How would the actions of H&#228;nsel and Gretel in the Grimm tale be interpreted in modern law? This came up as a layman’s law question. I thought of this when reading the classic Grimm tale Hänsel and Gretel to my children. The situation is as follows: The witch imprisons Hänsel with the stated intention to eat (and thus kill) him. Gretel is asked to light the fire in the oven with the stated intention by the witch to use the fire to cook Hänsel. Gretel pushes the witch into the burning oven and closes the door, knowing the witch will die in there. The witch is bigger and stronger than Gretel, so Gretel can’t really hope for a better chance to physically overwhelm her. Question: How would this be treated according to modern law? Would this be a straight-up murder or can Gretel claim some sort of self-defense and go free? If the answer depends on jurisdiction just make some reasonable choice.
Assuming U.S. Jurisdiction: In the case of The People vs. Hansel and Gretel Holzfaller: Ms. Gretel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Murder in the First Degree (Murder of Ms. Witch Hazel) 1 Count of Grand Larceny (Theft of precious metals and jewels from Ms. Hazel) 1 Count Petty Theft (Theft of Candy) 1 Count of Vandalism (Bite marks left in Gingerbread Masonry) 1 Count Trespassing Mr. Hansel Holzfaller is charged with the following: 1 Count of Accessory to Murder 1 Count of Grand Larceny 1 Count Petty Theft 1 Count of Vandalism 1 Count Trespassing Ms. Holzfaller has raised the Affirmative Defense of Self-Defense. The defense is problematic on the onset as the court must consider the nature of the case. As a Duty to Flee state, Ms. Holzfaller must show that there was no reasonable way to flee the Witch. The court finds sufficient evidence exists, given that both defendants were detained against their will by Ms. Hazel. Next, we must consider if Ms. Hazel's actions were within her legal rights. Common law allows citizens to make a "Citizen's Arrest" if they are witnesses to criminal activity and when no law officer is appointed. Should the court find in favor of the state on this ground, then Self-Defense is not applicable as Ms. Hazel was acting within her right to hold the children for crimes committed against her. This court, however, will not find in favor of the State. Ms. Hazel had kept the children confined to her home for sufficient time for Mr. Holzfaller to put on the substantial weight given his family's inability to provide sufficient meals for a child of his age. Mr. Holzfaller was described as starving and lean upon his disappearance and, upon recovery of Mr. Holzfaller, contemporary media reports took note of his "fat and plump" appearance. Ms. Holzfaller had similarly put on sufficient weight in this time, though not to the degree of her brother. This amount of weight gain in a child is rather unhealthy and disturbing to consider, but more shocking to this court is that any reasonable person could consider such a duration of time a justifiable "Citizen's Arrest". This is in addition to the fact that Ms. Hazel was intending to engage in the murder of the children and the consumption of them. This court cannot find Ms. Hazel's actions reasonable or just and thus will not consider her to be affecting Citizen's arrest. While Ms. Holzfaller was not herself likely in immediate danger, she was asked to prepare a stove for her brother's imminent murder and consumption. Self-Defense need not apply to one's own self, but can be a legitimate defense when one is defending others from becoming victims of a crime. Furthermore, as the witch was clearly stronger than either Holzfaller's child, Ms. Holzfaller was using only the most reasonable amount of force necessary to incapacitate Ms. Hazel. As such, this court renders the verdict of Not Guilty by means of Self-Defense to Ms. Holzfaller's charge of Murder in the First degree. With a not guilty verdict rendered, this court will dismiss the charge of Accessory to Murder against Mr. Holzfaller. We now turn to the lesser sentences of trespassing, vandalism, and petty theft. This court must recall that at the time of the abduction, the children were both younger. In addition, while Ms. Hazel is not able to stand trial for her alleged crimes, given the nature of the previously dismissed murders, this court must consider that the children were enticed by the house and its unusual choice of confectionery as a construction material and that this was exactly the incident Ms. Hazel intended to induce the children into committing. This is not sufficient in and of itself to excuse the Children from their behavior and this court will not allow an excuse based solely on the fact that Ms. Hazel wanted to trap children to satisfy her unusual palate. As the children were significantly younger when they were engaged in these activities, however, we can reasonably assume that these children were below the Age of Criminal Responsibility and thus did not have the adequate mental development to know that these actions were of a criminal nature. Thus, this court will dismiss these three charges against both defendants. Finally, on the charge of Grand Larceny, this court finds sufficient merit to go to trial. There is no excuse for theft of property from someone, even if they were trying to eat you. Given the nature of the case, however, this court would be satisfied with dismissing the charges if Mr. and Ms. Holzfaller returned the stolen property to the Estate of Ms. Hazel, and the estates' current custodian, Mr. William Wonka. The Holzfaller family has stated that they believe Ms. Hazel's actions warrant punitive actions against Ms. Hazel's estate, but as this is a criminal court, we find that the property in dispute is rightfully Mr. Wonka's pending the outcome of a civil suit on the matter. Next on the Docket: The People v. Rumpelstiltskin on 3 charges of Counterfeiting Currency.
In Wisconsin, right after the perjury law, they have a law prohibiting "false swearing". It applies if a person: Makes or subscribes 2 inconsistent statements under oath or affirmation or upon signing a statement pursuant to s. 887.015 in regard to any matter respecting which an oath, affirmation, or statement is, in each case, authorized or required by law or required by any public officer or governmental agency as a prerequisite to such officer or agency taking some official action, under circumstances which demonstrate that the witness or subscriber knew at least one of the statements to be false when made. The period of limitations within which prosecution may be commenced runs from the time of the first statement. So even if they couldn't actually get you for perjury, they could get you for violating this law. Perjury and false swearing are both class H felonies, so you can expect the same punishment. I am going to guess that the existence of this law suggests that it was needed to cover what would otherwise be a loophole in the perjury law, but I can't say for sure.
School administrators have the right to try to express the law in seemingly simpler language, but they do not have the right to enforce their misstatements of the law. The law of Louisiana does not refer to knives at all Carrying a firearm, or dangerous weapon as defined in R.S. 14:2, by a student or nonstudent on school property, at a school sponsored function, or in a firearm-free zone is unlawful... &quot;Dangerous weapon&quot; is defined so that it &quot;includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm&quot;. The law does not exhaustively list the things that count as firearms or dangerous weapons, so every individual is held responsible for knowing what the courts have held to constitute &quot;dangerous weapons&quot;. A novice interpretation (not relying on case law) might lead to the conclusion that a speargun is not a &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; (perhaps on the theory that it is used underwater to spear fish), but a reasonable interpretation of &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; suggests that it is a dangerous weapon because it can be used to kill a person. The same is true of a pencil, as well as a dog. You can turn to this article for an example of the dangerous weapon status of a dog, a propos Louisiana v. Michels, where defendant was &quot;armed with a dangerous weapon&quot;. That court recited previous case law to the effect that &quot;the dangerousness of the instrumentality because of its use is a factual question for the jury&quot; State v. Munoz, 575 So.2d 848, 850 RX 14:3 also states that The articles of this Code cannot be extended by analogy so as to create crimes not provided for herein; however, in order to promote justice and to effect the objects of the law, all of its provisions shall be given a genuine construction, according to the fair import of their words, taken in their usual sense, in connection with the context, and with reference to the purpose of the provision which means that if faced with a novel application (dog, pencil, or speargun), the jury can decide based on &quot;context and purpose&quot;, not just narrow words. The article points to a law review article by a lawyer involved in the 1942 codification of Louisiana criminal law that &quot;the code was to be read as a civilian document, not a mere compilation of common law rules&quot;, thus the code is shorter and uses plain language. The article then reviews a number of previous rulings on the scope of &quot;dangerous weapon&quot;, starting with Louisiana v. Calvin where it was ruled that teeth and fists are not dangerous weapons, even though you can kill a person with your fists. It therefore turns out that a &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; must be an inanimate object, under Louisiana law. A knife can be found to be a dangerous weapon, as reported in this opinion (deportation dependent on a prior criminal conviction for felony aggravated battery, specifically referring to R.S. 14.2(3) and deeming a knife to be a dangerous weapon). Since that conviction is no being appealed at the state level, details of the knife-usage are omitted, so all we know is that a knife was used. Insofar as box cutters were the essential weapons that brought about the airplane hijackings on 9/11, it is not unreasonable to at least consider that they are within the scope of &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; (I would not, but that's a matter for the jury). A butter knife or especially a pencil cannot reasonably be deemed to be &quot;dangerous weapons&quot;. But there doesn't seem to be any case law specifically addressing these objects. If a pencil were actually used as a weapon, perhaps the jury might find that a pencil (so used) was a dangerous weapon. However, the question is about a law forbidding the mere possession of a dangerous weapon, eliminating how it was actually used from the calculation. It is extremely unlikely that I would get arrested for driving past a school with a screwdriver in my car.
Yes. It is a crime almost everywhere to throw something at someone, even if it causes little or no injury. Usually it would be classified as "assault and battery" although if it damages clothing or other property, it could also be called, for example, "criminal mischief" which is intentional damage to property. It would also be a tort that could be enforced with civil damages in most places, although only nominal damages would be awarded and there would be no award for attorneys' fees. In practice, however, few people would press charges or turn to the police in such an incident, few police would take action based on the complaint because it is so trivial, and few people would sue in such a case. For what it is worth, the "living law" in Japan recognizes that someone has a duty to pay to clean your clothes or replace them if they can't be cleaned in such circumstances and most people appear to comply with that obligation without court involvement if the victim insists. Also, pie throwing as a political protest in Europe is also almost surely illegal under European law, although, again, this is rarely enforced by common political culture and tradition.
We don't have enough facts to know. What Bob said about having violated the injunction, which could expose him to criminal contempt of court liability, was not true. But, the precise details of what he said, to whom he said it, and his relationship to the case, are not clear. Saying something that isn't true isn't always against the law, and even when it is against the law, the consequences depend upon the context. An intentionally false statement of fact to a police officer or to the court under oath would probably be a crime (but, unlike U.S. practice, criminal defendants who testify are not generally required to testify under oath). An unintentionally false statement of fact to the same persons (e.g. because Bob misheard the question or was drunk at the time and assumed that the statement of fact he was making was true or had dementia) would probably not have legal consequences for him. A mere confession - I am guilty of violating the civil injunction - would probably not be perjury or fraud because guilt of a civil injunction includes opinions and legal conclusions which are not actionable, as well as implied statements of fact, which might be actionable. But, if he confessed in the form of a plea, there probably wouldn't have been a trial at all. Once he made his plea, his factual guilty or innocence might be irrelevant in the face of a judicial admission. Courts can sometimes sanction parties to lawsuits for wasting everyone's time under quite specific circumstances, but we don't know precisely what relationship Bob has to the case in which the injunction was entered.
As far as I can tell, that would be a criminal act. Georgia law § 16-8-2 - Theft by taking says: A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated. Georgia law § 16-7-21. Criminal trespass says: A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person. If you know the store is refusing to sell you a product, and you eat that product anyway, that is theft. If you don't eat the food but just open it, that's still criminal trespass. Even if you're leaving them money, you're still taking and/or damaging their property without their consent. Additionally, if they told you to leave, and you refused and instead started opening food items, you might be guilty of trespassing in the more traditional sense: A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority... Remains upon the land or premises of another person... after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart. As to whether it was legal to give the candy to your daughter before the disagreement and refusal of service, that may depend on what the standard practice is. It seems to me that in most clothing stores you're supposed to pay before consuming the product - this isn't a sit-down restaurant. But if there's nothing else going on, I think the average store would refrain from calling the police if the person did not try to hide the evidence (for example, by stuffing the empty box on a shelf) and if the merchandise was paid for before the person attempted to leave the store, regardless of whether it's technically illegal.
Yes. In a civil case, there are two parties and the case is about finding out who has which obligations to whom. In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove that they actually incurred damage through the actions of the defendant. A criminal case is the state vs. the defendant. The "wronged party" is the society as a whole, usually represented by the prosecutor. The victim, if there is one, just plays the role of yet another witness to find out if the defendant needs to be punished and how. There are also examples of crimes which are completely victimless but still punished by some societies. For example, in many places sexual intercourse between two consenting adult siblings is a crime (incest), even though there is no victim. Also, for some crimes it is even a crime to attempt to commit it. So one can be punished in a criminal court even though they didn't actually succeed in causing any damage to anyone. Example: I throw a rock at your car. When I hit, you can sue me in a civil court and force me to pay for the repairs. When I miss, I caused no damage to you, so there is nothing you could sue about. But what if I throw a rock at you and miss? That's attempted assault, maybe even attempted murder. When law enforcement finds out about it, I could be arrested, prosecuted and convicted to a prision sentence, even though you are perfectly fine.
I'm not sure what jurisdiction you're referring to, but here are the state involuntary manslaughter laws. Broad brush, the elements tend to be: Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others. However, you're really backwards planning from a jail vs. army decision, so you might actually be after something like felony hit and run, which can most certainly result in incarceration. The elements of felony hit and run generally include leaving the scene of an accident regardless of fault (hit and run typically becomes a felony when someone was injured in the accident). Since the elements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it makes sense to look them up wherever the accident will take place in the book. If it takes place in the U.S. this is a state-by-state compendium. Then you can tweak the story to satisfy the applicable elements and induce the jail vs. army decision (even if army policy prohibits it, it's still pretty common fiction!).