Lost: A Fire in the Jungle

Lost: The Incident
(aired May 13, 2009)

Facts: Ilana and Bram are walking through the woods. They spot their friend Jacob's cabin and go inside. There they discover that Jacob has been gone for some time but a squatter has been living in the house. To prevent the squatter from using the house, they set fire to the cabin. It burns to the ground.

Law: Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

Issue: Did Ilana and Bram commit arson?

Analysis: Most likely. Unless they burned the house with Jacob's consent (and so far there's no evidence of that), then the burning was malicious. Now, the interesting question is who owns the cabin. Horace was killed during The Purge, and assuming he did not have a will, his son Ethan likely inherited the cabin (under the general rule of intestate inheritance). Ethan also died, presumably without an heir. The cabin would then revert (or "escheat") back to the government of the Island, which I'll assume is Jacob. Therefore, Jacob was the rightful owner of the cabin by the time Ilana and Bram showed up.

Alternatively, if Jacob occupied the cabin contrary to the true owner's wishes, then he could have become the rightful owner after a sufficient period of time passed ("adverse possession" for those playing along at home, or "squatter's rights" for the laity). Since the Purge happened in about 1992 and the burning occurred in 2007, Jacob would have had to adversely possess the cabin for 15 years. Most periods are from 12 to 15 years; therefore, the sufficient period likely lapsed by the time of this incident and Jacob was the owner of the cabin when it burned down.

But the owner of the cabin does not matter for arson purposes, so long as the person committing the arson is neither the owner of the property nor committed the arson with the consent of the true owner.

Bonus: As with all things Lost, we assume the common law applies.

More..

Time Travel: A Primer

After viewing the new Star Trek film last night, my film
companions expressed frustration with all of the time travel going on in J.J. Abrams productions, i.e., Lost. To help explain things, I quickly sketched out my interpretations of the different forms of time travel. They are reproduced below, with my annotations.

The first slide shows two states of time. No. 1 represents our concept of linear time, or "Our Reality." There is a beginning and an end, nothing changes, everything moves forward.

No. 2 represents what I call the "Back to the Future Model." The first line is reality before time travel. The second line is after time travel, with X marking the point where history changed and created an offshoot timeline. So while normally time would go from A to B, with the offshoot, time travels from A to C.Slide two tries to make sense of Lost. No. 3.A represents Daniel Faraday's First Theory, or "Whatever happened, happened." Time moves from A to B and even if you try to change the future through time travel, the universe will self-correct and move you back on track to B. Remember the man with the red sneakers.

Note: For simplicity purposes, I'm not explaining the part of this theory where people in the past have always been in the past to help shape the future. This would naturally follow from the concept that everything in the past has already happened the way it happened (i.e., there can be nothing new in the past) and the future is always the same.

Before he died, Daniel issued a Second Theory, where there are variables that can change time, also known as the "I'm going to detonate a hydrogen bomb and destroy the Island" theory (No. 3.B). Here, you can change an event in the past and create a new timeline for the future. Recall the "Back to the Future Model."

***SPOILER ALERT***

Finally, slide three shows time as portrayed in the new Star Trek film (No. 4). Time is, as we understand it, linear. Someone (Spock A) can travel into the past, create a black hole, and travel into the past of a parallel universe. Younger Spock B exists in the parallel universe and nothing that happens to him will impact Spock A (i.e,. you can kill Spock B at birth but Spock 1 will still exist).


Any questions?

More..

Lost: There's a Storm Coming

Lost: Follow the Leader
(aired May 6, 2009)

Facts: An imminent "incident" is about occur on a certain Island. As a small group is trying to flee to safety, they gather up all supplies they can carry. One person, Hurley, secretly takes extra food rations to increase the chances he and his compatriots will survive the "incident." He heads off to meet up with the others. On his way, he meets Smokey and must be judged for taking the extra food.

Law:A larceny is the taking of another person's property with the intent to permanently deprive the person of the property.

Issue: Does the "incident" excuse Hurley's theft?

Analysis: Possibly. It's clear that Hurley committed a larceny because he took the food that did not belong to him with the intent to permanently deprive its rightful owner of it. But the defense of necessity may excuse his action.

Necessity excuses some criminal conduct if there is an imminent danger and the harm from the conduct would be less than the harm from the imminent danger. Hurley would have to show that he stole the food to help his friends survive the impending disaster. I think he can do that but at the same time his taking of food from others could then cause an equal harm (i.e., starvation) to the rightful owners of the food. So for Hurley's sake, I hope Smokey is being lenient that day.

Bonus: A good example of this defense is Jean Valjean's incarceration for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. Arguably, the starvation is a less harm than the property theft to the bread maker. Of course then we wouldn't have had fun songs to sing over a dreary musical.

More..

Lost: Shot in the Back

Lost: The Variable
(aired April 29, 2009)

***SPOILER ALERT***

Facts: Daniel sneaks into a hostile camp site. Daniel is holding a gun in his hand and starts shooting at the ground when one of the campers sees him. Daniel demands to speak with Ellie. Richard walks out to see Daniel and tells him that Ellie is not available. Daniel does not believe him, points his gun at Richard, and says Richard has until the count of three to produce Ellie. Before Daniel says "three" or Richard can calm Daniel down, someone shoots Daniel in the back. Daniel collapses, apparently dead. The shooter is Ellie.

Issue: Is Ellie guilty of murdering Daniel?

Law: A murder is the intentional, premeditated killing of another person, but a person may use deadly force in the defense of another if she reasonably believes such force is necessary to stop the imminent use of unlawful deadly force by the other person.

Analysis: Maybe. Based on her aiming the gun at Daniel, it appears that Ellie intended to kill (or at least inflict grievous bodily harm) on Daniel. And since you can't have murder without a dead person, let's assume Daniel is actually dead--with Lost, you never can be sure. So Ellie murdered Daniel. End of story, right?

Wrong! Ellie may be able to claim self-defense, which is a complete defense to murder (i.e., she's not guilty). Under common law, one could only use self-defense to protect another if the two were in a special relationship with each other: parent-child, master-servant, husband-wife. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the special relationship requirement, while others retain it. We don't know what laws (if any) apply to the Island so mark a question mark next to this element.

With the remaining elements, it looks like Ellie can prove self-defense. From her perspective (and anyone else watching), it was reasonable to believe that Daniel was threatening Richard with deadly force. (It does not matter if Daniel was never really going to shoot Richard, only that Ellie could reasonably believe he was going to do so.) And Daniel's countdown was probably enough to show the threat to Richard was imminent. So, it appears that by exercising self-defense Ellie could have gotten away with murdering her own son. No word on whether Smokey is as forgiving.

Bonus: If Ellie only proved only some of the self-defense elements, then no defense is available to her at common law. Some states, though, allow an "imperfect self-defense," meaning you can downgrade a murder to a manslaughter even if you can't establish all of the elements of self-defense. (See here for why that change matters.)

More..