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.
@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.
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.
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?
@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
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"....
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
@@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
@@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
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.
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
@@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.
@@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: 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
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.
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....
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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...
@@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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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 RU-vid, he has a video about it.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.😬
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Imagine him in a courtroom and the accusers are reading out all these crimes and then the judge turns to Indie for his defense: "But I stopped the Nazis."
@@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). ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wWoP8VpbpYI.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.
OBJECTION!! Belloq is not an American citizen, nor did the transfer of the idol occur in a territory where the US has jurisdiction; therefore, he cannot be charged, let alone convicted, under US law!
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).
You forgot Indy's geographic continuity crimes - in the Nile Delta, one of the flattest places on Earth, he manages to send a truck over a three thousand foot cliff
"Give back every stolen item in a museum, and you'd be left with an empty building." - Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Wild how multiple Disney movies have a better grasp on this than most people I know.
There's a recent low-budget film made in West Africa called Invasion 1897. There is a museum confrontation scene that's nearly identical to the one in Black Panther.
As far as Marion’s age, back when I was a teacher when I’d try to report kids “dating” adults first question was always “is she under 16.” In a massive part of America age of consent is much lower than 18. So while a slime ball, in 1920 Illinois, and many states today, if they waited until her 16th birthday to actually do anything then he didn’t break the law. Also if you’ve ever come across a school that only allows students of that school at functions like dances, that’s because it’s the only legal way to keep the adult “dates” away.
There’s still an issue either way with the fact that most high schoolers turn 18 while still in their senior year, and most freshman start the year at 14. It’s always gross as hell when juniors or seniors date freshmen. When I was a sophomore I dated a senior and I was 15 while he was 18, which I now see as horribly wrong on quite a few levels, and I knew it was illegal in my state (it’s 16 here), but I didn’t really care and I thought it was fine. Now I understand how messed up it all is
@@DBurns2007 This has happened a few times with Lucas connected franchises. Star Wars A New Hope was originally just Star Wars, it didn't get a name change until later.
