They should've gotten murder. They did commit a felony since they transmitted audio with the video. That's illegal wire tapping, which is a federal offense. I liked the movie though, saw A twist coming, just wasn't exactly sure
shareBeing a minor with a clean record can go a long way.
shareThe clean record was the big factor in their sentence because if they had records but were minors, they would most likely have gotten adult sentences. The other big factor was the sister/sister in law who brought the paperwork to the house. Her testimony about seeing the signs of depression and maybe suicidal tendencies really swayed the verdict I feel as the jury would see this guy as someone possibly looking for a reason to end it, and the teens were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only real issue is the fact that Ethan brought a gun into the house, but a competent lawyer could probably argue that it was for self defense in dealing with a person that they thought was dangerous. Again, it's not a great answer to that plot hole, but it's probably what would have been used.
shareHard to charge someone with murder when a person commits suicide. A more mentally stable person probably would have taken different action like leaving the house. It was horrible what they did but pretty hard to prove it was murder in a court of law.
sharea hard sentence wont bring back the neighbor... and the boys have to live with their conscience (how ever much that may be)
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast
You're incorrect. Illegal wire tapping is defined quite clearly as bugging a communication device. They did not do this. Yes, they took audio and video footage of him, but they didn't tap his phone. So it was not illegal wire tapping.
As far as the recording itself goes, the recording is only illegal if they live in a two party consent state. They would need to live in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania or Washington in order for it to have been illegal to record him without his consent. I do not recall if it was ever mentioned where they lived.
Breaking into the home and setting up the recording equipment was definitely illegal. But the majority of that was covered with the breaking and entering.
If they live in a two party consent state, then what they did was a felony. That wasn't brought up though. But they would have to be in one of those states I listed for this to be the case. This would also be a state level offense, not a federal one.
I'm not defending what they did in any way, just presenting it correctly as to it's legal standing. Their actions were reprehensible but should be defined accurately.
If the judge was correct and the state they lived in observed the felony murder law but defined their crimes as misdemeanors, then the judge could not have found them guilty of murder.
In fact, the reason the whole court thing is ridiculous is that they both were obviously charged with misdemeanors. They also knew what crimes that would have been found guilty of before the sentencing, so the judge suddenly announcing they were only found guilty of misdemeanors was silly. This would have been apparent from the point of their arrest and charges. So the judge bringing up the felony murder law was nothing more than a plot device to make viewers think they could be charged with murder.
I'm not particularly sure about this, and I really only comment on the legality of something if I know for sure, but others have said that Ethan breaking into the house with the gun would have been a more serious crime.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wiretapping
I usually hate when people do this because it is unverifiable, but, as you only comment on the legality of something you know for sure, you seem like the type that accepts facts from people who do know for sure. I have a B.S. in Criminal Justice Studies from U of A, and as such have had to study, recite and argue many of these laws. If you do not take my education for granted refer to the 18 U.S.[supreme Court] Code section 2511 which deals specifically with wiretapping, and recording individuals. You are right in that two-party consent differs depending on the state, but that is only in the sense of a public situation. This is completely different. The Private Intrusion Act (and it's reinstatement of the second) would show that what they did was an intrusion of seclusion (privacy), making the former cite a precedent. It includes (paraphrasing) the legality of recording someone in general without their consent (on a federal level -- trumping state legislation).
Did the victim (the old man) have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Is the invention offensive to someone? Were private matters eavesdropped on, and did it cause suffering?
These conditions are all met. The man was at home and killed himself due to the anguish. Eavesdropping/wiretapping laws in public alone prohibit recording audio with video without consent in public but this is even more intrusive.
I'll give you that I misspoke one "wiretapping" as I recall them listening to him on the phone, making it wiretapping in addition to eavesdropping. Either way, I disagree on the "informing on murder law is just a plot device" as they committed many felonies leading to his death -- constituting 1st-degree murder.
Who do you think would win in a fight, Liam Neeson, or Liam Neeson?đź“·
Greetings, fellow Wildcat! I was Poli Sci, but later worked in your college; probably signed off on your degree check. ; ) How about the fact that Ethan committed a B and E of an *occupied* structure/residence?
shareThey actually didn't wiretap his phone, just his residence, which was still wrong as hell in itself.
share[deleted]
Nah, they shouldn't have gotten murder.
shareBut they didn’t kill the guy. The guy killed himself. It was unreasonable for anyone to believe that their actions could have driven him to kill himself.
share