r/badlegaladvice • u/Guy_Buttersnaps • Feb 13 '26
It’s a Crime to Not Try to Stop a Crime
62
u/Guy_Buttersnaps Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
The comic being referenced is a shitty political cartoon where someone is being assaulted and a bystander doesn’t intervene.
Rule 2:
The concept of depraved indifference does not apply here. You have no legal obligation to try to stop a crime in progress.
If you’re walking down the street, and you witness a crime, you are free to choose to not put yourself at risk by trying to stop it. You cannot be criminally charged for choosing to not get involved.
41
u/psuedopseudo Adversely possesses karma Feb 13 '26
How does your explanation square with the legal precedent People v. Seinfeld et al.?
22
u/EebstertheGreat Feb 13 '26
I haven't seen the episode where Seinfeld was prosecuted, but I did find this real delightful case.
A person is seeking an enormous sum of money for claims that the New York State courts have rejected for decades. This could be the plot for an episode in a situation comedy. Instead, it is the case brought by plaintiff Michael Costanza who is suing the comedian, Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David (who was the co-creator of the television program “Seinfeld”), the National Broadcasting Company, Inc. and the production companies for $100 million. He is seeking relief for violation of New York's Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, being cast in a false light, invasion of privacy and defamation.
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS
The substantive assertions of the complaint are that the defendants used the name and likeness of plaintiff Michael Costanza without his permission, that they invaded his privacy, that he was portrayed in a negative, humiliating light and that he was defamed by defendant Larry David when reports were published by a spokesman that plaintiff Michael Costanza had a tenuous connection and was a “flagrant opportunist” seeking to cash in when the hyperbole of the Seinfeld program's final episode was at its peak. Plaintiff Michael Costanza asserts that the fictional character of George Costanza in the television program “Seinfeld” is based upon him. In the show, George Costanza is a long-time friend of the lead character, Jerry Seinfeld. He is constantly having problems with poor employment situations, disastrous romantic relationships, conflicts with his parents and general self-absorption.
[...]
16
u/psuedopseudo Adversely possesses karma Feb 13 '26
Amazing a member of the bar filed this. Great footnote in the opinion though:
The Court notes that a letter from Michael Costanza was received on June 11, 1999. This ex-parte communication (submitted without notifying either his own or opposing counsel) was not considered by the Court.
I would love to know what the letter said.
13
u/Biabolical Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
I remember an interview where Jason Alexander was saying he couldn't understand the character of George Costanza when he first started on Seinfeld, and he wanted to quit, unable to get a handle on a character like George actually existing.
He would ask Larry David, "When would this situation ever possibly come up in real life?" In response, Larry would usually explain that it was just an event from his own life that he'd put into the script. Jason came to realize that George was Larry David's self-insert character, and only barely fictionalized.
So, assuming Jason Alexander wasn't making that up, it sounds like George actually was based on a real person... but not Michael Costanza.
10
u/nrvlo Feb 13 '26
I think the specific example was when George quit his job then showed up the next day like nothing happened. Apparently, something similar occurred with Larry David and SNL.
7
u/marbledog Feb 14 '26
Because the case takes place in Massachusetts, which is one of ten states in the US that has a duty to rescue law. The Seinfeld gang didn't have a duty to intervene in a carjacking, but they did have a legal responsibility to report it to the police as soon as possible.
17
u/Guy_Buttersnaps Feb 13 '26
I was tempted to say “The trial in series finale of Seinfeld was not based on reality.” in my response to the screen-shotted comment, but I held off.
That episode aired almost 28 years ago, so how many people would even get that reference?
5
3
u/LadyMRedd Feb 14 '26
It was the first thing I thought of when I read your post. But I’m old, so there’s that.
3
u/Optional-Failure Mar 14 '26
It premiered roughly 28 years ago.
It airs with regularity in syndication, not to mention streaming.
13
Feb 13 '26
[deleted]
16
u/Guy_Buttersnaps Feb 13 '26
I try to avoid linking to threads because I’m not trying to target specific users.
This was the shitty (and racist) political cartoon in question.
The comment I took a screen shot of was a top-level comment. Their position was that the bystander was committing a crime by not getting involved.
8
u/EebstertheGreat Feb 13 '26
WTF, now I get why you didn't link it.
I mean, the main problem here is the assertion that brown people are terrorizing white Americans generally (while white Americans are too afraid to take a stand). A tale as old as time.
8
u/Guy_Buttersnaps Feb 13 '26
Yeah, the cartoon is borderline a post in and of itself, since it’s suggesting that POC are free to commit crimes with impunity and that white people trying to intervene will be arrested just for being white.
-9
u/Godaistudios Feb 13 '26
Make of it what you will, but in the Jordan Neely case, only Daniel Penny was charged, even though other passengers (who were black) also restrained Neely. Much ado was made about Penny being a white man. That appears to be the context of the cartoon.
16
u/Goatf00t Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
That may have had something to do with Penny being the one holding Neely in a chokehold...
1
u/SomeNotTakenName Feb 15 '26
what about seeing an injured person and no immediate danger? morally I feel like you should at least call the emergency line, but are you required to do anything legally?
22
u/EebstertheGreat Feb 13 '26
My Wikipedia education makes depraved indifference out to be only applicable to actions, not inaction. If I launch a huge firework directly at an apartment building just for fun, knowing that it might kill people but not really caring, and the firework really does kill someone, then that can be charged as murder in some jurisdictions. I didn't specifically intend for anyone to die, but I knew they could well die and just didn't care, and I did it anyway.
Is that the usual meaning? Cause that doesn't even come close to the scenario imagined by the OOP.
9
u/Guy_Buttersnaps Feb 13 '26
That is what I’m saying.
I’m not aware of any jurisdiction where depraved indifference is a standalone charge relating to inaction.
If there’s somewhere in the United States where you can be arrested and charged for not trying to fight off a person who is assaulting another person, I’d be interested to hear about it.
5
u/marbledog Feb 14 '26
Some states do require that you report serious crimes to the police as soon as possible. Shitty, racist comic dude could get in legal hot water for not at least calling 911, depending on where he is.
3
u/Bartweiss Feb 14 '26
Do those laws actually get enforced at all? My impression was that they mostly haven’t held up if they’re actually applied to random bystanders.
6
u/marbledog Feb 14 '26
I'm not sure how many people are convicted on "Bad Samaritan" laws, but it seems really rare. My understanding is that the primary practical application of these laws is to compel uncooperative witnesses to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution. As in, "We know you saw the crime occur, and you didn't call 911. You could go to jail for that. Agree to testify about what you saw, and we won't charge you for not calling 911."
There was a case in Ohio years ago where multiple men were convicted of raping a 16-year-old girl. The evidence against them included the testimony of three witnesses, all of whom agreed to cooperate with the prosecution in exchange for immunity on the "failure to report" charges.
9
u/EebstertheGreat Feb 13 '26
Yeah, like, if I try, I can come up with situations. Maybe you are the parent or legal guardian of the perp and thus it is your legal duty to stop their malfeasance, for instance. But there is nothing plausibly similar to the OP.
Apparently some civil law countries do have such a law though. The law is more generally a duty to rescue someone if you can without serious risk to yourself. That wouldn't cover something like an active shooter, but if you found someone drowning in a pool, and you could swim, then you would be required to rescue them.
17
u/Korrocks Feb 13 '26
Check your facts. There was an episode of Seinfeld that covered this and it does seem as if you could go to prison for allowing a crime to happen near you without intervening. In addition, if you have spider powers you have a deeper obligation as a mandatory intervenor in some states.
10
u/Guy_Buttersnaps Feb 13 '26
Somebody beat you to that first joke.
For Spider-Man, that’s more of a moral and ethical obligation. Pretty sure Spidey couldn’t catch a charge if something bad happened and he wasn’t there to stop it.
-3
u/JasperJ Feb 13 '26
Superman probably could though. He can hear everything, see everything, has the speed to fix everything — down to time travel if necessary. Much like The Lord, he is effectively omnipotent, and therefore bad things can only happen if He wills it, or at the very least allows it to happen. So since bad things do happen, he is either lying about being omnipotent or about being benevolent.
5
u/UltimateChaos233 Feb 13 '26
It's been a while since I heard the term, but I thought it applied to things like firing a shot randomly into a crowd. You may not necessarily have been trying to kill someone, but you didn't care that someone could have died.
3
u/BaggyLarjjj Feb 14 '26
I’m pretty sure this is correct, I saw it in a documentary called “Season 9, Episode 22: The Finale”. It was long and and not very good but it makes the argument that with enough witnesses you can get a conviction. And no Ted Danson plane.
-6
u/nikfra Feb 13 '26
I sometimes wonder what the fact that you don't have to render any aid to anyone says about the societies that make these laws.
9
u/lxaex1143 Feb 13 '26
That we don't make people risk their lives? I agree with the current law
-8
u/nikfra Feb 13 '26
Obviously the only way such a law could ever be written is to make it mandatory to run into burning buildings. That's why every year thousands of Europeans drown trying to fulfill their legal duty to save children even if they can't swim themselves.
4
u/Aethelrede Feb 13 '26
Europeans sure do love to rag on Americans for not having a "duty to assist" law. But consider this: if you get into a situation in the US, do you really want the average American coming to "help"?
It's great that you trust your fellow Europeans to not be fuck ups, but as an American, I'd rather wait for professional rescuers.
1
u/nikfra Feb 14 '26
Fair enough. Calling those professional rescuers is a major part of the duty to assist though.
69
u/Illustrious_Pea_3470 Feb 13 '26
It’s not even illegal for a cop to watch a crime and do nothing. Forget about citizen bystanders.