MOVIES & CRIME: REAR WINDOW

 

Rear Window

Dissecting Crimes:  L.B., Voyeuristic Witness Turns The Table

Alfred Hitchcock’s suspense thrillers send viewers on a spine-tingling shivers and shudders whose movies hold their attention with scene-stealing cliffhangers, a mass sculpture which defies gravity suspending onto thin air.  L.B., a wheel-chaired man observes a woman across from his apartment have an ongoing dispute with her traveling salesman husband, Lars Thorwald.  L.B. grows suspicious Thorwald might have murdered his wife.  L.B.’s friend Lisa sneaks into Thorwald’s apartment; soon Thorwald follows into his space to find Lisa intruding on his property.  Thorwald grabs Lisa throwing her down on the couch.  Thorwald has committed battery.  Battery is offensive touching that causes bodily harm.  L.B. watches Lisa’s counteract against Thorwald that undoubtedly raise apprehension in him.  Thorwald grabs Lisa again.  Applying force, an unwanted contact with the intent to cause bodily harm, Thorwald is clearly caught in an act of battery.  L.B. is consumed with fear which only amplifies his apprehension as he watches on Lisa’s struggle with Thorwald. 

 

 

Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window

“What do I do?” he asks himself.  If he does not do anything at this point, L.B. has committed gross negligence and faces jail time . . . for doing nothing.  Failure to act or omission of an act is liable in court.  But L.B. has done something.  He called the police earlier; hence the police come to the scene of what could have been a pending crime halting alarm and terror of the victim.

 

 

Voyeurism leads to witness of a probable crime in Rear Window

But wait . . . Gasp!  Thorwald walks up the stairs to L.B.’s apartment which fuses more apprehension to L.B.  L.B. backs up his wheelchair to the dark corner of his room.  Thorwald walks in and sees L.B.  After a few exchange of words, Thorwald walks toward L.B. in the dark causing L.B.’s sensors to defensively act against him.  He flashes bright lights at Thorwald.  Thorwald’s eyes are blinded but he takes a moment to adjust forging creepy steps towards him.  Thorwald makes it up to L.B. and commits aggravated battery, intent to kill or rob a person with a serious bodily injury.  Thorwald’s grappling of L.B.’s throat is enough evidence to show he intended to kill L.B.  He intended to kill L.B. by aggravated battery.  Thorwald then pushes L.B. out the window which is then met with L.B.’s struggle to hold on the window frame.  Thus far, L.B. can file suit for assault and aggravated battery.  Assault puts another in bodily harm or arouses fear in another with the intent to put them in fear.  Thorwald’s steps towards L.B. arouse fear in a reasonable person.  He falls from his apartment window and lands safely down on the ground.  Assault and battery are misdemeanors; however, aggravated assault and battery are felonies.    

 

 

Why wouldn't the prosecutor argue for Murder in the 1^st Degree?  Well, the defense can argue here that no proof of actual due consideration was shown on the part of Thorwald.  Murder in the 1^st requires premeditation, malice aforethought, and intent to cause bodily injury.  S701 People v. Geiger [159 N.W. 2d 383 (Mich 1968)]  The defense argues enough time span had not been allotted for Thorwald to premeditate murder stepping up to L.B.’s apartment.  Thorwald had gone to L.B.’s with neither a weapon nor a gun on his hand; therefore he had not premeditated murder before leaving his apartment and crossing the street onto L.B.’s.  As he took the steps towards L.B. in his dark apartment, the prosecutor can argue he had enough time to consider murdering L.B.  But the proof rests on the prosecutor to show actual due consideration.  Had Thorwald a preconceived plan to murder L.B.?  The proof is not clear and is up for debate.  Offenders get away with murder with minute loopholes like this.

 

 

Breach of duty is an omission that exposes others to unreasonable risk of harm.  Therefore a person who failed to act is responsible for negligence.  The defendant argues for omission; the plaintiff argues that duty of care had been owed.  By establishing causation and damages, the plaintiff argues evidence which satisfies liability.  The defendant acted unreasonably and proof demonstrated what had happened.  Risk outweighs utility in a liability suit.  A common lawsuit is a company whose service resulted in harming its consumers or users; Greyhound Bus Company is a real case example of res ipsa loquitur whose driver endangered its passengers by his reckless driving embedded on grounds that passengers were harmed under defendant’s control.  On the other hand, if you witness a crime or a person in need of help, you are lawfully liable to act.  If you fail to do so, you are held liable in court.  In a pretend scenario, Madonna’s Like A Prayer shows a black man who is arrested by police officers when circumstance proved otherwise —white men had committed battery on an unsuspecting woman in the streets.  Madonna witnesses the scene of battery and goes to jail attesting to the fact that a black man was innocent at the scene of the crime.  She had fulfilled her duty as a law-abiding citizen.  The black man is freed.  How about in business relationship?  Let's revisit Clinton and Trump's presidential debate.  Clinton states:  "I’ve met dishwashers, painters, architects, glass installers, marble installers, drapery installers like my dad had been, who you denied pay when they finished the work that you asked them to do.  We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses, one of your golf courses, a beautiful facility, it was immediately put to use, but you denied him payment, what he needed to be paid, what he was charging you.  Is that what you call business?!"    

Is there a liability case?  Clinton had one sure ground:  It was under Donald's control.  The hired contractors were not under anyone else's control but his.  Had Donald merely promised dishwashers, painters, architects by words, he had not failed to act under liability.  But if Donald's company had a formal contract with dishwashers, painters, architects, he and his company breached the duty under contract.  Then the dishwashers, painters, architects have a real case of breach of duty under contract.  This happens often in any relationships —business or personal.  People's hearts are often broken because he/she failed to keep his/her promises.  There was even once a Heart Balm Act during common law which protects hearts of others against false marriage proposals.  But no law protects against mere words that are often said without any intent to fulfill them.  Promises are often made but rarely kept; leaning on a promise does not often turn out Royal Flushes or Straight A's.  Draw forth a contract to protect your rights.