MovieChat Forums > Short Circuit 2 (1988) Discussion > Attempted Murder?

Attempted Murder?

posted 20 years ago by A1nut
22 replies | jump to latest

I am talking about the scene in the movie when Johnny 5 gets smashed to hell and back. Does anyone here think that the police/FBI, etc., added Attempted Murder to the list of charges? In addition to Bank Robbery I mean. Think about it, Johnny is recognized as a US citizen, so they must realize he is alive. Those two pricks smashed him up, wouldn't they be charged with Attempted Murder for trying to kill Johnny? I sure as hell hope so.

"It entered our airspace last night and made a mockery of our intercept squadrons."

[–] Mathew_ 20 years ago

That's a tricky question, A1nut, and a good one too. It would be easy to answer if they simply made a law stating that robots with certain criteria were alive. Then the only issue would be if the law were ex post facto (after the fact), which means that it would punish offenders for crimes committed before the law was enacted. However, according to the Oxford Essential Guide to the US Government 'Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from passing Ex Post Facto law... Similarly, Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution provides that no states shall pass ex post facto law.' So, that theory is blown out of the water rather soundly. However, we can apply the same principle to this issue. We can assume since laws against murder were put into effect or otherwise changed after the creation of the Constitution; these laws could not be ex post facto. So, what we now know is that what was once property damage or the like is now murder. However, since Johnny 5 was declared to be a US citizen after his attack, the idea of attempted murder could not possibly apply to those who harmed him earlier. This is because the Constitution affords safety measures to its citizens. I hope that helps, and please let me know if you need more information.

Signatures are overrated

[–] A1nut 20 years ago

So are you saying that at best, the thieves would be charged with property damage? You gave a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, which I applaud you for, but sadly, could not compute a lot of. You gave an intelligent and thoughtful answer, but how about a simple answer. According to what you said up there, what could the thieves be charged with? Is it property damage? Is it murder? Just a simple answer this time for those of us who lack law degrees. And thanks for answering, I do appreciate it.

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

[–] Mathew_ 20 years ago

The thieves could not be charged with murder because they tried to 'kill' Johnny 5 BEFORE he was declared human. Therefore, destruction of property would be the most likely charge. However, I doubt that would be likely as well. Unless the original maker of Number 5 still owned him, no one would be able to press charges. You see, to follow through in a destruction of property matter, someone has to be the owner, and usually must press charges. I doubt that anyone actually ‘owns’ Johnny 5, but we know that when he is declared human he becomes his own owner. So, to summarize, the only thing that the thieves could be charged with (aside from the theft) is DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. Make more sense now? By the way, issues dealing with the Constitution are not ‘mumbo-jumbo,’ the less you know about your rights, the easier it is for the government to take them away. Thank you for the interesting and challenging question.

Signatures are overrated

[–] A1nut 20 years ago

I meant no offense with my Mumbo Jumbo crack. I just didn't understand what you were saying. Sorry if it caught a nerve with you. I have another question bothering me, maybe you are up to the challenge? Could Johnny be charged with aiding the criminals (he did dig their tunnel for them) or would that same Ex Post Facto bit protect him also? He committed that crime before being declared alive, so could he be charged with it? Thanks in advance.

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

[–] Mathew_ 20 years ago

A1nut,
I'm sorry if I seemed at all harsh. Interestingly enough, I was going to answer your question in my last post. I think that there would be no way to charge Johnny with any crime prior to being declared a citizen. Also, since he was not a member of any sovereign state (i.e., another country) it would be equally hard to bring any crimes against him. Let me try to explain it better. Its like this - Assume that Johnny would be brought up for charges related to thievery. The prosecutor would say that since Johnny is 'human' he is liable for his crimes. However, the defense would simply state that Johnny was not considered a human and only an object when he committed (I'm using that word carefully, as I will explain in a moment) the crime. Basically, it would be like arresting a crowbar for aiding a thief in a robbery (I'm sorry if that sounds sarcastic at all, its not meant to be). Finally, the legal system would have to treat Johnny as a 'moral infant' - not understanding which actions are wrong, and which are right. Remember in the first film how Number 5 made the connection between disassembling and death? He had not made such a connection between the actions he committed and the unlawful results in the second film. So even if the actions he participated in were illegal, his intentions were not. Thus, it would not be possible to charge him with any crimes before the granting of his citizenship. Great question, by the way.

Signatures are overrated

[–] A1nut 20 years ago

Matthew, No offense taken, hopefully none given. Consider the slate wiped clean. That "Moral Infant" thing is bothering me a little. I am 27 years old. If someone tells me to help dig a tunnel, telling me that it is for a noble purpose, I am still liable for digging that tunnel, no matter what I tell the prosecutor at the trial. Johnny is chronologically under the age of 18, we know that, and he is most likely chronologically under the age of 5. So are you saying that it would be like charging a 5 year old with the crime of digging the tunnel? I always assumed that since Johnny captured the bad guys that the prosecution just let him go. Once he realized that what he did was wrong, he made every effort to atone for that sin, I just kind of figured that was enough to get him off the hook.

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

[–] Mathew_ 20 years ago

I will answer both of your queries separately. When I said moral infant, I mean that Johnny 5 did not have any comprehension of what he did. I really hate to bring more legal terms into this, but there are two things that prosecutors must have in order to be able to prosecute (generally)
1. Mens Rea (guilty mind)
2. Actus Reus (guilty act)

These two principles work in conjunction to create criminal liability. For example, let's say someone is shopping in a mall, and they take an item they mean to purchase and put it under their arm. They decide they are ready to go, and walk out of the store while completely forgetting about the item. Now this person has committed an unlawful act (Actus Reus). However, they did not have the intention or 'guilty mind' (Mens Rea). Therefore, once the person explains what happens there is really no basis for prosecution. Conversely, a person cannot be tried simply for their thoughts. There are issues involving neglect, but they are a different matter than this altogether. This is a two part principle that forms the basic underlying system of thought for the entire criminal justice system. Certainly, Johnny did commit a crime, but let's look at his character structure. He looks for the best in people and is generally naive and overly trusting. Configuring this into any trial along with Johnny's memory to show that his intentions were not evil would provide a strong defense case.

Signatures are overrated

[–] A1nut 20 years ago

Matthew, it just occurred to me that Johnny DID get arrested prior to becoming a citizen. He is arrested for trashing the bookstore, and held at the police station. I don't think any charges were filed. At least there is no indication that charges were filed. What do you think of that? They held him, Ben came and got him, and they let him go. Why was he not charged with (What would trashing the bookstore be? Vandalism?) Anyway, I eagerly await your reply.

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

[–] Mathew_ 20 years ago

A1nut,
I seem to remember something along those lines as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was Johnny just grabbing books and reading them and throwing them around so he could get 'more input?' There's an interesting fact about law in the United States that's call discretionary power. Certain people such as police officers can decide what to do in certain instances. For example, if a person is speeding, it is in almost all cases up to the officer whether he or she will give the driver a ticket. I believe that the officer here most likely arrested Johnny because he/she thought Johnny was disturbing the peace. Not all officers who arrest people see those people go to trial. Since we have already established that Johnny was considered a non-citizen, I doubt there is much the prosecution could have done. Firstly, Johnny would have to have been actually indicted. This is the step after formal charging and arrest when the charge is brought before the Grand Jury. This is where I think the charges would have been dropped, since the law had no grounds on which to charge Johnny. As far as the crime, I doubt vandalism unless the books were actually damaged, and as I said in an earlier post, Johnny would have to have meant to harm the books. Vandalism is generally considered to be a wanton (lewd) disregard for the property of others. I doubt that Johnny had this intent. So, to conclude, yes Johnny can be arrest just like anyone else, but the reason would be more for containment of a possible threat rather than formal charging. It's always a pleasure answering your questions.

Signatures are overrated

[–] A1nut 20 years ago

Yeah, I believe Johnny 5 was just grabbing books, reading them, and throwing them over his shoulder. He did go through quite a few books as I recall!

Something else, when Fred and Johnny break into the Radio Shack, they disable the alarm system, destroy lots of merchandise, and pretty much trash the store. Granted it was to repair the damage done by the two thieves, but I have a few things I'd like to throw your way.

Disabling the alarm shows that they knew what they were doing was illegal, and were trying not to get caught. That's criminal intent if I am not mistaken.

Destroying the merchandise to get parts is vandalism, destruction of property, probably a few others.

On the other side, we have Maniac Mike, the owner of the Radio Shack. After Johnny is famous, he gets to be "The Guy Who Helped Save A Hero's Life" so he will likely not press charges.

However, let us suppose that he DID press charges. Is the fact that Johnny was dying enough to get them off? I mean if you were dying, and I broke into a medical clinic to get you medicine, would I still be liable for the break in? Is there something in the law about emergency procedures, and emergency situations that would protect Johnny and Fred from prosecution? Thanks for answering this stuff, it means more than you know.

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

[–] Mathew_ 20 years ago

You're definetly right there, A1nut. There is intent in the B&E that Johnny and Fred committed. I doubt because of the previously stated ex post facto laws Johnny would be charged (if you're still not clear on that issue, please let me know). Fred would be liable, however, since he is a human and those laws applied to him when he broke them.
Different states have various laws regarding 'emergency situations,' and it really depends on where you are. If you kick down someone's door to tell them their house is on fire, its basically impossible to be charged with anything. However, remember that Johnny was not considered alive at that point. The extraordinary measures that Fred took would not be regarded anything special prior to Johnny's citizenship. Basically it would be like breaking into a garage and stealing parts to repair your car. Thus any comparison between Johnny and a human at the time of the B&E is improbable at best.

Signatures are overrated

[–] A1nut 20 years ago

Here is the problem that I have. If Johnny is regarded as being alive at the end of the movie, shouldn't that be retroactive to the date that he was created? It's kind of like the abortion question. The fetus is alive at this stage of the pregnancy, why isn't it alive at an earlier stage of the pregnancy? (Please, do NOT get into an abortion debate with me!!!!!!) Is Johnny not considered alive prior to his citizenship? If he is going to be alive 5 minutes from now, wasn't he alive 5 minute ago? I would think that the citizenship would cover him back to the date he rolled off the assembly line (Or am I just misunderstanding ex post facto again?)

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

[–] Mathew_ 20 years ago

The problem here is precedence, or how past cases similar to this one were treated. Since there had never been any cases of someone simply 'becoming human' I don't think that the courts could truly be make a decision on this matter. As far as being retroactive, I don't believe this is the case. Remember from your history classes how during the Vietnam era eighteen year old men who were being sent to war said it was unjust that the could not vote? The law sided with them and allowed them to vote at the age of eighteen. Now lets say that two months after this upcoming election for some reason congress passes a law that allows seventeen year old people to vote. Do you think that they would go back and hold a new election? Certainly not, because you would have a problem called the 'slippery slope.' This is an issue you brought up with abortion - if we say that a human is a human at this certain age, why not a few months earlier, and then earlier? It would eventually get to such a complicated extent that the government would start regulating how many nocturnal emissions men had to save as many babies as possible. Is this an insane idea? Sure it is, but it is plausible.
The government might go back and press charges against Johnny, but more than likely they would exonerate him. Here are all of the factors that I can think of that are part and parcel to why Johnny would not be charged for the various wrong doing he participated in:
1. Mens Rea - at times (jewel theft) Johnny did not know what he was doing was wrong.
2. Ex post facto laws - since Johnny was not considered human when he committed the crimes, he would not be held accountable for them, since laws are not retroactive
3. Lack of precedence - the courts would simply be baffled as to how to rule in such a case - how does the law apply here?

Finally, you need to remember that Johnny was not always alive. Only after the lightning strike in the first film did he become 'alive.' Thus, it would be hard to establish exactly when and where Johnny was mentally born. I believe that he lost his memory after the lightning strike since he was constantly needing input. Since we cannot assume that there is a definitive time period to when Johnny actually became human, it would be impossible for the law to say how far back it (the law) applies to Johnny. Its not as simple as saying 'Johnny, you are X years old, the law applies to that period of time.' If you want, I can go into theories of crime and corrections to make this clearer, if you still are having trouble understanding it.

Signatures are overrated

[–] A1nut 20 years ago

Believe it or not, that actually made complete sense!!!!! Thank you for all of your time my friend.

"It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

[–] gordon_mcvey 19 years ago

Just for the sake of argument, lets imagine that they decide that Johnny 5 did have to answer for things he did prior to becomign a citizen. Lets look at the things he did and what the result might be (sticking purely to the second movie for the sake of an easy life :) )

Aiding and abetting in the theft of 54 car stereos: He had no idea he was doing anything illegal at this point. However ignorance of the law is not considered a valid defense. Could he have to answer for that one?

The bookstore incident: What could he be charged with here? Vandalism? Destructive mischief (Or whatever the correct term is)? Certainly some kind of misdemenour. He also stole two books, clearly shoplifting. At this point of the film it had already been explained to him that stealing was wrong, but he could use the defence that he simply forgot to pay for them when he left the store.

Theft of a coat: He did this as an attempt to blend in, he had no actual need for the coat.

Taking remote control of the sign: Computer hacking? Would there be laws that existed at the time to cover this?

Aiding and abetting in the theft of the Vanderveer Collection: He could also be charged with willful destruction of property here. He didn't realise at the time what he was doing was wrong but he did afterward. ("But Oscar, taking diamonds without permission is boosting, stealing, ripping off!")

Theft of 2 model aeroplanes and the willful destruction of at least one of them: No problems here, self-defense is a pretty solid legal defense.

Assault on the computer geek guy (by crashing a model Zero into his butt): Again, self-defense. No problem.

Theft of car batteries: This would probably be classified in the same class as stealing food to stave off starvation.

The Radio Shack incident: Again, he had an urgent need for self-preservation.

Causing a car crash: When he screwed with Oscar's car the result was a spectaculat crash. Nobody was actually injured, but 3 cars were destroyed and the passengers of the car were put in danger of injury. This could result in Willful Endangerment charges.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Maegnas 12 years ago

Very interesting exchange, albeit 8 years too late. Still, since "scripta manent", let me add a thing or two.

First, on the question of the 'attempted murder', I think the two thugs would not be charged with that even if J5 was declared a citizen prior. Why? Let me answer with another question; what is murder? Killing (after making preparations and planning for this cause) a HUMAN being, no? J5 was declared a citizen BUT was he declared a human being? Let's reverse it a bit, an Italian (or German, or Russian, or whatever) citizen is murdered in NY, is that murder? Of course! Despite the victim not being a US citizen, he/she is still a human being. So, I believe, there's no question of murder, attempted murder, or anything in between - regardless when J5 was declared a citizen.

Can J5 be held accountable for his actions? Actions, that in many cases would be criminal for humans? Well, would you hold a toddler accountable for burning down its parents' house? J5 is exactly that, a very capable, very fast learning toddler. He may know basic right from wrong but has trouble "seeing" said wrong when it is right in front of him. When he does see it, he tries to correct it BUT always after the misdeed is done. We may need the help ("Need input!!") of someone really knowledgeable in law here.

As for the lack of precedence, excuse me but for EVERY legal case on record there was a FIRST time a court dealt with it, thus making it a case with no precedence. What did the court do then? Strike their hands up in the air and gave up? Don't think so. Lack of precedence is not a reason, especially within a legal system that makes most of its laws through court decisions (this is why law students in the US have to memorize countless cases and their outcome, no?). It would probably be very difficult to break new ground if a court was faced with a case like this but no way they would give up on it. They would boil their brains if they had to but you'd have a ruling, be sure of that! ;)

Cute and cuddly boyz!!

[–] jeremy-384 17 years ago

This back and forth is rather entertaining. It almost feels as if i'm watching a television program. Contemplating Johnny's innocence or guilt on the internet is magical, yet trivial. LoL. Nonetheless it's *beep* funny.

[–] prunesarequeen 17 years ago

They better. That scene makes me sad every time I watch it

[–] cflattug 16 years ago

hilarious... this has got to be one of the best/funniest discussions, not only about jonny five, but 'legal mumbo-jumbo' as well. wow.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]