|
Eh! I thought it was an exciting way to raise the stakes! It's not like this is the first time Phoenix has been jumped for confronting a suspect/witness outside of court. If I was angry when I first played this, I was angry at Von Karma for living up to his reputation as a dirty cheater who really will do anything to win a case. I think I was more terrified, wondering how I was going to make the pieces connect with just a bullet.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
I can't really fault a guy for not expecting to be mugged in the middle of a police station.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Well, this is a pretty pass! The law enforcement really is a joke, isn't it? (And while I share the frustration of having to present a trump card to an obvious fucker, I can forgive it if it leads to the takedown of all takedowns in court.) But what can we do with a bullet with the evidence we've got, even if it is the bullet that Edgeworth "shot"*? I wonder if there's more evidence to DL-6 that we haven't seen? *What I can't easily forgive is Grossberg's assertion that "accidental murder" is still murder, because gently caress that. That is why intent is so important in crimes like these; take away the motive and desire, and what you have left is voluntary manslaughter (crime of passion, where the accused tries to harm but not kill the victim) and involuntary manslaughter (accidental death, which this event clearly is), and which should in a just world be judged differently. but that requires nuance and consideration and a knowledge of people that extends beyond the duality of "upstanding innocent" and "vile monster", so I guess it's right out for this game!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
You know, I wonder how much "accidental murder is still murder" is supposed to be satire of Japan's criminal courts or... Well, actual reality.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Murder has a specific legal definition and that is definitely annoying but that's sort of an expert's peeve because that requires specialised knowledge of how criminal statutes work. Blah blah blah mens rea, deadly intent, etc. Though, it would be an interesting question on a crim law final. A person throws a deadly implement at another person, intending to "make him stop." The gun discharges, killing a third person. What crime, if any, has been committed? Explain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:Murder has a specific legal definition and that is definitely annoying but that's sort of an expert's peeve because that requires specialised knowledge of how criminal statutes work. Blah blah blah mens rea, deadly intent, etc.  : The defendant is guilty, clearly! : So tell me when the guilty verdict is declared so I can go home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:
This would be considered an A+ paper in Japanifornia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:Murder has a specific legal definition and that is definitely annoying but that's sort of an expert's peeve because that requires specialised knowledge of how criminal statutes work. Blah blah blah mens rea, deadly intent, etc. I give you the (tragically fictional) case of Ronald Opus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:Though, it would be an interesting question on a crim law final. A person throws a deadly implement at another person, intending to "make him stop." The gun discharges, killing a third person. What crime, if any, has been committed? Explain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:Well, this is a pretty pass! The law enforcement really is a joke, isn't it? (And while I share the frustration of having to present a trump card to an obvious fucker, I can forgive it if it leads to the takedown of all takedowns in court.) What got me about this case is that the "murderer" in question was NINE loving YEARS OLD at the time.  Like, wtf. Do you charge a literal child for "accidental murder"? loving really? I kept waiting for someone to bring that up during this part and noooooope. Doesn't matter, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Phoenix Wright is a good and fun murder mystery game. It is a terrible law simulator. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
It's also a 'terrible law' simulator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Please don't try to apply logic to Phoenix Wright, you'll only frustrate yourself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
See also: the last update.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Pash posted:Ya, giving this law system showing that note in court might have been enough to convict Yanni Yogi and Von Karma of the murder... And Von Karma would turn it around and present "decisive evidence" that Edgeworth killed his father fifteen years before, taking his protege and probable revenge case down with him. Honestly this sounds like at this point the only thing that matters to Von Karma is Edgeworth being declared guilty of some murder, even if he gets the same punishment for being a collaborator with this murder. Silver Falcon posted:Like, wtf. Do you charge a literal child for "accidental murder"? loving really? I kept waiting for someone to bring that up during this part and noooooope. Doesn't matter, apparently. People in this very thread were quite ready to charge a parrot with the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
The death did not arise from the commission of a different felony, so no this is inapplicable.Fedule posted:I give you the (tragically fictional) case of Ronald Opus. Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:
 While a defendant, as a matter of course is guilty in Japanifornia by the simple fact he's the defendant, this is not a question of criminal procedure. We cannot find him guilty yet until we've determined what crime to charge him with!2/10 points, please see me after class.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
The von Karma response would probably be to glare until you either back down and assign a crime for him or, apparently, spend a decade planning an unnecessarily elaborate revenge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Pash posted:Ya, giving this law system showing that note in court might have been enough to convict Yanni Yogi and Von Karma of the murder... Your honor, the defense claims that I wrote this note. Clearly they would have no reason to know what my handwriting looks like unless they forged this letter!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:The von Karma response would probably be to glare until you either back down and assign a crime for him or, apparently, spend a decade planning an unnecessarily elaborate revenge. My initial impression of him as basically just a loud-mouthed jackass who is lucky to be working in Japanifornia has been fully vindicated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:The von Karma response would probably be to glare until you either back down and assign a crime for him or, apparently, spend a decade planning an unnecessarily elaborate revenge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:The death did not arise from the commission of a different felony, so no this is inapplicable. I'm not understanding your argument. It's absolutely applicable. Person A: I'm going to rob you (at gunpoint). Note: the enumerated, predicate felony. Person B: Self defense! <chucks a deadly implement. I assume this to mean a spear or tomahawk or something> poo poo, I missed. <Person A flinches, goes bang> Person C: Ah, you fucker! I'm dying! Uh, yeah, you best believe I'm charging Person A with Felony Murder for C's death. Leif. fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
The situation they originally described was more like A threatens/attacks B in some way, B throws a gun at A, and that weapon then discharges, killing bystander C. It's a ridiculous scenario because throwing a gun is very silly, but hey, Edgey did it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
It wouldn't make a difference though -- I'd still be charging A for the death of C in the course of his felony against B. It's the same thing. Depending on the fact pattern, I might be charging B as well if I think I can get imperfect self defense and I'm in one of those non-merger doctrine jurisdictions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
I'd argue that Yogi wasn't committing a felony -- two men on the verge of passing out from asphyxiation aren't in any physical condition to cause serious harm to each other, despite crazed declarations -- and that depending on the jurisdiction you can't include the actions of a bystander, which Edgeworth would be in this case. I can see what you're getting at, but I don't agree with your legal conclusions, and the fact pattern is so ridiculous it could only come from Japanifornia where the legal discourse is "Defendants: Guilty or Super Guilty?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
The bigger question is why the hell was there a gun in the elevator with them. This is Japanifornia, not Texas!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:The bigger question is why the hell was there a gun in the elevator with them. Didn't they say that it was a piece of evidence?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Even in areas that aren't especially gun-crazy in the US, it's often quite normal for at least some guards to be armed. In my podunk college hometown, the front gate guardsman at the courthouse kept his personal sidearm on him more because he could than any particular need.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Air is lava! posted:Didn't they say that it was a piece of evidence? What do you want to bet the old bullet proves this gun is the exact same gun used in the elevator?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:I'd argue that Yogi wasn't committing a felony -- two men on the verge of passing out from asphyxiation aren't in any physical condition to cause serious harm to each other, despite crazed declarations -- and that depending on the jurisdiction you can't include the actions of a bystander, which Edgeworth would be in this case. I can see what you're getting at, but I don't agree with your legal conclusions, and the fact pattern is so ridiculous it could only come from Japanifornia where the legal discourse is "Defendants: Guilty or Super Guilty?" Oh yeah, I wasn't arguing the specific LP fact pattern, just what you had in the sentence I quoted about the crim law final. I do feel like in Japanifornia though I could get that verdict, especially since I presumably don't have to worry about little things like professional responsibility and maintaining my license.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:The bigger question is why the hell was there a gun in the elevator with them. Yogi was a court bailiff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Leif. posted:Oh yeah, I wasn't arguing the specific LP fact pattern, just what you had in the sentence I quoted about the crim law final.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Somethings been bothering me... Why would Yanni Yogi care about when the statute of limitations ends in relation to getting revenge? It's not like he could not get revenge on them afterwards. The only way he would care about the statute of limitations is if Edgeworth killed his father and he wanted him to go away for it... but then whats the point of framing him for a different murder when the only way Edgeworth goes down for killing his father is if some defense lawyer manages to get to the end of the trial with Von Karma, which apparently has never happened...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:Murder has a specific legal definition and that is definitely annoying but that's sort of an expert's peeve because that requires specialised knowledge of how criminal statutes work. Blah blah blah mens rea, deadly intent, etc. Y'alls are kidding, right? Involuntary manslaughter. Depending on the level of understanding of the defendant of his actions at the time, but the question doesn't specify whether or not the defendant knew the gun was loaded, whether they had an understanding of the degree of recklessness throwing a loaded firearm could have, etc. Interestingly, if the defendant (hypothetically) was aware of the risk that the firearm could discharge and kill someone AND would have proceeded to throw the firearm regardless, then that would be sufficient culpa (dolus eventualis) to convict for murder (aka. malignant heart mens rea), but the applicability of this is a detailed question of Japanifornian jurisprudence that I can't answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Bonus update, because Spirit of Justice comes out today! If you like Ace Attorney as a series, support it by buying Spirit of Justice! Case 4 - Turnabout Goodbyes Trial (Day 4) - Part 1     : (Today, things are going to get settled at last... a lot of things.) : Wh-what's the big idea!? : S-s-sorry, Nick! : I only touched your shoulder! : I guess the "shock" hasn't worn off from my run-in with the stun gun yesterday. : Anyhow, today's the last day of the trial! Good luck, Nick!: Yeah... thanks, Maya. : ...: (Edgeworth is looking glum as always. I hope von Karma doesn't push him too hard.): ...  : Sorry! I'm sorry! : I just thought I'd ch-cheer you up with a pat on the back...: Maya... Maybe you should go outside and discharge? : Right. Good idea.: (Try not to electrocute anyone on your way out...)   : What's gotten into that girl?: Detective Gumshoe! : Morning! Mr. Edgeworth? : Uh... good morning.: How did it go, Detective? : Have no fear! As promised, I've captured our runaway caretaker!: I just brought him in. Took all night, pal.: Thanks, Detective Gumshoe. You must be tired. : Actually, after that shock I got on the way in, I feel pretty good.: (Yogi says he's forgotten his own name... But that has to be a lie! Why would he want revenge on Edgeworth if he couldn't remember his past!? He does remember... and I'm going to prove it!)     : Court is now in session for the trial of Miles Edgeworth. : The defense is ready, Your Honor.: ... The prosecution... is ready. : ...: U-uh... right, very well. We have reached the final day of our proceedings in this trial. : I ask that the prosecution submit decisive evidence.: Understood.: ... : (C'mon! Don't be awed into silence by every little thing he says!): Very well, Mr. von Karma, your opening statement.: Right. Thanks to Detective Gumshoe's efforts, the boat rental shop caretaker has been arrested. In yesterday's trial, the defense asserted that the caretaker was the murderer. However, the caretaker has yet to confirm this. I would like to ask the defense to cross-examine him as much as necessary.: Very well!: Please bring the witness into the courtroom. : Ladies and gentlemen of the court... I believe you all remember our witness. He lives in the boat rental shop on the lake, from where he witnessed the incident. In addition, he has currently lost memory of his name and identity.: Witness! Why did you run away yesterday? : The witness was not running away, as he will now testify.: I-I see.: Very well, please begin your testimony.  : Zzzz... mmph?         : Hmm... Very well.: Let's begin the cross-examination, shall we? : (He has to know his name!): (Yanni Yogi! You're Yanni Yogi and I'm going to prove it!)   : I'd call what you did "running away," and not "just leaving." : You heard Larry's testimony, and realized you were in danger! : Now, Mr. Wright, there's no need to rush to conclusions.: As I said, the witness was not "running away.": Listen to the testimony.: (He sure seems relaxed!)   : Then why did you leave!?: He's just about to say why! Is it so hard for you to just quietly listen when someone is talking!?: (If I sat quietly, Edgeworth would be guilty in three minutes!) : Food...? : Well, Polly is a bit of a gourmand, you see.: She only eats these high-quality bird pellets from France. They only have them in the big pet shop downtown.: But you weren't arrested until this morning!: Why didn't you go back to the caretaker's shack?: Er... well...: I kind of got lost, you see.: The witness has trouble remembering things sometimes.: When police apprehended him, he was on his way back to the shack!: (Yeah, right! Nice try von Karma! No one's going to believe that!): Hmm... I see! So he was lost!: (Please! Your Honor, come to your senses!) : You've lost much of your memory, is that correct?: Er... ayup, seems like it. : Then how could you know that you didn't have anything to do with this incident! : Uh...: Or... Or maybe you're lying about not having your memory, hmm?: You know exactly who you are!: The witness has testified quite clearly that he has no memory of who he is. : If you claim he's lying, then show the court proof!: (Grr...): (How am I supposed to prove what's going on in that old codger's head? That's impossible!): Hmph! I'm glad you've come to your senses, Mr. Wright.: Very well, witness. Please continue. : How can you say you had no motive? I say you do!: You had a grudge against Edgeworth and the victim, Robert Hammond!: That's why you took revenge on them! Right?: Please don't make me repeat myself, Mr. Wright! : This witness has no memory of anything beyond several years ago! He can't hold a grudge! It's impossible!: (I have to prove he's lying about his memory... Otherwise, it's going to be the same thing over and over until the trial ends!): Might I say something, Mr. Wright?: Yes... Yes, Your Honor?: You've been saying the same thing now over and over. You've been calling the witness's memory of the past or lack thereof into question. But, does this really have anything to do with the current case? : Of course, Your Honor. The witness has said he has "nothing to do with this case" and "no motive"...   : Order! Order!: Mr. Wright! There is a serious problem with your claim! Or... are you saying... Are you saying you know who this witness is!?: Of course, Your Honor! : Ho hoh! Now, this is interesting. I would like to know myself! So, who is he?: (Don't play dumb von Karma!)  : His name... is "Gregory Edgeworth"! ...: Er... Mr. Wright? All of us here remember what Gregory Edgeworth looked like. And he looked nothing like this, believe me.: (Wow... that's pretty harsh, Your Honor...) : Now... let me ask you again. Mr. Wright, please tell us this witness's name. : His name... is "Robert Hammond"!: ...: Mr. Wright. Robert Hammond is the name of the victim in this case.: Uh...: Generally, the victim in a murder case is no longer living. : That's true... : Mr. Wright, please tell us this witness's name. : His name is Yanni Yogi, a former court bailiff!: ...: Yogi...? That name seems familiar. ...: Oh! Yanni Yogi! From the DL-6 Incident!: (I thought the judge would have heard of it... it was a such a famous case.): But, what does this mean?: Your Honor! If this man is Mr. Yogi, then he has a clear motive!: Tsk tsk tsk...: Jumping to conclusions again, Mr. Wright! This man, this witness, is Yanni Yogi? Fascinating! However...: How do you propose to prove this to the court?: ...: This is a court of law, as you may recall. You need proof!: And, allow me to repeat, once more, that the witness has lost his memory!: (This is it... I have to do this now! If I can't prove he's Yogi right here, right now... Then I've got nowhere else to go!) : Nick! How are you going to prove it!? How can you prove that he's Yanni Yogi?: It's okay. It's actually quite simple.: Your Honor! : Then, we'll compare them to the fingerprints on file for Yanni Yogi 15 years ago...: I see... that makes sense.: Tsk tsk tsk!: Huh?: I'm so very, very sorry, Mr. Wright.: Wh-why?: The witness... has no fingerprints!: What? What!? No fingerprints!? : Er... you see, before I worked as a caretaker, I worked at a chemical plant. I burned my fingers working with the stuff. Ayup. : (Yogi, you sneak! You burned your fingerprints off to hide your past!): Hmm...: Well, if the witness has no fingerprints...: I guess we will not be able to prove his identity.: (No...!): Tsk tsk tsk... Well, what will you do, Mr. Wright?: Uh...: Hmm?: It seems that the case has been decided, no?: (No!!! I know what happened! I know everything! I... I just can't prove it!): (But no... I can't let it end like this. I can't lose! There has to be another way!): There is no one who can testify as to who this witness is! No one!: Nick! What are we going to do!?: I didn't even consider that he might have erased his fingerprints...: (What do I do!?): Tsk tsk tsk... Well, Mr. Wright? Perhaps you'd like to cross-examine the parrot for a little comic relief, hmm?: (Yeah, yeah, very funny. You're a sore winner, von Karma. ...): (Wait a second... "Cross-examine the parrot"?): Wh-what is it, Nick? No... you're not going to...!?: Your Honor!: The defense would like to take Mr. von Karma up on his proposal!: Take Mr. von Karma up?: On his... proposal?: Exactly, Your Honor!  : O-order! Order!: Uh... well, what do you think, Mr. von Karma?: Need you even ask!? This is a farce! I object!: Wait a second!: You were the one who suggested I cross-examine the parrot, von Karma!: I have a right to do as you suggested!: Mmph...: ...: Well, if you're so desperate, then please, be my guest.: !: Of course, should you go through with this...: And nothing comes of it, then I hope you're ready for the consequences.: Nick... this is crazy!  : (You know, come to think of it... This is a really stupid idea.): Tsk tsk tsk... I've heard of desperate men grasping at straws... But this is the first time I've heard of men grasping at macaws! Hah!: (Think! von Karma is a perfectionist in all things. He's probably rigged every piece of evidence and all the testimonies...): (If I can't do the unexpected I've no chance of winning!) Your Honor. I've thought about this proposal...: And I'm going to do it. I'm going to cross-examine the parrot! : Let the parrot take the stand.: I will cross-examine her, Your Honor.Convergence. : !: This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!: (von Karma's rigged every person's testimony, ever piece of evidence... Except the parrot! She's my last chance!): (At least... I think so.): Bailiff! Bring in the parrot.Next time: The parrot. Mors Rattus fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Sep 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
THE REAL ACE ATTORNEY BEGINS HERE
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
I have no words and there is not a  big enough for this moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
"I WILL CROSS EXAMINE THE PARROT!" is just the best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
KataraniSword posted:
That bird is guilty as a motherfucker and now that we've got it on the stand were gonna get a confession out of it and turn it into a crispy eight-piece.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
I love this game. I love this series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:
Typo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 15:53
|
|
