I would say no.
I think there is a difference as to whether the threat appears to be intentional or not. In your scenario, even an innocent person may be concerned that they will be mistakenly assumed guilty and shot, and therefore may falsely plead guilty. But in the cigar box scenario, an innocent person would be blissfully unaware of any potential threat.
Yes he can. He can absolutely say this. I have gone to great pains to explain this, and I won’t be explaining it further.
You are confused because the Columbo TV trope rests on Columbo being a genius cop who has perfect knowledge and total advantage over every suspect during interogation. If you can’t separate your analysis from this, then you can’t properly evaluate his intent. Columbo knows everything. Evildoers know this, so everything he says is potentially a threat.
That’s what the TV show is. Within the bounds of the Columbo TV universe, yes this a threat, because Columbo always knows everything. In a realistic TV procedural, no, it’s very distinctly not a threat. We can talk about one or the other, not both.
But — just to be clear — it’s still illegal to commit assault (or battery, or rape, or murder) against someone even if they’re in fact guilty of something, right?
What the heck are you talking about? In direct reply to you, I just gave you a whole bit where I talked about Columbo doing it even if he only thinks it has a four-in-nine shot at working, or a seven-in-nine shot at working: that’s, like, the opposite of perfect knowledge. I’m already separating it from that.
I ended it by saying “without 100% certainty” of the guy, even.
The above scenario isn’t comparable, because both parties are operating on an explicit shared understanding that the cop is saying: “I’m holding in my hand what we both know is a kiling device, and I intend to kill you if you don’t say what I want to hear” There’s no ambiguity or uncertainty about anyone’s beliefs.
[quote=“The_Other_Waldo_Pepper, post:84, topic:1013310”]…it’s still illegal to commit assault (or battery, or rape, or murder) against someone even if they’re in fact guilty of something, right?
[/quote]
But this is where you keep losing me. Assault, battery, rape and murder against somebody who you think is guilty of murder is harming the guilty and innocent alike. And by the way, is also illegal even if the suspect is guilty (unless it’s self-defense) because vigilantism is illegal.
But the cigar box trick is a veiled threat of harm, and is only a threat if the suspect is guilty.
For all I know you may be correct that it would not be legal to threaten a suspect in the way that Colombo did. But your arguments to support your view are not helping you.
Columbo knows the staged cigar box is safe.
He is a very smart and intuitive detective yet he’s rarely given credit for that (except perhaps by the perps) and the only “genius” might be his turning around as he leaves, “Just another thing…”.
If there is a “trope” it’s that he plays the fool and dupes the perps into believing that and letting their guard down. And they’d have gotten away with it but for this meddling detective!
The ski-lift thing was a bit unusual and fraught with unknowns (including if it’s going to lead to conviction)
But that’s where you’re losing me: you state — correctly — that it’s illegal even if the suspect is guilty. And then, in the very next sentence, you say it’s only a threat if the suspect is guilty.
How is that not irrelevant? You just stated that it’d be illegal even if the suspect is guilty! Adding that the suspect is guilty just refers us back to the previous sentence!
Based on the episode, how does Columbo have grounds to make any probability estimation at all? He has nothing. You think he has something because he’s Columbo, and Columbo doesn’t set traps that aren’t foolproof, but based on the evidence he has, he’s just throwing stuff out there! It’s just a hunch, he doesn’t know if the odds are 1/9 or 1/2, he’s in discovery mode.
I’m not going to speculate on “what if he has an 8/9 expectation of being right”. That’s just not a thing. Either he’s got evidence to inform a reasonable belief, or he doesn’t. Anything else is just speculation into the strength of his hunches, which is fine for having a fun chat about TV characters, but it cannot inform the question of “could he be found criminally liable for a threat in real life, based on the evidence known in the episode”. The answer is plainly “no” (unless I’ve missed some detail about the episode).
But the person being threatened doesn’t. If someone threatens you, it’s irrelevant whether they know you’re safe; it’s entirely possible for you to believe you’re about to be harmed, and for them to intend that you believe exactly that.
Yeah I don’t care about that hypothetical. I was just clarifying that Columbo knew the cigar box was safe, because he was the one who sourced it.
This is, of course, false; Columbo does set traps that don’t work. But, putting that aside: if we don’t put a number on it, say he merely got asked beforehand, hey, do you think this will work? Can he say, “I’m not sure, but I’m guessing it will” or “I’m not sure, but I’m guessing it won’t” — or is he limited to saying “I have no idea whatsoever” in advance?
Ok, now you’re just straight-up misquoting me. I said “ Assault, battery, rape and murder” is illegal, even if the person who you’re doing those awful acts to is guilty of murder. That is entirely different than a threat, and then only perceived as a threat to someone who is actually guilty of murder.
If Colombo said to a suspect, “if you’re guilty you’ll go to prison for life” that’s a threat. But not illegal. He might even threaten capital punishment (though Cali afaik never had it) and that would be a threat of death but would be legal for a cop to do so.
I’m not misquoting you if my argument is that so threatening someone meets the definition of assault.
Maybe this will help clarify:
- Guy goes into a liquor store. From under his jacket, he’s pointing his finger menacingly at the cashier, because this looks like a gun. The cashier thinks it very likely could be a gun. Suspect says “I need 20 dollars”
- Guy goes into a liquor store. From under his jacket, he’s pointing a hand-carved wooden mallard duck menacingly at the cashier. The cashier thinks it definitely looks like a duck. Robber says “I need 20 dollars”
Obviously #1 is a threat. It appears to be something everyone understands to be harmful, and an intent to do harm.
#2 is not obviously a threat. We don’t commonly understand duck-shaped objects to be dangerous.
Now, could #2 be a threat? Yes, if the robber had good reason to think the cashier should have mortal fear of a duck. Maybe duck-guns are a known risk in that neighborhood for some reason. Or also yes, if the duck was actually a functioning duck-gun.
Otherwise no, it’s not a threat.
He never talks to the perps about guilt or consequences. He is just a shabbily dressed detective whose countenance is never threatening but friendly. “I know you didn’t commit this crime and want to exonerate you”
“Just another thing…”
How is that not my argument? I’m saying the suspect in this episode is like unto a cashier who is afraid, and who has good reason to be afraid, and is being threatened by someone who knows enough about the cashier to intend a threat.
Not a threat, unless he has evidence or statements that give him a reasonable belief to think it will work. Columbo’s TV acumen biases us to think this is strong evidence in itself, and on TV maybe it is, but if you want to talk about liability for a criminal threat, then it has to be discounted.