Objection: In Home Alone 2, Harry and Marv had attempted to kidnap him and made it clear on multiple occasions that their intent was to commit first degree murder. While Kevin's actions were illogical, they were all in an attempt to get the criminals apprehended. He broke the window with the intention of summoning the police, collected evidence of their crimes with both a tape recorder and camera, and defended himself from these kidnapping and murder attempts in his aunt and uncle's home, which would fall under stand your ground. It is easy to say that normal people in our real world would suffer from any one of these injuries, but I would like to put forward the motion that this is a universe with super durable humans where they *can* take all that damage. So in a way, Mr. McCallister's actions wore down the stamina of the criminals known as the Wet Bandits, even going as far as to disable their firearms before the police arrived. We can all agree that this sort of vigilante justice is immoral, but given my client's age and the extenuating circumstances, I move that the charges be dropped, and Mr. McCallister be allowed to walk out a free man.
I agree with this, I would argue on excessive force because of the use of multiple bricks, and the kerosene rope trap, but given that the Wet Bandits were dogidly persistent, honestly, it's their own fault, they had every opprotunity to walk away, but they didn't
@@deadponic117 When Harry and Marv broke into Rob's house, they were also doing it to catch Kevin. That could pretty much be considered as conspiracy to kidnap and murder.
If Kevin actually had to appear in court for the crimes that he did, I'll bet it would be a popcorn-worthy moment watching Kevin explain to the judge that he didn't know he was stealing the toothbrush until after he left the store, and he was just trying to get away from the old man staring down at him, and he got on the wrong plane to New York and needed a place to stay.
Actually it happened, Kevin's dad divorced and moved to New Jersey as a police detective, but ultimately ended tragically because of his ties with the local mob.
Throwing Marv in the head with a brick four times counts as attempted murder, especially, because from that high up, even the first brick would have been fatal probably.
Cinema sins did a special years ago on the injuries the Wet Bandits received during the first two movies and everytime Marv got hit in the head with the bricks would have killed him each time
That’s complicated sense there is no minimum age for criminal responsibility. In the United States, minors can be charged for crimes and sent to Juvie but it depends on how old the age of criminal responsibility is in the State you’re living under in order for the State to have you arrested. In Illinois, where Home Alone takes place, there’s no age limit for how old you need to be to have criminal responsibility, while in New York, where Home Alone 2 is set, the age of criminal responsibility is seven years old. In North Carolina it’s 6 years old and 12 years old with exceptions for California.
The criminal damage outside of the toy store wouldn’t be a crime. Mr. Duncan was unlikely to have even considered pressing charges against Kevin for stopping the robbery.
@@dannigro8794 exactly Mr. Duncan was quite clearly touched reading Kevin’s letter. Plus if he was annoyed with Kevin he wouldn’t have sent all those presents to the hotel room to show his appreciation.
@@kevinjurkiewicz9557 "Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward, whoever cannot take care of himself without said law being both. For wounded man shall say to his assailant, "if I live, I will kill you, if I die, I will forgive you." Such is the rule of honor."
And technically Marv renamed them as "The Sticky Bandits" after his sticky tape glove he made and used to steal some money from some Christmas Charity thing. Just pointing it out.
In the instance of Home Alone 1, that was not the parents fault, in order to prove child abandonment there has to be proof it was intentional or negligent, which was not the case as they took the proper precautions (Having someone count the people in attendance prior to step off). If anyone would be charged IN THEORY it would be the sister who counted someone not even in the family as a person in attendance. They even reported the incident to the authorities as soon as they could do so which went ignored until Kevin himself called the cops about the burglary
@@Anarchist86ed they were in a rush to get to the airport and board the plane before the gate closes and the plane flies to Paris, and they trusted Heather that "all 11 kids" are accounted for before the vans drive from Kevin's home to the airport.
I’d argue Kevin’s first reckless endangerment charge was self defense considering Harry and Marv were in the process of chasing him after they broke into his house and made a lot of threats so that’s justified in my book… maybe not to Illinois but looks like self defense to me
@@poptartthefourth7295 first charge he showed wasn’t a booby trap, he just cut the rope Marv and Harry were climbing across… besides, I’m sure he wouldn’t actually get charged with anything considering he’s a minor being attacked with no other way to defend himself
@@shadowcastyt Objection - Illinois state self defence law clearly states that a person may use force against another, "...only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.” The video evidence clearly shows McCallister alerting Lyme and Murchins to the garden shears immediately followed by the pair retreating from McCallister. Lyme is also heard to very clearly state, "Go back." Some may argue that the actions of Lyme and Murchins may lead some people to believe they could be dangerous. However, it is undeniable that any reasonable man would not interperet any harm could be done by Lyme or Murchins during their retreat. The fact McCallister cut the rope during this time is, without a doubt, an act that recklessly endangers both Lyme and Murchins to possible injury or death.
@PurplePhury3412 hes also a kid who cannot be held liable to the same standards as an adult. This would all be seen as a minor doing everything they could to keep 2 grown men from pursuing him that have already made threats. Thrown out of court immediately
@@PurplePhury3412 Imminent death and great bodily harm easily applies to this situation because Harry and Marv made a lot of threats including death threats, Kevin was trapped in his treehouse with nowhere else to go with Harry and Marv both going after him, both threatened to kill him, if he didn’t cut the rope and just let them climb into his treehouse he’s as good as dead Besides, in order for their to even be a case he would have to be charged and even if it got to that point with the movies as very compelling evidence he’d easily be acquitted… especially in the 2nd movie where the wet bandits are armed and do almost shoot him
I would not have charged Kevin with the “crimes” committed against Harry and Marv because they were the ones trying to break into his house. I say that’s self defense.
Even if it’s not self-defense, you can’t expect someone Kevin’s age to accurately appraise the danger or assess what response is appropriate, so I doubt he’d be prosecuted, especially since the burglars somehow avoided death or severe injury.
@@erickpoorbaugh6728 I wouldn’t say they avoided severe injury… by the end of the first movie they both definitely had a few broken bones and both probably should’ve been dead by the end of the 2nd movie after you add up all the injuries they both suffered (if it were realistic that is) Best case scenario they were both severely concussed and had a few broken bones each
If you're talking about an 8 year old being home alone for longer than 24 hours, The police should of 1) kicked the door down under precaution to ensure Kevin was okay or 2) chase it up with Kate and said he didn't answer then talked next steps. It was a very flimsy part of the movie. I can just imagine the conversation. Hi Kate, this is Rose from the Chicago Police department, we sent a dispatch to your house to check on your son and he didn't answer. Kate: Oh, he must be okay then... Sub-plot ends...
In Home Alone 2, the house Kevin defended actually belonged to one of his family members, so he legally defended his property, but yes at the same time some of the defenses were illegal and he provoked Harry and Marv to go after him
@@justice_of_RUclipsit wasn’t abandoned, didn’t you watch the movie? He went there before he set up the traps cause he knew it was his uncles house, and the mother mentions they’re out of town and they are renovating at the moment that’s why it looks like crap.
It technically isnt burglary with Kevin's House in Chicago or the Uncle's house in NYC. It's a Home Invasion/robbery. in a burglary, they just want your stuff. In a Home invasion, they want you. Also, the wet bandits would be charged with criminal possession of a firearm with the intent to commit a felony/crime in NYC. Thought those two could be added.
Just some corrections. 1:07 This would actually be setting up a booby trap, which is a crime. 1:25 Would not apply here, they were trespassing onto their home so they should have known the risk. 1:59 Would also add a petty theft/larceny charge since he took items out of it. Burglary and larceny are two separate acts and two separate charges.
1:07 is correct, but 1:25 is not; Kevin is not in immediate danger, he encouraged them to use the rope and doesn't attempt to get away while clearly having the opportunity to do so. To cut the rope without warning under those circumstances could certainly be construed as reckless endangerment. It's really no different than if he would be standing above the stairs from 1:07 and encouraging the burglars to come get him knowing the high likelihood of injury to them, with the major exception that it takes an action from Kevin (cutting the rope) rather than the burglars injuring themselves. Though I will say they're no longer (just) trespassing but actively home invading at that point. And chasing Kevin already, which could be seen as kidnapping or hostage-taking. Which actually broadens what Kevin is allowed to do to escape his captors. So it really depends on what judge and jury you get and how they will see the situation. Under regular self-defense laws, what Kevin does is crossing a line, so reckless endangerment could apply. But under defense-laws while being an active hostage or kidnapping victim, Kevin would absolutely be justified in thwarting his captors' attempts to (re-)capture him by doing what he does. You could have arguments for both opinions based on the actions in the movie, so it's difficult to say which would apply here. Kevin does actively taunt them throughout the movie and such, making pre-emptive traps like in 1:07. At the same time he is a child and Marv and Harry are adults. Etc, etc.
@@ym5891 Stand your ground doctrine ≠ castle doctrine, I believe for the castle doctrine there doesn’t need to be an immediate danger. Both of those guys were attempting to break their way inside the home via the zip line and I think at that point deadly force can be applied. Illinois follows the castle doctrine which could apply here. Also considering Kevin is a kid and those two are grown men, it is implied in court the child may feel endangered, so I don’t see charges holding up here. I may see burglary and reckless endangerment charges on the two guys trying to zip line their way inside the house, however.
With a decent lawyer, Kevin would probably get more than half those charges thrown out. That, coupled with the fact he is a minor and is his first time offenses, the chances of him getting any jail at all is pretty low. Let us also consider the fact that Kevin's parents are legit scum for leaving that kid behind in a house all by himself. A strong argument can be made that Kevin was the principle victim in everything that went down, involving the burglars.
While watching both Home Alone 1 & 2 I always thought to myself “man wonder what the consequences are for basically trying to murder each other. Cause there’s no way Marv and Harry would survive any of what Kevin did to them..” 😅
Sad fun fact:basically every trap in the movie is illegal since you can't make a trap for self defense/theft protection without placing warning signs about it since presumabely innocents/furst responders might trigger it
Our cop here forgot about the interactions with the Blonde in Home Alone 2 [namely Marv's theft and Kevin's butt pinching], and the fact that Kevin not only lured criminals but also did so on a property that wasn't his and didn't clean it up, so he should be charged with trespassing and vandalism. There's also Kevin stealing Buzz's money in the first. The parents get criminal negligence twice. Uncle Frank gets petty theft for stealing the fine silverware.
I understand where most of the crimes in the first film Kevin had committed were negated due to them being considered as he defending his home. The crimes in New York aren’t negated because despite the bulgars attempt to kill and kidnap him, his traps were disproportionate to them which is why he is charged.
Oh for the love of god, it is just a Christmas movie, you DO NOT need to inculde kevin into this, he is just a kid. He was just defending himself against a couple of burglars, and also the toy store owner probably didn"t press charges, since techinally Kevin was trying to stop them from robbing the place even further. What i'm saying you or NONE of the comment section should be taking this seriously, I repeat it is JUST a christmas movie. So for all that is good and holy, can you not ruin the holidays for all of us, Please?! Also nobody better not comment under this, trying to prove me wrong.
No, in the second movie, they were chasing him and threatening him after having said that they were going to kill him and breaking in to Duncan‘s toy chest he was within his right to do what he pleased
Objection: In Home Alone, the intent of the Harry and Marv was not to murder Kevin. Because of this, I don't think self defense is valid here, as there was no intent of murder. Also, Kevin creates a series of traps intended to assault the burglars. I believe this should be considered assault, since he does this instead of just calling the police.
you are not protected by self defense laws if the threat is actively trying to disengage. if they ignored the warning and persisted, then you could argue self defense, but not in this case
@@mbdg6810 the fact that harry clearly says "BACK" in a panic when kevin brandishes the shears, and you can see then trying to move away from him. that is disengaging from the fight, and does not fall under self defense
Objection, Marv's latter conviction of 2x attempted murder should be 2x conspiracy to murder. He wasn't holding the weapon, but enticing his accomplice to use it with malicious intent, although the sentence "shoot her" does not entail the intent to kill. Therefore, additionally, the client's sentence should be even lower.
Kevin did send an apology letter to Mr. Duncan and the offer to repay him for damaging the store window, so I suggest a reduced sentence for that one. Marv should also be charged for damaging goods he has not taken as well.
2:47 he’s technically doing it to prevent a robbery. I would reckon as long as the store understood that they would probably requested no further action against Kevin on that issue.
He did leave a note on the brick and mr Duncan found it so I don’t think he would hold that against him especially since he thanked him for the turtle doves and he didn’t seem mad about any of it
1:59 Wait! I've stolen cookies from the cupboard when I was a younger kid. Does that mean that I'm going to jail for stealing the cookies from the cupboard?
Technically Harry and Marv were arrested so basically you're saying what their sentence was. I'm not surprised that you had to take Kevin's crimes into account.
Objection Harry and Marv would have most all charges dropped all charges against Kevin because they would qualify under the law as self defense. Also Kevins parents are guilty of several crimes, especially in the second movie.
someone needs to read up on American Law. Under the Laws of the United States which would qualify here, Kevin would not only be tried as an adult, but because his actions went beyond reasonable limits for Self defense all actions Harry and Marv took would qualify as defense against the little psychopath. So yeah no they would be dropped. Read a law book sometime you would be surprised to learn what the law does and does not allow
@@tazman2253 Ehm, no. Breaking into a home to attack someone who sent you to prison is in fact illegal. And even if we were to say that all the stuff that happened in between was legal, when they catch him and go to shoot him in the park that would no longer qualify as self defense as the person was clearly subdued and had no weapon. Thats not even mentioning the entire first movie where they legitimately just broke into his house, stumbled upon traps that they wouldn't have been in danger of if they weren't clearly trespassing.
Objection: The charges of Criminal Damage would be dropped because he broke the window in attempt to stop a robbery taking place, its not the best of options but the police were still notified
a common movie theory ( or atleast where im from )is that kevin mccallister grew up to be a murderer ( and has someone said and in my friends version he could of been jigsaw) as he found joy with putting the criminals through pain and suffering and also he found interest in his neighbour so this means he could of had a sadistic personality leading up to murderous behaviour and possibly becoming a serial killer possibly even keeping his identity a secret as he was very smart when setting up his traps at a very young age meaning he is quite smart and even more evidence that he is a sadist as in order to become sadistic you the the intelligence to enjoy others pain and suffering. i could go on and on about how kevin could be a murderer but it would be quite boring for others but i found it interesting hearing about the theory for the first time and still find it quite interesting but its just a theory and i have no real evidence that he did become a murderer besides its just a really good movie and for most movies there is no kid start and adult end ( for most and some of those movies are quite good) edit: thanks for the likes
They totally ignored Marv’s crimes in the fourth movie, though the kid acting is different but it’s supposed to be part of the mccalister storyline…. Marv comes back to invade Natalie’s home and tries to kidnap the crowned prince…. Defaces property, trespasses multiple times evading the security system with his girlfriend and his mother who is a servant at the particular house
Kevin was a minor in both Illinois and New York. In the state of Illinois, he might be in juvenile but charges could be dropped. In the state of New York, he could spent time in juvy.
So wait, Kevin steals a tooth brush from a retail store and its a $100 fine but when he steals cookies from the hotel its 6 months in prison. Damn those must be the creme de la creme of cookies.
So Marley somehow doesn't know the McCalisters left? After Marley fought off Kevin's attackers he just sends him to his empty home? Why didn't he or the police check where the kid's parents were when they arrested Harry and Marv? And Kevin's whole family should be charged with neglect and abuse. And aren't fireworks banned in Central Park?
OBJECTION! When Kevin takes the cookies from the hotel it technically wouldn’t be theft as he technically was renting the room (Cookies included) therefore I believe he should have 6 months removed from his sentence.
@@nancyomalley6286No, because at the end of the movie, his dad got the room service bill, which would have included the cookies so they were not stolen.
I think most of Kevin’s crimes would be all dropped. He was simply defending himself from Bandits, and he was in a position of danger, so most of his crimes would be self defense. Plus, he’s a minor. The only real crime he committed was at the beginning of the video. (Shoplifting, evading police)
3:35 total sentence for kevin mccallister 31 years + $1600 6:10 total sentence for harry lyme 94.5 years (added 3 years for brandishing a weapon in ny) 8:34 total sentence for marv munchins 89.5 years + $25000
according to LEGAL EAGLE's claims, no sane jury would convict a minor under the age of 13, unless the minor did something REALLY illegal like attempted murder, and kevin here did nothing that bad in this case.
Dude Kevin would have more like look at home alone 2 he: Made house go boom Dropped 100 pound bag on someone Made them plument around a 10 foot drop Stapler up the butt, nuts and nose Sent a drawer of tools(around a total of 50 pounds) squashing them Made marv(I think) get sent into a shelf of tins and made him climb up Broke a ladder Send one into a car Cause insane amount of blunt force trauma And more
Shouldn't the parents be charged for negligence/child endangerment for convienently "forgetting" their kid at home...TWICE...while burglars were trying to ransack their shit AND kill the aforementioned kid?
The crimes of Kevin stealing that toothbrush that charges should be dropped. Kevin didnt mean to steal a toothbrush he just got scared in the store and left in a panic because the guy he stand next to him Kevin thought was a murdering psychopath. Did show that Kevin feel bad for stealing the toothbrush which he didn’t mean to.
Kevin should also be charged with identity theft and breaking and entering for calling the cops to the neighbor’s home using the neighbor’s name, entering the neighbor’s home without knowledge or consent by the owner. Also booby trapping is a crime in most states, and some judges may not include deliberately luring others into a booby trap in the defense of self and home.
Actually any crime commited by Kevin at his house is all self defense, they're on his property and trying to get him, so the only crimes are runing from the police and shoplifting
BUZZ uses Kevin as scapegoat to save his own ass for ruined rehearsal, piano lady was injured. FRANK laughs at piano lady injury, has big grudge against Kevin. SIBLINGS and COUSINS ridicule Kevin's inability to pack suit case.
Objection: In Home Alone 2, Harry and Marv had attempted to kidnap him and made it clear on multiple occasions that their intent was to commit first degree murder. While Kevin's actions were illogical, they were all in an attempt to get the criminals apprehended. He broke the window with the intention of summoning the police, collected evidence of their crimes with both a tape recorder and camera, and defended himself from these kidnapping and murder attempts in his aunt and uncle's home, which would fall under stand your ground. It is easy to say that normal people in our real world would suffer from any one of these injuries, but I would like to put forward the motion that this is a universe with super durable humans where they *can* take all that damage. So in a way, Mr. McCallister's actions wore down the stamina of the criminals known as the Wet Bandits, even going as far as to disable their firearms before the police arrived. We can all agree that this sort of vigilante justice is immoral, but given my client's age and the extenuating circumstances, I move that the charges be dropped, and Mr. McCallister be allowed to walk out a free man.
I agree with this, I would argue on excessive force because of the use of multiple bricks, and the kerosene rope trap, but given that the Wet Bandits were dogidly persistent, honestly, it's their own fault, they had every opprotunity to walk away, but they didn't
I find Mr. McCallister's actions, NOT GUILTY! :D
@@deadponic117 When Harry and Marv broke into Rob's house, they were also doing it to catch Kevin. That could pretty much be considered as conspiracy to kidnap and murder.
Hey man, wanna be my attorney?
@@CallOfCutie69
what did you do💀
If Kevin actually had to appear in court for the crimes that he did, I'll bet it would be a popcorn-worthy moment watching Kevin explain to the judge that he didn't know he was stealing the toothbrush until after he left the store, and he was just trying to get away from the old man staring down at him, and he got on the wrong plane to New York and needed a place to stay.
No shit pumpkinhead
It would be interesting to see who would be the actor cast as the judge.
@@DrakeSmith-tn6ij Silas Ramsbottom
I know right
The hotel staff in Home Alone 2 should be charged for being the biggest idiots in New York and allowing a child to check in unaccompanied by an adult.
they didn’t allow it, they were trying to prove that he was alone otherwise they’d be sued
Kevin’s Mom: What kind of idiots are you?
The staff: The finest in New York.😊
yep, they should've let the police know about a kid being a alone, just in case.
They should have not made a scene about the credit card while quietly contacting his family.
@@ThePeterDislikeShow …like in real life? then called the police to get him checked out by them and social services?
Kevin parents should be charged too with negligence twice. That means CPS is taking away Kevin and his brother and sisters
Actually it happened, Kevin's dad divorced and moved to New Jersey as a police detective, but ultimately ended tragically because of his ties with the local mob.
@@JacquesMesrine94no it didn’t
Nope.
What? That's not how it works
@@justice_of_RUclips thank you
Throwing Marv in the head with a brick four times counts as attempted murder, especially, because from that high up, even the first brick would have been fatal probably.
Cinema sins did a special years ago on the injuries the Wet Bandits received during the first two movies and everytime Marv got hit in the head with the bricks would have killed him each time
Objection: Defendant was defending himself from attempted murder, though you can argue excessive force
i doubt it’s fatal, just concussive…he wasn’t in his right mind after that, making the actions worse
Skull Fracture with Epidural Hematoma
Marv is Dead
In the Kevin universe somehow falling bricks don't kill people, so maybe not attempted murder.
It’s weird, if Kevin was charged for his crimes in 1992 (when Home Alone 2 was released) then he would be getting out this year (2023)
Crazy coincidence 😯
Wow...
69 likes keep it on that
I know right 😮
Wow
4:45 Fun fact: Joe Pesci actually did bite Macaulay Culkin’s finger in this scene, Culkin still has the scar on his finger.
Shame. Least he’s got a permanent reminder of the Home Alone movie.
.@@minneeagle
@anthonyminimum: That fact sounds more painful than fun.
@minneeagle: ???
I know right 😂😂
@@danielramos6325 Which one do you refer to?
Objection. Since Kevin is a minor, wouldn't the court be more lenient towards his crimes?
Not in the court of America
possibly everything but attempted murder i would imagine
Yes but this is considering if he would actually get charged and get a full sentence for all crimes
@@David-gj9qr it's America .. he would
That’s complicated sense there is no minimum age for criminal responsibility. In the United States, minors can be charged for crimes and sent to Juvie but it depends on how old the age of criminal responsibility is in the State you’re living under in order for the State to have you arrested. In Illinois, where Home Alone takes place, there’s no age limit for how old you need to be to have criminal responsibility, while in New York, where Home Alone 2 is set, the age of criminal responsibility is seven years old. In North Carolina it’s 6 years old and 12 years old with exceptions for California.
The criminal damage outside of the toy store wouldn’t be a crime. Mr. Duncan was unlikely to have even considered pressing charges against Kevin for stopping the robbery.
Agreed
And he has Insurance. Most important thing is that the burglars were aprehended.
@@dannigro8794 exactly Mr. Duncan was quite clearly touched reading Kevin’s letter. Plus if he was annoyed with Kevin he wouldn’t have sent all those presents to the hotel room to show his appreciation.
All true.
To be fair, the wet bandits made it very clear they want to kill Kevin in the second movie, so he should have his charges lessened.
He explained why in the video, unfortunately that is New Yorks stance on self defense
@@kevinjurkiewicz9557 "Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward, whoever cannot take care of himself without said law being both. For wounded man shall say to his assailant, "if I live, I will kill you, if I die, I will forgive you."
Such is the rule of honor."
And technically Marv renamed them as "The Sticky Bandits" after his sticky tape glove he made and used to steal some money from some Christmas Charity thing. Just pointing it out.
Kevin would be getting a year of probation
Harry would be getting 76 years in prison
Marv would be getting 65 years in prison
Depending on Harry and Marv’s ages, they practically get life sentences.
I don't think a minor would even get any probation time there.
@@carlbirtles4518 true
I think death row is best
@@SMGtravelvlogs
Harry and Marv go through lots and pain-inducing booby traps and they finish their lives with lethal injections.
No charges for Kevin's parents? They were negligent and essentially abandoned a minor, even leaving the country doing so.
In the instance of Home Alone 1, that was not the parents fault, in order to prove child abandonment there has to be proof it was intentional or negligent, which was not the case as they took the proper precautions (Having someone count the people in attendance prior to step off). If anyone would be charged IN THEORY it would be the sister who counted someone not even in the family as a person in attendance. They even reported the incident to the authorities as soon as they could do so which went ignored until Kevin himself called the cops about the burglary
She didn't knew the kid she counted as "Kevin" wasn't Kevin, he might have a similar winter coat and hat to Kevin, or something.
Exactly what I thought
@@theowilds3778 That's still negligent and the parents didn't check either. Any good parent would have verified they were all there and accounted for.
@@Anarchist86ed they were in a rush to get to the airport and board the plane before the gate closes and the plane flies to Paris, and they trusted Heather that "all 11 kids" are accounted for before the vans drive from Kevin's home to the airport.
Mr. and Mrs. Mccalister would face multiple counts of negligence for leaving their son behind
I know right 😢😢
I’d argue Kevin’s first reckless endangerment charge was self defense considering Harry and Marv were in the process of chasing him after they broke into his house and made a lot of threats so that’s justified in my book… maybe not to Illinois but looks like self defense to me
The law prohibits booby traps
@@poptartthefourth7295 first charge he showed wasn’t a booby trap, he just cut the rope Marv and Harry were climbing across… besides, I’m sure he wouldn’t actually get charged with anything considering he’s a minor being attacked with no other way to defend himself
@@shadowcastyt Objection - Illinois state self defence law clearly states that a person may use force against another, "...only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.” The video evidence clearly shows McCallister alerting Lyme and Murchins to the garden shears immediately followed by the pair retreating from McCallister. Lyme is also heard to very clearly state, "Go back."
Some may argue that the actions of Lyme and Murchins may lead some people to believe they could be dangerous. However, it is undeniable that any reasonable man would not interperet any harm could be done by Lyme or Murchins during their retreat. The fact McCallister cut the rope during this time is, without a doubt, an act that recklessly endangers both Lyme and Murchins to possible injury or death.
@PurplePhury3412 hes also a kid who cannot be held liable to the same standards as an adult. This would all be seen as a minor doing everything they could to keep 2 grown men from pursuing him that have already made threats. Thrown out of court immediately
@@PurplePhury3412 Imminent death and great bodily harm easily applies to this situation because Harry and Marv made a lot of threats including death threats, Kevin was trapped in his treehouse with nowhere else to go with Harry and Marv both going after him, both threatened to kill him, if he didn’t cut the rope and just let them climb into his treehouse he’s as good as dead
Besides, in order for their to even be a case he would have to be charged and even if it got to that point with the movies as very compelling evidence he’d easily be acquitted… especially in the 2nd movie where the wet bandits are armed and do almost shoot him
I would not have charged Kevin with the “crimes” committed against Harry and Marv because they were the ones trying to break into his house. I say that’s self defense.
Even if it’s not self-defense, you can’t expect someone Kevin’s age to accurately appraise the danger or assess what response is appropriate, so I doubt he’d be prosecuted, especially since the burglars somehow avoided death or severe injury.
And they want to rob the toy store in NYC
@@erickpoorbaugh6728 I wouldn’t say they avoided severe injury… by the end of the first movie they both definitely had a few broken bones and both probably should’ve been dead by the end of the 2nd movie after you add up all the injuries they both suffered (if it were realistic that is)
Best case scenario they were both severely concussed and had a few broken bones each
@@erickpoorbaugh6728wrong
Not in NY
If you're talking about an 8 year old being home alone for longer than 24 hours, The police should of 1) kicked the door down under precaution to ensure Kevin was okay or 2) chase it up with Kate and said he didn't answer then talked next steps.
It was a very flimsy part of the movie.
I can just imagine the conversation.
Hi Kate, this is Rose from the Chicago Police department, we sent a dispatch to your house to check on your son and he didn't answer.
Kate: Oh, he must be okay then... Sub-plot ends...
Kicking down the door wouldn't be necessary. The cop could've just shouted "Police!" and Kevin would be aware
In Home Alone 2, the house Kevin defended actually belonged to one of his family members, so he legally defended his property, but yes at the same time some of the defenses were illegal and he provoked Harry and Marv to go after him
The house was abandoned
@@justice_of_RUclips no, it was under renovations, the aunt and uncle were on vacation.
@@LosSantosUriels well kevin still destroyed the house
@@justice_of_RUclips In self defense, but those scenes were super funny despite that
@@justice_of_RUclipsit wasn’t abandoned, didn’t you watch the movie? He went there before he set up the traps cause he knew it was his uncles house, and the mother mentions they’re out of town and they are renovating at the moment that’s why it looks like crap.
It technically isnt burglary with Kevin's House in Chicago or the Uncle's house in NYC. It's a Home Invasion/robbery. in a burglary, they just want your stuff. In a Home invasion, they want you. Also, the wet bandits would be charged with criminal possession of a firearm with the intent to commit a felony/crime in NYC. Thought those two could be added.
They were added. Are you stupid? The firearm one was
Just some corrections.
1:07 This would actually be setting up a booby trap, which is a crime.
1:25 Would not apply here, they were trespassing onto their home so they should have known the risk.
1:59 Would also add a petty theft/larceny charge since he took items out of it. Burglary and larceny are two separate acts and two separate charges.
1:07 is correct, but 1:25 is not; Kevin is not in immediate danger, he encouraged them to use the rope and doesn't attempt to get away while clearly having the opportunity to do so. To cut the rope without warning under those circumstances could certainly be construed as reckless endangerment. It's really no different than if he would be standing above the stairs from 1:07 and encouraging the burglars to come get him knowing the high likelihood of injury to them, with the major exception that it takes an action from Kevin (cutting the rope) rather than the burglars injuring themselves. Though I will say they're no longer (just) trespassing but actively home invading at that point. And chasing Kevin already, which could be seen as kidnapping or hostage-taking. Which actually broadens what Kevin is allowed to do to escape his captors. So it really depends on what judge and jury you get and how they will see the situation.
Under regular self-defense laws, what Kevin does is crossing a line, so reckless endangerment could apply. But under defense-laws while being an active hostage or kidnapping victim, Kevin would absolutely be justified in thwarting his captors' attempts to (re-)capture him by doing what he does. You could have arguments for both opinions based on the actions in the movie, so it's difficult to say which would apply here. Kevin does actively taunt them throughout the movie and such, making pre-emptive traps like in 1:07. At the same time he is a child and Marv and Harry are adults. Etc, etc.
@@ym5891 Stand your ground doctrine ≠ castle doctrine, I believe for the castle doctrine there doesn’t need to be an immediate danger. Both of those guys were attempting to break their way inside the home via the zip line and I think at that point deadly force can be applied. Illinois follows the castle doctrine which could apply here. Also considering Kevin is a kid and those two are grown men, it is implied in court the child may feel endangered, so I don’t see charges holding up here. I may see burglary and reckless endangerment charges on the two guys trying to zip line their way inside the house, however.
You should’ve put Kevin’s parents, and Uncle Frank too. Aunt Leslie was probably the only good adult in Home Alone 1 and 2.
I know right 🎉
The scale of the civil suit against the police would realistically mean a plea deal where Kevin has no record.
With a decent lawyer, Kevin would probably get more than half those charges thrown out. That, coupled with the fact he is a minor and is his first time offenses, the chances of him getting any jail at all is pretty low. Let us also consider the fact that Kevin's parents are legit scum for leaving that kid behind in a house all by himself. A strong argument can be made that Kevin was the principle victim in everything that went down, involving the burglars.
I know right 👍👍👍👍
While watching both Home Alone 1 & 2 I always thought to myself “man wonder what the consequences are for basically trying to murder each other. Cause there’s no way Marv and Harry would survive any of what Kevin did to them..” 😅
Agree
Sad fun fact:basically every trap in the movie is illegal since you can't make a trap for self defense/theft protection without placing warning signs about it since presumabely innocents/furst responders might trigger it
well the burglars was gonna commit murder on kevin, twice, so those traps he made are justified.
@@Charles-7 and the traps (at least in home alone 1) most of them are triggered by Kevin, so doesn't count as booby trap
@@Charles-7no they aren't
traps or not, Kevin is in the right to protect himself, after all he's only a minor.
@@Charles-7 no he isn't. No one is in the right to create deadly traps for amusement
Our cop here forgot about the interactions with the Blonde in Home Alone 2 [namely Marv's theft and Kevin's butt pinching], and the fact that Kevin not only lured criminals but also did so on a property that wasn't his and didn't clean it up, so he should be charged with trespassing and vandalism. There's also Kevin stealing Buzz's money in the first.
The parents get criminal negligence twice.
Uncle Frank gets petty theft for stealing the fine silverware.
I understand where most of the crimes in the first film Kevin had committed were negated due to them being considered as he defending his home. The crimes in New York aren’t negated because despite the bulgars attempt to kill and kidnap him, his traps were disproportionate to them which is why he is charged.
I know right 😊
I think you forgot the part when Marv steals Santa Claus cents.
This is definitely a RUclips channel that’s going to blow up. I love it
Oh for the love of god, it is just a Christmas movie, you DO NOT need to inculde kevin into this, he is just a kid.
He was just defending himself against a couple of burglars, and also the toy store owner probably didn"t press charges, since techinally Kevin was trying to stop them from robbing the place even further.
What i'm saying you or NONE of the comment section should be taking this seriously, I repeat it is JUST a christmas movie.
So for all that is good and holy, can you not ruin the holidays for all of us, Please?!
Also nobody better not comment under this, trying to prove me wrong.
No, in the second movie, they were chasing him and threatening him after having said that they were going to kill him and breaking in to Duncan‘s toy chest he was within his right to do what he pleased
Objection: In Home Alone, the intent of the Harry and Marv was not to murder Kevin. Because of this, I don't think self defense is valid here, as there was no intent of murder. Also, Kevin creates a series of traps intended to assault the burglars. I believe this should be considered assault, since he does this instead of just calling the police.
For the tree house I think it’s still self defense as they’ve chased him throughout then out of the house.
you are not protected by self defense laws if the threat is actively trying to disengage. if they ignored the warning and persisted, then you could argue self defense, but not in this case
@@Underworlder5how were they “trying to disengage” when they were making their way toward him?
@@mbdg6810 the fact that harry clearly says "BACK" in a panic when kevin brandishes the shears, and you can see then trying to move away from him. that is disengaging from the fight, and does not fall under self defense
@@Underworlder5Good point
Marv has the best mugshot out of all 3
Earlier I watched a video on if the wet bandits were charged for their crimes, and I thought, I want one of Kevin, this came out and I was happy
6:50 property damage. Look at where he was forcing the crowbar in. Edit: 4:21 trespassing, 4:28 trespassing, 4:34 trespassing.
1:56 Kevin got those cookies because they were FREE
I know right 😂
Objection, Marv's latter conviction of 2x attempted murder should be 2x conspiracy to murder. He wasn't holding the weapon, but enticing his accomplice to use it with malicious intent, although the sentence "shoot her" does not entail the intent to kill. Therefore, additionally, the client's sentence should be even lower.
0:20 “Trout Sniffer” I love it 💀😂
How can he be charged with conspiracy when he acted alone?
Kevin seemed a lot more psychotic in the sequel to me
Kevin McAllister is Jigsaw as a child (John Kramer).
James Wan and Macaulay Galkin do not deny this theory.
I love that Kevin’s alias is “ trout sniffer”
I know right 😂😂😂😂
Kevin did send an apology letter to Mr. Duncan and the offer to repay him for damaging the store window, so I suggest a reduced sentence for that one. Marv should also be charged for damaging goods he has not taken as well.
2:47 he’s technically doing it to prevent a robbery. I would reckon as long as the store understood that they would probably requested no further action against Kevin on that issue.
He did leave a note on the brick and mr Duncan found it so I don’t think he would hold that against him especially since he thanked him for the turtle doves and he didn’t seem mad about any of it
Yes, I'd say this specific owner probably wouldn't press charges, but it would be possible
Yet his father was worried about $967 on room service.............
If he has a good lawyer, they may be able to counter sue and counter argue that Kevin did all this to prevent getting kidnapped
No they couldn't. That's a simplistic view
Objection: since it was on his property, he would not be charged with Reckless-Endangerment because they were a threat to his wellbeing
And wouldn't Marv be charged with property damage(attempted breaking and entering) at the basement's backdoor? 6:59
Yep! 😂
You forgot when he scared the pizza man
Next Do If Aden Pearce From Watch Dogs Was Charged For His Crimes
I object! In HA1 when Harry kicked down the back door that was not Burglary. Kevin was in the house so that makes it Home Invasion.
Actually, 2x criminal damage to property if you can't Marv jimmy opening the McCallister basement door.
1:59 Wait! I've stolen cookies from the cupboard when I was a younger kid. Does that mean that I'm going to jail for stealing the cookies from the cupboard?
Burglary is entering someone's possession without their consent and with the intention to commit a crime iirc
For the last one with Marv, he actually didn’t commit attempted murder, he didn’t partake so he only solicited a murder.
Wouldn't it be accessory?
Technically Harry and Marv were arrested so basically you're saying what their sentence was. I'm not surprised that you had to take Kevin's crimes into account.
1:57 6 more months and 1 year for stealing cookies is crazy🥲
Fr bro 😭
I'm sorry but no jury in the world would convict Kevin for defending himself from the same full grown men twice
I know right 😂😂
Merry Christmas great video!
Objection Harry and Marv would have most all charges dropped all charges against Kevin because they would qualify under the law as self defense. Also Kevins parents are guilty of several crimes, especially in the second movie.
How would harry and marvs charges be dropped? You make no sense kid
someone needs to read up on American Law. Under the Laws of the United States which would qualify here, Kevin would not only be tried as an adult, but because his actions went beyond reasonable limits for Self defense all actions Harry and Marv took would qualify as defense against the little psychopath. So yeah no they would be dropped. Read a law book sometime you would be surprised to learn what the law does and does not allow
@@tazman2253 Ehm, no. Breaking into a home to attack someone who sent you to prison is in fact illegal. And even if we were to say that all the stuff that happened in between was legal, when they catch him and go to shoot him in the park that would no longer qualify as self defense as the person was clearly subdued and had no weapon.
Thats not even mentioning the entire first movie where they legitimately just broke into his house, stumbled upon traps that they wouldn't have been in danger of if they weren't clearly trespassing.
Home Alone in Texas, Kevin at the top of the stairs "Hey guys, I have an AR with 15 rounds." Bam Bam Bam, Movie over.
Isn't all what Kevin did apart of self defense? 😂
Objection! They broke in so its self defence!
Court: fair enouth.
Wait youll take that?!
3:20 wouldn’t you also add arson, since he set the rope on fire?
Burglary over a cookie is wild
Kevin wouldn't be charged, everything he did was in self defense. His parents would though.
I know right 😂😂
Objection: The charges of Criminal Damage would be dropped because he broke the window in attempt to stop a robbery taking place, its not the best of options but the police were still notified
a common movie theory ( or atleast where im from )is that kevin mccallister grew up to be a murderer ( and has someone said and in my friends version he could of been jigsaw) as he found joy with putting the criminals through pain and suffering and also he found interest in his neighbour so this means he could of had a sadistic personality leading up to murderous behaviour and possibly becoming a serial killer possibly even keeping his identity a secret as he was very smart when setting up his traps at a very young age meaning he is quite smart and even more evidence that he is a sadist as in order to become sadistic you the the intelligence to enjoy others pain and suffering.
i could go on and on about how kevin could be a murderer but it would be quite boring for others but i found it interesting hearing about the theory for the first time and still find it quite interesting but its just a theory and i have no real evidence that he did become a murderer besides its just a really good movie and for most movies there is no kid start and adult end ( for most and some of those movies are quite good)
edit: thanks for the likes
They totally ignored Marv’s crimes in the fourth movie, though the kid acting is different but it’s supposed to be part of the mccalister storyline…. Marv comes back to invade Natalie’s home and tries to kidnap the crowned prince…. Defaces property, trespasses multiple times evading the security system with his girlfriend and his mother who is a servant at the particular house
Kevin was a minor in both Illinois and New York. In the state of Illinois, he might be in juvenile but charges could be dropped. In the state of New York, he could spent time in juvy.
not like
y dropped given the severity of the crimes…detention until 18/21 would occur rather than full sentences
@@bostonrailfan2427 it depends
I would consider 1:58 as petty larcenym over burgulary as all he stole was a cookie.
So wait, Kevin steals a tooth brush from a retail store and its a $100 fine but when he steals cookies from the hotel its 6 months in prison. Damn those must be the creme de la creme of cookies.
Burglary is entering someone's possession without their consent with the intention of commiting a crime.
So Marley somehow doesn't know the McCalisters left? After Marley fought off Kevin's attackers he just sends him to his empty home? Why didn't he or the police check where the kid's parents were when they arrested Harry and Marv? And Kevin's whole family should be charged with neglect and abuse. And aren't fireworks banned in Central Park?
OBJECTION! When Kevin takes the cookies from the hotel it technically wouldn’t be theft as he technically was renting the room (Cookies included) therefore I believe he should have 6 months removed from his sentence.
Kevin's rights to the room ended when the credit card was reported stolen!
@@nancyomalley6286No, because at the end of the movie, his dad got the room service bill, which would have included the cookies so they were not stolen.
@@shonafairbairn5910 The dad probably rebooked the room but they were still responsible for Kevin's bill
I believe the reckless endangerment penalty would still be classified in self defense
I think most of Kevin’s crimes would be all dropped. He was simply defending himself from Bandits, and he was in a position of danger, so most of his crimes would be self defense. Plus, he’s a minor. The only real crime he committed was at the beginning of the video. (Shoplifting, evading police)
I know right 🎉🎉🎉🎉
3:35
total sentence for kevin mccallister 31 years + $1600
6:10
total sentence for harry lyme 94.5 years (added 3 years for brandishing a weapon in ny)
8:34
total sentence for marv munchins 89.5 years + $25000
3:32 at least, I can see the identity theft and fraud are both crossed off from his parents.
Why were the charges for identity theft and fraud dropped in Home Alone 2?
according to LEGAL EAGLE's claims, no sane jury would convict a minor under the age of 13, unless the minor did something REALLY illegal like attempted murder, and kevin here did nothing that bad in this case.
Are you stupid? Like ACTUALLY stupid?? He committed multiple attempted murders
Its likely that it would end up being probation instead.
Kevin just has his picture made and He's Smiling Like I had to defend myself 😂
He is not a criminal he is trying to save himself
OBJECTION: i think its also trespassing property at 4:00
Imagine if this guy does a 'if Joe Goldberg(or The Other Mother or even Jack Skellington) was charged for their crimes' video next
His*
Dude Kevin would have more like look at home alone 2 he:
Made house go boom
Dropped 100 pound bag on someone
Made them plument around a 10 foot drop
Stapler up the butt, nuts and nose
Sent a drawer of tools(around a total of 50 pounds) squashing them
Made marv(I think) get sent into a shelf of tins and made him climb up
Broke a ladder
Send one into a car
Cause insane amount of blunt force trauma
And more
Kevin is a menace damn😂
More of a menace, then Dennis the menace😅
I know right 😂😂😂😂
Shouldn't the parents be charged for negligence/child endangerment for convienently "forgetting" their kid at home...TWICE...while burglars were trying to ransack their shit AND kill the aforementioned kid?
It's a only film. Get over it. 😂
@@Pepsi7 with that mentality, why make the whole video?
The fact Tommy DeVito (from "Goodfellas") is in this movie, I think I know now how Kevin's dad can afford that house
Toothbrush Kevin had broke the law.
Oh, Ho ho! This Gonna Be Fun. The Fact, You Charged a Child For His Crimes Is Sick, But Hilarious. :D
Wow I didn’t know Marv is an entire foot taller than Harry
You should do Harry Wormwood, and Agatha Trunchbull from Matilda!
Felon in possession of a firearm would be a biggie
I love the Law & Order music 🎶🎵 😂😂
5:16 Technically that would be armed robbery since he has a gun.
The crimes of Kevin stealing that toothbrush that charges should be dropped. Kevin didnt mean to steal a toothbrush he just got scared in the store and left in a panic because the guy he stand next to him Kevin thought was a murdering psychopath. Did show that Kevin feel bad for stealing the toothbrush which he didn’t mean to.
Doesn't matter if he felt bad or he didn't mean to. Theft is theft.
@@CosmicGoku529 In a lot of cases, an inadvertent theft of that type is dealt with by completing the transaction.
Kevin should also be charged with identity theft and breaking and entering for calling the cops to the neighbor’s home using the neighbor’s name, entering the neighbor’s home without knowledge or consent by the owner. Also booby trapping is a crime in most states, and some judges may not include deliberately luring others into a booby trap in the defense of self and home.
"Guilty as charged!" 🚨👮⚖
Actually any crime commited by Kevin at his house is all self defense, they're on his property and trying to get him, so the only crimes are runing from the police and shoplifting
lets not forget kevin's family, who should be charged for emotional abuse
BUZZ uses Kevin as scapegoat to save his own ass for ruined rehearsal, piano lady was injured.
FRANK laughs at piano lady injury, has big grudge against Kevin.
SIBLINGS and COUSINS ridicule Kevin's inability to pack suit case.
they’re already getting criminal neglect due to the two trips without him
@@bostonrailfan2427Obviously
@@Kevin.Boyle.1981 Uncle Frank also stole wine glasses from a plane and forced his own wife to be an accomplice.
@@bostonrailfan2427 It was his own silly thing looking for batteries in middle of airport when he should of waited till they got on plane.
Actually no Kevin should not be charged anything except the theft and evading police and identity since the bandits were attacking him