# Legality of Columbo's trick with the cigar box **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Tags:** tv-shows-scripted\ **Created:** [January 23, 2025, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310 "2025-01-23T22:24:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/121 "2025-01-25T17:51:42Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You’re making _my_ point. I’m saying he _doesn’t_ believe Columbo intends to harm him. I’m going _beyond_ saying he ‘has no reason to believe’ it — and beyond saying that he ‘has no knowledge of any intent from Columbo’ of it — to flatly state that he does not, in fact, believe that Columbo _intends_ to harm him. Then Columbo didn’t threaten him. You have no leg to stand on here. If he didn’t believe Columbo threatened to harm him than his confession was entirely voluntary. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/122 "2025-01-25T18:06:53Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Then Columbo didn’t threaten him. You have no leg to stand on here. If he didn’t believe Columbo threatened to harm him than his confession was entirely voluntary. My argument — and you can disagree with it, but I want to make sure you’re disagreeing with _it_ — is that (a) Columbo intended to cause the guy to fear that bodily harm in general, and death in particular, was about to ensue; that (b) as Columbo intended, the guy then _did_ fear that bodily harm in general, and death in particular, was about to ensue, even though (c) at the time, the guy didn’t think Columbo intended anyone’s harm or death. If that’s all so, then my understanding is that Columbo has committed a crime by causing that fear with that intent: even if — at the time — the guy didn’t think Columbo had that intent. ---
**Author:** ![Zoobi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/13edae/32.png) [@Zoobi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoobi)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/123 "2025-01-25T18:15:13Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Edited: I feel like I must be overlooking some detail about the episode, because it’s not at all clear why Columbo thinks the foul play was specifically around an explosive in a certain type of cigar box, which obviously would’ve been destroyed by the explosion, leaving no evidence. It’s hard to imagine that big of a plot hole, there’s got to be more diegetic detail around that, but nobody’s mentioned it so far. You should watch it again. That isn’t a plot hole. Columbo was quite certain that he’d get a big reaction with the staged cigar box. ---
**Author:** ![solost](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/solost/32/11776_2.png) [@solost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solost)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/124 "2025-01-25T18:23:10Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > diegetic New word learned; thanks! ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/125 "2025-01-25T18:28:03Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > as Columbo intended, the guy then _did_ fear that bodily harm in general, and death in particular, was about to ensue, even though (c) at the time, the guy didn’t think Columbo intended anyone’s harm or death. Once again, the guy did not fear that Columbo intended to harm him. That’s what mattered. Why he was in fear otherwise doesn’t matter. The confession could have been inadmissible if he believed Columbo intended to harm him, but even you understand that didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![solost](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/solost/32/11776_2.png) [@solost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solost)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/126 "2025-01-25T18:51:17Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Edited: I feel like I must be overlooking some detail about the episode, because it’s not at all clear why Columbo thinks the foul play was specifically around an explosive in a certain type of cigar box, which obviously would’ve been destroyed by the explosion, leaving no evidence. It’s hard to imagine that big of a plot hole, there’s got to be more diegetic detail around that, but nobody’s mentioned it so far. Here’s a plot synopsis I found. Basically the rich uncle that the nephew killed had a newfangled thing called a ‘car phone’ and had left a message with the aunt. In the message, that the aunt played for Colombo with McDowall’s character present, the uncle could be heard asking a passenger in his car to pass the cigar box. At which point Colombo observed McDowall’s character look nervous and check his watch. The uncle hung up before the explosion, but it clued Colombo in on the possibility of a rigged cigar box. Borderline NSFW warning: the synopsis article at the link below contains an episode screenshot of McDowall in pants so tight that, let’s just say, one can judge for themselves whether or not McDowall had a short fuse. > **[Episode review: Columbo Short Fuse](https://columbophile.com/2016/07/10/episode-review-columbo-short-fuse/)** > > With the zany Roddy McDowall having a blast as the killer, and fashions on display that induce strokes, Short Fuse is certainly a high-energy addition to the series. But is it any good? Read on and… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/127 "2025-01-25T18:58:02Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Once again, the guy did not fear that Columbo intended to harm him. That’s what mattered. As far as I can tell, if A intends to cause that fear of harm, and B then reacts as intended by fearing that harm, then it doesn’t matter whether B happens to believe that A intends to cause that fear or intends to cause that harm; A can be guilty even if B limits himself to incorrectly concluding that A’s actions will unintentionally cause that harm. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/128 "2025-01-25T19:24:05Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But, AFAICT, there’s nothing in the law of assault that says it doesn’t actually count as assault if, oh, sure, you’re intentionally causing the fear of physical harm — but, well, only someone who’d committed a specific crime would realize that that’s what you’re doing. First, a little legal jargon. Assault is a different crime; assault is when you actually physically harm somebody. The crime of threatening to physically harm somebody is menacing. One of the usual elements in menacing is that there has to be something that an average reasonable person would perceive as a threat. So pointing a gun at somebody would generally be perceived as a threat (even if I don’t verbally threaten to shoot you). And it wouldn’t matter if the gun is unloaded or a prop gun; the court would say that an average reasonable person would assume that a gun being pointed at them might be loaded and capable of killing them. But suppose I’m an asshole and I walk up behind you and point a loaded gun at your back. I don’t pull the trigger, so I don’t commit assault or murder. But there’s a good argument I also didn’t commit menacing; you were not aware the loaded gun was pointed at you so were not put in fear of being shot. But I’m probably guilt of endangerment, which is the crime of putting somebody’s life at risk. To get back to the OP, Columbo’s act would not qualify as a threat because an average reasonable person would not see a cigar box as something which would explode. And absent that threat, there would be no coercion in his action. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/129 "2025-01-25T19:27:00Z")
Let’s separate two issues to hopefully clarify things: First, suppose instead of trying to elicit incriminating behavior from a suspect, Columbo had been pranking someone by playing a cruel practical joke on them for larfs. Suppose it was one of his co-workers that Columbo decided to trick into being afraid of imminent death; does the law consider that an assault (ETA: menacing)? Second, to what extent does the law protect suspects against self-incrimination (which I understand is broader than outright confession). By the letter of such protections, was Columbo’s gambit a prohibited attempt to coerce self-incrimination? As pointed out upthread, the law allows plenty of latitude for giving suspects enough rope to hang themselves with. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/130 "2025-01-25T19:39:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > First, a little legal jargon. Assault is a different crime; assault is when you actually physically harm somebody. The crime of threatening to physically harm somebody is menacing. If I’m not mistaken, in some jurisdictions, what you call menacing is “assault” [https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html](https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html) for example says: > Battery is the intentional act of making contact with another person in a harmful or offensive manner. Depending on the jurisdiction, assault is either the same act or is an attempt or **threat** to cause bodily injury. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/131 "2025-01-25T19:40:32Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > As far as I can tell, if A intends to cause that fear of harm, and B then reacts as intended by fearing that harm, then it doesn’t matter whether B happens to believe that A intends to cause that fear or intends to cause that harm; A can be guilty even if B limits himself to incorrectly concluding that A’s actions will unintentionally cause that harm. None of that matters. There is only one question here: Did the suspect confess because he had a reasonable belief that Columbo intended to harm him? The answer is clearly no, so the confession is admissible evidence. It doesn’t matter what else Columbo intended, the only thing that matters is what the suspect believed. Once again, he did not believe Columbo intended to harm him. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/132 "2025-01-25T19:45:32Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > As far as I can tell, if A intends to cause that fear of harm, and B then reacts as intended by fearing that harm, then it doesn’t matter whether B happens to believe that A intends to cause that fear or intends to cause that harm; A can be guilty even if B limits himself to incorrectly concluding that A’s actions will unintentionally cause that harm. I looked at a bunch of legal definitions of “threat”, and they all include phrasing like “a threat must convey an intent to harm the victim.” Columbo intended for the victim to believe he would be harmed. He conveyed an intent to engage in behavior that would harm the victim. _But he did not convey an intent to harm the victim._ As far as the victim knew, he had no such intent, because he did not convey the intent. So I’ve gone back on what I originally said. I think that, because he didn’t convey his intent to harm, he’s found a sneaky loophole in the law. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/133 "2025-01-25T19:53:42Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > If I’m not mistaken, in some jurisdictions, what you call menacing is “assault” Yes, it’s a tricky gray area that varies depending on what laws are in effect. And IANAL. The issue is what is defined as an action. If I throw a knife at you and it strikes you, that’s clearly assault even if the knife doesn’t cause any injury. If I throw a knife at you and it misses you, that’s probably going to qualify as assault; I took an action that could have caused you injury even though in actual fact the knife never touched you. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/134 "2025-01-25T20:04:43Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If I throw a knife at you and it strikes you, that’s clearly assault even if the knife doesn’t cause any injury. If I throw a knife at you and it misses you, that’s probably going to qualify as assault; I took an action that could have caused you injury even though in actual fact the knife never touched you. [But if you throw a snowball at me and deliberately miss…](https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1990/02/23) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/135 "2025-01-25T20:12:38Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > First, a little legal jargon. Assault is a different crime; assault is when you actually physically harm somebody. The crime of threatening to physically harm somebody is menacing. I already offered up a quote that “an assault is ordinarily held to be committed merely by putting another in apprehension of harm, whether or not the actor actually intends to inflict or is capable of inflicting that harm.” Would a second one do it? A third? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/136 "2025-01-25T20:15:20Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > It doesn’t matter what else Columbo intended, the only thing that matters is what the suspect believed. Once again, he did not believe Columbo intended to harm him. I believe you’re incorrect: a relevant question isn’t whether he believed Columbo _intended_ to harm him, but whether he believed that Columbo was going to harm him. Another relevant question is whether Columbo intended to cause him to fear that harm. Whether he believed Columbo intended to harm him seems irrelevant; it’s not, as far as I can tell, an element of the crime. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/137 "2025-01-25T20:24:29Z")
What crime? > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > whether he believed that Columbo was going to harm him Why would that matter if he didn’t believe Columbo intended to harm him? His confession could be inadmissible if he was coerced into confessing because of a reasonable belief that Columbo intended to harm him. That’s all that matters. The suspect confessed because he planted a bomb in a cigar box and he thought Columbo would unintentionally set off the bomb and harm him. His fear of unintentional harm doesn’t make his confession inadmissible. Being an idiot does not make a confession inadmissible. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/138 "2025-01-25T20:25:30Z")
Assault, I’d thought. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/139 "2025-01-25T20:47:07Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Why would that matter if he didn’t believe Columbo intended to harm him? His confession could be inadmissible if he was coerced into confessing because of a reasonable belief that Columbo intended to harm him. That’s all that matters. Let me make sure I have this straight. Imagine the facts were different, such that (a) he believed Columbo intended to harm him, and (b) Columbo, who didn’t intend to harm him, intended for him to think that. Do you and I agree that, in such a case, Columbo would be guilty of a crime? And where we disagree is that, if he merely believed that Columbo was _going_ to harm him — and Columbo, again, intended for him to think that — you _don’t_ think it’s a crime? Is that the difference? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2025, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310/140 "2025-01-25T20:58:12Z")
IANAL, but based on what you described, I think the legality and admissibility of the cigar box trick would be questionable at best. IRL, the police (usually with a partner) will take a statement at or near the scene or will interrogate a suspect in a controlled environment at the police station. I mean what is the evidence being submitted to a court here? “Your Honor, I would now like to submit in evidence a private conversation involving a cigar box between Detective Colombo and the suspect during a tram ride over the city where they were the only occupants.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-columbos-trick-with-the-cigar-box/1013310.md?page=8)