Okay, so the same standard would apply to accusing Columbo of threatening or menacing the suspect. You’re perfectly clear to declare from your armchair that he’s “probably threatening” the guy, but that’s where it ends.
In court the story would simply be - Columbo made some observations that made him curious as to whether a cigar box was connected to a vehicular fire, and decided to test the suspect’s reaction would be to a similar cigar box. He didn’t know if the suspect would feel threatened by an empty box, he was just curious if it would arouse any response.
Again you can theorize from your armchair as to what was really in his heart, but it doesn’t matter. As you’ve noted there is a line between “likely true” and “likely enough to prove”, and it applies to whether Columbo was threatening the suspect. That test would fail here.
That’s an interesting point, and — if I’m right about what Columbo in fact intended, but you’re right that Columbo takes the sensible stop of not testifying that it was his intent — may well mean that (a) his plan is “commit a crime and get away with it, by convincing a guy he’s about to kill him,” but that (b) he doesn’t actually need to admit it. And, well, I’ll gladly admit that it’s a pretty terrific argument.
But I’m not 100% sure it has to stop there; if Columbo says he was just curious to see if the box would arouse any response, it seems like he can then get asked: “so, when you showed it to him, what response did it arouse? Did it bother him? You wanted to test the subject’s reaction to a similar box; what was the reaction? Did he appear to be in fear of bodily injury? If not, then I’m not sure why you’re testifying; but, if so, then: how long did you then let him keep thinking the timer was counting down? I know you claim that you were ‘just curious’ beforehand, but: after the point when you figured he was now in fear for his life, did you reassure him or keep up the act of pretending it was a box from the crashed car?”
That has already been discussed here, and is apparent in the clip posted upthread. When the suspect confirmed his guilt by his reaction, Columbo said that he got the box from the William Windom character’s secretary, or whatever.
No. The confession probably wouldn’t be admitted into evidence. That doesn’t mean Columbo committed a crime. That would be another question entirely.
Anything the suspect believes doesn’t matter except for a reasonable belief that Columbo would harm him. He can believe in fairies and unicorns for all it matters. As far as admissible evidence goes only his belief that Columbo intended to harm him matters.
What possible crime do you think Columbo committed when he did him no harm and gave the suspect no reason to believe he would?
I’ve recently been rewatching complete runs of several older TV shows, including Columbo (my most recent watch was 5x02). You should try watching the original TV movie from 1968, where he dressed and acted and spoke subtily differently than the character he grew into. (Then, after the second so-called “pilot”, the first episode of the continuing series was directed by some guy named Steven Spielberg.)
I find this unlikely to work, given that the victim and killer regularly interacted in person as members of the same company board, and the victim was a regular enough cigar smoker to have a well known and constant supply in his office and his car.
Given it was based on a stage play in which Columbo wasn’t even supposed to be the main character, I think using this episode as an example of his behavior throughout the series is a little misguided, as others in this thread do. If you want to do that, I’d suggest starting with “Murder By the Book” for examples.
I addressed this upthread, but if/when it becomes obvious to Columbo that the suspect has mortal fear of the box, then that’s the point where ethically (and I guess legally) then it might be legitimately considered to become threatening behavior, if Columbo persisted in menacing him with the box.
To my understanding, that line wasn’t crossed in the episode. The suspect started acting hysterically, at which point the ruse was dropped because it had served its purpose.
Columbo didn’t even have to drop a ruse; the suspect had spilled the contents of the box out on the floor of the tram, and seen that there was no bomb inside. Nothing further is said but it’s apparent that he realizes he’s been had.
The entire joke is that the explosive was disguised as one of the cigars in the box. That’s right: his plan was to murder somebody with an exploding cigar.
It’s a funny scene to watch in many ways. I saw the review upthread that said it was the best part of the (not very good) episode, being very tense. I’ll admit it was tense in a slightly camp way.
But firstly I thought it was weird how chill Columbo + pal remain after the cable car door has been opened. How calm would you be with the door opened with a man you know to be a murderer acting increasingly desperate? If not for your own sake, wouldn’t you be concerned he might jump out? If he opened the door and then Columbo immediately revealed the ruse, I’d somewhat get it, but with the scene as is there’s a few beats between the door open and reveal where they look unrealistically calm.
Secondly, why is the murderer even looking through the cigars? Wouldn’t he just frantically throw them all out? Is he, like Columbo, reluctant to waste good cigars? (ETA: I didn’t watch the whole episode; does he think he can disable it?)
Finally I get that all the noise and pseudo-flashbacks is helping us to feel the panic of the murderer, but I’d still prefer it with the car mechanism sound turned down.
Watching the clip of the climactic scene for the first time, thoughts:
Columbo did something interesting here. He laid out his complete circumstantial theory in front of the suspect, and then purposely discredited it based on some other red herring. It was comically overdone to the point he was basically saying “ha ha, I actually thought this cigar box was rigged to explode, but turns out I was completely wrong! I’m such a dummy, you’re innocent, case closed, now let’s have a look in the box.” (cue suspect freaking out).
So that firms up a few things:
Columbo’s antics in undermining his own theory would’ve been an adequate defense against being accused of threatening the suspect, full stop. He very theatrically made the case why the box should not be dangerous. The audience knows he’s bluffing, but a judge would have only the statement of 2 witnesses who would testify he emphatically stated his belief that the the box posed no danger.
Columbo did have an elaborate theory, specifically about the suspect’s motives as well as the box being wired to explode. But everything about the box was circumstantial suspicion, wouldn’t have been enough to make the case.
The suspect never confessed. His reaction wasn’t a confession. It was strong support for the circumstantial case, but probably defensible by competent counsel.
Given the above, there’s no way Columbo could have been found liable for threatening the suspect. And I would add my personal take, if we subtract the dramatics and lore of Columbo, we have a detective with a pretty compelling theory of motive and circumstance, but no evidence of weapon or opportunity. He suspected the perp might be frightened by the box, but this is what he was trying to find out. He did find out, but the suspect never admitted why he reacted that way.
So that seems like Columbo, if challenged, has an airtight argument of “I suspected there was something important about the cigar box, so I wanted to discover how the suspect reacted in its presence of it being opened. The suspect never actually described the mechanism, so I still have no idea if the actual box contained explosives, or a trigger for explosives in the trunk, or a bunch of angry bees. All I know is the suspect really didn’t want me to open it, and he seemed desparate to find one particular cigar. And he had a motive for the murder. Of course he won’t confess, he’s now claiming his reaction was triggered by some childhood cigar-related PTSD, but his actions caused me to have the forensic team to assemble every bit of evidence that looks like a cigar or a cigar box, and have it tested for chemical traces of explosive. looks at camera and we’ll learn the results in the made-for-TV movie.”
Also, as you pointed out, since Columbo only had a strong suspicion, but did not know for sure, if the suspect rigged the cigar box, it wouldn’t have risen to the level of threat unless Columbo continued to make the suspect believe he was about to be killed after revealing his guilt. And the scene clearly shows that right after the suspect freaked out and proved his guilt, Columbo admitted it was not the rigged cigar box but a duplicate (I think he said he got it from the William Windom character’s secretary).
Yeah, that part made no sense. There’s no good reason why, thinking you were about to be asploded, you wouldn’t just throw the whole thing out of the tram door.
In that ‘Columbophile’ blog link I posted upthread, it said that the ‘Short Fuse’ episode was a last-minute decision to squeeze one more Columbo episode in that current season, so it was hastily written and the quality suffered as a result. Falk has said he considered it one of the lesser episodes.
No reason to think Columbo intended to harm him, which is what matters here. Now you can circle back again and try to re-order the word to make it sound like there’s something there when there isn’t. The suspect did not confess because he thought Columbo intended to harm him. No reason the confession is inadmissible, no crime committed by Columbo.
I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m saying the suspect thought Columbo was going to harm him — not that he thought Columbo intended to harm him. I’m also saying that he had reason to think Columbo was going to harm him — not that he had reason to think Columbo intended to harm him.
I’m flatly telling you he believed he’d be harmed by Columbo’s actions — while flatly telling you he didn’t believe that was Columbo’s intent.
I’m saying that I believe Columbo’s actual intent was to cause, not bodily harm, but the fear of bodily harm — and I’m adding that the suspect didn’t think that was his intent, and didn’t have reason to think that was his intent. I’m saying I believe Columbo intended to commit a crime — and I’m adding that the suspect didn’t, uh, suspect that Columbo intended to commit that crime, or was committing that crime.
As I understand it, “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.” It doesn’t, AFAIK, involve Person B needing to think that Person A has the intent to cause harm — which is why I’ve been genuinely mystified every time that point has been raised.
I come to your house with my toddler. You have prepared poisoned cookies to feed my toddler. I try to share those cookies with YOUR toddler. Am I guilty of assault?
How about if you told your toddler the cookies are poisoned?