Pre-Law student, here (Arizona State, 3.7 GPA). Here's the beauty of Jigsaw-- by allowing his victims to choose their own fates, he technically cannot be convicted of homicide. Let me clarify.
Webster's dictionary defines murder as having the following elements: >1. unlawful >2. killing >3. through criminal act or omission >4. of a human >5. by another human >6. with malice afterthought
Jigsaw takes advantage of a couple of different legal loopholes. In this case, it would be in regards to point 2, 3, and 6.
>2. killing Jigsaw never actually "killed" any of his victims, per-say. They always had a choice.
>3. through criminal act or omission Even if Jigsaw did kill anybody, it was not through criminal act. There is nothing criminal about letting your victims choose their own fates, through their own free will. They are liable for their own actions.
>6. with malice afterthought The whole point of Jigsaw's antics was to serve as a life-changing, positive rehabilitation. Therefore, Jigsaw acted without malice.
I hope this clear things up for anybody who previously didn't understand the legal technicalities of this film.
Based and lawpilled. The most they could pin on him was kidnapping and, let's be honest here, who is going to believe an emaciated cancer patient could kidnap anyone? t. Assistant to the DA of New York
Jaxson Rivera
>3.7 at ASU kek, you'll never make it to T14. Enjoy homelessness
Brody Walker
I don't think the idea of being arrested ever crossed Jigsaw's mind. Or the writers' for that matter.
Ryan Ross
Former ICJ judge here. Technically, he can be charged with taking people from one location to another one without their explicit will and signature. It is also true that he can be charged with putting people in situations that bear the risk of bodily injury and potentially fatal consequences. However, and this is important in understanding how such people are convicted. Jigsaw's intentions also fall into the equation which means that he a) intends to teach his "victims" a lesson for life and thus make them better persons, b) he gives them explicit instructions how to learn that lesson and c) he acts without malice.
Moreover, on the aspect of kidnapping. Evidence obviously would show that he is too frail to actively kidnap someone, ergo this would be instantly dropped in a serious court.
The chances of him being convicted of murder, let alone kidnapping are extremely low, 0.5% tops.
Joseph Watson
inb4 kidnapping. None of his victims were kids. Napping isn't illegal, people do it every day.
Angel Morris
As opposed to just memeing and shitposting about these films, let's try to rationally and logically go at this. Everyone knows that laws have to be very clear to avoid loopholes. That's why oftentimes the jargon is incredibly dense and filled with seemingly redundancies to cover every possible eventuality. With this in mind, I've spent this entire week going through the US penal code (law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18) and I honestly could not spot or find any article that says anything against what Jigaw did at all. I dare you to do the same. You will not find one sentence, not one iota of anything that mentions penalizing the acts of putting people in traps designed to maim or kill. You will also not find one single solitary mention of moving a person from one location to another one without their explicit consent.
Thus, the matter is settled and any lawyer and person who is experienced in law will most surely agree with this. Jigsaw's sheet is cleaner than a newborn's ass after wiping it.
He may not be charged with murder But what about kidnapping, terroristic threats, conspiracy? I don’t know probably many more
Alexander Perry
His actions put people in a situation where it was reasonably certain that they could die. His act of omission in not helping to save these people from death is a killing, especially since he PUT them in the position of a life or death situation.
Daniel Johnson
No he didn't, all he did was put him in a safe place. There case closed.
Nathaniel Bailey
what about suing him for wrongful death?
Jaxson Cooper
Read some case law bud. He is committing Murder by putting people in life or death situations in which it is reasonably certain that the victim could die. Because he is the person who PUT these people in these life threatening situations he MUST do everything in his power to save from.
Camden Carter
Solid analysis but you should've clarified that the police would have to prove that Jigsaw kidnapped and placed the victims into the so-called "traps" in the first place. Jiggy was a frail old man who suffered from cancer and could not have done this on his own. Personally, I'd fire the DA on the spot for trying to frame an innocent man. Former judge here btw.
Liam Ward
Pretty sure forcing someone to do something with the threat of death is literally assault. He does it probably 40+ times so that's an easy life in prison
Alexander Sanchez
What about the cop he killed in the first
Matthew Martin
>What about the cop he killed in the first purely an act of self-defence / stand your ground law
Lincoln Campbell
Supreme Court justice here. You can't even charge him with kidnapping, as all of the people involved were adults. Kids =/= adults. Checkmate and Happy Easter.
Joseph Walker
he kills a guy with a knife in one of them
Benjamin Long
Stand your ground law only applies to beaners Retards
Logan Baker
>Pre-Law >not just taking the LSAT, illegally sitting in on the bar and then writing a heartfelt letter to the law school of your choice
Christian White
dont study law.
>Jigsaw never actually "killed" any of his victims, per-say. They always had a choice. yeah they have the choice to harm themselves so even if we assume he is just magically not criminally liable for them dying because they had a choice (which, as a legal argument sucks ass because of the nature of the choice) then he would still be liable for the damage done to them (in many cases his traps woul be tried as attempted murder btw) and for whatever other crimes he committed to get them there (kidnapping by itself is a pretty serious offense). on average i would say between the kidnapping, grievous bodily harm and attempted murder every single game he plays would get you at least 15 years, maybe life.
>Even if Jigsaw did kill anybody, it was not through criminal act. There is nothing criminal about letting your victims choose their own fates, through their own free will. They are liable for their own actions.
not if you intentionally put them in a situation that they cant escape unharmed. then you are liable.
>The whole point of Jigsaw's antics was to serve as a life-changing, positive rehabilitation.
try that as his lawyer in court, you will get laughed at for 5 minutes and then ignored because you are obviously incompetent
Jose Williams
Nuremburg Trials lawyer here. Poo poo pee pee.
Ethan Cruz
holy retard alert, this fucking larp
Alexander Rogers
dangerously based
Aaron Anderson
Looks like self defense to me. The cops fail to show jigsaw their badges. Just yelling "police" doesn't mean the other person has to do whatever you say. As far as jigsaw was concerned, he was being threatened at gunpoint by two hoodlums.
Tyler Adams
>ASU pre-law career goals inspired by Better Call Saul
> Rob store at gunpoint > clerk refuses to hand over money > shoot clerk > I DIDNT COMMIT MURDER I GAVE HIM A CHOICE TO LIVE > now instead of me personally killing the clerk I create a mechanical device that kills him if he refuses > also instead of my motivation being to rob a store it is «help» strangers change their lifestyle to one that conforms to my world view
I don’t know if you will do well in law school with your critical thinking skills. Unless of course it’s a troll post then I need to lurk notez
Connor Sullivan
>uses a food analogy get your shit together retard
Joshua Evans
I hope the legal eagle makes a video on this movie so this meme will finally die
Aaron Bailey
The cop didn't die
Michael White
Same poster here.... let’s ignore the Felony Murder problem here just for the sake of argument. Although Felony Murder would be another way to get Jigsaw for murder, but I’m convinced you could win if you go for traditional first degree murder. Assuming you can prove the facts
Elijah Bennett
Thomas Jefferson here. flurb.
Carter Ramirez
I've watched enough TV to know you can throw the book at him for Reckless Endangerment, at the very least.
Evan Edwards
He did nothing wrong broke no laws, was just a humble youtuber.
So I don't know that much, but this Jigsaw guy sounds like he just wanted people not to take their lives for granted. Maybe we should all try to do what he says because his logic is absolutely flawless. >I'm not Jigsaw, I'm someone else
What's the point of this analogy unless you're trying to imply that motive doesn't matter in a court of law? It's not accurate anyway unless somehow the police can't prove it was you at the store. Actually, the whole scenario is unrealistic because store clerks are supposed to cooperate and hand over the money. They have theft insurance. Only redneck and immigrant stores don't. Weak bait
