I already explained why this matters. If you want to press assault charges, you need to believe I intended to harm you, and the charging officer also needs to believe that.
If you don’t believe that, then it’s not an assault charge, it’s another charge (a charge that depends on what I thought I was doing and what I intended to do, among other things).
If it’s assault, you will have to demonstrate in court that you reasonably believed I was doing something that I believed would cause you harm.
If it’s negligence, you will have to prove that I should have known I could harm you.
Columbo had a few ‘gotcha’ trick endings where he goaded the killer into trying to kill him. They were not my favorite endings-- I think ‘cop goading the killer to try to kill him to get a conviction’ is as lazy a writing crutch as ‘getting the killer to confess, to get a conviction’.
Usually Columbo had swapped out or deactivated the murdery part of the murder weapon in that situation, so he was in no danger. But in possibly the most ridiculous Columbo ‘gotcha’ tricks (saying this as one who loves most episodes, even the sillier ones), there’s a late-period ('89) episode ending in which Columbo asks a magician to demonstrate a guillotine trick on him. The trick has a ‘lethal’ setting for chopping cabbages in half to show the audience it’s real, and a ‘safe’ setting to not kill humans. The magician, who is the killer and knows Columbo is on to him, sets it to ‘lethal’, but Columbo is unharmed, having swapped out the labels. He didn’t disable the guillotine completely, he had to count on the killer trying to kill him right then or else he would have actually been killed. Maybe the killer might have thought, hmm, tempting, but it’s a little too obvious to try to kill him this way, and there are cops nearby, so I’ll just set the switch to ‘safe’…oops
Sounds like a Dread Pirate Roberts trick. "I clearly cannot set the guillotine to “safe”,because he may have switched the blade. but I cannot set it to “deadly”, because if he isn’t tricking me, he’ll be dead, and I’m screwed. But if I actually try to kill him, AND he rigged to guillotine, he’s not dead, and I’m screwed. but if he switched the guillotine, and don’t try to kill him, he’s dead and I’m saved!
For the trial yes. But the basis for an assault charge is that you thought someone was trying to hurt you, or at least you convinced the arresting officer that there was good reason to believe it.
Of course this sets aside the reality that police will over-charge just to try and make something stick. They may well try to make an assault charge of me glancing at my phone and almost hitting a pedestrian, and they do this because it often works, and it often works because many defendants can’t afford competent counsel. But that’s not how it’s supposed to work.
But at least in principle, an assault charge is supposed to be based on a reasonable belief that the attacker was attacking with the intent to cause harm.
Now I’m envisioning a TV series featuring two people– brothers, ex-spouses, former college roommates– one of whom is a genius defense attorney like Perry Mason, and the other is a top-notch investigator or prosecutor. Against anyone else they have unbroken track records; against each other they’re balanced 50/50. The prime feature of the series is that you never know, until the final minutes of the episode, who is going to prevail by pulling a rabbit out of their hat.
In one of the later TV movies, Columbo doesn’t need a trick - he legitimately finds the body of the person whom the killer had convinced the world is just the kind of person who would leave for Tibet (or some other far off place) without letting anyone know (of course that guy was arrogant enough to deliberately mess with Columbo by faking a crime (that Columbo actually fell for), and then revealing that no crime had occurred).
PS.I should add that this kind of “guilty knowledge” test (in which a suspect reacts to things in a way that an innocent person would not) predates Columbo (Asimov used that trick in one of his non-SF novels)
Heh. During the original run, he apparently doesn’t need to trick anyone in the episode where he’s up against William Shatner, because the big reveal at the end is that, oh, hey, full marks for making sure you didn’t leave any fingerprints on the gun, but you left some on the remaining bullets. At which point Shatner of course gives up, because, well, oopsie!
But this thread now has me thinking: it’s funnier to figure that Columbo did trick the guy, but, well, the episode is running a little long, so why bother clearing things up for a killer?
So, I’m driving down the road and a pedestrian steps out from behind a parked car in front of me and I almost run them down.
The reality is that my action of driving down the road AND their action of stepping into the street without looking are both necessary for the pedestrian to fear for their life. However, because my action is objectively routine and ordinary, while their action is objectively dangerous, I would not be charged for scaring them.
The fact that they were in apprehension of harm because I was driving a car right at them is not material, I was doing a normal thing, and they were not.
Frankly, if I figured out a trick where this person who routinely walks out without looking is made to believe a car is about to run them down when they are, in fact, perfectly safe, nobody would call that a crime either.
It’s kind of a game theory problem. From the point of view of the killer, there are 4 scenarios:
Columbo did not switch the ‘lethal’ and ‘safe’ labels. In that case setting the switch to ‘lethal’ kills Columbo. So the killer chooses ‘lethal;’ and Columbo dies. But how does the killer explain the ‘mistake’? I don’t see how the killer could have gotten away with that.
Columbo did not switch the ‘lethal’ and ‘safe’ labels. The killer is tempted to take Columbo out, but knows he couldn’t get away with it. So he sets the switch to ‘safe’. Columbo lives, and the killer still has Columbo after him for the first murder, but he doesn’t now have a cop killing to worry about.
Columbo did switch the ‘lethal’ and ‘safe’ labels. The killer doesn’t know for sure, but if Columbo didn’t swap the labels and he chooses ‘lethal’ Columbo dies and he probably wouldn’t get away with it. If the labels were switched, and he chooses ‘lethal’ and Columbo lives, he’s nailed to the wall.
Columbo did switch the ‘lethal’ and ‘safe’ labels. It seems to me the best, most sensible option is for the killer to choose ‘safe’. Either the labels weren’t switched and Columbo lives-- the killer is no worse off than before. Or the labels were switched and Columbo dies, but the killer can very plausibly claim innocence and is off the hook completely.
So, from that point of view, it’s a very very bad idea for Columbo to have switched the labels.
Also, if it is literally just switching the labels, probably the killer would just move the lever into the position he knows is deadly, without bothering to look at the text. I don’t need to put labels on the brake and accelerator of my car.
Anyway, whichever way you look at it, agree that it is a particularly dumb idea. In fact, I can’t think of a more dangerous plan by a TV detective. (As an aside, I think it could be a good thread to discuss particularly eye-rolling or silly solutions in whodunnits, because even if Columbo wins the danger prize, he’s far from the most far-fetched in how he solves the crime).
I would. Seriously, if — before this whole discussion — you’d told me that you wanted to make somebody believe they’re about to be run down by a car, and then you added “heh heh heh,” and then you asked me to help you out, my response would (a) be negative for, well, a whole bunch of reasons, really; but, yes, one of them would (b) involve criminality.
Okay, a bit off topic, but this reminds me of The Second Deadly Sin, by Lawrence Sanders. Edward Delaney, ex-Chief of Police, has the killer dead to rights. He confronts him, with a lieutenant for backup. But first he opens a window. Delaney sits with his back to the window, facing the killer. Tells him that with the kind of lawyer he can afford, he’s likely to get no more than ten to fifteen. Thing is, though, this guy loves not just luxury, but beauty. He wants to be surrounded by beautiful, exotic, wonderfully crafted things. Delaney goes into more detail: even after parole, he won’t be going back to his home; the house will be sold and all his possessions auctioned off. Then there’s prison itself. Everything’s gray, everything’s under by fluorescent lights. You get up in your gray cell, trudge in your gray uniform to the plate shop, then to the mess hall for your bland food, then back again, and lights out. An occasional lowbrow movie, but no art, no music, no wine or fine food —
The guy leaps from his chair, takes three steps to the window and dives out. His feet don’t even touch the sill. Later, the lieutenant starts in with, “Gee, Chief, it sound like you were…eh, forget it.”
