He’s a Lieutenant
No, my argument on this point is more general than that: I’m asking, is it a crime for Person A to intentionally make Person B think he’s about to be killed? I’m asking: regardless of whether it’s you or me or a police lieutenant doing it, and regardless of whether we’re doing it to someone who is or isn’t a murder suspect, and regardless of whether we’re doing it with a loaded gun we have no intent of firing (but we do have the intent to scare him), or with an unloaded gun we couldn’t fire even if we wanted to (but he doesn’t know that) — or with a bomb that we aren’t going to set off, or with what he reasonably believes is a bomb that he reasonably believes is about to go off.
Well, I think there’s a distinction to be made with TV confessions:
There’s the confession the killer makes after he’s been nailed with evidence or caught dead to rights (at least, by TV standards). This type of confession is not meant to be the key thing that will convict them, just a sop to the audience- wrapping things up in a neat, satisfying closure; since we as the audience will not get to see the actual trial (the ‘Order’ part of ‘Law & Order’ notwithstanding). That type of confession, while not realistic, strictly speaking, I’m more or less OK with.
Then there’s the plotline where the confession is the only thing that the police have to convict-- as in several ‘Law & Order: Criminal Intent’ episodes where Goren knows the suspect is guilty but can’t prove it, so he browbeats and psychologically manipulates the suspect into confessing. That, to me, is bad and / or lazy writing, especially when it’s done so often it becomes a writing crutch.
I get your argument, but I think there’s more to it, which is:
is it a crime for Person A to intentionally make Person B think he’s about to be killed, using a method (such as a disguised weapon) that would only make him think he’s about to be killed if he’s a killer who used said method?
I think that’s an important distinction. Maybe it’s not in the eyes of the law, but it seems like it would be, or at least should be, to me.
I seem to recall an episode of Columbo where he says his job is not to convict or ensure a conviction in court - its his job to solve the mystery.
(paraphrased from a poor memory)
I’m honestly not following this. Let me break it up into two parts.
First, the part up to where you end the asterisks: it seems to me that holding an unloaded gun to someone’s head can be a coercive threat even if you haven’t loaded the gun. I genuinely don’t get why you throw in an emphatic “if the police had loaded the gun” when — to the best of my knowledge — you can be convicted of a crime even if it’s not a loaded gun; the question isn’t whether the gun is loaded, and it isn’t whether you know whether it’s loaded.
Second, the part after that: the whole reason Columbo is doing this is because he believes the aspect is lying, right? Never mind what the suspect has been saying, or swearing, or whatever; the question, to my mind, is: does Columbo commit a crime if he intends to cause that guy to fear impending bodily harm — indeed, to fear for his life — and, as expected, that guy reacts that way?
I know the other guy is guilty of having committed a murder on some other day; I know he’s lying, too. But I’m not aware of that being an exception that then makes it legal for someone else to commit assault (or battery, or anything else from rape to murder).
Lets remember that the killer didn’t think Columbo was intentionally trying to put him in fear of his life. He thought Columbo had no idea there was any danger. He did not confess because he thought Columbo intended him any harm.
I think that’s his name. Lou Tennant Columbo. 
For a lieutenant, he seems to have no direct reports.
I know you’re going from memory, but if he were a real person, the DA would have something to say about that. So would the Chief. “This isn’t a British mystery novel, Lt Marple!”
The nuance is whether the suspect knows the gun is loaded. If the police loaded the gun, then the suspect has no idea whether it’s loaded or not. If it’s a gun taken off the suspect’s person, then the suspect knows. There’s nothing wrong with the police saying “If you’re telling me there are no bullets in your gun, then you won’t mind if I do THIS…”. That’s kind of a nonsense contrived scenario, since the police could just inspect the gun, but we’re talking about a fiction show, so…
The fear of bodily harm stems entirely from the subject’s belief that the cigar box was a bomb.
Columbo did not not know that the suspect has this knowledge. The suspect is not forthcoming about that knowledge. That’s why Columbo can’t have had intent to commit a terroristic threat.
Furthermore, even based on Columbo’s suspicion, the suspect shouldn’t have believed the cigar box was a bomb. The bomb should’ve been destroyed in the car wreck, so the suspect should’ve been like, why are you showing me a random cigar box when I know the real one was destroyed? That’s what Columbo really should’ve expected. That’s more of a clumsy plot hole than anything, just one of those TV things we ought to just ignore, but it does support the case against Columbo doing anything wrong.
So Columbo didn’t do a crime here, because it depends on him having certain knowledge of what the suspect believes to be true of the box. He doesn’t know, he’s just guessing, and the suspect is trying to prevent him from knowing.
Maybe this is the key to our disagreement, because: I think there is something wrong with that. If A thinks that B thinks the gun is loaded, and A points the gun at B intending to make B fear for his life — with or without a “mind if I do THIS” quip — then I think there’s a black-letter case to be made that, oh, hey, that right there is a crime, is all.
I’d argue that it doesn’t matter whether B lied to A; as far as I can tell, it’s a crime so long as A intends to put B in fear of bodily harm in general — and death in particular — and if B lied to A (by which I mean B thought it was a loaded gun), then the interesting part isn’t that he unconvincingly lied; it’s that B thought it was a loaded gun, and that A thought that B thought it was a loaded gun.
But doesn’t that go too far? He doesn’t need certain knowledge; he just needs to intend to cause that fear.
See the clip: a police officer hands Columbo a bag and says words to the effect of “we found this among the wreckage” in the suspect’s hearing.
Knowledge speaks to intent. The whole point is that Columbo does not really know whether that person is afraid of opening the box. The whole point of the ruse is that he intends to find out whether the person is afraid. That means he can’t know for certain if he’s making the person fear for his life. He’s indifferent to that person’s fear, true, but I strongly doubt that’s a crime.
To evaluate this properly, you have to forget this is Columbo, who is omniscient and knows everything, and only needs to set these clever traps to make people say what he already knows they’re going to say. That’s why you’re confused. You have to assume he’s a typical dumb cop who doesn’t know anything and is testing an off-the-wall hunch.
Then as I said, that’s a stupid plot hole that we can ignore, because if the cigar box bomb was enough to destroy the car, then it definitely would’ve destroyed the box, and Columbo would’ve been an idiot for trying to intimidate a suspect with a mock bomb that obviously hadn’t been used in the crime he was investigating, which the suspect would also know. So I think we can ignore that detail, it’s too stupid to think about.
Belief speaks to intent. He absolutely doesn’t need to “know for certain” to commit an intent-based crime.
I thought the idea was, Columbo was trying to convince him the bomb hadn’t destroyed the box just like it hadn’t destroyed anything else: by dint of it not having gone off yet, because the chemical explosive hadn’t gotten activated, because — by sheer chance — there really was a car accident, skidding on the rain-soaked road and hitting a rock and the gas tank blowing, or something, such that the unopened box contains a substance that hasn’t yet destroyed anything.
This is a good point. Columbo was pretty sure, but did not know for a fact, that the suspect was the killer, so he didn’t know for a certainty that the killer would fear for his life.
I’m not 100% sure, but I think the theory was (either the police weren’t sure, or it was a story that Columbo told the suspect) that it appeared to be a car accident in which the gas tank ignited. So Columbo convinced the suspect that the victim coincidentally had a car accident that killed him before the exploding cigar trick had a chance to happen, and that the cigar box was thrown from the wreckage. The duplicate box Columbo brought out in the tram had singe marks at the corners.
Yes, implausible, but in the TV universe, more of a plot contrivance than a plot hole.
Columbo with his “low IQ” persona usually doesn’t have all the evidence laid out nicely for the unfortunate DA who has to take on any of his cases (doubt he even has cuffs for the ride down) yet in this case Roddy - like most - has confessed and there’s lots of evidence yet a really good lawyer defence could convince a couple jurors - look at the guy, well spoken, British and nice clothes (need not be said at least in the 70;s) - this is not quite a lock.
Haven’t seen too many Perry Mason’s, yet if Lionel Hutz (Simpsons) was in the viewing crowd and told certain confessing witnesses to shut up right now even he could have gotten a couple acquittals.
ETA: Thanks John_DiFool fpr tje clip. I was unsure of the colour of Roddy’s tie thus my testimony would be implausible to the jurors.
reasonable belief, if you want to get that specific. Maybe he had cause to suspect but that’s not reasonable belief.
And to continue on the pedantry, a crime was committed only if the crime can be proven. So a prosecutor would have to get a hostile witness to admit that he had reasonable belief and that he really intended to convince the person they were at risk of physical harm, as opposed to “I was just showing the guy something interesting, wondering if it would prompt him to say anything.”
Even if the prosecutor got Columbo to spill all the beans on why he had a reasonable belief, and that he really wanted the guy to freak out, I’m still not convinced that’s a criminal act. But just the fact of getting to that point is so unlikely that I don’t think it can be reasonably called a “crime”.
I have nothing useful to add to the thread, but boy is Columbo young here.
I was first introduced to Columbo through occasional TV Movies, so evidence of the TV series that preceeded that is . . . jarring.
So there again, Columbo can credibly and truthfully say that he’s simply operating on the information that the suspect provided, which reflects the suspect’s beliefs, which appear to be that the crash was simply a gas tank malfunction. Columbo doesn’t really know if the cigar box had a bomb, and he also doesn’t know what the suspect believes about the box, so he can’t have intent to threaten.
Consider the distinction here - one thing is a threat, the other is not.
"I suspect this cigar box has hazardous contents that will hurt you seriously if I open it. I think you know what’s inside. If you don’t give me information about the contents, I’m going to expose you to the danger (as I understand it)."
That’s definitely a threat. Columbo has expressed he believes the suspect ought to be afraid of the box, and he’s expressed a willingness to harm the suspect. It might be a criminal threat, but at the minimum it’s enough of a threat to procedurally invalidate anything the suspect says after that.
Contrast with:
“Here’s a cigar box. I have no reason to think the contents are dangerous, because I don’t have any evidence that it’s dangerous, and nobody’s told me it’s dangerous, and why would a regular cigar box be dangerous anyway? I’m going to open it up and enjoy a fine cigar! Here I go…”
This is distinctly not a threat. The distinction is subtle, but it absolutely matters.
The fact that Columbo has to employ a ruse to find out what’s in the box, is in itself evidence that he’s not making a threat. He doesn’t have strong reason to believe it’s a threat, or that the suspect thinks he’s being threatened (if we ignore the trope that Columbo always knows everything).
I agree. Colombo was acting on a hunch with the duplicate cigar box, not a 100% certainty. That, in my mind, does give another level of separation away from ‘threat’. TOWP may disagree….I see them typing now…
You’re kind of glossing over something, there: you lead off by talking about what he can truthfully say, and then you move on to saying he doesn’t know what the suspect believes about the box. But: can he truthfully say he doesn’t have a belief about what the suspect believes? Can he truthfully say he didn’t have the intent to threaten?
How do you figure? I can imagine a whole range of options where Columbo would go ahead with that ruse; for example:
- He thinks it has one-in-nine shot at working
- He thinks it has a four-in-nine shot at working
- He thinks it has a five-in-nine shot at working
- He thinks it has a seven-in-nine shot at working
- He thinks it has an eight-in-nine shot at working
Do you think any of those would involve him having a reasonable belief, such that intent would kick in even without 100% certainty?
Consider a related scenario:
Columbo says to the suspect, “Listen, I watched the footage of the security camera before it was erased, and I know for sure whether you’re the killer. But I like to play games. So here’s the deal. If you’re innocent, I’m going to let you go in thirty seconds. If you’re guilty and you confess, I’ll arrest you. If you’re guilty and don’t confess in the next thirty seconds, I’ll shoot you in the head.”
The suspect confesses.
Were Columbo’s acts legal?
As I understand it, this was substantially the threat he made to the perp in the scene in question–except that the perp didn’t know that the threat was made intentionally. I don’t think the “reasonable person” standard applies to whether the object of the threat knows it was intentionally made, though.