake in legislation. There was a brief period in Ireland in 2015 when the government accidentally passed a bill stating that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 was unconstitutional. However this left us with a loophole where ecstasy, ketamine, magic mushrooms, benzos and other drugs became legal for a day or two. The government had to bring in emergency legislation to make them illegal again but plenty was had in that day or two let me tell you 😄
The attorney my wife works for back in the 70’s prosecuted his wife’s traffic citation and won. There was a news article about it because what husband would have the willingness to prosecute his wife and win? He paid for it twice. Once from wife and once from the fee.
Yes, I'm genuinely happy whenever you upload. I feel like I'm learning, or maybe just learning to think critically about a situation, because I am not a student of any kind, nor do I live in America, but your editor is amazing and the fact you cop the "conspiracies" and dropkicking toddlers stuff on the chin and can laugh about it, I appreciate and respect that. I love that you're actually relatable and actually makes the thought of dealing with a lawyer less scary. I think. I mean, I guess at the end of the day, it depends.
If I'm not mistaking the same same couple has robbed the old timer 1 or 2 more times prior to this, I think he was just making sure they didn't come back again lol
Regarding the case for the man shot the Intruder in the back...they did not file charges against him. He had already been robbed twice before so the threat of immediate and grevious harm was a continuing threat because they had been robbing him multiple times, or at least that's what it looks like the DA said. And I'm very glad. Also, she lied and wasn't pregnant. And the getaway was being by the male intruders mother. Just great people all around.
About the man who shot the woman in the back he was declared innocent. The couple had robbed his house multiple times in the past and the women was not pregnant like she claimed.
Oh my meme made it in at 3:11! I’m glad you found it funny. My wife had the idea for the template and I fired up MS paint and brought it to life, so that’s the combined work of two geniuses. As a side note I honestly had no idea you’d even remember about the judge Tom series because you made the video about it like a month ago; as soon as I release a video, everything I said in it gets completely wiped from my memory like it never happened, so I’m pretty impressed.
I have a question, let's say someone gets charged for hurting someone, but not enough to kill them, and in court the victim says that they dont want them to be punished, what would happen in this scenario?
My first impression before watching: yes, I would think you could be charged with murder as you committed an act which a reasonable person would consider to be deadly
I was thinking similarly. Before getting to that part in the vid I'm thinking there's an expectation of serious bodily harm when it comes to stabbing someone.
@@James68W Yeah, I think it's interesting because you get those cases where the person is found civilly liable but not guilty criminally, but this could be the opposite. 😄 Still pretty sure any competent defence lawyer would try to make something of it at trial-medical experts, testimony from EMTs, whatever case law exists, etc.
@@jjpaq I'd bet that any competent prosecutor would focus on the mens rea. Similar how attempted murder is prosecuted and that lack or refusal of medical treatment is irrelevant from the perspective of the criminal law. Fun fact: German law has a specific law for such cases called 'Schwere Körperverletzung mit Todesfolge' (grievous bodily harm with deadly outcome) It's wheb you - for instance - beat someone up with no intent of killing them, neither planned nor in the moment - and they end up dying. The crucial detail is whether death is likely and whether it was intended. (Stab in heart or head, homicide. Stab in leg to stop them from attacking and he dies anyway, this specific law)
FYI, that's Megimin's hat. She's a mage that specializes in explosion magic from the show Konosuba, the guy in my pfp is named Kazuma Sato and he's the main protagonist of that show.
Hey, Im a Law student, also from Africa/Botswana...a Fan too, love your videos Am gonna use you till im done with my law school btw lol❤, just started this year
Good question! So the answer “it depends.” Lol. Those extra factors could lead to self defense. You only know when the threat has passed when it is reasonable…so then the question is who decides it is reasonable…
As for the castle doctrine law, at least in my state, it does not only remove the duty to retreat. It does indeed allow you to immediately assume that someone forcibly and unlawfully entering your home, workplace, or vehicle, is there to hurt you and allows you to reasonably believe you or others inside are at risk of grievous bodily harm.
@@override367 that is utterly untrue. I live in Texas. so does attorney Tom. You can use castle doctrine as a defense if you do that, but it won't work most of the time. If, for example, people are fleeing your property then it doesnt stand. Further that only applies to your actual house, your yard and lands are not included, so just trespassing isn't enough.
I wanted to watch this video but I accidently refreshed the homepage. However I remembered the title and had to type into the search bar "Is it murder if you stab someone and they refuse treatment". I believe I might be on a watchlist now.
1. I want my attorney 2. I plead the 5th 3. Don't look in the back I dont want you to disturb the dead body. Walks away in handcuffs.... this is what went through my head when the person said I have 3 things to tell you officer
@@alech9418 I know! It's legal in this country to walk into a tense situation with a gun and delusions of grandeur, start a messy fight with shots fired by two separate groups, and have everyone involved be justified by self-defense. 'S'been a wild couple years.
7:50 so one scenario I could see is fight occurs and Vic gets cut on forearm (or similar self defense type wound) but is not killed refuses medical attention but dies due to infection. Does the suspect get charged with assault or murder/manslaughter?
Okay AttorneyTom, If my co worker claims to be a vampire and since vampires eat humans and I am I human would it be okay for me to shoot him before he ever gets the chance to eat me?
Maybe there are hunting laws preventing you from it depending on if being a vampire is an illness (probably murder than) or counts as a different species.
I think murder but I am not a lawyer. Firstly, just because he says he is a vampire doesn't mean he is. Even if he was, Vampires drink blood, but removal of blood from someone doesn't necessarily mean that the person would die. There have been many works of fiction where vampires either source blood from friends of theirs who they got permission from and don't take enough blood to kill them and/or rob blood donation centers. Therefore I don't think someone simply being a vampire would be reason enough to need to defend yourself with deadly force.
Mississippi’s Castle Doctrine extends the objective / subjective threat to property. So if you, say, ran away with someone’s toaster under your arm it would be ruled justified.
@@major_kukri2430 no, the threat is objective, but subjectively he does not feel his life is in danger, and just wants to kill the guy for reasons unrelated to being stabbed.
If attorney Tom asks us to post hypotheticals on Reddit, but I post here on YT because I don't have or use Reddit, and attorney Tom ignores my post, which of my civil rights does he violate, and how much can I sue him for?
8:34 as someone who has been skydiving many times you sign a waiver in the beginning before you even put on gear that says that they're not responsible for any death or injury
they always say they have a baby after they commit a crime. the true definition of deplorable. and the dude enacting a vengeful "justice" by capping her.. not good..
Speaking of shooting people I had been told before that if you have ever been scored on your firing accuracy (military, competitive, or otherwise) if you put your scores out there they can use that against you in court Which is why you should always shoot to kill if you need to shoot someone in self defense as if a case is raised against you and you say, shoot 40/40 they can claim intent if you happen to miss and paralyze your attacker for life. Not sure how accurate that actually is
If the cops illegally search your car and find drugs and the court later rules it was an illegal search do the cops have to give you back your drugs that they illegally took from you? And if yes can they then immediately arrest you for possession when you take the drugs back?
No, they don't have to give you the drugs back. They're illegal, you don't get the shit back just because the search wasn't kosher when it's contraband. And they won't give it back because if they then arrested you for possession after furnishing you the drugs, it would be entrapment. So, yeah, no. You have to just be happy the judge dismissed the case.
about the old man with the gun (that ends at about (3:00), could one argue (in his defense) that he was worried they might come back? and that the only way to make sure that they don't was to shoot at least one of them? I mean, obviously, they choose to break into his home, thinking he would not be able to defend himself, if he had let them go, they would just say "we can do that again, and worst case, just run away next time too". by shooting one of them, the other now knows he won't be able to run away, as it will be his life next, and thus, the old man has protected himself.
I got one. I get shot but survive and the bullet cant be removed. 20 years later the bullet works loose and causes a clot that kills me. Does that become murder?
Andy Warhol died of complications from his wounds, but Valerie Solanas was not charged for his murder. Of course she had already served her sentence for her attempted murder of him, and the actual murder of the guy standing next to him. Three years. 1968 justice, people.
I do think one exception to the cops giving immunity is Federal Drug Enforcement. They are given that power and have to follow any promises they make. Might even be at State Level went thru some training in Indiana for Drug Taskforce that said they had to follow thru with those promises. I am not an Officer, but had to be at the training due to IT had to attend. This was back in the day when as a 3rd party we investigated computer related crimes and evidence recovery, Mid 90s.
9:10 Interesting case in the Netherlands where someone was found guilty, but not punished. A Jeweler and his wife where being robbed. They where beating the husband and the wife got hold of the firearm they owned. She shot and killed one or both (can not recall) robbers. This clearly was self-defense and she was not found guilty on that account. However owning a firearm is not legal. So she was found guilty of possessing a firearm. The judge did not give her a punishment. His reasoning was that this whole ordeal in itself was already punishment enough.
@@joy-wire when my nephew was 3 he crawled under a truck after we went out to dinner. If I didn't love him so much I would have drop kicked him. I was also afraid of his mother!
Wait a second, was that shooting in Florida? As I recall, they've been passing the over the top ALEC "kill all... er, "stand your ground" legislation, resulting in a homeowner who killed two people that rang his doorbell asking for directions being acquitted.
I'm not a lawyer, but work as an admin in the Public Defender's office, and at least in my office 1) the prosecutor and defense attorney being in a relationship would 100% be a conflict of interest and 2) it is against our policy for a public defender to have an intimate relationship with a prosecutor or a member of law enforcement because of the inherent conflict between our motivations. It's probably different for private defense attorneys, but I would be suspect if my attorney was buddy-buddy with the people who (in my opinion) regularly abuse their power to prosecute and harshly punish innocent people.
If they had the old man's stuff or he had reason to believe they did, and it was Texas, lethal force to protect property is allowed. I thought Tom was in Texas shouldn't he know this?
Not quite no punishment but there was a father back in the 80s in Louisiana who shot the man who kidnapped and raped his son on camera in front of a news crew and was sentenced to probation and community service.
6:34 I thought the 3rd thing was “I invoke the 5th”; the first thing was “I have 3 things to say to you”. 😏 I think the real test here is to see if the officer can count judiciously. 🤓
You definitely don't give yourself enough credit, we love your videos and your content it's kinda unique and genuinely intelligent, there isn't a whole lot of content like yours. You've really got something here
Hey Tom got an unrelated question wish you could answer. If I put my Tesla on auto pilot and sit at the passenger seat I'm technically not the driver... So when the cops come and charge me with reckless driving or no hands on streaning who is to blame? I'm just the passenger...
In the skydiving case, IT DEPENDS on the reason of the malfunction. If it can be proven that the failure ocured due to the fact that the skydiver was pushed out of the plane( eg. he hits the tail and falls unconcious, or falls out in a bad position causing a bad deployment), it could be the fault of the person that pushed him
This was literally this years mock trial case brief. A tenant (allegedly) put a snake in their douchebag landlord’s mailbox and the landlord got bit but like didn’t go to a doctor for like 23 hours then died
The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/attorneytom08211
Tom do you think in the first case age and health played a big factor in the case. As it could easily be argued had the older man not followed the younger assailants they could have returned to continue the assault.
And do property lines effect the"stand your ground/castle doctrine"? Ie does it just encompasses your house or does it include all property the house is on?
As a gun owner, military veteran with brothers in blue, its part of training is to fire until the threat has ended...and with the current laws its difficult to know ones limit as to what one can or can't do to defend themselves as the laws are not 100% clear as normal.
I've been on the fence about getting skillshare already, might as well pull the trigger now and give you some extra support.
Your audio is super quiet while you are speaking but super loud at the beginning and end. Please use your sponsor 'Skillshare' to learn how to do audio correctly. Thanks!
The guy who shot the pregnant robber in the back wasn't charged. He's a hero.
Im posting this here so it dosent gets lost in all the other comments but can you react to "The Trial of Charles I (1649)" by Historia Civilis whould be pretty appreciated if you did
In relation to "receiving no punishment" my dad was on a jury for a criminal case in which an ex husband violated a restraining order by stepping on the ex wife's property. Their kids were at the wife's house and they called their dad and asked him to drop off their sleds because it was a snow day. He stopped in front of the house and called them to come and get the sleds, but he was unable to get an answer, so he walked up and left the sleds on the front porch and immediately walked back to his car and left. So he technically stepped on the property. During the jury instructions they were told that they had to find him guilty if he violated the protection order, including just stepping on the property. So they pretty much had to find him guilty. But their recommended sentence was a $1 fine. The judge followed the recommendation.
The judge who signed the original protection order belongs in prison. No government should ever be allowed to tell a father he cannot go to the home where his kids live. If ex wife is scared of dad she can give up custody then dad has no reason to go near her.
@@thumper84 Absolutely.
If you're afraid that someone might be dangerous, definitely do send your kids to live with that person
@@thumper84 the fact that he had the sleds seems to imply they have joint custody
@R Hamlet He isn't an abuser just because she got a protection order. Sometimes the abuser gets the protection order as a form of abuse.
@R Hamlet Yeah, what about them?
Tom starting out : "I'm going to teach people about law" Tom now: "DO NOT DROP KICK TODDLERS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES"
But what if they REALLY deserved it?
Technically speaking, he's still teaching us about the law
What if it's a zombie toddler?
If the toddler presented subjective and objective bodily harm, then I would think deadly force would be justified.
@@Miles_Phantasmagoria that is technically the truth but he is also teaching us how to be a good parent/caretaker
What I learned from this video:
1) Stabbing people is fun
2) Drop kick toddlers
3) Tom opened a new Austin branch
Congrats btw
You better take notes because this will be on your exam
Imagine getting Tom as your lawyer and then proceeding to watch him react to a meme of a similar case and him just laughing lmao
That could happen
Lmao during your actual court case
When you are so early you can redfuse treatment.
Lol. OK I FIXED IT
@@AttorneyTom I redfuse to believe that
aw I wasn’t early enough to see Tom make a mistake!
@@AttorneyTom does it depends though?
@@AttorneyTom I know you feel like if you don't yell that people won't be able to hear you(like in Honey I Shrunk Them Kids) but this is a text based comment on the CZcamss so there is no need to become angry and yell.
If you really want to drive in your, "I also have a real job," chops, you should have your firm sponsor a video.
Good way for a tax right off too, win win
@@lessthanahome it's a conflict of interest lol
@@superstriker412 Not really
@@ashwilliams1725 it depends
He should sponsor a Legal Eagle Video xD
When you redfuse treatment and you become a pirate
Police claiming they have the power to grant you immunity is one of those things that, to me, feel like would result in the overturning of a conviction since the information you provided was based on a false understanding of pretexts. While they should not be shackled to the truth all the time, Police should not be permitted to misrepresent material facts to anyone they have detained or are interviewing. Agreeing to grant immunity when they do not have the power to or do not actually intend to sounds a lot like Fraud.
All the arresting officers can do is put in a good word, the judge could choose fudge it and give you the maximum punishment.
This is illegal. You can however promise to ASK for immunity
Idk, from a certain perspective, it's about as legal as undercover work, such as that of a sting operation. Is it illegal _then_ for the cops to lie to people guilty of criminal activity? (Not that that makes it cool for them to lie to people in custody, but I don't think it is always necessarily illegal or unjustifiable. I definitely have mixed feelings about it.)
And that's why you should always lawyer up. If you choose to waive your right to a lawyer and fall for this ruse, that's on you.
The police are allowed to lie to you. Do not trust anything a police officer says. They will try to get you to admit to committing a crime. Never believe anything a cop says if he’s trying to get you to admit to a crime. Duh!
"It Dep-no, wait, the answer is just yes."
Lmao
Gasp spoilers?
It depends on whether you’re caught or not.
@@4rkain3 nah guilty people get off and innocent people get on. Courts are not concerned
@@JassZoigel ? What?
What's funny is that Thomas Greer the old man who shot the robber, actually got no charges and in the State of California nonetheless. Dude was incredibly lucky to not get a charge
He shot a pregnant woman, who was pleading for her life? Horrific!
@@dshe8637 turns out she wasn’t actually pregnant, so everything turned out fine
@@dshe8637 Ever heard of people lying to save their life? She wasn't pregnant
@@WizardDudeman He wouldn't have known that. He was prepared to murder a pregnant woman
@@dshe8637 Maybe don't jump a 80 year old man then? She would've killed him if he didn't get his gun. Why are you defending a liar and a theif?
My uncle went to his place of business, there was 3 men armed with guns and woman breaking in. He shot 3 of them. The first guy who died was ruled self defense. The second guy who died who was second degree murder dropped to manslaughter. The third who was wounded was assault with a lethal weapon. The second guy and third guys were running. Mind you the conditions of this encounter changed quickly, likely seconds, from self defense to murder charges.
(This scenario is somewhat based on the dream I had last night)
Let's say someone is threatening to torture you before they kill you while having a gun, and all you have is a sharp object like a knife or a pair of scissors. Not wanting to deal with whatever the person has planned for you, you use the sharp weapon you have to commit "self die". What type of charges would go against the person? Would they still be charged for murder even though their intended victim "commited die" before they could get to them?
They would definitely be guilty of false imprisonment, and depending on the state you are in, by falsely imprisoning you they could be guilty of attempted murder and attempted assault as that act is in furtherance of the crime of murder and assault.
@@nicholascopsey4807 In Canada where I come from this would be a murder charge or at the very least a charge for aiding or abetting a suicide which could be up to 14 years in prison. In America is looks to be about the same.
@@itshunni8346 is there such a crime in any state? The reason I used attempted murder and attempted assault is because the only reason the guilty party didn’t go through with the crime of murder and assault is because you took your own life first.
Kidnapping is a felony with a reasonable risk of death (torture as well, duh) and a death that occurs during and related to the commission of such a crime usually falls under the felony murder laws that many US states have. (Federal law specifically includes kidnapping.) If the getaway driver can be charged with murder, I'm sure a torturer would be as well.
Yes, assuming there was enough evidence on both sides, their criminal action caused your death, i'd wager they would be on the hook for felony murder.
Hypothetically if I pour water on a witch and she suffers 1st degree burns would I be liable? I mean it's only water.
It depends, did you know it would cause harm to her? Was the water a comfortable temp or extreme temp?
@@maj.romuloortiz7832 I didn't know and the water was room temperature.
@@michaelbrandon1222 BUT DID YOU STEAL HER SHOES?!?!
Witches don't burn on contact with water, they melt.
But your bigger concern would be the negligent homicide charge for dropping your house on her sister.
Tom: don't drop kick toddlers
Me: you clearly don't have toddlers
LoL 😂
9:42 finally those thousands of hours of watching anime have come in handy
Megumin's hat
Ah, I see you're a man of culture as well
For anyone seeing this, go watch Konosuba. Its hilarious
We're my weeeeeebs at
@@wanderingmiqote9606 Konosuba is a less funny and coherent version of "Ixion Saga DT."
@@reckyourself6948 ok?
He’s a lawyer, he’s treating our views as billable hours. Watch the mail.
These subreddit reviews are hilarious and genuine. Thanks Colonel Tom
Can’t believe PewDiePie basically stole your intro. Smh.
So did jacksfilms smh
So did Felix Kjellberg smh
So did John Douglass smh
If someone breaks in to your house and they get killed as a result while fleeing would that count as felony murder for the perpetrator since they caused the initial felony that lead to a death?
I’d argue that since the crime was over and they weren’t in a position where it’s legally defensible to shoot them, the death was the result of illegal action from others and not the original perp
@@Bhubnipz unfortunately it's generally on both parties in this case, anyways as far as the murder in question the guy wasn't even charged, so... It depends at least in that jurisdiction the prosecution decided it wasn't murder
@@Bhubnipz right, and the 80 year old had to chase them to shoot the lady how are you going to the danger if you feel threatened. They probably didn't charge him because of his age and maybe the history of the criminals
@@darlene971 "They jumped me in he hallway" If you jump a 80 year old man, you don't deserve to exist. Sorry, not sorry
Everyone is hammering on the typo, which made me think, what was the most catastrophic typo ever made in law?
I know at least one bill had to be passed again because they forgot the word "not"...
It comes up in certain contracts where it can change the meaning too.
The right to remain salient screwed over a lot of insanity defenses.
@@charlesrense5199 I love Ron whites stand up bit about him saying "I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability"
Not a typo but a big mistake in legislation. There was a brief period in Ireland in 2015 when the government accidentally passed a bill stating that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 was unconstitutional. However this left us with a loophole where ecstasy, ketamine, magic mushrooms, benzos and other drugs became legal for a day or two. The government had to bring in emergency legislation to make them illegal again but plenty was had in that day or two let me tell you 😄
Imagine how many toddlers have been saved by that very helpfull advice at the end
I watched when the title still hade the *redfused* typo
Lol. Just fixed it
@@AttorneyTom
Dammit i have a typo in my OWN comment. That's karma right there.
@@arifhossain9751 ah yes it hade the typo
@@arifhossain9751 you could half just pretended you did it on pourpus.
Hmm, if they REDFUSE treatment?! Hard to say. Sorry Tom, YOUR MISSPELLING IS PART OF THE LORE NOW!
Redfuse is a communications firm working for Colgate-Palmolive. So basically this is all a conspiracy by big toothpaste.
@@pyredynasty ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED?!
They need to change the castle doctrine to the moat doctrine. Here's a moat to show you the line. Cross the line and no expectation for retreat.
Missouri castle doctrine
Some of you are far too trigger happy. Lmao.
The attorney my wife works for back in the 70’s prosecuted his wife’s traffic citation and won. There was a news article about it because what husband would have the willingness to prosecute his wife and win? He paid for it twice. Once from wife and once from the fee.
1:50 that was Texas and he got off. You're allowed to use deadly force to protect property at night.
It might be extra hard to convict an 80 year old.
Yes, I'm genuinely happy whenever you upload. I feel like I'm learning, or maybe just learning to think critically about a situation, because I am not a student of any kind, nor do I live in America, but your editor is amazing and the fact you cop the "conspiracies" and dropkicking toddlers stuff on the chin and can laugh about it, I appreciate and respect that. I love that you're actually relatable and actually makes the thought of dealing with a lawyer less scary. I think. I mean, I guess at the end of the day, it depends.
If I'm not mistaking the same same couple has robbed the old timer 1 or 2 more times prior to this, I think he was just making sure they didn't come back again lol
In this hypothetical, I declare war on the pyramids of Egypt, accidentally vandalize government grass, and break my favorite pair of glasses.
O crucible which melts my soul, scream forth from the depths of the abyss and engulf my enemies in a crimson wave!
Pierce trough,
EXPLOSION
"DO NOT DROPKICK TODDLERS" Well there goes my plans for the weekend
Regarding the case for the man shot the Intruder in the back...they did not file charges against him. He had already been robbed twice before so the threat of immediate and grevious harm was a continuing threat because they had been robbing him multiple times, or at least that's what it looks like the DA said. And I'm very glad. Also, she lied and wasn't pregnant. And the getaway was being by the male intruders mother. Just great people all around.
About the man who shot the woman in the back he was declared innocent. The couple had robbed his house multiple times in the past and the women was not pregnant like she claimed.
"i do legal stuff" Tom.. im not buying it bud
Someone doesn't know what happens at the end of a steven king novel.
Found guilty of a crime but not punished: That's what we call a pardon.
The 5th amendment sounds like an mtg instant sorcerery.
Oh my meme made it in at 3:11! I’m glad you found it funny. My wife had the idea for the template and I fired up MS paint and brought it to life, so that’s the combined work of two geniuses.
As a side note I honestly had no idea you’d even remember about the judge Tom series because you made the video about it like a month ago; as soon as I release a video, everything I said in it gets completely wiped from my memory like it never happened, so I’m pretty impressed.
That image on the left is suspicious.
I have a question, let's say someone gets charged for hurting someone, but not enough to kill them, and in court the victim says that they dont want them to be punished, what would happen in this scenario?
If that POS old dude did that here in FL to a pregnant woman, he’d probably get away with it. His attorney would claim “Stand Your Ground,” and ugh.
My first impression before watching: yes, I would think you could be charged with murder as you committed an act which a reasonable person would consider to be deadly
I was thinking similarly. Before getting to that part in the vid I'm thinking there's an expectation of serious bodily harm when it comes to stabbing someone.
Curious whether contributory negligence would be a valid defense in a civil wrongful death suit though.
@@jjpaq In a civil case, sure, but I don't think it would hold weight in the criminal trial
@@James68W Yeah, I think it's interesting because you get those cases where the person is found civilly liable but not guilty criminally, but this could be the opposite. 😄
Still pretty sure any competent defence lawyer would try to make something of it at trial-medical experts, testimony from EMTs, whatever case law exists, etc.
@@jjpaq I'd bet that any competent prosecutor would focus on the mens rea.
Similar how attempted murder is prosecuted and that lack or refusal of medical treatment is irrelevant from the perspective of the criminal law.
Fun fact: German law has a specific law for such cases called 'Schwere Körperverletzung mit Todesfolge' (grievous bodily harm with deadly outcome)
It's wheb you - for instance - beat someone up with no intent of killing them, neither planned nor in the moment - and they end up dying.
The crucial detail is whether death is likely and whether it was intended.
(Stab in heart or head, homicide. Stab in leg to stop them from attacking and he dies anyway, this specific law)
FYI, that's Megimin's hat. She's a mage that specializes in explosion magic from the show Konosuba, the guy in my pfp is named Kazuma Sato and he's the main protagonist of that show.
Ah yes, megimin, my favorite anime character
Hey, Im a Law student, also from Africa/Botswana...a Fan too, love your videos
Am gonna use you till im done with my law school btw lol❤, just started this year
The lady could’ve just been stalling while her husband grabs his gun out of their car. How do you know the threat has actually passed attorney Tom?
Regardless, you can’t execute someone for stalling. The husband would be posing the threat, not the wife.
Yep this is why the standard is “imminent”. Otherwise you allow a lot of hypothetical what ifs.
Good question! So the answer “it depends.” Lol. Those extra factors could lead to self defense. You only know when the threat has passed when it is reasonable…so then the question is who decides it is reasonable…
As for the castle doctrine law, at least in my state, it does not only remove the duty to retreat. It does indeed allow you to immediately assume that someone forcibly and unlawfully entering your home, workplace, or vehicle, is there to hurt you and allows you to reasonably believe you or others inside are at risk of grievous bodily harm.
and in texas you can go all Taken on them and hunt them, even off of your property, and even when you include other third parties in your line of fire
@@override367 that is utterly untrue. I live in Texas. so does attorney Tom. You can use castle doctrine as a defense if you do that, but it won't work most of the time. If, for example, people are fleeing your property then it doesnt stand. Further that only applies to your actual house, your yard and lands are not included, so just trespassing isn't enough.
that first question with the IT clown wearing Depends though, went over tom's head completely
I wanted to watch this video but I accidently refreshed the homepage. However I remembered the title and had to type into the search bar "Is it murder if you stab someone and they refuse treatment". I believe I might be on a watchlist now.
If someone stabs me but it's just shy of a major artery and I push it in further is it murder or assisted suicide?
1. I want my attorney
2. I plead the 5th
3. Don't look in the back I dont want you to disturb the dead body.
Walks away in handcuffs.... this is what went through my head when the person said I have 3 things to tell you officer
If I were the 80 year old I would be worried they would come back. They may want to get rid of the witness before the police came.
That's not imminent physical harm. That's speculated future risk.
@@Amanda-C. Exactly why we need fewer lawyers and more common sense.
@@alech9418 I know! It's legal in this country to walk into a tense situation with a gun and delusions of grandeur, start a messy fight with shots fired by two separate groups, and have everyone involved be justified by self-defense. 'S'been a wild couple years.
7:50 so one scenario I could see is fight occurs and Vic gets cut on forearm (or similar self defense type wound) but is not killed refuses medical attention but dies due to infection. Does the suspect get charged with assault or murder/manslaughter?
Okay AttorneyTom,
If my co worker claims to be a vampire and since vampires eat humans and I am I human would it be okay for me to shoot him before he ever gets the chance to eat me?
Maybe there are hunting laws preventing you from it depending on if being a vampire is an illness (probably murder than) or counts as a different species.
Shoot him with a holy water squirt gun. It's less than lethal force for humans, but would kill him if he's a vampire.
I think murder but I am not a lawyer. Firstly, just because he says he is a vampire doesn't mean he is.
Even if he was, Vampires drink blood, but removal of blood from someone doesn't necessarily mean that the person would die. There have been many works of fiction where vampires either source blood from friends of theirs who they got permission from and don't take enough blood to kill them and/or rob blood donation centers. Therefore I don't think someone simply being a vampire would be reason enough to need to defend yourself with deadly force.
I can't wait till the new stuff! Edit: congrats I the sponsors. Also I believe that you will have 500000 subs by the end of the year.
Mississippi’s Castle Doctrine extends the objective / subjective threat to property. So if you, say, ran away with someone’s toaster under your arm it would be ruled justified.
That is why with castle doctrine, they say to make sure they're dead, cause the dead can't argue.
2:00 So, when it comes to this particular case, why is the homeowner expected to let them try again tomorrow???
1:52 ohhh damn. I love this guy, he can handle business.
I’d love to see AttorneyTom go head to head against Legal Eagle on a mock trial case
Always remember in any situation when only seconds matter, the police are always minutes away.
Could you use grievous bodily harm if you didn’t think you were in danger, but someone is stabbing you in the chest?
This is a self-conflicting question.
@@major_kukri2430 no, the threat is objective, but subjectively he does not feel his life is in danger, and just wants to kill the guy for reasons unrelated to being stabbed.
the threat to society passed when the criminal terminated, sadly the other criminal got away from justice.
If that lady wanted to live she wouldn't have robbed that house . No discussion will change that fact.
If attorney Tom asks us to post hypotheticals on Reddit, but I post here on YT because I don't have or use Reddit, and attorney Tom ignores my post, which of my civil rights does he violate, and how much can I sue him for?
Once you value my property more than your life you don't get to decide you can change your mind.
9:43 I never thought I would see a Konosuba reference in a law video.
8:34 as someone who has been skydiving many times you sign a waiver in the beginning before you even put on gear that says that they're not responsible for any death or injury
9:38 That would be Megumin's. _(from Konosuba)_
they always say they have a baby after they commit a crime.
the true definition of deplorable.
and the dude enacting a vengeful "justice" by capping her.. not good..
Speaking of shooting people
I had been told before that if you have ever been scored on your firing accuracy (military, competitive, or otherwise) if you put your scores out there they can use that against you in court
Which is why you should always shoot to kill if you need to shoot someone in self defense as if a case is raised against you and you say, shoot 40/40 they can claim intent if you happen to miss and paralyze your attacker for life. Not sure how accurate that actually is
If the cops illegally search your car and find drugs and the court later rules it was an illegal search do the cops have to give you back your drugs that they illegally took from you? And if yes can they then immediately arrest you for possession when you take the drugs back?
I don't think they'll give the drugs back
No, they don't have to give you the drugs back. They're illegal, you don't get the shit back just because the search wasn't kosher when it's contraband. And they won't give it back because if they then arrested you for possession after furnishing you the drugs, it would be entrapment. So, yeah, no. You have to just be happy the judge dismissed the case.
We’re already at 400k also your content is worthy of my Time
about the old man with the gun (that ends at about (3:00), could one argue (in his defense) that he was worried they might come back? and that the only way to make sure that they don't was to shoot at least one of them?
I mean, obviously, they choose to break into his home, thinking he would not be able to defend himself, if he had let them go, they would just say "we can do that again, and worst case, just run away next time too". by shooting one of them, the other now knows he won't be able to run away, as it will be his life next, and thus, the old man has protected himself.
Pineapple does go on Pizza!!
It depends... Seafood pizza? I think not🤔
I got one. I get shot but survive and the bullet cant be removed. 20 years later the bullet works loose and causes a clot that kills me. Does that become murder?
Andy Warhol died of complications from his wounds, but Valerie Solanas was not charged for his murder. Of course she had already served her sentence for her attempted murder of him, and the actual murder of the guy standing next to him. Three years. 1968 justice, people.
I do think one exception to the cops giving immunity is Federal Drug Enforcement. They are given that power and have to follow any promises they make. Might even be at State Level went thru some training in Indiana for Drug Taskforce that said they had to follow thru with those promises. I am not an Officer, but had to be at the training due to IT had to attend. This was back in the day when as a 3rd party we investigated computer related crimes and evidence recovery, Mid 90s.
Only Tom gets to dropkick toddlers.
Weird, that shooting with the old man happened in California and the old man wasn't charged.
HAHA my question made the title ayeee
9:10 Interesting case in the Netherlands where someone was found guilty, but not punished. A Jeweler and his wife where being robbed. They where beating the husband and the wife got hold of the firearm they owned. She shot and killed one or both (can not recall) robbers. This clearly was self-defense and she was not found guilty on that account. However owning a firearm is not legal. So she was found guilty of possessing a firearm. The judge did not give her a punishment. His reasoning was that this whole ordeal in itself was already punishment enough.
Don't drop kick toddlers... Great advice
Only in self-defense.
@@joy-wire when my nephew was 3 he crawled under a truck after we went out to dinner. If I didn't love him so much I would have drop kicked him. I was also afraid of his mother!
Tom with that sponsor! I see you, nice work Tom!
Oh I knew that hat from first glance, Explooooooosiiiooooooon!
Wait a second, was that shooting in Florida? As I recall, they've been passing the over the top ALEC "kill all... er, "stand your ground" legislation, resulting in a homeowner who killed two people that rang his doorbell asking for directions being acquitted.
I'm not a lawyer, but work as an admin in the Public Defender's office, and at least in my office 1) the prosecutor and defense attorney being in a relationship would 100% be a conflict of interest and 2) it is against our policy for a public defender to have an intimate relationship with a prosecutor or a member of law enforcement because of the inherent conflict between our motivations. It's probably different for private defense attorneys, but I would be suspect if my attorney was buddy-buddy with the people who (in my opinion) regularly abuse their power to prosecute and harshly punish innocent people.
And they had kept coming back, it wasn’t stopping. He was tired of being robbed by the same people.. it’s messed up
If they had the old man's stuff or he had reason to believe they did, and it was Texas, lethal force to protect property is allowed. I thought Tom was in Texas shouldn't he know this?
Imagine literally watching a Texas lawyer talk about self defense law and still thinking your view of the law is correct
9:36 megumin : underage waifu
lawyer : I am gonna pretend I didn't know her entirely (just in case)
I wonder if Tom plays Metal Gear
Imo if you break in into someone’s home you forfeit your life and that should be a risk you know about that you are going to possibly die
Wasn't the whole cops lying about giving immunity if you confess what got Bill Cosby out of prison, or were the circumstances different?
No, that was the prosecution, they offered him immunity - in writing - and then prosecuted anyway.
Not quite no punishment but there was a father back in the 80s in Louisiana who shot the man who kidnapped and raped his son on camera in front of a news crew and was sentenced to probation and community service.
*don't drop-kick toddlers*
/me scribbles notes furiously
6:34 I thought the 3rd thing was “I invoke the 5th”; the first thing was “I have 3 things to say to you”. 😏
I think the real test here is to see if the officer can count judiciously. 🤓
You definitely don't give yourself enough credit, we love your videos and your content it's kinda unique and genuinely intelligent, there isn't a whole lot of content like yours. You've really got something here
Hey Tom got an unrelated question wish you could answer. If I put my Tesla on auto pilot and sit at the passenger seat I'm technically not the driver... So when the cops come and charge me with reckless driving or no hands on streaning who is to blame? I'm just the passenger...
"It depends" the slogan of lawyers all over the world.
In the skydiving case, IT DEPENDS on the reason of the malfunction. If it can be proven that the failure ocured due to the fact that the skydiver was pushed out of the plane( eg. he hits the tail and falls unconcious, or falls out in a bad position causing a bad deployment), it could be the fault of the person that pushed him
people always get pushed out of planes while skydiving lol
you never hold up the load, or get pushed out.
This was literally this years mock trial case brief. A tenant (allegedly) put a snake in their douchebag landlord’s mailbox and the landlord got bit but like didn’t go to a doctor for like 23 hours then died