Real Lawyer Reacts to Seinfeld Finale (Is Jerry A Good Samaritan?) // LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 1,256,152
5 жыл бұрын⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
A carjacking gone wrong. A Good Samaritan law. Jerry does nothing. JAIL FOR YOU.
Get a free account for 30 days at CuriosityStream and check out the best documentaries: curiositystream.com/legaleagle
After nine seasons, Seinfeld ended with an insane court case involving a law that seems impossible: a good Samaritan law that punishes you for doing nothing. If there is one thing that Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer are good at, it’s doing nothing.
After George and Jerry land a production deal with NBC, the four head out for Paris on NBC's private plane and are waylaid in a small Massachusetts town. They witness a carjacking and instead of helping, they just make fat jokes and video record it. The town sheriff then arrests them under a municipal ordinance that makes failing to help a criminal offense. They call it a “Good Samaritan Law”.
At the ensuing trial, the district attorney (who you might remember from My Cousin Vinny - • Real Lawyer Reacts to ... ) brings out a parade of character witnesses to testify against everyone; apparently they have a history of bad acts (over nine seasons).
(Thanks to CuriosityStream for sponsoring this video and helping to make this channel possible)
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
kzfaq.info?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
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous.
Today I'm taking a break from representing clients and teaching law students how to kick ass in law school to take on lawyers in the movies and on TV. While all legal movies and shows take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth.
This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reaction" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!
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
@LegalEagle 5 жыл бұрын
Check out Trek Nation on CuriosityStream for FREE: curiositystream.com/legaleagle
@mikekillagreen9432 5 жыл бұрын
Objection you have not yet done The Practice. Your Boston Legal review was awesome!
@FusionDeveloper 5 жыл бұрын
I love Star Trek. I didn't always like it, but I love it now. I'm trying to watch every episode and movie, but I skip episodes about pregnancy and babies, because I don't want to spend my free time listening to babies whining.
@SirJonathonDanielGregorySrVthe 5 жыл бұрын
You should do "The Castle", which is an Australian classic comedy film about a man trying to save his house from being bought out from under him.
@kaustubhken 5 жыл бұрын
Please react to sabarimala case in supreme court of india , its one of the most complicated cases in common law . I requested you because you have made a video about pewdiepie and indian company T Series
@Tripsshetakes 5 жыл бұрын
Have you ever watched a show or movie, and have taken away something that you use in real life?
@johnjoeelkington8356 5 жыл бұрын
That policeman was too lazy to do anything about the carjacking so he just arrested the people closest to him. Chief Wiggum would be proud.
@orlock20 5 жыл бұрын
The defense lawyer brought that up. I guess that is one of the jokes. The cop went after easy targets rather than something more dangerous. It would be like a police officer seeing a mugging and a jaywalker at the same time and went after the jaywalker.
@Jaxvidstar 5 жыл бұрын
Like how Californian politicians go after plastic straws over abnormally large homelessness.
@InSanic13 5 жыл бұрын
@@Jaxvidstar Apples and oranges. By that logic, every government should only ever focus on one issue at a time.
@nancyomalley9959 5 жыл бұрын
That officer was Paige's Whitelighter dad from "Charmed"
@nancyomalley9959 5 жыл бұрын
And Mabel Chote was Old Phoebe from the Charmed episode Three Faces of Phoebe
@lvgeeco7121 3 жыл бұрын
Kramer actually recorded the thief so we know exactly what he was wearing and WHAT HE LOOKS LIKE so in a way they did help!
@donkeyhobo34 3 жыл бұрын
I'm in love with you
@jeffrydonald3436 3 жыл бұрын
@@donkeyhobo34 simp
@donkeyhobo34 3 жыл бұрын
@@jeffrydonald3436 you are
@Ashrustic 3 жыл бұрын
@@donkeyhobo34 do you know what a simp is
@amandayoung725 3 жыл бұрын
Simp
@bsphil 3 жыл бұрын
Fun fact: the actor that played Jackie Chiles went to the same barbershop as Johnny Cochran for years which is why he felt so comfortable with his impression, which helped get the role initially on Seinfeld.
@CarynDPrescott 2 жыл бұрын
Johnny actually wanted Phil to stop doing Jackie, but Phil defied him.
@Viking_Luchador 2 жыл бұрын
Cochrane was actually cool with it. What caused him to put a stop to it was when Morris was approached by NBC about a "Jackie Chiles" spinoff. Jackie had only appeared in what, five episodes over multiple seasons? I don't know if it would've been a good show or not, but I can see Cochrane's point in not wanting a full series caricaturing him.
@nilssamfors7433 3 жыл бұрын
The most realistic thing would be that they sentenced Jerry, Elaine, Kramer and George to be the fat guys butler.
@partyharry7585 2 жыл бұрын
Now that would actually be a funny callback.
@ThunderPants13 2 жыл бұрын
How dare you call him a fat guy. He's calorie challenged.
@ezryder111 Жыл бұрын
🤣🤣🤣
@originalindigodingo Жыл бұрын
Is this custom in your country?
@michaelleue7594 Жыл бұрын
Fat guy is a famous comedian named John Pinette. Died a while ago, but it's actually a really fun cameo in this episode.
@latue87 5 жыл бұрын
Objection! They filmed the crime! That would help the police find the criminal. How was this not brought up?!
@shinjig 5 жыл бұрын
That was something that I had always wondered. They literally caught the crime on camera in the days before photoshop. That could easily been used as evidence to catch the real criminal but that was never discussed.
@benconners713 4 жыл бұрын
I think about this everytime I see this episode.
@tjcross2 4 жыл бұрын
Never saw this episode and I thought it'd be about them trying to confiscate the video but they tried to say no it's private property with all their vacation video on it.
@MisterMomotaro1996 4 жыл бұрын
@@shinjig Photoshop is a lot older than you think.
@shinjig 4 жыл бұрын
@@MisterMomotaro1996 As a program? No, no it isn't. Video files certainly were no where near as complex or as large as they are today. As evidenced by how people treat even newer videos that are "only" 240p or 480i as "toaster videos". Back in 98 we were still using "real media" player and encoders. Files sizes and quality on those files encoded on that are absolute shit in comparison today. Most of my video editing experience came in the early 2000's. Which would be more advanced than what this group of friends from new york would have access to.
@ultimateninjaboi 3 жыл бұрын
I love the idea that in the lore of the show, unarmed civilians have a duty to attack and subdue an armed man stealing a car, but the officer responding has no real need to follow up on the getaway.
@vika0194 2 жыл бұрын
You missed out on the biggest thing: The cop is visible through the reflection of the window during the whole robbery. He was there and saw everything. Watch the scene.
@billyalarie929 Жыл бұрын
LMFAO IT BAFFLES ME THIS WASNT BROUGHT UP
@vika0194 Жыл бұрын
@@billyalarie929 Basically nobody has noticed this.
@RidgeR5 Жыл бұрын
Remember we were watching this on 25" TVs in the living room in the 90s, so basically 480p resolution lol
@allisons6910 Жыл бұрын
@@RidgeR5 The correct answer. "But we can see it on 17" computer screen, surely fans would've noticed this detail too?" Maybe, at best, they had a blurry suspicion. It's all about resolution. Seinfeld had the foresight to record the show on actual film, which was more expensive than the standard VHS recording tapes of that time. A roll of film, which is composed of silver halide crystals emulsed in gelatin, can be processed from Standard Definition (think VHS quality) all the way to IMAX / 8K. For comparison, check out a 90s show that did skimped on using film: Home Improvement (Sorry AL 😅)
@theotakux5959 9 ай бұрын
It's obviously a mistake, though, since the way he's reflected he seems to be closer to the building, but when he walks up to the victim he was clearly on the other side of the incident. Why the actor was close enough to be reflected during filming is a good question, though.
@christiandrewes5493 4 жыл бұрын
I definitely would ask for a retrial because their lawyer Jackie Childs was sleeping with one of the character witnesses.
@ArcanineEspeon 3 жыл бұрын
what I have a feeling there's a really funny reasoning behind this joke, I just have no idea what it is.
@JimmyNotes 3 жыл бұрын
They're real and they're sensational!
@MarinosHindkjr 2 жыл бұрын
@@JimmyNotes BTW, they're real and spectacular!
@vanessab2392 7 ай бұрын
@@MarinosHindkjrwho? Courteney Cox Arquette?
@MarinosHindkjr 7 ай бұрын
@@vanessab2392 no. They are fake.
@zekegreen8712 5 жыл бұрын
"You don't have to help anybody! That's what this country is all about!"
@flynnlivescmd 4 жыл бұрын
Yup. Scamville/my trash is out of site out of mind. Its true and reflects in its whiney inflated society
@alakani 4 жыл бұрын
@@flynnlivescmd Double yup. But it's interesting and maybe helpful to look how it happened. Well-intentioned social media and push notifications have turned into a mechanism that perpetuates the cycle of narcissism by disrupting the pathway between the anterior cingulate gyrus, anterior cingulate sulcus, and amygdala. Now it's spreading to other countries with the Brexiting and stuff. Soon, it will be a worldwide existential threat (ala John B. Calhoun's 'Universe 25' research) unless drastic changes are engineered and implemented in both society and the human genome
@AllForgottenMemories 4 жыл бұрын
In Germany for example, you HAVE to help (at least call the police) or you´d get punished (you don´t have to put yourself in danger)
@iriswaldenburger2315 4 жыл бұрын
AllForgottenMemories no you don’t have to help in Germany either... :S you ARE NOT legally obliged to do jack shit, not even call the police. You aren’t insured if you help out of your own accord! Only if someone specifically asks for help you are at least insured, but STILL not obliged to help, you are still allowed to ignore what’s going on.
@kvErsatz 4 жыл бұрын
There is - see herewww.juraforum.de/lexikon/unterlassene-hilfeleistungIn a nutshell, if you don't help if it can reasonably be expected of you to do so, you are violating the law.
@feanedhell 5 жыл бұрын
The french law mentioned is “Non assistance a personne en danger” and it specifically states that you only have to help or help prevent if it poses no danger whatsoever to yourself. So an armed robbery would not apply.
@taragwendolyn 5 жыл бұрын
The Quebec version of the same also stipulates that there's only a duty to intervene if you have appropriate training, too (in other words, if you see somebody drowning you aren't expected to help them unless you're trained as a lifeguard)
@lino.6438 5 жыл бұрын
In Austria we also have a similar law. It also states that you only need to help if there is no risk to yourself and you can only be expected to have a reasonable response (e.g. if you learned CPR when getting your drivers licence it is not required that you actually use it in an emergency, since you are not trained for high stress situations noone can expect you to do that) So it basically boils down to "Call an ambulance".
@camelopardalis84 5 жыл бұрын
And it is a good law. For mandating you to help and for not mandating you to put yourself in danger. It is not a crazy law that shouldn't even be on the books.
@motokuchoma 5 жыл бұрын
Fun fact: The French law does have a maximum penalty of 5 years and 75000€
@stratogott8134 5 жыл бұрын
No danger to yourself OR another person.
@Herder_of_Nerfs 3 жыл бұрын
I always thought that the defense could have argued that "helping" comes in many forms and that by recording the hijacking, these four were creating evidence that could help find and convict that car thief. Plus, as you said, the hijacker was posturing as though he had a gun, making it unreasonable to be required to help directly.
@atrivthedawnblade8812 2 жыл бұрын
I would have stated that “you can’t use past character events to judge them now, besides your using it to try to play with the judge and jury’s emotions which would in turn make a decision based on emotions rather than logic and law.”
@HappyBeezerStudios 2 жыл бұрын
The recording is actually a really good point. They did indeed help. Not preventing the crime, but identifying the criminal.
@nahor88 2 жыл бұрын
The entire premise of the trial was just an excuse to bring in a lot of the minor characters the foursome wronged over the years. It wasn't really meant to be taken seriously.
@Chris-jx4qr Жыл бұрын
Yes. Great point!
@barbarapacker5722 11 ай бұрын
I guess part of the humor is that it didn't even occur to them to offer any form of help even though they were witnesses with the whole thing on video. The character questioning is literally the whole point, to review so many hilarious characters, remind us how horrible they really were and end with the ultimate karma. I don't Theron anyone expected it to be realistic.
@Liam_Mellon 3 жыл бұрын
I love how the part of this episode that was probably supposed to seem the most ridiculous (Jackie Childs) is actually the most legally accurate.
@iamcraigman 5 жыл бұрын
just the fact that Kramer recorded the mugging should be enough to count as "helping" because the video evidence of the crime
@marhawkman303 5 жыл бұрын
This is a very a good point. Photographing a criminal in the act is incredibly useful evidence for when the police prosecute the criminal.
@geraldgrenier8132 5 жыл бұрын
yeah but Massachuetts is a two-party consent state, and they didn't get the subjects consent ;)
@marhawkman303 5 жыл бұрын
@@geraldgrenier8132 I thought that only applied when making the video public?
@geraldgrenier8132 5 жыл бұрын
@@marhawkman303 nope it applies to making it at all, hence admissibility
@geraldgrenier8132 5 жыл бұрын
@Jake S that's the relevant question if there is such an exception
@BTLOTM 4 жыл бұрын
Objection: Small town law dictates that you arrest all out of towners and frame them with every unsolved crime in your jurisdiction. See Springfield vs. Steve Sax for more.
@andrewhoyle1521 4 жыл бұрын
Lol great post, I heard their was an unsolved murder up there
@tomjoad1363 4 жыл бұрын
Is that a real case?
@BTLOTM 4 жыл бұрын
@@tomjoad1363 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aq9niJaSnLKyk4k.html
@SamA-cw3be 4 жыл бұрын
BTLOTM and my cousin Vinny!
@revelation6175 4 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂👏👏👏😂😂
@katherinezimmerman6997 Жыл бұрын
Legal realism shortcomings aside, the gang going to jail for being overall terrible people was the perfect way to end the series.
@Eidlones 10 ай бұрын
Yeah, I don't get why it's hated so much. It's not uproariously funny, but it's a solid ending.
@thenerktwins 10 ай бұрын
Disagree vehemently because they weren't supposed to be horrible people, they were supposed to be New Yorkers. Seriously.
@brontewcat 6 ай бұрын
@@thenerktwinsI guess, then, this a perfect reason not to ever want to visit New York.
@florinivan6907 3 ай бұрын
@@thenerktwins In the early seasons they were far more normal than later on when they got turned into caricatures. You can see and compare Jerry's apartment early on with how it was towards the end. Also imprisoning someone for not adhering to somewhat subjective morality not mostly objective laws is dangerously close to full blown North Korea. It really is. The producers may not have intended that but they unintentionally sided with Kim.
@KNR90 4 жыл бұрын
Despite missing it because he didn't watch the show. That Art Vandelay joke was probably the best joke of the entire series. It was a callback to entire arcs
@I.amhades 5 жыл бұрын
Your explanation of the Good Samaritan law at 4:00 reminds me of the Incredibles. "My client did not ask Mr. Incredible to save him, My client did not want to be saved."
@Stayner 5 жыл бұрын
"you don't save my life, you ruin my death"
@shadoeboi212 5 жыл бұрын
that part of the Incredibles was set before most of the good samaritan laws were passed
@Humbilly 5 жыл бұрын
boom1019.com/news/4433052/there-are-laws-about-saying-sorry-in-canada-in-three-provinces/
@qwertyuiopzxcfgh 4 жыл бұрын
@@Humbilly Just read through the article, that actually sounds like a good thing. You wouldn't want "I'm sorry for your loss" to be considered an admission of guilt, right?
@Humbilly 4 жыл бұрын
@@qwertyuiopzxcfgh Never said it was a bad thing. Just showing how 'sorry' Canadians can 'sorry' be.
@epicsamurai5 5 жыл бұрын
Objection! You left out the Soup Nazi’s testimony.
@Jar0fMay0 5 жыл бұрын
NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!
@andrewxc1335 5 жыл бұрын
He doesn't know who he is, probably.
@andrewxc1335 5 жыл бұрын
Nope, 23:30. Not the trial, but still mentioned him.
@dannyr2976 5 жыл бұрын
@@Jar0fMay0 ...COME BACK ONE YEAR... BY THEN, JERRY AND OTHERS SHOULD BE OUT!!!
@Adrian-yn4qg 5 жыл бұрын
I haven't watched the video yet but this is a valid and troubling objection if true.
@StorymasterQ 3 жыл бұрын
I was walking down the street with my wife when I saw my mother-in-law being beaten up by six men. My wife said, "Aren't you going to help?" I said, "Six should be enough." (c) Les Dawson
@bigjohn08865 Жыл бұрын
Lol
@terrycullen3302 3 жыл бұрын
Babu always bugged me because Jerry tried repeatedly to help him. Sure, his help usually ended in disaster, but you can't say he didn't try to help.
@SimuLord 2 жыл бұрын
Babu was a bad man. A VERY BAD MAN. He had his son genetically engineered in gross violation of Federation l...wait, wrong character, same actor.
@nahor88 2 жыл бұрын
@@foxjade8924 I found his restaurant not gaining popularity after being switched to Pakistani actually very unrealistic. New Yorkers LOVE ethnic food, regardless of where they live. It may not have been the most popular Pakistani place, but no way it would've been dead empty.
@mlpfanboy1701 Жыл бұрын
@@foxjade8924 or the lack of any real caring about the mix up
@aescubed Жыл бұрын
If your immigration status is murky you have a duty to due diligence, why did Babu not know when was is status expiring. Meh. Jerry was real nice to him.
@stevejoshua9536 Жыл бұрын
Babu most have the longest index finger ever recorded.
@Iruparazzo 5 жыл бұрын
Actor Phil Morris' portrayal of Cochrane was so accurate partially because he knew Cochrane personally, they went to the same barber for years
@Firegen1 5 жыл бұрын
That's a story I'd like to see dramatised. Two dudes sat at a barbers trying not to discuss a case but hinting heavily. One of the dudes taking acting notes. Hard cut - Seinfeld episode being shot.
@Mr.Joyless 5 жыл бұрын
RIP John Pinette (the guy that gets carjacked) I had the good fortune to see his comedy in person, a very funny man, glad I got to meet him.
@Omnipotentous 5 жыл бұрын
Nay nay!
@foolishsqueefly 5 жыл бұрын
"I make my own trail mix now. It's a 2 pound bag of m&ms. AND EVERYBODY WANTS SOME OF MINE!"
@decorateddeerskull 3 жыл бұрын
My absolute favorite stand up comedian
@Gandalf1232 3 жыл бұрын
My absolute favorite part of this skit is when Jackie you don't have to help anybody, THATS WHAT THIS COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT" 😂😂😂
@normjames4130 3 ай бұрын
Jerry Seinfeld would not give you the time of day in real life
@Gandalf1232 3 ай бұрын
@normjames4130 So? The hell should I care about that for? My crystal ball says you're not getting within a mile of him either
@vbhvsharma 3 жыл бұрын
Objection: What the show did is called yada-yada. They yada-yada'd over the legal proceedings.
@ashokthapa5180 3 жыл бұрын
but you yada-yadad the best part.
@annielalumiere783 2 жыл бұрын
@@ashokthapa5180 No, I mentioned the bisque! 😂
@andrewdarby8843 5 жыл бұрын
Objection! Their lawyer should have made the argument that with this being an armed robbery, no reasonable action could have been taken without the defendants endangering themselves. As such, the act of videoing the incident to ensure that evidence existed to catch and convict the real criminal was in line with this fictitious law.
@meneldal 5 жыл бұрын
Prosecution would argue that there is no proof of a gun and that four of them attacking the guy in the back would be perfectly safe anyway. Not sure it would go much better.
@randomstuff-qu7sh 5 жыл бұрын
Interesting point. If the defense could demonstrate that there was reason to believe they'd be in danger for intervening, then they would have been complying with the law. However, I think the video they made could work against them. They were relatively calm and were making fun of the victim. Is that the way you'd behave if you thought you were in danger?
@andrewdarby8843 5 жыл бұрын
@@randomstuff-qu7sh Perhaps... but it also shows that they were doing 'something' to try and help (take a video recording to help catch the perpetrator later). I feel as though their lawyer somewhat failed them here since, instead of arguing within the confines of the law, he argued that the law was wrong (which it was, but you aren't going to win many cases this way). It also shows that a nearby police officer did nothing to stop the robbery... if a police officer is nearby, why would anybody have a civic duty to do the police officer's job for them if they should have had it under control?
@ashcrimp 5 жыл бұрын
This whole scenario is so absurd it seems impossible to me to speculate about it. I mean, it's hard to say "they can't do this" or "they couldn't have done that" when the entire situation is something that in reality couldn't have happened. So you can insert just about any insane argument and decide it would or wouldn't work and it's all equally plausible (or implausible rather)
@MollyFC 4 жыл бұрын
@@meneldal but then they could argue that he had his hand in his pocket in a suspicious way that could lead to them believing he had a weapon
@GoldenGoomba900 4 жыл бұрын
Seinfeld had an earlier episode where Kramer and Jamie Childs sue a coffee company and Kramer nearly wins, if you're willing to look into it.
@lordfulmine 4 жыл бұрын
ckelcro there were a few jackie child’s episodes, there was also one where kramer sues the tobacco companies
@staomruel 4 жыл бұрын
'Who told you to put the balm on? Did I tell you to to put the balm on?'
@chickenfate5235 4 жыл бұрын
That’s exactly what I was hoping for.
@jeffc5974 3 жыл бұрын
I thought he actually "won" in that he settled with them for free coffee for life, against Jackie Chiles's advice.
@keeganduncan578 3 жыл бұрын
@@jeffc5974 That's what happened.
@hansnorleaf 3 жыл бұрын
In Denmark we have a law that makes it illegal to leave people "in a helpless state". Which for example means that if you find a person that is unconcious and hurt, you must call an ambulance and you must stay with them until help arrives. If you have first aid training you are further obligated to use it to for example give CPR. I kind of like that law.
@privatizitat815 11 ай бұрын
Yeah, I believe germany has a similar. You're obligated to do at least the minimum of like calling for help
@roberkules 10 ай бұрын
"Unterlassene Hilfeleistung"
@ruviwilhelmy4294 6 ай бұрын
We have the same law in Germany. If you don`t endanger yourself, you have to help. I think it is a good thing. Here noone would expect them to help, as the perpetrator has a weapon.
@allandnothing5338 3 жыл бұрын
The Seinfeld finale is clearly inspired by the French "duty to rescue" law (Non-assistance à personne en danger): the maximum sentence is a copy-paste: 5 years and 75'000 Euros (500'000 FRF back then; prior to the EUR introduction). The show mentions that this law came to be after the Princess Diana car crash, but this is a misunderstanding. The paparazzo who were standing by taking pictures of dying people instead of calling emergency services were indicted and tried (however I don't believe that they were actually sentenced); which certainly caught the show-writers attention. But the law has existed since WWII. This law only applies if you are aware of someone being in immediate danger of injury and/or death, can act to help this person without putting yourself in danger and do nothing. To take the classic stranger drowning in a pool example, if you don't know how to swim or you're 90 years old you can't be held responsible for not jumping in the pool to get that person out. But if a kid is drowning, while his mother is screaming that she can't swim and need help, while you're an Olympic swimmer but just decide not get in the pool because it would ruin your make-up, you're clearly violating this law. Also, you don't have to be physically present for "duty to rescue" to be applicable. Say that you log-on social media and see that one of your classmate that you dislike (you know the name and address) is live streaming his suicide attempt, instead of dialing 911 you grab some pop-corns and send texts messages to your buddies to watch it with you, that's a failure to help (should have called 911). That being said, the situation depicted in the episode would be very unlikely to be a "duty to rescue" case. The bystanders had no way to know if the robber had a real gun in his pocket or was simply pointing his fingers. Seinfeld could be blamed for not dialing 911, but given that police was already on the spot in a minute this had no impact. It's interesting to note that this law is not just about giving penalties for not rescuing, but it can also shields the helper: as for the Good Samaritan law described by LE (can't be help responsible if the person got injured while you saved her life) and it can excuse breaching professional secret if it relates to a crime against a minor or someone incapacitated (any professionals who are aware of child abuse, for example, can notify authorities regardless if they learnt about it in a way normally covered by professional secret). And just for the record, in my book, it's a good law. Choosing to let someone die that you could easily save is no different than actively killing this person.
@thealgerian3285 2 жыл бұрын
@yossarian Pfft. In France you might go to jail regardless. If you just stood there, you didn't rescue, so you can be sentenced. If you so much as punch the aggressor, you can be sentenced for assault. Hell, you can get sent in front of a judge for helping refugees, while the police is given orders to slash their tents.
@GrachLP 2 жыл бұрын
Also exists in germany, and I think actually all "french napoleon code" countrys. and its very good to be honest
@jonjonjonjonjonjonjon 2 жыл бұрын
I think it all comes down to the law, which states you should help if it’s reasonable to do so. The car jacket had a firearm (or, at least, gave the impression that he had one). If Seinfeld and company had interfered in any way, they would be putting their lives at risk. Therefore, by the wording of this very law, they are innocent so it wouldn’t be reasonable to intervene. Jackie Chiles could also make an argument that they captured footage of the car jacker, which is actually helpful. Obviously, this is all just for show since it’s a comedy. However, I would’ve enjoyed the finale more if they got off scot free and continued to be horrible people. If anything, it would be another middle finger to the dozens of people they negatively affected in their lifetime.
@vespirbelmont3131 2 жыл бұрын
@yossarian A lot of people see not stopping crimes as a citizen as being lazy or selfish. But, most citizens are not trained to deal with those situations. The most likely outcome is an intervening citizen to elevate the threat level and cause more harm than good. If someone's getting robbed, you let them get robbed. If you so much as surprise the robber you could cause them to severely injure the other person. If you see someone getting beat up by a handful of people and you are sure you can't win; run and get help. You getting beat next to them doesn't help them. Sometimes the best thing you can do is run and get help, or just do nothing at all. And if you can help then we have a law to protect you as you're being a good Samaritan.
@vespirbelmont3131 2 жыл бұрын
@yossarian It's also a sitcom and not real life
@mariocano7589 4 жыл бұрын
Objection! They died in the plane crash and the trial is a summation of their poor character in life, culminating in a Sartre-esque afterlife of being forced into each other's miserable company
@sim1602 4 жыл бұрын
nice philosophical thought. But don't tell this interpretation to the real Seinfeld, he'd laugh you out of the room. (from how I judge hom watching interviews )
@clanofclams2720 4 жыл бұрын
@@sim1602 nah, it's a pretty widely accepted interpretation
@JohnnyGarton 4 жыл бұрын
I like this, do they end up on the Lost island?
@HippopotamusPencil 4 жыл бұрын
I'm assuming you mean Sartre? Missing an "r" there buddy.
@mariocano7589 4 жыл бұрын
@@HippopotamusPencil whoops! Thanks for catching that.
@louis3587 4 жыл бұрын
The rules of Seinfeld are as follows: Seinfeld and co. are always wrong no matter what
@jeffc5974 3 жыл бұрын
When they disagree, they are both wrong.
@anthonyiuculano6002 2 жыл бұрын
Pretty much all of Larry David's shows are like that
@284mbp 2 жыл бұрын
yeah i don't even get what the character witnesses were accusing them of sometimes. "They stopped... masturbating! Throw them in jail!"
@mlpfanboy1701 Жыл бұрын
@@284mbp that one wasnt a character flaw it was random trivia.
@AsiaDanceScene Жыл бұрын
@@284mbp You would have thought a backwater middle-of-nowhere town would have approved of no masturbation
@petiherve 3 жыл бұрын
In france it is called "non-assistance à personne en danger" and is a real thing but this trial wont even stand because you don't have to help is you have to put yourself in danger too !
@venusiansociety9483 2 жыл бұрын
Same in Italy, "Omissione di Soccorso"; it's like, if somebody is badly hurt and in need of assistance, you can't just walk away, you have to call an ambulance or something
@ludomirsteinbruck9376 2 жыл бұрын
Same in Austria "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" . It does not apply if there is a personal risk in helping tough like in this case.
@wesleyoldham-cartoonsandtv1962 3 жыл бұрын
"The prosecution calls Frodo to the stand." "Objection! Frodo is from Middle Earth, and has no bearing on this case!" "The prosecution has gone to great lengths and considerable costs to find this individual." "Objection overruled."
@TheeGoatPig 5 жыл бұрын
OBJECTION! All they should have had to do to fulfill their obligation to help would have been to hand over the video tape to identify the carjacker.
@bobbysbluebooster 2 жыл бұрын
Yes. But now that’s not a very good TV show is it?
@anthonyhargis6855 5 жыл бұрын
The Sheriff said it was a COUNTY law, now the District Attorney says it's a CITY law. So, which is it? And how does it align with STATE law? Because the episode clearly stipulates that it isn't a MASSACHUSETTS' law.
@albertannationalist 4 жыл бұрын
And wouldn't any conviction under a law passed by a state/county/municipal law be shredded by a Constitutional appeal immediately?
@anthonyhargis6855 4 жыл бұрын
@@albertannationalist Absolutely. The U.S. Constitution reigns supreme . . . here in the U.S.. Thank God.
@albertannationalist 4 жыл бұрын
@@SamN234 Bill of Rights issues, which Sunday shopping is not and gun control is, are treated as very different kettles of fish.
@WoWhistorian 4 жыл бұрын
@@SamN234 As has been covered by LegalEagle in previous videos, many of the Founders felt that there were other freedoms that the people would have protected that were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written specifically for this, stating that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Essentially, even if it's not specifically stated in the Constitution, there are rights that can be inferred - privacy is the most popular example of this. It was never expressly stated that we have a right to privacy, but with provisions such as the freedom from unlaw searches and seizures, it can be understood that privacy is an inherent but unwritten right of the people, and no law can violate it. So as it was ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect, it can also be assumed that no person has a duty to protect or intervene for anyone else. There might be some exceptions to that, such as parents and their children, but you cannot be compelled to take action to intervene for any random person by any state or local law, because it would violate certain rights held, but not necessarily enumerated, within the Constitution. And the fact that there is precedent that police officers do not have a duty to help, any federal court would be bound by the Supreme Court's ruling and overturn the conviction. If it then went to the Supreme Court, it would be absurd to decide that regular citizens have a duty to intervene and help when police officers do not.
@xandervampire195 2 жыл бұрын
I think your example of being protected by a good Samaritan law while giving CPR was the best one. Even trained paramedics can easily damage ribs (bruising, fracturing or straight up breaking them) during the chest compressions. We were told about this when I did my first aid training as part of my nursing course. It makes sense, you are pushing hard on their chest at a rate of 100 times per minute. Thankfully, we can't be sued for it in the UK either. Broken ribs are a small price to pay if it means saving your life, after all.
@josephwolf7552 3 жыл бұрын
I marathon watch Seinfeld and Curb your Enthusiasm during quarantine , the line” why would we want to help people , that’s for nuns and Red Cross “ that is a very Larry David thing to say
@CombustibleCake 5 жыл бұрын
i love how, in attempting to make a parody of comically bad lawyers, they ended up making a pretty good lawyer lol
@jeffc5974 3 жыл бұрын
Johnny Cochran was actually a pretty good lawyer.
@barneynedward 3 жыл бұрын
@@jeffc5974 I think they use Cochrane as the baseline for those parodies because his most famous client had blatantly gotten away with murder thanks to his counsel.
@kupferschloss 4 жыл бұрын
A law like this (denial of assistance) is existing in Germany. But since the hijacker had (presumably) a gun it doesn't apply. You must not endanger yourself.
@SirDistic 2 жыл бұрын
He stated "unless it was unreasonable to do so" The criminal was motioning that he had a weapon. They had no obligation due to unsafe criminal conditions.
@AnonYmous-mc5zx 4 жыл бұрын
When I was a young lad in the boy scouts, I took a merit badge associated with law, which was actually taught by trial lawyers. They gave me a nugget of wisdom that A) maybe they shouldn't have and B) stuck with me for years anyway. "Being an asshole isn't illegal."
@Dracalis 5 жыл бұрын
20:44 OBJECTION! Even under the law as it's laid out, they are not guilty. It was said that they're obligated to help when it's reasonable to do so. Is it reasonable to ask four untrained and unarmed civilians to stop a carjacker (presumably) armed with a pistol? An additional argument could be made that they helped to the best of their ability by getting video evidence of the carjacking.
@troodon1096 4 жыл бұрын
Exactly; even if this law held up, they could have endangered their lives (and for that matter, the life of the victim) if they confronted a likely armed criminal. Plus, the fact that they captured evidence of the crime should be argued as assisting law enforcement capture the perpetrator, even if that wasn't their primary motive for doing so.
@philiptite1082 4 жыл бұрын
@@troodon1096 I like this line of defense for sure. It would have been a smart move. As for the motive, it is said "I got to get this on video" (then it's up to interpretation what that means) and the dismissive "fat" joke could have been explained away as compensating for the fear of dealing with -- and bringing assistance to -- someone in a dangerous situation. Of course, that negates the point of the episode, but it does make sense re: a defense. Some of that may have constituted a "good character" defense, which, in turn, could have opened the door for "bad character" evidence.
@Butter-Milk 3 жыл бұрын
Even if it was just a knife that would still be really dangerous.
@peterchernoff7855 5 жыл бұрын
I'm surprised you didn't mention the part where their lawyer sleeps with one of the witnesses.
@timmoore9855 5 жыл бұрын
Submit to evidence: "They're real and they're spectacular."
@crosseightyeight 5 жыл бұрын
It could be that these clips are assembled for him by his producer, and he didn't know about it.
@nolanboles8492 5 жыл бұрын
It was totally improper behaviour, not to mention vaguely libelous against the real Johnny Cochran (who publicly spoke out against this scene), but it was also irrelevant to the main topic of the trial.
@LadyLexyStarwatcher 5 жыл бұрын
EXACTLY! That is such a conflict of interest. That alone could get a mistrial.
@raydology9584 5 жыл бұрын
@@LadyLexyStarwatcher EXACTLY!...
@Scarecrowswdsmn 3 жыл бұрын
RIP John Pinette, you will be sorely missed
@imouse3246 3 жыл бұрын
A very funny, charismatic man.
@y2kblackout 3 жыл бұрын
Jackie failed because he should have argued that the law was unconstitutional. The character witnesses should not have been allowed. They seem to have been convicted of past alleged wrongdoings.
@bigjohn08865 Жыл бұрын
He dropped the ball
@scottmatheson3346 Жыл бұрын
you can't argue that at trial
@larsheim1032 5 жыл бұрын
In Germany we actually have a law that obligates you to help people in danger. We call it "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" which translates to "failure to provide assistance" but it has the big point that you wouldnt have to help if you get in danger yourself. But if there is someone drowning in a pool you would be obligated to get them out, call an ambulance and provide first aid. Also you cant be help responsible for damages that you inflict, like broken rips etc
@biggreenleaf7035 4 жыл бұрын
That's kind of a stupid law
@larsheim1032 4 жыл бұрын
@Moist Gnome no, if its dangerous for you, you dont have to help. Your own safety goes first
@larsheim1032 4 жыл бұрын
@@biggreenleaf7035 could you eleborate?
@lWantToHearYouSad 4 жыл бұрын
@@larsheim1032 Wow that's pretty interesting - I think it sounds pretty good for "accidents" - like someone falling into a pool - but I assume it doesn't apply in more serious situations like a robbery, right? Because of the implied danger
@plugthehammer4323 4 жыл бұрын
@@lWantToHearYouSad I study law myself and this is one tricky law to proof. In case of a robbery by gunpoint for example, no one expects you to actively stop the thief by yourself and fight with him because you can get shot or the situation can escalate. But, you can perfectly call the poice or help the victim after the thief leaves. If you witness a robbery and then just leave the victim there without being bothered, then you make yourself responsible for not helping the person as long as you didnt have to expose yourself to danger (which can be avoided by just informing the police) or if it cant be expected of you to bring the help (if you didnt have your phone then you obviously cant make the call). "Helping the victim" in the sense of this law goes beyond actively stopping the thief, there are many ways to help. If you want to read more, the paragraph number is 323c StGB :)
@theoriginalshew 4 жыл бұрын
The drowning person analogy at around the 4 min mark reminds me of The Incredibles and Mr Incredible saving the suicidal guy's and the train full of people's lives but also injuring them. I'd like to see an episode about that scene in The Incredibles
@Butter-Milk 3 жыл бұрын
Same
@bryanschmidt7336 7 ай бұрын
You made one of the most entertaining finales in TV history more entertaining. Thank you
@Foam0Fett 3 жыл бұрын
The way this episode went down ALWAYS bothered me. Thank you SO MUCH for making sense of this, it actually makes me feel a TON better about the finale…gives me a weird sense of closure lol
@emanuelmota7217 2 жыл бұрын
You mean ... you didn't understand the Seinfield finale, but now you do? After a straight analysis of the law of the episode, which was non-sensical? One has NOTHING to do with (or explain) the other. You can't really explain humor - either you get it or you don't.
@Foam0Fett 2 жыл бұрын
@@emanuelmota7217 making sense of nonsensical things is one of the best things about the Internet, and humanity in general. Yeah I thought the Seinfeld finale was funny, but it also felt like a really abrupt ending- even for a show about nothing.
@nb5437 5 жыл бұрын
For the love of God, react to To Kill a Mockingbird!
@tonyng5645 5 жыл бұрын
Do your duty
@brucealanwilson4121 5 жыл бұрын
Or "Witness for the Prosecution".
@alexandereaton7983 5 жыл бұрын
But that says a BAAAAAAD word
@hamos4744 5 жыл бұрын
PLEASE!
@coldsnap5742 5 жыл бұрын
Fun fact: The "Moops" incident was based on a REAL TYPO in a Jeopardy home game from the 1970s. Almost exactly like in the show, "What are the Moors?" became "What are the Moops?"
@mat5473 5 жыл бұрын
Wrong. The correct answer is actually "the Moops. "
@gilyahalom9150 5 жыл бұрын
@@mat5473 It's Moors!
@gorillaau 4 жыл бұрын
@@gilyahalom9150 I'll accept both answers.
@Meg_intheclouds 3 жыл бұрын
I’d be interested to see your reaction to the Brooklyn 99 season 4 finale. It’s a court trial where two of the win characters have been set up by a corrupt cop and are facing 20 years for a string of bank robberies they didn’t commit. It’s a comedy but it’s such a good episode. Also Angel or leverage might be good to review. Angel season 1 has a dodgy law firm as like the villains. They cover up supernatural crimes. And then Leverage is like con artists who get justice for people who the legal system failed by conning corrupt business men and politicians.
@ludomirsteinbruck9376 2 жыл бұрын
also Silicon Valley has s great trial scene
@jenniferlynn120 2 жыл бұрын
I loved the show Leverage. Not sure what could be said about it but I sure would watch if there was relevant material! Such a good show
@Meg_intheclouds 2 жыл бұрын
@@jenniferlynn120 oh 100%. There is an episode where they have to help someone in court prove they are the rightful heir to this money and stuff. Like season 3ish I think. And harteson pretends to be a lawyer and stuff.
@hawkeye5955 2 жыл бұрын
@@Meg_intheclouds : There was an episode in season 1 where Hardison poses as a lawyer to help a widow sue a company whose nutritional products killed her husband. The company tried to tamper with the jury but was outsmarted by Nate and the team.
@mgrzx3367 2 жыл бұрын
Wait. I was convicted felon In prison watching Seinfeld on a over priced tv. I needed to laugh as much as possible. My cellie enjoyed it too. The final episode was not good but, it has aged well. Thank You Sensei LegalEagle. I enjoy all your content. Migi!
@Bob-lr2xp 5 жыл бұрын
So basically this whole episode is if social media ran a courtroom. Instead of deliberating whether or not a crime was committed, this is just a court of public opinion and drama where they punish you for saying naughty things.
@DeconvertedMan 5 жыл бұрын
Coming soon unless we keep fighting sjws
@theguywhowentthere3346 5 жыл бұрын
Yeah, we're not too far from that actually. You think TV judges are bad, they're about to start spreading (not manspreading, go preach elsewhere) to places we don't want them to.
@dezstepz2427 5 жыл бұрын
Lol
@dezstepz2427 5 жыл бұрын
@@theguywhowentthere3346 guilty in the court of public opinion and feelings.
@ianwestc 5 жыл бұрын
I will admit disappointment in the finale because it was pretty boring. But the very very end, with our quartet in jail? Absolutely the perfect ending for the characters. It was a pretty logical conclusion to the series.
@borgranta61103 4 жыл бұрын
Objection: You should give it a D or D- since a good lawyer would not be sleeping with the prosecution's witness during trial and potentially throwing the case. One of the last scenes revealed that the lawyer was romantically involved with the character portrayed by Terri Hatcher.
@pcharl01 4 жыл бұрын
True but who wouldn't sleep with Teri Hatcher? Or the heiress to the OhHenry candy bar fortune?
@kylecampbell565 4 жыл бұрын
A morally good lawyer might not but a lawyer who’s desperate to do his job well....
@catholicdad 4 жыл бұрын
Objection! You failed to show and discuss the testimony of the "low talker" and its effect on the trial.
@layla515 8 ай бұрын
It was a huge deal when the finale aired. I was at a bar that had it playing and people were so angry that this was how it ended.
@kevinmajeske 4 жыл бұрын
I didn't see anyone bring up the fact that a municipality/county can't pass a law and make it a felony. That is only the prerogative of the state or federal governments.
@SEAZNDragon 4 жыл бұрын
I just realize that myself. This would have been a trial in JP Court and a fine at most.
@mweskamppp 3 жыл бұрын
Its Amerika. As long as you have a tree and a rope and the judge is your good cousin...
@MikeFrazee222 5 жыл бұрын
Mr. Incredible needed the Good Samaritan Law.
@KnightsaysNi 4 жыл бұрын
Except he still probably would have been convicted because of the fact he unintentionally caused bodily harm to Mr. Sansweet while rescuing him, which was addressed near the start of this video with the drowning person example.
@sime2003 3 жыл бұрын
Objection. The law (as it is explained in the show) requires them to intervene if it is reasonable to do so. It is unreasonable to expect unarmed untrained civilians to interact with what they believe to be an armed assailant.
@lauramarschmallow2922 3 жыл бұрын
Here in Germany the "duty to rescue" states, that you need to help but should not put yourself in danger. But calling an ambulance/ the police can be asked of you. If you find a person drowning in a pool you at least to need to call for help or else you can be liable if the person drowns.
@alm2187 5 жыл бұрын
Two minutes in. "Kinda crappy things to say..." (swell in laughtrack) Perfect timing! :-D
@frenstcht 5 жыл бұрын
@kragseven The DVD commentaries include them frequently pointing out that one of the actors, who isn't in the scene, can be heard laughing along with the audience. I think that's pretty fantastic ^_^
@Purin1023 4 жыл бұрын
Objection! At 3:18 the police officer clearly says that bystanders are legally obligated to help a person in danger "when its reasonable to do so." So even assuming this BS law was real and enforceable, there is no way a judge would agree that trying to intervene in an ARMED ROBBERY would be a reasonable situation. On top of that, Kramer did one of the few things that WOULD be considered reasonable in that situation by filming the act. It might not help the victim immediately, but it certainly would aid the police in finding the culprit. What a frustrating episode
@albertannationalist 4 жыл бұрын
I think an A++ legal representation in this manner would still be a frustrating episode. Didn't Seinfeld have humourous scenes once upon a time?
@nydydn 3 жыл бұрын
I agree that the cops should not have shown up immediately, but the Seinfeld gang should have went on their way to get a burger or something and then the cops should have came for them there. In this way, it would have been easier to build an argument that they should have at least called the cops and they didn't.
@williamdennis7250 3 жыл бұрын
Great! I loved it. Thank you for posting it.
@jeffwhite1979 9 ай бұрын
I know this may be old, but I love watching the break-downs. Keep them coming please.
@DamonXWind 4 жыл бұрын
Objection. The prosecution was using the word "character" in a literary sense. He showcased a cavalcade of "characters" from the history of Seinfield. Therefore the use of Character Witnesses wasn't improper... in a literary/showmaking sense.
@TheRealGuywithoutaMustache 5 жыл бұрын
Ahh Seinfeld, a classic anime.
@Zeropointill 5 жыл бұрын
Top Ten Seinfeld Betrayals
@makeda6530 5 жыл бұрын
Classic theme
@Shreklovesonions84 4 жыл бұрын
I have stumbled on your youtube channel and I have to say this channel is the best thing on youtube. I've binged so many episdoes.
@Kisamaism 2 жыл бұрын
I love how JC does everything *right*, while representing the most widely known morally and ethically bankrupt lawyer, while the morally right prosecution does everything "wrong".
@bigjohn08865 Жыл бұрын
Yet Jackie Chiles never brings out the fact that the gang videotaped the crime and thus could have provided the police with evidence that would lead to an arrest. Ironically He could spin it as them actually being good Samaritans rather than "guilty bystanders"
@SlasherNews 5 жыл бұрын
I always hated this episode... You can't FORCE someone to endanger themselves to help someone else.
@Rikard_Nilsson 4 жыл бұрын
also the sheriff who quotes the law says they had to help "If it is reasonable to do so", in the case of 4 unarmed people vs a possibly armed one, it is quite unreasonable to expect them to intervene.
@scragar 4 жыл бұрын
Counter to that they didn't make an effort to call the police(despite making a phone call) and used their camera to record the event but only because they thought it was funny and didn't offer said video to the cops to help find the criminal. They clearly had no reason for thinking it was dangerous to record or make a phone call so there's no reason they couldn't help.
@isabellelariviere2048 4 жыл бұрын
scragar A police officer was within view (considering the time it took for him to talk to the victim and arrest them - almost immediately after the crime). Really, as he said, the officer should have called backup or apprehended the criminal earlier. t Also, is it a crime to find something funny? Is it worthy of a year in prison?They were exercising free speech and the fact that they plausibly only filmed for their entertainment is character evidence that should not be admissible. Also, calling the police would have changed nothing. They couldn’t have arrived before the actual criminal was well escaped considering the crime was so brief.
@sammyjay4324 4 жыл бұрын
@@Hdbdbdby In legal sense, it falls on the line that what they didn't wasn't moral, but it shouldn't be legally criminal. I lay terms, they were d***s, but being a d*** is not a criminal offense.
@sammyjay4324 4 жыл бұрын
@@Hdbdbdby true in its legal system by legal system case. The case still stands that being rude or insensitive is not a criminal act so long as your following the legal requirements of your given system. I.e in Germany calling the cops would be required, but polite to the person robbed isn't. Being not a nice person isn't a crime in and of it's self. Basically just stating that character behavior is not taken into account for these laws so long as the law is being followed. In America that means no obligation, and in places like Germany that assistance of some kind is attempted. In a realistic scenario all they might need to avoid penalty is to hand over the video recording do to how quickly law enforcement came. Moral character is not a factor, only the law and base requirements in following it. Still doesn't mean that the Seinfeld group wasn't jerks during it, just that it's not a deciding factor on the legal side.
@RangerHouston 4 жыл бұрын
Sounds like some 1984 bullsh!t. The fact that the carjacker was armed or appeared to be armed would nullify any good samaritan laws.
@lemax6865 4 жыл бұрын
You mean a duty to rescue law, and no, it would not nullify the law; the bystanders would be required to call 911 once having retreated to safety. In most countries where a duty to rescue law exists, all that such a law requires when the situation would put the rescuer in danger is that they call emergency services.
@sonicrush44 4 жыл бұрын
@@lemax6865 why bother in this case? The cop was walking by and stopped by the victim.
@lemax6865 4 жыл бұрын
@@sonicrush44 In the specific fictitious case presented in the episode, yes. But I was making a broader statement, that being that duty to rescue laws, in places that have them, are not usually ''nullified'' when there is an armed criminal present. The law is still in effect, but it only requires the bystander to call the police if able.
@culwin 4 жыл бұрын
Even if he wasn't armed, he could be a great fighter or something.
@nolanboles8492 4 жыл бұрын
They should still have found a way to call the police instead of standing around laughing about the whole thing. One of them could have gone to find a police officer or something--pretty easy, since one was obviously close by.
@sumelar 2 жыл бұрын
I was never a seinfeld fan either, and while I saw bits of this when it aired due to my family watching, this is the first time really seeing the episode. Having grown up in a small town, in Massachusetts, with its own airport, the location is pretty funny to me.
@ctastrophe 4 жыл бұрын
"I kinda like this lawyer character" Cool it with the surprise twists M. Night
@neonsashimidream1075 3 жыл бұрын
underrated comment
@Phoenix3568 5 жыл бұрын
could you cover Jan vs Dunder Mifflin in The Office?
@mr7oclock346 5 жыл бұрын
One of my favorite scenes on The Office is in that episode when Michael says, "that's what she says," and they ask "what did she say," and then they have to read that part of the conversation back
@VasBaev 5 жыл бұрын
yeah that stenographer bit was the bomb
@TheSuperNats 5 жыл бұрын
Yes! I’ve been asking for the “Deposition” episode forever!
@beccag2758 5 жыл бұрын
I like ice cream, so sue me. Actually don't, she WILL sue me!😂😂
@getthesensation 5 жыл бұрын
@@mr7oclock346 They shouldn't care what she said. That's heresay ;)
@noshalom 5 жыл бұрын
Objection! You missed the fact that Jackie immediately goes off with Teri Hatcher's character (and we see them in bed during the jury deliberation) could be a mis-trial due to conflict of interest ... right?
2 жыл бұрын
17:30 Anything that can make Devin "pfft" is gold and has my gratitude.
@Derek-mg2le 3 жыл бұрын
Not playing the audio on that tape for the defense is so obvious yet so not. As a layperson with no legal experience I would have never thought about that but it makes complete sense. That to me is the most interesting part of this channel. Love it!
@SeraphinaAizen1 5 жыл бұрын
"I know that some guy is driving off with your car and might have a gun, but give me a minute while I go and arrest these people for standing nearby while it was going on because that's TOTALLY more important."
@frozenlake1215 5 жыл бұрын
Other Seinfeld episodes for the LegalEagle: The Ticket (S4E4), The Maestro (S7E3), The Caddy (S7E12), The Abstinence (S8E9)
@SBSmashers 4 жыл бұрын
Please do these ones too LegalEagle!!
@culwin 4 жыл бұрын
LegalEagle should do The Library... he might have to bring in an expert on Library Law.
@Friendlysociopath 4 жыл бұрын
@@culwin The Library doesn't feature much actual 'law' though. It's more just a take on how police work which while related to law isn't actually about practicing law.
@culwin 4 жыл бұрын
@@Friendlysociopath A rare fail on the part of Seinfeld. They should have had a scene in the Library Court System.
@dachers1238 3 жыл бұрын
I love this channel so much.
@enricoeverett6472 Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for this video. I actually though the law was as stated in the series! Love the video, very easy to undestand. Thank you!
@CheapAngler 5 жыл бұрын
Objection! Why is there no mention of the co-ed jail? That would never happen.
@Indrejue 4 жыл бұрын
it is a temporary holding cell not an overnight cell
@CheapAngler 4 жыл бұрын
They still wouldn't put men and women together
@beansandproblems 4 жыл бұрын
There are some, but very few.
@jasoffical24 4 жыл бұрын
Pretty sure that’s the only cell
@chapablo 4 жыл бұрын
Really small town 1 police Dept with a drunk tank? I bet everyone knew the carjacker if the video was made public and tracked him down quickly.
@endymallorn 4 жыл бұрын
RIP John Pinette. An amazing comedian, and a good person.
@triin6859 4 жыл бұрын
I think the whole purpose of this episode's scene and episode( with the prosecutor's leading statement - no matter how absurd it is in any real legal standing ), is to re familiarize the viewer's behind the fourth wall of all of the Seinfeld episodes and the incredible amount of narcissism behind the four characters of the series. Anyone outside of their "bubble" is fodder. lol
@natalieps2387 3 жыл бұрын
Great job! I'm glad you did this bc I wondered about if u really have to help someone ( their are some crazy old laws still in the books ) I mean if the guy had a gun he could have shot them. Can u do reversal of fortune plz ? Also I never got why john Rambo got arrested for just walking through town looking for food at a diner
@mrhomely 5 жыл бұрын
Speaking of Johnny C. can you get into how south park created the term "wookie defense" and how people have used it in real law. Edit it's called "chewbacca defense"
@abcdefghilihgfedcba 5 жыл бұрын
He has mentioned this in a previous video I’m pretty sure.
@codingmedium2283 5 жыл бұрын
He talked about it in Real Lawyer Reacts to Reynolds v. Reynolds (Cereal Defense) It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia 16:30
@mrhomely 5 жыл бұрын
@@codingmedium2283 not all heros wear capes! Thanks
@mrhomely 4 жыл бұрын
@didrik mortensen it was a joke, oh how he talked shit that didn't make any sense to the case. South park just kinda put a name to it. So when a lawyer starts pulling some shit like that, they have a name for it
@-._._._-_._._.- 4 жыл бұрын
He just did one, great video.
@knicknevin9975 4 жыл бұрын
The case here reminds me of an incident I saw in the news a year or so ago in I believe Florida- a group of teenagers mocked and jeered at a drowning man, recording his death and posting it online for their friends to watch, but made no attempt to assist or call for help. Ultimately the state was so incensed by their complete lack of empathy that, despite not having any laws conferring a duty to rescue, they found law that could be leveled at them- failure to report a body. I also recall that there was some talk of passing new law that would put a duty to rescue, or to at least contact authorities, in such an event, though I don't know if it has, or will, pass.
@jasonthaler7328 3 жыл бұрын
in germany we have what is called "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" which means if you do not help someone who is injured, you can go to prison for it. also, we are protected from consequences if we, for example, hurt someone while we are rescuing them.
@chicostephenson 3 жыл бұрын
I'm glad you did this because i always wondered about it. why didn't the defense state the fact that they recorded the crime and have a positive ID of the perpetrator? therefore they are witnesses. they should be going after the carjacker. if anything they did help!
@mikew.1837 5 жыл бұрын
Could you please review The Three Stooges Disorder in the Court (1936)?
@hariman7727 5 жыл бұрын
I second this.
@JTCurtisMusic 5 жыл бұрын
Third
@amylieu6084 5 жыл бұрын
I fourth this!! Yes do the three stooges legal analysis!!!!!!!!
@t1u9b8a8 5 жыл бұрын
Fifth!!!
@alexs5744 4 жыл бұрын
Woo woo woo woo woo nyuk nyuk nyuk I agree.
@danjones2164 5 жыл бұрын
You should do a Real Law Review of ‘Sovereign Citizens’
@Trevin_Taylor 5 жыл бұрын
There’s nothing to review. They have no basis in law.
@guyincognito2851 5 жыл бұрын
I'd like to see that
@botwitaprice 5 жыл бұрын
That is a great Idea since sovereigns put such value into "KZfaq" law.
@nancykerrigan1335 5 жыл бұрын
@@Trevin_Taylor Neither do most of these shows, but it would be interesting to see their arguments examined and why they don't hold up. Also, a number of the videos are just out and out hilarious.
@bobby_greene 5 жыл бұрын
Soverign citizens are moops
@vanessab2392 7 ай бұрын
I actually never knew this was the last episode, since it kept jumping back and forth from episode 1 to 9 to 5 to 11 to 17, and so forth daily, here at home.
@mazkebar 4 жыл бұрын
U'r legit a competent lawyer bro... respect!
@willgannon5117 4 жыл бұрын
According to my high school you can be a guilty bystander
@thomasbuchovecky2205 4 жыл бұрын
Highschools are mini dictatorships. That's why everybody is always excited to graduate as early as possible.
@mbdg6810 3 жыл бұрын
hit em with legal facts
@falconeshield 3 жыл бұрын
School is a prision if you don't know how to escape it
@psionl0 5 жыл бұрын
In Australia, for as long as I can remember, there is a version of the "duty to assist" law in relation to motor vehicles. If you are involved in an accident, you must stop and render assistance to anybody who might need it. People get charged with violating this law all the time - even though they are genuinely in fear of their safety from the angry reactions from others at the scene of the accident.
@player400_official 2 жыл бұрын
3:27 I live in Poland and here everyone has a duty to help any person in an emergency situation. Although there is still the ,,no hero" exeption saying that you do not breach this duty if you failed to act out of resonable fear for your own health and safety. There is also authority exeption saying that you do not have to help if the person is already getting sufficient help from a professional (ie. paramedic). If for example you do not assist someone in a medical emergency (first aid is taught in school) you can face like 3-5 years in prison, unless there was a resonable danger to your own safety. However in practice calling 112 (Polish 911) is considered sufficient help so if you just call an ambulance and do not deliver any first aid you're probably off the hook - you just need to say that you did not remember how or were in emotional distress. There is also another law that specifies how one should react to a crime being commited. Basically if you know about someone commiting a felony you have a duty to report. Failing to do so is a felony. There is an exception to that rule - the family exception stating that you do not have a duty to report if the criminal is your spouse or a relative.
@Coffeeisnecessarynowpepper Жыл бұрын
So that's why Pope John Paul the second saved the Jewish people in his house😊
@loosetube5417 4 жыл бұрын
Loving the suit in this episode, you're looking sharp as hell!
@MisterTutor2010 4 жыл бұрын
The biblical Good Samaritan was good because he helped when he was under no obligation to do so.
@ashleyjames6740 4 жыл бұрын
I thought it was implying that Samaritans were generally dicks, that's why a good Samaritan was so notable.
@tominatorK 4 жыл бұрын
Tony Hart That is part of the reason as well :)
@94Newbie 4 жыл бұрын
@@ashleyjames6740 less because samaritans were dicks but because there was a strong divide between groups. imagine a black guy saving a kkk member from a burning house or something.
@thoticcusprime9309 4 жыл бұрын
@@94Newbie yikes
@nolanboles8492 4 жыл бұрын
@@94Newbie That's about how the parable would go today.
@ToyInsanity 5 жыл бұрын
Can't wait to see your take on the trial of Tim Heidecker!
@UnfriendlyZone 5 жыл бұрын
I hope he delves into the Chinese connection
@lelsaychandel8031 5 жыл бұрын
Yes, this one.
@energeticallybored 5 жыл бұрын
I keep hoping there will be a review of that 6 part series as well.
@Valspartame_Maelstrom 5 жыл бұрын
The delgados have ruined an amazing franchise in on cinema at the cinema! Nobody cares about those dead kids. Bring back on cinema!
@mlkasper 5 жыл бұрын
This would be such an awesome video. I feel like there's a broad range of topics he could work with that aren't in the usual rotation of legal show tropes that it would be super interesting.
@lukasnummer1 2 жыл бұрын
Now that was very interesting!
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 2,1 МЛН
Dharni
Рет қаралды 150 МЛН
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 1,1 МЛН
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 1,8 МЛН