Laws Broken: Indiana Jones
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Indiana Jones is supposed to be the good guy right? Are you sure? Get DEEP SENTINEL, the only security system with real human guards watching your cameras in real-time and get 15% off! www.deepsentinel.com/legaleagle/
⚖️⚖️⚖️Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my PRELAW COURSE:
legaleagle.teachable.com/p/pr...
©©©©© Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you (15% OFF!):
www.copyrightcourse.com/yt
Have you ever watched a movie and thought “that looks illegal.” It probably is! Welcome to Laws Broken, a series on LegalEagle where I tackle your favorite movies and show you how legally irresponsible they are.
As a lawyer, it’s hard for me to watch movies, because I’m constantly thinking about how the main characters are breaking the law or opening themselves up for civil liability. But my pain is your entertainment!
Got a non-legal movie that seems illegal? Let me know in the comments!
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
ruclips.net/user/legaleagle?su...
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ ➜ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta ➜ / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
👮♂️Should Indy go to jail?
🚨 Get DEEP SENTINEL, for 15% off (exclusively here!) www.deepsentinel.com/legaleagle/
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.
If they try he’ll simply play his theme become immortal and fly away
Please do The Boys gets Lawyered, I'd love to see how long homelander is going to jail for
Will you make a video on the SCOTUS situation? I'd like to hear your 2 cents. Thanks keep up the great work!
What about all the animals he killed that violated local or international laws smh
Legal Eagle: You can’t just steal artifacts and put them in a museum!
British empire: Haha, East India company go brrrrrrr.
British Museum goes.... shhhhhhh...
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?
@@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681 true, no flag no country.
Yes, but... Do you have a flag? No flag no country, cant have one.
law is backed by military force
The worst part for Dr. Jones is that everything was caught on camera.
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.
Dr. Jones, how do you plead?
Wasn't me
:DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Caught in 4k too
@@yt.lilsantee nah, more like caught in 720p
Witnesses that wouldn't be favorable to his defense? THEY CHEERED when he shot the swordsman and then helped hide him!
If the swordman was hired by the Nazis...Then everything was fair and square, because Nazis are scum.
@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
Yeah the swordman was dressed in black so everyone knew he was a bad guy ha ha ha.
@@SandmanGotBeer
Actually the movie takes place in 1936 before the war, Egypt was ruled by King Farkut I, I think, so Egypt was under the Sharia law
@@oscarf5433 I thought Egypt was still under British administration at that point.
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
@@Axius27 Which in 1936, was known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
@@Axius27interesting theory
@@Axius27 Yeah. Don't mess with the IRS. They'te the ones who took down Capone.
"You can't do this to me, I'm an American!" What a classic line.
Allot of Americans don't realize how bad some countries are because they have never been outside the US
@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.
@@retroliftsprs I have never been outside of the US but this is the main reason I don't complain about they US.
“I thought this was America! Isn’t this America!?”
@@retroliftsprs , what countries have you visited?
1:50 "Is he allowed to steal artifacts from foreign countries and graves to fill his museum?"
*The British museum* : 👀
Ah, but Indiana Jones is a civilian. The British government is a government. They are the lawmakers.
@@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
@@alexanderchristopher6237 well the US government is a government and they hired Indy............
@@alexanderchristopher6237 the "archeologists" (more like grave robbers) who brought the British museum all that stuff were also private citizens
The Vatican : 👀
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.
@@Seriona1 Specifically The "Kingdom of Egypt" wich existed from 1922 to 1953 and comprised the modern day states of Egypt, South Sudan & Sudan..
Based
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
I think most of the reason why Jones isn't in jail for the actions within the movie (not touching the stuff that was only said as part of a backstory) is that the US government, maybe the president himself, gave Jones a pardon for the mission he was sent on.
When he "musuemed" them from countries. Laughed hard at that one.
It's very British empire of him lol
@@djstringsmusic2994 PAH! Very "british empire" of him. ...I need to steal- I mean..."Museum" this one for future use! XD
When the British do, it's "museuming", when the Americans do it, it's "liberating", when anybody else does it, it's "plundering".
@@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
Indiana Jones: "It belongs in a museum!"
Legal Eagle: "You belong in prison!"
and the movie would be roughly the same without him. The Nazis would have found the Ark, opened it and and died horribly
Leto617 Ah yes a Big Bang theory fan
Him: it belongs in a museum
Me: yes but which museum are you talking about
You could try to explain it to him, if only you spoke Hovito.
@@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.
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.
It's been 84 years since Indy was put in jail
... as an archaeologist I love everything about this ❤❤
He has now become an artifact himself.
@@PongoXBongo He probably would've gotten a presidential pardon.
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
He took the gold and destroyed the site... Let him rot.
Legit, Indiana Jones is a bad archaeologist. I should know, I HAVE A MASTERS. 😂
Every Archaeologist React to Treasure Hunt Movies video.
Cultural Resource Management Archaeology grad student checking in and sharing the pain
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.
I think the Beverly Hills Cop trilogy would be a great series. His progression of law breaking is unreal.
And they acknowledge it in the movie a couple times so itd be cool to see if they made his violations as severe as they really were
Agreed!!
Excellent suggestion!
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"....
Like all cops.
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.
I agree
We need an Egyptian law scholar who knows how self defence was defined and applied there in 1936
“And by museum, I mean jail.” I love it.
"Let's go to something more lighthearted"
Me: is it murder?
"murder!"
Oh hey that's the spoiler line from the start of the video
25-10= JAIL😹😹
I'd like to see a "Laws Broken" for Matilda. There's a lot of broken laws in that movie, and not just the laws of physics.
"Who's IN MAH HOUSE!?!?!?"
Yes! Yes! I would love to see a video on this. lol
I just saw that again last week
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.
that's one of my favourite musicals. LegalEagle should do a breakdown for it.
Had to watch this twice because I couldn’t stop laughing at: “You know, kinda like the Taliban.” Damn that was well played.
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.
@@angelavestlee1 I had the tapes back in the 90s and it just had Raiders of the Lost Ark
@@angelavestlee1 see Kumagoro's comment
They renamed it to keep the original three pictures together in the Blockbuster Video.
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...
"Americans don't like our protagonists engaging in questionable sexual behavior"
* James Bond had entered the chat *
James Bond is British.
@@robertjarman3703 of course. But he has had an overwhelming impact on american film and american pop culture.
@@robertjarman3703 additionally, some of the movies have been partially written and produced by americans
@@AlbintheOctopus * Matt Helm has entered the chat *
@@robertjarman3703 yet americans love it.
“The government would sue jones for stealing the ark” you forget the government hired Indy
There’d be a very low probability of conviction, based on that fact (witnessed by Brody)
The USA government hired Indy. The Egyptian government were the ones who lost the Ark.
@@amcconnell6730 Well at given time it was not exactly anything Egypt could do about it, British were still taking piles....
@@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.
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.
Good point
The 15year old started it and was the one who loved indie
@@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
@@teamjones8 "The 15 year old started it" is not the great defense you think it is
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! 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.
They admit to a relationship, never said anything about sex though.
“Generally in American cinema, we don’t like our protagonists engaging in questionable sexual behavior. We’re not the French”
Shots Fired! Lol
Though, not sure to which side the shots were fired...
@@LeSarthois they were fired at the French.
The biggest defence of any French person is: “at least I’m not American”.
@@gglreallysucks5512 as an american i hate americas prudishness
@@dragon22214 America is nowhere near as "prudish" as the rest of the world.
OBJECTION: The *dog's* name was Indiana.
Touche
His dad even said in the third movie:you named yourself after the dog?!
“We named the dog Indy.”
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.
😄
This is actually entertaining. I like that he analyzes and tallies the crimes, instead of just saying whether it would or wouldn't be legally possible
If Indy got 84 years and served it all he'd be getting out right around now
So if Indi was in jail for 80 years or so in the 1930's that means he would have gotten out just in time to watch the cristal skull in theaters
Which would have been 72 years in 2008.
@@jbiehlable Maybe he could have watched it in the common room's tv or watch it in theaters if he got parol or something, idfk it's just a joke lol
@@lautimartinez6341 I got that, just pointing it out.
At the ripe old age of 118!
@@jbiehlable jokes aside, I'm almost certain that a 100+ year old man would get some privileges in prison.
Daaaaaaam i had no idea Marian was 15! I thought she was a college student. That's crazy that the creators did that intentionally
According to the novel, Indy was 28 at the time.
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.)
@Brandon Neifert it really sounds like you’re making stuff up. Where did you study psychology?
She wasnt. That is simply the estimate presented to us by Legal Eagle. She was canonically 17 at the time.
@@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....
Legal Eagle: Again we see there is nothing in your childhood which I cannot take away.
Underrated comment
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.😬
@@zachtonack848 Thats good! Still a liiiittle creepy though haha
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 At any rate, it's not America, so American law wouldn't apply.
@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.
@@neeneko depending on when in 1936 raiders takes place there might still be separate courts under British control for foreigners
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.
Me: It's going to be tough to go through all the crimes in Indiana Jones.
LegalEagle: Actually it's going to be super easy, barely an inconvenience.
Me: is this a cross-over episode!
@@rhyanashah128 Crossovers are tight!
And then Indy did a backflip, snapped the bad guy's neck, and saved the day! Then went to jail for it.
@@rhyanashah128 unfortunately not and I'm gonna need you to get aaaalllll the way off of my back on this one.
@@Zumoari okay. Let me get off of that thing really quick.
Objection: Karen Allen was 30 when she made the movie, which would have made her 20, 10 years prior. Were not for this stupid obsession of Hollywood men for very young girls, they would just have said that Marion was Allen's age and no crime was committed. And basically this is me realising this paints Lucas and Spielberg in an even worse light...
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.
For the next "laws broken" episode, how about the Incredibles? There's a lot to unpack in that one.
Oh yeah, there's a whole lot to unpack, just in that montage at the beginning, where superheroes are forced to retire by the lawsuits and protests
@@TheNeXTGUI Film Theory isn't very good and often times wrong.
@@rhyanwalsh5713 Isn't that what a theory is?
@@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.
Rhydini The Great MatPat talks about the laws that might make it possible with suing a superhero. Laws aren’t subjective.
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
From someone who used to be in law school I'm not lawyer I just went to law school and I didn't pass the bar but I absolutely love this channel this series
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.
SAME lmao, i always thought she was naive and believed some romantic promises that he broke. but he's right the text of the film proves me wrong 😭
Came here to make the same comment.
She doesn't mean it like that, it's not statutory rape because it's before 1930 the age of consent in the United States was 16
@@marcuspacheco3815 The movie takes place in 1936 so "Five years ago" would actually be 1931.
@@RunawayTrain2502 it was ten years ago so 1926
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.
Plus you can clearly see in various scenes that he was blocked in by the crowd. Preventing any attempts to escape.
Not to mention he was probably a little worn out from all the running and fighting.
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.
Paris Spinelli thanks for saving my hero
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.
Here I was expecting grave robing and murder charges, until he dropped what Jones had done to a minor...
Oh no...
Yep, I actually knew about that one so I was just waiting for it.
He told her that she knew what she was doing, which tells me she made him think she was older.
Marty Keaton He knew her father, he probably knew her for years.
@@martykeaton182 even if that's the case (a big if), as LE points out, that's legally irrelevant.
@@adamrodger5351 Indy found out somehow and broke it off.
I think it’d be fun to see a Legal analysis of Clue
Every person in that movie breaks at least one law
You've got a great shtick going on here. Fun to watch you dissect these classics. Many thanks, sir!
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...
I put a deposition inside your deposition so you can depose while you depose.
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...
Link is an archeologists lol
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.
Indiana Jones is a believeable Archeologist as much as CSI are believeable crime scene investigators.
Did someone say Roy Chapman Andrews? He would sometimes use dynamite to remove artifacts. When he was through with a site it was said to be RCAed.
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
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.
The scene when Simba returns in the original Lion King is sort of a trial, I always wondered if scar's confession wouldn't be considered under duress.
Which system of law does the jungle court use.
@@HappyBeezerStudios Trial by combat, and Scar lost 🙂
These are wild animals so the law wouldn't apply.
"Luckily for you I'm not going to go off the deep end about maritime law." Translation: "But I totally could if I wanted to." Boss lawyer move.
thats not a translation but rather a continuation of the statement
I made a sad "Awh" when he said that, I wanted a Maritime law ramble.
I was hoping for him to go off the deep end about maritime law though.
"Yoooou're a crook, Captain Hook..."
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.
YES!!
"Use of excessive force in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers.......has been approved"
@@taylorlibby7642 One of the most under rated lines in any comedy film in my opinion.
I think flamethrowers are actually legal.
@@danielkrohn4980 Tbh I think the film was pre the assault weapons bad as well, but either way still not legal to try and kill your ex with them.
Thank you so much. That was so funny and entertaining. It really lighten my day in these times.
I think the relaxed mood is just because he's exhausted from being attacked so much
In one of my wife’s cultural anthropology classes when she was in college, they played the opening scene of Indiana Jones and then spent the rest of class talking about everything wrong with it (which was, spoiler...everything!)
I saw a history channel documentary where one of the professors they interviewed said that he did exactly that. I wonder how common this practice is...
When he overturned those baskets, I'm kinda shocked that the fact he was trying to liberate a kidnappee is not a defense.
It would probably taken into consideration during sentencing. A minor fine.
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 he didn't know that?
@@daydodog So? Is he allowed to just attack random people if they happen to be in the general vicinity of a crime?
@@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.
Whoopsie! Thank you for the Ryan George mention. I recently discovered his channel and was gleeful to see the reference.
I'm SO ENJOYING these Laws Broken series ❤😂
"Indiana Jones belongs in a museum. And by a museum, I mean jail".
...
"Mommy, why can't daddy come home?"
"Well, sweetie, daddy's...in a museum."
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
I read somewhere that actual archeologists would be more interested in the mechanisms of the temple than on the idol.
On the other hand we see him like for a total of 4 days.
@@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?
@@sircracked The opening of Temple of Doom was set in Shanghai I believe
Not only does Indy keep artifacts in his home but he also sells artifacts on the black market (Temple of Doom opening)
10:40 given recent revelations from Hollyweird I’m pretty sure the producers knew perfectly well about the illegal nature of the relationship.
Who doesn't love Indiana Jones? Apparently, actual archaeologists...
actual archaeologists with a stick up there ass. Some people can distinguish the different between fictional movie and reality.
@@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.
To be honest most actual archaeologists don't have to fight off Nazis.
I have an idea: a series on how you would defend movie characters.
Yes!!!
Yes please
Have an actual People vs Movie Character series
That would be legal advice.
late comment. About Statutory rape: I'm not sure an outright sexual relationship was ever entailed. For all we know, it could have been an "innocent" relationship, which was then terminated by Indy leaving and breaking the young girl's heart ( and that was actually what he admitted to with his "I did what I did" = " I left")
I think Lucas an Spielberg wrote in the script the relationship was sexual... Which doesn't make Indy a creep.... It makes Lucas and Spielberg creeps.
@@mikejunior211 I think Spielberg was against it. It was Lucas who was pushing it……ew
@@mikejunior211 The audience didn't see the script. I've seen this movie a bunch of times and this is the first I've heard of a 'sexual relationship'
This is what I've always thought.
@@mikejunior211 I'm no writer so I'm not entirely sure how scripts in movies work, but why would that bit of information be there? Also are you able to show us a source because now I'm curious.
Objection: One could argue that, while Jones could have retreated from the swordsman, due to him being attacked at every turn, he had no reason not to believe the swordsman would not follow him and ambush him during another encounter. Yes, he appears to be relaxed, but he is drenched in sweat due to the physical exertion of fighting off the other attackers and is losing stamina. As well, one could argue the shooting to be in defence of Marian as, the longer Jones spends fighting the swordsman, the higher chance Marian has of being executed or taken, and no longer able to be found, especially as he is not sure who he can trust, has very few allies who could help, and has no reason to believe the local authorities could or would help him find Marian.
Also; this does not take place in the US, so Jones would not be subject to American Law, he would be subject to the law of the country that he is in.
Additionally, him just standing there is not the evidence of him not attempting to flee that he says it is.
People from the crowd attacked him already. He has no idea who, if any, of the crowd will simply let him pass instead of resuming the attack he's already been subject to. Him just standing there could easily be argued as him NOT running TOWARDS danger. Since he's facing that in literally every direction, even a single step would be ill advised.
The enemy is holding a deadly weapon. I can't tell if the swordsman is inside the ten or 20 foot area but he does appear to be close enough to strike Jones before Jones has his weapon ready. If Jones turned and ran, as was pointed out, he had a crowd to run through. How many of them would stop him. Also would they get out of his way. We know they would get out of the way of the man swinging a sword. Close in sword ready beats gun in holster no mater what Hollywood wants to say
I would argue that is are exactly those local authorities would be the ones to apply to.
Finding out Indy is a guilty violating a 15yr old has made this the scariest Halloween of my life.
she was actually 17 in the canon series
@@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
@@houseofaction The lawyer notes that the script makes her younger than 17. This was later retconned in writing to make it "canon".
@@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.
@@khamjaninja. They thought it would be exotic. And yeah, it still surprises Americans that *Europeans* have their age of consent between 14-16.
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.
Also he was attacked multiple times before, why would mr sword guy be different
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.
@@wmdkitty To be more accurate Harrison had been playing to much Oregon Trail and was suffering more like dysentery.
@@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.
I must say I thought she was a student in college when she had a relationship with Indy and that she said ‘“I was a child” as in “I was young” !
I agree with you. But that didn’t go with this presenters objective to get likes
@@oakpineranch She was 15 in the book, so definitely not a collage student.
@@miyuedelfelt2676 She's 17-18 in the Ultimate Guide, which probably supersede the books and the script in canonicity.
@@miyuedelfelt2676 It was the 30s... people were getting married early. different times. my gma got married at 15.... was not uncommon
@@oakpineranch Ok? Child marriage is still legal a lot of places, that doesn’t make something ok.
So freaking cool seeing Ryan George from the Screenrant Pitch Meetings!! “Whoopsie!!”
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."
This especially applies to the British
I mean, that depends on the type of museum... I'd say a museum of natural history probably has a good chance of having some legally acquired exhibits.
You could display artifacts from your own country.
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 RUclips, he has a video about it.
I think it is legal advice
I really don’t know why he has to put his political beliefs in this video it’s clear what he is getting at if you follow politics at all
And in biological terms: we ARE Monkeys, even if creationists would highly disagree, but they don't know shit.
Loved this, more of this please!
Would the sentences be stacked or run concurrently so if he's appeals he would still end up in jail on another crime? Is this up to the Judge or prosecution?
"We're not the French" I'm not French or american and this still hurts.
Wow, I did not expect the war that happened as a result of my comment
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.
ILikeChestnuts I’m gonna make a movie about oversexualization of children by oversexualizing them, makes sense. My god you are dumb
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’d love to see a Laws Broken: The Simpson’s Movie
EPA! EPA! EEEEEEPA!!!!!
Trapping an entire city in a glass dome is definitely breaking some type of law.
@@gengarzilla1685 Numerous, probably.
@@gengarzilla1685 not to mention the laws of physics around that giant glas dome
Public nudity comes to mind.
@legaleagle is there anything about dueling that could have carried over in the gun v. sword scene?
9:55 When did they mention those two having sex? If you've only gotten your heart broken by people you've had sex with, consider yourself lucky. I think Indy just led her on, then rejected her.
Well...there is a transcript of the story meeting between George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Lawrence Kasdan, where they described the past relationship as an affair.(They even discussed for her to be younger but at least even they realized that that was going too far). Of course the movie leaves it vague enough that one could argue nothing sexual really happened but from the transcript it really sounded like they wanted it to be that way.
2:08- Objection- counsel is speculating that Dr. Jones' personal collection of artifacts were stolen and not legitimately purchased.
or awarded/gifted
also they could be replicas.
@@DarthRagnarok343 In fact they are replicas 😁
“Hey you! You leave Indy alone! He’s my friend.”
Smoothest transitions to ad read on all of RUclips.
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.
"Opening of the Ark of Covenant" ... turns out to violate a higher Law.
Egypt was under the control of Great Britain. Germany had no right to bring in a company of soldiers into British controlled territory.
@@JayM409 Big oof
@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.
It may have been possible to get permission to bring a small group of guards, but not a full scale expeditionary force.
"Is Indiana Jones allowed to steal foreign artifacts to put in a museum?"
All Western nations: *sweating profusely*
Hey, America never stole any *foreign* artifacts.
We made sure we stole the land they were on first.
It was legal at the time.
Are Eastern nations 100 percent innocent?
@@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.
@@ZeteticPhilosopher But on some alternate Earth out there they probably did as they colonized the western nations
Hi LegalEagle!
Just got me wondering....would you ever do a video based on laws in the past in movies? Like in the video here can you prosecute indiana jones with 1900s law?
Objection, assuming facts not in evidence: "If" they had a sexual relationship when she was 15 (ugh), there is no indication it happened in Illinois. Jones could've been accompanying Abner Ravenwood (with Marion) on an expedition to a country in South American where the age of consent was 14: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguary (if the current laws are the same as the laws of the 1930).
LE, I do love your deep dives into these movies and finding all manner of laws to uncover as a result.
Supporting the objection of assuming facts not in evidence: it's no more than "strongly suggested" that their relationship was actually sexual. There's lots of "romantic" activities short of sex that might have left her sufficiently heartbroken to explain the scene we see.
@@voidstarq That was my reasoning for "Is Indiana is a bad guy". He IS a, let's say, not the best in terms of moral, being black archeologist and etc, but I do not think that he raped her. It's even possible, that he, actually, turned down her affection, when it became too hot (of course, it's really possible, that he allowed his relation progress to the point, when it comes to this, thus the accusation, that he knows, that it is wrong and he knew it).
FYI: I have a book on slang from the 1930's. The term "top men" was an reference to Army Intelligence.
Objection!: we just don't know if the sword guy, or the people in scaffoldings, survived their injuries or not.
Sustained. Particularily the people with the scaffoldings had a pretty good shot at surviving their fall.
Does sound more like wanton endangerment
I'd love to see a Terry Gilliam short about sword guy going to the hospital, recovering, and questioning his life as a swordsman.
I'm pretty sure the swordsman is dead, lol
18:38 I lol'd, "Trespass to Chattles" hahaha
Honestly, I would love to hear more about maritime law!
What are some of the most fascinating maritime cases you've heard of? Are there any particularly unique laws about boats and ships? Who is liable for damages if a kraken attacks two pirate ships in the middle of a battle?!?!
"25 - 10 = JAIL"
Hmm, math checks out. Jail it is!
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.
thats right i learned at a priest seminar that everything in the double digits is a affront against the lord, so prison it is
rape in the 1930' is considered a mis understanding
Really, nobody replied *15* yet?!?
Adding a clip of Ryan George was super easy, barely an inconvenience.
adding clips of Ryan Geroge is tight
@@SunnyGoodbye Wow wow wow
I will need you to get aaaall the way off of LegalEagle's back.
So you have a LegalEagle "Laws Broken" episode for me?
Then Indiana Jones did a backflip, snapped the bad guys neck, and saved the day
19:41 OHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
That was hilarious and I knew I could respect you.
Haven't laughed this much in a long time. Thank you!
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.
Feminists did. But people reacted to it pretty much the same way they do now.
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.
"can he steal artifacts and put them in a museum" well, as an american, no. But as a british, it is highly encouraged
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...
Don’t forget the French. The British first learned of this career choice from Napoleon in Egypt.
@@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.
Hey, we've...mostly stopped doing that...
@@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
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!
"when he's just standing there looking pretty relaxed given the situation" I'd say it looks more like "he's just standing there utterly exhausted"
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.
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.
Belloq also stole the McGuffin after Indy went through all the hard work twice, which is classic villain stuff.
The second movie is actually a prequel. That’s why he is such a jerk in it.
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.
@@ceresbane nah ill pass on the whole rape thing as somthing people want to be.
This is a great idea for a series. Great work. I can now ruin movies for my friends on two different levels; editing and continuity errors and legal issues. HA!
May I suggest Falling Down. I believe there is enough there for a couple of episodes.
The fact screen rant made it in here was just the cherry on top!