OBJECTION! Within the world of the movie, the curse doesn't simply stop Jim Carrey's character from lying, it compels him to tell the truth when asked direct questions, therefore he was physically unable to remain silent when the cop pulled him over, and that shouldn't count against his skill as a lawyer because it's the basic premise of the movie.
That can't be the rule of the curse. If that were the case, he could not answer "That is the perfect question for you to ask" when asked if he is ill. So the rules are more complex than you say.
@@Thalaranias The rules appear to be inconsistent to me. Then again, this is a movie that was designed with entertainment in mind and not an accurate portrayal of curses (real or fictional).
He confirms no after a small delay. As with the pen, while his answer may be slightly delayed he DOES answer truthfully. He is not compelled to immediately answer, but any time he tries to overtly delay or avoid stating the truth, the curse compells him. (Pen is blue)
Also he couldn't ask a question if he knew the answer was a lie And couldn't even write a lie Worst thing for a lawyer. Lmao. Love the movie. I don't think he could even think a lie
I think it was less that he was compelled to tell the truth and more that he's so used to talking his way out of situations that he had the hard time breaking the habit of trying to open his mouth and lie his way out of a situation.
@@fos1451 I agree, hence the magic, but I think the allegory is as ranmanshorts describes it. When we sensitize and desensitize in certain ways behaviours do become habitual and they can feel like a curse and changing them can feel like a curse as well. It's basically a fairly tale with more complicated real world analogues. Or at least that's my reading. But I agree in the story he has compulsively to answer the the question or even point out things unprompted. It's a classic redeption through role reversal story structure.
Fletcher Reed: "I'm a little upset about a bad sexual episode last night." LegalEagle: "This is exactly what happens when a judge comes into a courtroom."
Objection. Curses in fiction are rarely fair, and _never_ kind enough to let the cursed individual choose how to _interpret_ that curse. The curse almost certainly applied to _all_ forms of lying, no matter how ambiguous, including _lies of omission._ As such, it is probable that he was not only unable to make false statements, but was compelled to _reveal_ any truth that crossed his mind, provided he _desired to conceal it._
He also couldn't ask questions if he knew it prompted a lie. Basically he can't engage in deception of any kind. Fletcher refers to this outside the courtroom when speaking with his adulteress client.
At one point it turns out he can't even ask a question if he knows the answer is going to be a lie. Silence wasn't an option, the curse forced him to tell the truth
No, idiot, that's a basic platitude or wisdom, unless you're too dumb to get it. Not everyone is "right" or having a true view or opinion etc... This is one of the most basic things there are.
@@FerretJohn Actually, you're missing the point here. "Just because you can't lie doesn't mean you have to tell the truth" isn't said in this video as a loophole to be able to lie. It means that you don't have to say anything, and that's not lying. An example from THE WEST WING - White House counsel asks the press secretary if she knows what time it is. She says 12:30 (or whatever). He then scolds her. Why? Even though that answer was truthful, she answered more than was need. A truthful answer to "Do you know what time it is?" would be "yes" or "no." End of statement. In this movie's example, when the officer says "Do you know why I pulled you over?" he still could have answered, and answered truthfully: "Yes sir, I do." And if the officer then asks for more information, well, then it becomes a 5th Amendment issue. So, he can't lie, but he doesn't have to tell the truth, either. Unless you're starting to dive into other aspects which may brush into the philosophical by saying remaining quiet is a "lie of omission," then you can still not tell the truth without lying.
What you are missing in the cop scene is that he said: "let's take it from the top" and therefore to answer him, Fletcher explained everything in compliance with the curse to tell the truth lol
supermanlypunch I know what scene that you're talking about, you're talking about the scene where Jim Carrey screams at his client over the phone "Stop Breaking the Law Asshole!!"
I love the legal secretary in this film. I used to work with an EA who was the lifeblood of our office. She did all her regular duties AND much more. I saw her gently remind executives of anniversaries, wife and children's birthdays and more. She was amazing.
Legal secretaries do that and more. Keeping court calendars, filing of court documents if the firm is litigation, ordering supplies, deposition setups, organizing exhibits as well as filing, xeroxing, notarizing, and typing of legal documents.
Objection: choosing not to speak when you have relevant information can be counted as a lie of omission. While legally this is perfectly within your rights, within the rules of the “no lying” curse this seems to be a form of lying and therefore one he can’t avoid. He has to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Similarly, he could have said that he needed a continuance because he only recently got the case, but that’s not why he needs it. It would be a true reason for a continuance, but not the true reason he needs it. Despite the short time, he is prepared and ready to do the case now, however it is only his inability to lie that is withholding him from his legal duties, thereby the only truthful reason why he needs a continuance.
@@coppertopv365 But again, while he has a legal right to these things, the curse will not allow him to make these arguments. The curse need not follow the law.
Objection: It is established that Fletcher Reed cannot lie, even by omission. I would like to highlight, "even by omission". It is unfair to assert that he "should not talk to the police" because he, as is consistent with the rest of the film, needs to speak the truth when spoken to for any reason.
Agreed. Objection. Fletcher is not only incapable of lying, it's apparent he is compelled to tell the truth. It would be impossible for him to not talk to the police officer pulling him over.
I agree. He is clearly forced to do some of the things he says against his will. "The pen is red" is prime example, because clearly if it was just to not lie, he would have been only been unable to say or write red and that would be the end of it. However every time he attempted to lie, he wasn't just stopped in his tracks, he was forced to reverse and speak the truth of the thing he was going to lie about. Hence every time he tried to say red, blue was what came out, instead of nothing at all. Not only is he forced to not omit the truth when asked, any lie attempt will result in him being forced to tell the true version of it instead.
I'll have to overrule it; Carrey's invoking artistic license, as such a curse would compel you to speak your MIND (as opposed to the truth - two different things).
@@lakodamon are you actually arguing that this curse exists in real life? if the curse is made up by the movie, then the movie can tell us how it works...
16:06 Fletcher should have been able to argue his was having unexplained neurological difficulties that would render him unable to operate in court that date. Said difficulties could have definitely affected his ability to conceal his client's protected information. In a certain sense, this could almost be like he had a sudden case of Tourette's Syndrome or a similar disfunction. It would probably be good grounds for the case to be delayed as Reede could have had a stroke for all he knew.
It seems to actually be pretty common for someone to assume that being unable to lie means that you must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth at all times. As a gamer, I've noticed that it seems to come up quite often with the _zone of truth_ spell in _Dungeons & Dragons,_ even though the spell description explicitly states that an affected creature is not compelled to speak or answer any question, just that they cannot lie if they choose to speak.
Did you hear about the Glasgow lawyer that got stopped by the police. The officer said 'you were doing 100 in a 40 zone', the lawyer says 'you'd do a hundred if you had 50 kilos of heroin under your backseat'. The officer is shocked and stammers, 'You can't put heroin under the backseat of your car' and the lawyer replies. 'that's exactly what my wife said, so I had to shoot her and throw the body in the boot, do you want to see the gun, it's in the glove compartment?'. The officer runs back to his car and radios for armed response, helicopters the whole works. An armed officer approaches the vehicle, "Sir, exit the car and place your hands on the vehicle''. The lawyer complies. The policeman opens the glove compartment and it's empty. He then orders the suspect to give him his car keys and opens the boot and that's empty as well. He checks under the back seat, nothing. Puzzled he says to the lawyer still standing with his hands pressed to the car, 'I'm sorry sir, our officer told us you were an armed drug dealer with a corpse in the boot." "Really?," says the lawyer, " and I bet the lying bastard says I was speeding as well." I know it's an old joke. Good one though.
atthebridge that reminds me of another joke A New York City lawyer type buys a new super fast car. He then starts speeding through a little town and slows at a stop sign, then speeds away! A cop sees him not stop at the sign and begins chasing him, pulling him over shortly the cop asks “sir you didn’t stop at the stop sign” lawyer smiles and replies “if you can show me the difference between slow down and stop? I’ll pay the ticket and pay you 1,000$” cop asks the lawyer to step out the car... cop starts hitting the lawyer with jumper cables then stops and asks the lawyer “would you like me to slow down or stop?”
Objection, regarding the “burglar falling through roof” case. While the story in its modern iteration is absolutely fictitious, based on a misunderstanding of law in the State of California, and only used to push for tort reform, _Bodine v. Enterprise High School_ was an actual case in 1984. The backstory is that in March 1982, 18-year-old Ricky Bodine and some friends tried to steal a floodlight from the roof of a nearby high school. Bodine climbed onto the roof, unbolted a light and lowered it down, then walked towards the other side of the roof, falling into a painted-over skylight and sustaining severe trauma, rendering him a spastic quadriplegic. While in a coma after the event, his parents sued the school and school district for negligence of duty of care. In many common law jurisdictions, trespassers are not owed duty of care, meaning that property owners are not required to inform trespassers of dangers on their property and are not liable for injuries or deaths that are sustained by trespassers, while they are for invitees and, to a lesser extent, licensees. However, in the State of California, the law as written in Civil Code §1714a (and reiterated by _Rowland v. Christian_ in 1968) states that: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the results of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.”; where this “another” is not assumed to be a licensee, invitee, or trespasser, meaning that Californians have a general duty of care for all people who may be on their property, legally or otherwise. Therefore, as Bodine did not wilfully injure himself, nor was he negligent in his conduct - as the skylights were painted the same colour as the roof and unmarked, he could not see them and in turn avoid them as weak spots; he could only reasonably assume that the building was up to code and that the roof was everywhere stable enough to support the weight of a person - the high school would have probably been found liable if the case hadn’t been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, having reached a settlement between the Bodine family and the school district’s insurance company a month later. I should also note that things have changed somewhat since then, with the 1985 addition of §847 to the Civil Code, which states that property owners are not liable for injuries sustained when the injured had committed one of a number of felonies, including burglary, though not including trespass (which is usually a misdemeanour in California anyway).
In addition, a later video on this channel "The Shotgun Booby Trap" reviews a similar situation where the trespasser/robber wins the suit against the homeowners as well.
@@jenniferhof9448 However in that case the home owners set a trap that would have hurt anyone including people in the house for lawful reasons. For example if the house had been on fire and first responders arrived to search the house, this is largely why "spring guns" or "booby traps" are illegal. Also almost universally in the United States you can only use lethal force to protect life and great danger to property. Think of it like if someone is pouring gasoline on your house in preparation to burn it down or if someone was attempting to steal or defame the Mona Lisa. Those would be instances of using lethal force to defend property would be lawful, however someone who is burglarizing an unoccupied house is neither endangering life or great danger to property. The case of the booby-trap is also different because the home owner willfully set a trap knowing that if triggered would cause great injury or death. The premise of the "Bodine v. Enterprise High School" is that through a level of negligence they caused the injury of someone.
Objection: Ricky was negligent enough to ignore the fact that climbing on the roof is a dangerous, bad idea if you're just some kid, not a construction-worker or something. Ergo, he brought that on himself.
The wish was more thorough than it was initially presented. Not only could Reed not tell a lie, he was also compelled to always tell the truth, thus preventing even "lies of omission". Otherwise he could have said nothing when leaving the elevator, simply answered "yes" and nothing else to the police officer that pulled him over, or even answered "no" because he couldn't have known _specifically_ why the officer pulled him over.
An issue with this film is that the claim is that "he can't lie", but the reality is that "he must spill the beans". It is proven that he will say anything that is true when asked; regardless if he wants to answer or not, or possibly if he even knows the truth. - As you said, giving a different truth is possible, and a very obvious general true answer is "I don't want to answer". The character in this film should be experienced in this, and this inability to lie should not hinder him that much.
I've been considering this, and I think it's mostly reasonable. He's extremely arrogant and used to talking through every obstacle. He's unaware of the curse, and it's just the first few days. He'd adapt eventually but not yet.
@@bjacobcampbell9578 Fair point then. Still feels like this is such a big thing that he would change his behaviour. He might blurt out one thing, but he should keep it quiet after that.
Wikipedia says this "he is unable to lie, mislead, or even withhold a true answer (lie by omission)". Which means that he can't just stay silent or avoid the question.
For me, the thing that amazes me the most about lawyers is that they have to manipulate THE TRUTH in order to win a case. Lying would probably be the easiest way out and a lot of people have the idea that lawyers lie to win cases but in reality they just use true events and facts instead. Truly an incredible skill to have!
@@franciscocota6440 I'm probably not going to talk you out of this, but let me just offer a justification for it: In any civil dispute, the participants in that dispute know who's telling the truth: it's them, not the other side. Of course, both participants believe exactly the same thing, and they can't both be right (except, in rare cases, when they are). I would estimate that 90% of civil litigants do not intentionally lie about any aspect of their case. Don't get me wrong, some may be deeply fooling themselves or self-justifying, but intentionally lying is rarer than people think. (Obviously this is less likely to apply to criminal defendants, but that raises issues that I don't intend to really address here.) So both participants *know* they're telling the truth. The law, on the other hand, has no idea which participant is telling the truth and has absolutely no scientific way to determine that. In the absence of certainty, we've come up with an alternative: Trials. Trials are intended to determine (1) what the facts actually are, and (2) how to apply the law to those facts. Usually, that is done by letting a jury, as the voice of society, hear the evidence and decide on the answers to those questions. But how does the jury determine this? Do we just tell them anything anyone has ever said about the case, with no regard to what other motivations that person might have had, or whether they were under a duty not to lie? We quickly figured out that wouldn't really work - and if anything would reward wrongdoers that are more willing to create fake documents or make statements that are false. And as I said above, we can't just put the statements and documents into a truth-detecting machine and let it figure the answer out for us. So the solution is that we created rules to determine how best to separate the evidentiary wheat from the chaff. Those rules aren't always perfect; because they have to apply to all proceedings, they sometimes exclude stuff they shouldn't or allow in stuff they shouldn't. But overall, they're designed to get as close as possible to "what's true" when the reality is there is simply no way to know for absolute certainty what's true. That's why the phrase "it's not what's true, it's what you can prove in court" is less accurate than "we'll never know what's true, but the closest we can come is to make someone prove it in court."
Point of order (I hope I'm using that term correctly): Fletcher Reed is not only incapable of lying, he's incapable of lying according to a young child's definition of lying. I believe that, if we were to carefully study earlier scenes where Fletcher attempts to explain to his child why he "has to lie", we would see the child at least appearing uncomfortable with the idea of equivocating, creative truth-telling and lies of omission. Therefore, Fletcher not only can't lie, he is incapable of saying anything other than the (or an) objective truth when asked a direct question.
To reiterate for the lie through omission, Fletcher is not able keep his silence when asked a question and must answer to the best of his ability. I'm not sure how much they keep to that through-out the movie though, it has been a while since I've seen it.
I 100% agree with your point. However you in fact ARE using the wrong terminology. "Point of order" is used in parliamentary procedure (ie during a meeting of Congress), while an "objection" would be used in legal courtroom. Both mean the same thing, that a rule has been violated. But if you were to be in either situation and use the wrong phrase, you'd be seen as a complete rube.
@@vaullus6074 Actually, as funny as it may be, during the beginning and middle he couldn't lie whatsoever and seemed compelled to the direct truth. Later on, he seems to find ways around not having to answer directly like when he kicks his own ass in the bathroom. Judge asked him "who" did this and proceeds to describe himself in a third person round about way as opposed to just yelling "I DID YOUR HONOR". Now, if he did this throughout the movie, there'd be no movie and it wouldn't be funny but it's worth noting the inconsistency lol
All right, although I didn't feel all that strongly about it, I'll state it as an objection. Specifically, I would voice said objection at 16:46, 19:10 and 26:48.
The way the magic truth spell seems to work is on the basis that omission counts as deception. Even though he knew to keep his mouth shut, he was seemingly compelled to speak.
Objection: to the point that he can just stay calm. I think the way it was played and applying some logic, I think he was so accustomed to tell lies that he just tries to lie even after the magic, and as he tries it almost out of habit or necessity by his behavioural nature, he ends up telling other true things! So, that's how Jim Carried that character, I propose...
My assumption was just that the curse takes a very broad definition of lying. Not only can he not lie directly, he also can't mislead, withhold information, ask a question if he knows the answer is going to be a lie, or, as it turns out, even deceive by remaining silent IE choosing not to speak when he has relevant information. Truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth.
@@billyweed835 I agree. Not volunteering information can be considered a form of lying by omission. So it would still be considered lying under the curse.
Objection: Near the end of the film, Jim Carrey's character says that not only does the curse prevent him from lying outright, but that he "can't do anything dishonest," period. This would presumably include lies of omission, hence why Fletcher is unable to stay quiet when the cop questions him. Furthermore, the director's commentary clarifies that Fletcher's curse is like a sort of word vomit, where he is forcibly compelled to tell the truth at all times. He is literally unable to stop himself from telling the truth when someone questions him on anything, hence why we see him trying to prevent himself from hearing his secretary's question once he realizes he doesn't want to answer it.
My only objection is. We’re objecting about his commentary on the movie. Not what happened with production. So your story about the director is irrelevant
@@weebandgaminginc.7593 Objection: It's not irrelevant, because the director is clarifying how the curse works. It isn't just a production story, it's in service of the plot of the movie.
One of the best parts of this movie is the way Fletcher's charisma digs his own grave. When we first meet Jennifer Tilly's character, she's extremely nervous about the concept of lying in court (as one should, given the situation). Fletcher is so good at convincing her she's the victim, she has a complete character transformation. He might have had a chance were it not for this monster of his own making. Also, best legal advice ever, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSH*LE."
Dude...she was playing him. She manipulates men thats her ENTIRE character ffs. The entire reason they were in need of Fletcher was that the female lawyer and old man were not getting anywhere with her, so they brought in the young attractive man they had on a leash. She was never nervous, she was trying to get Fletcher to drool over her and the second he starts to fawn over her and feed her that shit story she lights up and wants the firm. Do you not remember the "its not true, is that a problem?" line she has BEFORE he "convinces" her with a story that she knows can get her everything she wants? Be careful out there man, you are gonna get eaten alive.
Wrong Answers to "Do you know why I pulled you over?": You want to race me? You're lonely? You need directions? To compliment me on my driving skills? You have a quota?
@brian michaud I just said no the last two times, once time I did get a warning because I sneezed and a cop drove past.. I normally speed on that road however I told a white lie and said that I must have stepped on the gas pedal a little bit too much when I was sneezing.. the guy letme off with a warning cause while he was asking me what happened I had a sneezing fit. since I was driving home to get medicine he let me go
I got rear-ended at a red light, absolutely destroyed my car. The person in the other car said "Well, I thought you were gonna run the red light." They didn't have insurance either. Took it to small claims court, and they never showed up. The judge ruled in my favor and I got a settlement of $3000 to replace my car... which I never received because the other person refused to pay it and there was nothing that could be done about it. Couldn't even take it to a collections agency since it was "too low of an amount" for them to do anything about it, even thought that was several months worth of my salary at the time. TL;DR: I spent a bunch of money in court fees to win a case and get nothing.
Objection: While the explicitly stated rules of the "wish" are that he cannot lie, it is implied multiple times in the movie that this is including a "lie of omission," meaning that when asked for information, he must reasonably provide relevant information. As he was unaware of how long the officer was following him, the relevant information would be at least the violations he knew he made. The unpaid parking tickets are a bit of a stretch, but still related as traffic violations. This was only volunteered when asked "is that all?" to which he provided the information of tickets as related not to the stop but related to his traffic violations that might reasonably be found in a check on his history.
Additionally, he is compelled to actively speak truth. He is prevented from remaining silent when asked for information even outside of the traffic incident. He is compelled to speak in many occasions when it is against his interest to do so. This seems less like "won't shut up" and more of "can't shut up."
I agree. Basically he is forced to follow the rules of the court: The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Very fitting for a lawyer that lies a lot.
Objection: The child made the wish and if the wish follows what that child believes... then what is taught in school is that omittance of said truth when the truth is known might be considered a lie, thus forcing Flecher to always tell the "whole truth".
The argument could also be made that Fletcher's own interpretation of what constitutes a lie helped to mold his oversharing of the truth. Since he prides himself as being essentially a professional liar, that would mean he would also have to have an overly acute sense of what constitutes the whole truth versus a manipulative lie. His ability to contort the truth to suit his needs could've helped shape the truth as he presented it. As an accomplished liar, details would be key for him in every lie. It would be similar to painting a life portrait of a forest scene, small details make the whole painting come alive. Well, in a person like Fletcher, translating those details over to telling the truth versus lying would mean you would be oversharing information based simply on established habits. It would be a compulsion at that point.
When he first tried to talk when he found out he couldn't lie, I expected everyone around to think he was having a stroke. Nobody said anything. Even as a kid I thought it was so weird. He looked like he was dying and they just kinda nod along while he can't speak.
But seriously, the entire movie Carrey is acting erratically! Most people, upon seeing his behavior, would call the cops or an ambulance. Maybe both! It bugged me during the whole movie that nobody thought there was something wrong, especially in the courtroom.
Even disregarding the stroke thing, I'd be skeptical about retaining an attorney that behaves so erratically, and I'd be sending them for a full medical workup including a tox screen.
Seconded. I feel so much smarter for knowing that, and it's now one of my minor life goals to get an opportunity to hit someone with it in conversation. Related question, though: what about the one about the neighbor's kid trespassing into your yard, falling into your pool, and drowning? (Or variations involving various minor injuries?)
I don’t know how this works in the US but here in Germany there are lawyers that would simply sue for an amount that is less than what the defending would cost. So it would be cheaper to just pay.
@@markmyers2009 Keyword, settlement. Bodine sued for $8 million, if memory serves. Judges can't stop parties from voluntarily entering into stupid-ass settlements, and the quarter million awarded to Bodine was probably less than it would have cost the district to take the case to trial, even if they won. Bodine and his counsel were probably banking on the informal precedent from a year prior, where a similar incident happened leading to a student's death.
Objection, your Honor! "One of the funniest legal movies of all time" is a subjective statement and betrays the claim to review the piece as an impartial party for legal legitimacy.
I object to your objection! Mr. Stone is not reviewing the movie's funniness, but its legal accuracy, which are completely separate categories and are able to be judged independently.
I think, based on the evidence of the film, he's also required to truthfully answer questions directed towards him, which includes avoiding lies of omission. So yeh he basically has no filter as long as what he's thinking is objectively true.
@@deefarmah2411 basically your "filter" is a social lie. For example: when the judge walked in Jim laughs. This is likely because he thinks of the judge as a joke, so presenting a calm and respected demeanor would effectively be a lie.
I'd *really* love to see your take on: "Adam ruins everything, Season 1 episode 24, Adam Ruins Justice" it brings up a lot of points and I've always wondered what somebody like you would think of it.
What I don't understand (from a real life perspective) is why he couldn't ask for a continuance based on medical emergency. He had no idea what was happening, why he suddenly couldn't talk in certain situations, and a brain tumor isn't just a possibility but outright likely (sudden stutter and speech problems is a huge indicator). At the very least Fletcher should have been a lot more concerned about his own health here. Not much good making partner if you don't survive to enjoy it.
there's a couple of factors here. first, admitting this is a significant new condition for him, a crippling condition, is an admission that he lies all the time normally. Nominally being unable to lie shouldn't interfere with his duties. even if we all know that everybody lies, we are all supposed to be keeping up appearances. nobody is supposed to admit they are dishonest, that ironically honest admission is subversive. second, while i guess it could be a tumor, in practice it's going to come across as mental illness, which there's a stigma against. In fact, since it doesn't even sound like a real mental illness (because it isn't one, it's a curse) it's not going to have the social acceptance of a "real" mental illness and likely will come across as malingering. if he says in effect "your honor, i need a medical continuance because i've gone insane and cannot lie any more" that's not going to go well for him.
@@scottmatheson3346 While the issue of stigma is valid, what he's experiencing is a compulsion which is a symptom of many particular mental illnesses. What he SHOULD do is get a medical diagnosis from a doctor ASAP, and a competent doctor would 100% validate the condition because the level of compulsion he experiences is clearly problematic.
OBJECTION: I am 5 years late but I remember seeing this in Sterkinikor theaters back many years ago and I loved it. Genius movie. And I love the video.
@@weebandgaminginc.7593 yeah but this is a magic wish. and not saying anything is technically lying since your omitting information with your silence. if he could rules lawyer his say out of saying truths under this curse he probably would
@Raymond Tremblay Mostly a detective movie, but he could talk about whether what happened with the will would be a realistic possibility, what the nurse's (sorry, I'm blanking on her name) real options are in each situation, etc.
OBJECTION! If Jim Carrey's character is a proper lawyer with a great win streak, then he should be able to afford a proper suit that fits! More to the point, he should be well versed enough to know that he, a relatively slender man, should NOT be wearing an American cut suit! With his build, he should be wearing an English cut! Fashion Court Adjourned!
Maybe from today's perspective, definitely, but in the 1990s even skinny men wore suits with two vertical rows of buttons, myself included. And I am a European and we did not really recognize the "American cut"; it is just this particular style was everywhere. It is VERY 1990s.
Even the first time I watched this, I was confused that he didn't say "I just got the case last night and have not had sufficient time to become familiar with it as a result" when asking for a continuance. Pretty much any judge would have agreed.
Right! Even with how the curse causes compulsive truth telling, the fact that he fails to pull such a simple answer means that he was simply a bad lawyer who relied on lying.
He could not say that he needed a continuance because of the short time he had the case as that would be a lie. He knew he was ready for the case in that short amount of time. It was because he could not lie that he needed the continuance.
Objection (to the 'parking ticket' scene): The spell seems to include "lies of omission." That is, he is incapable of leaving someone with a false impression by remaining silent or redirecting the conversation. This could have led to a whole discussion of whether "lies of omission" are really lies.
calorion after listing off all of the offenses he just committed, the officer asks “Is that all?” Fletcher then shakes his head no. It’s not omission because he was point blank asked if that was all of the infractions currently against him.
I think the movie's definition of lying includes intentional withholding of truth. Fletcher could not stay silent when he was asked a question, because that would count as not telling the truth (aka lying).
Jascha Bull I think it must - when someone is sworn in and they say “the truth, the whole truth...” I’d reckon that’s the part where it comes into play. I’d also like to hear him talk about that!
Yes, he couldn’t say he wants a continuance because he’s only been on the case for a couple of days because that’s not the true reason he wants a continuance. When asked to state his reason, he is compelled to give the truth - he wants to stop because he can’t lie.
Law Abiding Citizen would be a good one to review. Movie had me cringing so hard. 3 of the oiliest criminals you'd ever see and the greatest prosecuting attorney forces his client to settle to protect his court room stats.
OBJECTION: You speculating that Jim Carrey's character doesn't have a load of cocaine in the trunk of his car. He may well be trying to avoid a car search
@@Thrifty032781 But the police officer asked him ¨Do you know why I pulled you over?¨ it does not make sense that he thought it was due to the cocaine in the trunk unless the officer was Superman with X-Ray vision.
Objection! Lying can be broadly understood to mean any distortion of the truth. Multiple examples in this film may not involve saying something that is false, but they would still be widely interpreted as lies. For example, Fletcher's desire for a continuance may be justified by true statements, but those justifications would still qualify as lies, as they would not be the true reason he wants that continuance. Another example: He may have the right not to talk to the cop, but if that involved him being dishonest, many would call that lying by omission. The film has clearly taken a looser definition of lie.
thats true... even if he say someting real he should still lie because that is not actual reason. actual reason is he cannot lie He seems to be good lawyer but I doubt he fully understands how deep lies can be :P (for a lier... not noticing this is terrible XD) Yes he cannot lie... NOT EVEN FOR REASON! even if action he saying actually happened. because he is prepared for case despite being new.
Fletcher wasn't asked why he wanted a continuance, he was asked if he had good cause, and as Stone pointed out, being recently assigned to the case may constitute good cause and Fletcher would have been truthful to say so.
@Catcrumbs And that's exactly a line of reasoning you'd expect from someone dishonest. When you start focusing on being honest instead of figuring out how you can bend the rules, you'll understand.
@@Catcrumbs yes but thats not the cause! for this case being recently assigned to case DIDNT cause problem for him... so putting this as a reason is a lie because its not someting bothering him. if it was sure but its not. if he was capeble of lying he wont need to ask continuance so when he must say truth that respond is not an option you are not thinking deep enought about lies mate what we call for your case is "making up excuses" not "telling alternative truths" you cant say "I ate candy because I was hungry" when you ate it because you wanted to someting tasty despite being hungry. its only not a lie when it actually maters! not when it can be good cause
Objection: in Australia trespassers are able to sue the landowner if they are injured on the property. There have been several cases where home invasions have happened and the home owners have defended themselves or the invader has simply injured themselves and the home owner has been fined or even jailed.
Nope! Not for home invaders or people who have illegally entered the property. There is no duty of care in Australia for these trespassers. It's more for trades people or friends/family/visitors who have injured themselves on the property.
While it depends on the jurisdiction, that is not the case in Western Australia following the occupiers liability act. If someone enters a property with an intention of committing a crime (which trespassing is) then the occupier owes them a duty of care to not intentionally set traps for them. They owe them no duty of care beyound that. So if a home invader trips on a staircase, the occupier didn’t owe them a duty of care. But if the occupier purposively set up a trap, like a hidden pit fall, then yeah the trespasser has grounds to sue them.
So for the example of a robber falling through a faulty skylight, the occupier of a house has no duty of care towards the robber to ensure the skylight is compliant with safety standards.
OBJECTION !!! It was a “ have to speak truth when asked any direct question “ Not “ can’t lie “ curse ! So he was SPELLBound to speak the truth at traffic stop even if he wanted to stay silent !!!
The most terrifying this I learned during this video is that apparently exercising your right to remain silent can be taken as proof of guilt of some other crime and that exercising your right to remain silent can give the police the right to search your vehicle.
However, in court, not only can the defendant not be forced to take the stand due to their constitutional rights, the prosecution cannot even comment on the fact that they have refused to do so.
Not if he has grandparents. I distinctly remember visiting grandparents and great aunts/uncles, and them giving me anywhere from 5-10 dollars despite my parents' objections.
Objection: if you read the plot on websites, it usually says that Fletcher finds himself, “Forced to speak the truth.” So unless, at the last minute of being asked a question, he comes up with another question to ask as an answer, he will speak his truth.
I thought it was like the rule that companies can't lie on packaging, like technically it's right but it's so full of loopholes that as long as they don't say something completely ridiculous like it cures cancer they can do what they like
Objection: The nature of this "curse" might compel the victim to not just tell the truth, but the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Therefore, the cop example may not have been the wisest course of action Carrey's character could have taken, but it was, in all likelihood, the only one. And since he couldn't be certain what exactly the cop stopped him for, he attempted an answer that presumably was meant to be evasive but ended up implicating him even more. You might object and say "Then why didn't he tell the truth about the case he had against his counterpart?". The way I see it is that she was of equal standing to himself in the court and he was under no obligation to reveal the case at all, so he got away with being (relatively) silent rather than tell the lies that made up his case. The cop was a different matter, he was the higher authority in that particular matter and Carrey's character felt, unnaturally, obligated to reveal all his transgressions when asked. And before you object again, he didn't reveal it all to the judge, the higher authority in court, because he never demanded from him to tell everything like what the cop did. That is my objection. Everything else is sustained. (Hey, doing it like this is kinda fun)
I took the curse in the movie to mean that he was compelled to answer any direct questions, not just unable to lie. So being silent wouldn't work for the cop. But it's been a while since I've seen this movie, and I can't remember if that logic is consistent throughout.
@@adamkuch9377 It's not exactly consistent following that logic. That's why I described it as I did above. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure even that fits 100% either.
@@ThighconOfSin No, not really. There is a difference between "not saying a lie (therefore technically truthful)" answer and an answer that is the truth to you full knowledge. Thus there isn't a difference between telling a lie, and not telling the full truth (lying by omission). He has to tell the full truth (not just "he can't lie"), and not telling the full truth is lying by omission.
@@jonb1186 I agree. My assumption in that scene was that since he didn't know how long the officer was following him, that he listed everything he did incorrectly from the time he got in to the car until he was pulled over.
As soon as he mentioned Torts, my brain immediately went to the general rule of duty and that is proof to me that my Torts 1L class has truly broken me.
About the traffic stop, I believe the assumption is that he cannot lie by omission. So not only can he not tell an untruth, he's also incable of withholding truth.
OBJECTION! Within the world of the movie, the curse doesn't simply stop Jim Carrey's character from lying, it compels him to tell the truth when asked direct questions, therefore he was physically unable to remain silent when the cop pulled him over, and that shouldn't count against his skill as a lawyer because it's the basic premise of the movie.
correct, that is why he admits to being a bad parent
maidden, yeah it’s more of a “have to tell the truth” than a “can’t tell a lie” curse, isn’t it?
That can't be the rule of the curse. If that were the case, he could not answer "That is the perfect question for you to ask" when asked if he is ill. So the rules are more complex than you say.
@@Thalaranias The rules appear to be inconsistent to me. Then again, this is a movie that was designed with entertainment in mind and not an accurate portrayal of curses (real or fictional).
He confirms no after a small delay. As with the pen, while his answer may be slightly delayed he DOES answer truthfully. He is not compelled to immediately answer, but any time he tries to overtly delay or avoid stating the truth, the curse compells him. (Pen is blue)
This is one of my favourite channels right now, great episode!
Boyinaband how in the heck does a 2 million sub youtuber get buried with 4 upvotes?!
Also @boyinaband collab?
Probably cause 4 hours btw love your don't go to school song it's my fave
bro your stuff is dope! I almost grew my hair as long as yours until cutting it in December
Boyinaband, I never thought I'd run into you here! :) It's good to see you around~.
One of the very few reaction channels thats actually entertaining and educational. who woulda thunk
Just saying, the thumbnail should say “liar liar gets lawyer lawyered”
That's smart🤔
Missed opportunity
Ha! That’s what I thought, too!
Ohh no…😆😂
Ahhh dang it
Keep in mind, he wasn’t just unable to lie, he was _compelled_ to tell the truth in response to questions. That’s the source of the humor.
Also he couldn't ask a question if he knew the answer was a lie
And couldn't even write a lie
Worst thing for a lawyer. Lmao. Love the movie. I don't think he could even think a lie
I think it was less that he was compelled to tell the truth and more that he's so used to talking his way out of situations that he had the hard time breaking the habit of trying to open his mouth and lie his way out of a situation.
@@raynmanshorts9275no, he’s compelled to tell the truth
@@fos1451 He's been shown being able to be silent in other situations.
@@fos1451 I agree, hence the magic, but I think the allegory is as ranmanshorts describes it. When we sensitize and desensitize in certain ways behaviours do become habitual and they can feel like a curse and changing them can feel like a curse as well. It's basically a fairly tale with more complicated real world analogues. Or at least that's my reading. But I agree in the story he has compulsively to answer the the question or even point out things unprompted. It's a classic redeption through role reversal story structure.
Fletcher Reed: "I'm a little upset about a bad sexual episode last night."
LegalEagle: "This is exactly what happens when a judge comes into a courtroom."
I object! This comment is pure hearsay but I withdraw my objection because it is funny as hell!!!
@@jessicachildress5080 then why object in the first place?!
@@saxonjedi5878 because it was pure hearsay
@@mjolnirsoul9214 sustained
it wasnt until he said that he hates that urban legend that i realized it was burglar not burger i was very confused
Objection. Curses in fiction are rarely fair, and _never_ kind enough to let the cursed individual choose how to _interpret_ that curse. The curse almost certainly applied to _all_ forms of lying, no matter how ambiguous, including _lies of omission._
As such, it is probable that he was not only unable to make false statements, but was compelled to _reveal_ any truth that crossed his mind, provided he _desired to conceal it._
He also couldn't ask questions if he knew it prompted a lie. Basically he can't engage in deception of any kind. Fletcher refers to this outside the courtroom when speaking with his adulteress client.
At one point it turns out he can't even ask a question if he knows the answer is going to be a lie. Silence wasn't an option, the curse forced him to tell the truth
Too long, didn't read. Thus overruled!
"Just because you can't lie doesn't mean you have to tell the truth" - lawyers
"You're going to find the many truths we cling to com from a certain point of view." - a dead Jedi.
No, idiot, that's a basic platitude or wisdom, unless you're too dumb to get it. Not everyone is "right" or having a true view or opinion etc... This is one of the most basic things there are.
@@bfkc111 You're the idiot. Perspective is everything.
In this case it does mean that. The curse Fletcher was hit with means he HAS to tell the Truth, "the pen is BLUE!!"
@@FerretJohn Actually, you're missing the point here. "Just because you can't lie doesn't mean you have to tell the truth" isn't said in this video as a loophole to be able to lie. It means that you don't have to say anything, and that's not lying.
An example from THE WEST WING - White House counsel asks the press secretary if she knows what time it is. She says 12:30 (or whatever). He then scolds her. Why? Even though that answer was truthful, she answered more than was need. A truthful answer to "Do you know what time it is?" would be "yes" or "no." End of statement.
In this movie's example, when the officer says "Do you know why I pulled you over?" he still could have answered, and answered truthfully: "Yes sir, I do." And if the officer then asks for more information, well, then it becomes a 5th Amendment issue. So, he can't lie, but he doesn't have to tell the truth, either.
Unless you're starting to dive into other aspects which may brush into the philosophical by saying remaining quiet is a "lie of omission," then you can still not tell the truth without lying.
What you are missing in the cop scene is that he said: "let's take it from the top" and therefore to answer him, Fletcher explained everything in compliance with the curse to tell the truth lol
He missed the joke where he scoffs at the judge being called honorable, then gestures to the stenographer not to write that down.
I spilled over water when that came out when I saw the movie hahahahahah I was not expecting that and still gets me
That’s a good name
I approve
2nd part I hope
That was my first thought. Cause if I saw that in the galley of a courtroom I'd be rolling on the floor.
@@rich0373
1ST Part I Hope
2ND Part I Hope
3RD Part I Hope
4TH Part I Hope
Can you do a lawyer react to "To Kill a Mockingbird?" I'd love to see how accurate that movie is in terms of the law too.
I want this too!
I love that movie and book😍😍
But not 100% of that movie or book is going to be accurate through the eyes of this lawyer. I will look forward to seeing that.
Oooh hell yeah!!! Great suggestion!
Just thinking that!
I'm disappointed he didn't cover the scene where he screams at a client "Stop Breaking the Law!!"
I was waiting for that part!
Legal Eagle: Uh, yeah, that's good, sound, legal advice. If you don't want to go to face criminal charges, don't break the law. Yeah.
supermanlypunch
I know what scene that you're talking about, you're talking about the scene where Jim Carrey screams at his client over the phone "Stop Breaking the Law Asshole!!"
@@joshuasummers7440 I've quoted that scene so many times, it's amazing.
@@jimwormmaster interesting.
As a legal secretary here in the UK, it made my heart very happy that you showed us some love!
I love the legal secretary in this film. I used to work with an EA who was the lifeblood of our office. She did all her regular duties AND much more. I saw her gently remind executives of anniversaries, wife and children's birthdays and more. She was amazing.
Legal secretaries do that and more. Keeping court calendars, filing of court documents if the firm is litigation, ordering supplies, deposition setups, organizing exhibits as well as filing, xeroxing, notarizing, and typing of legal documents.
@@IMeMineWho Covering up children out of wedlock, arranging bribe payments...
@@ryanonvr2267hiding the occasional body…
Objection: A Lawyer cannot sustain or overrule an objection. We need a judge for that.
Sustained!
Overruled
@@Nuggetsupreme objection: you are not a judge, you cannot overrule either
objection: the lawyer in question is the grand poohbah of the Legal Eagle court
Objection: Well a judge is a lawyer first
As Ron White says “I have the right to remain silent, I didn’t have the ability “.
I was drunk in a bar. They threw me into public. Also Ron White a.k.a. Tater Salad
“I don’t wanna be drunk out her I wanna be drunk in the bar, arrest them”
Shrek said something like that to Donkey too. "Donkey, you HAVE the right to remain silent, what you lack is the capacity."
Objection: choosing not to speak when you have relevant information can be counted as a lie of omission. While legally this is perfectly within your rights, within the rules of the “no lying” curse this seems to be a form of lying and therefore one he can’t avoid. He has to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Similarly, he could have said that he needed a continuance because he only recently got the case, but that’s not why he needs it. It would be a true reason for a continuance, but not the true reason he needs it. Despite the short time, he is prepared and ready to do the case now, however it is only his inability to lie that is withholding him from his legal duties, thereby the only truthful reason why he needs a continuance.
5th Amendment
And we have a right to remain silent
@@coppertopv365 But again, while he has a legal right to these things, the curse will not allow him to make these arguments. The curse need not follow the law.
You didn’t get anything they said did you.
Objection: It is established that Fletcher Reed cannot lie, even by omission. I would like to highlight, "even by omission". It is unfair to assert that he "should not talk to the police" because he, as is consistent with the rest of the film, needs to speak the truth when spoken to for any reason.
Agreed. Objection. Fletcher is not only incapable of lying, it's apparent he is compelled to tell the truth. It would be impossible for him to not talk to the police officer pulling him over.
we'll allow it
I agree. He is clearly forced to do some of the things he says against his will. "The pen is red" is prime example, because clearly if it was just to not lie, he would have been only been unable to say or write red and that would be the end of it. However every time he attempted to lie, he wasn't just stopped in his tracks, he was forced to reverse and speak the truth of the thing he was going to lie about. Hence every time he tried to say red, blue was what came out, instead of nothing at all. Not only is he forced to not omit the truth when asked, any lie attempt will result in him being forced to tell the true version of it instead.
I'll have to overrule it; Carrey's invoking artistic license, as such a curse would compel you to speak your MIND (as opposed to the truth - two different things).
@@lakodamon are you actually arguing that this curse exists in real life? if the curse is made up by the movie, then the movie can tell us how it works...
Kinda surprised we never saw your reaction to one of the best parts:
*"STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!"*
Pipe cat.
That would be effecting their job security.
That is the best line! We use that in our office even now.
Mine too
We did it boys. Crime is no more
Defense "He's badgering the witness !"
Judge "It's his witness."
NTA his witness his rules
16:06 Fletcher should have been able to argue his was having unexplained neurological difficulties that would render him unable to operate in court that date. Said difficulties could have definitely affected his ability to conceal his client's protected information. In a certain sense, this could almost be like he had a sudden case of Tourette's Syndrome or a similar disfunction. It would probably be good grounds for the case to be delayed as Reede could have had a stroke for all he knew.
Especially if he went to his doctor or the ER.
Liar Liar gets Lawyer Lawyered
I can't believe I missed that. I've corrected the thumbnail to rectify the omission.
LegalEagle - Oh man that’s so cool! Love your content, man!
Oh wow u beat me to this comment
Best line in the movie: "I HOLD MYSELF IN CONTEMPT!" Always makes me laugh lol.
“I changed lanes without signaling while running a red light and SPEEEEDIIIING!!!”
“I’m kicking my ass DOO YA MINDEH?!”
Nope! The best lines are when he's beating himself up in the restroom and the guy walks in on him, "I'm beating the crap out of myself, DO YA MIND?"
Honestly I always read that line as sad, maybe that’s just me though
I don’t know… I think “because it’s devastating to my case!” In response to the judge questioning his objection is a good contender too ;)
Objection: you and Jim Carey have the same haircut and outfit
Objection. Irrelevant
@@weebandgaminginc.7593 Objection denied.
@@vicenteabalosdominguez5257 I think you mean “objection overruled”
@@weebandgaminginc.7593 You are right, my bad... ... ...Objection overruled!!
Objection, all lawyers have the same outfit, just different colors
It seems to actually be pretty common for someone to assume that being unable to lie means that you must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth at all times. As a gamer, I've noticed that it seems to come up quite often with the _zone of truth_ spell in _Dungeons & Dragons,_ even though the spell description explicitly states that an affected creature is not compelled to speak or answer any question, just that they cannot lie if they choose to speak.
The concept for this channel is brilliant and the execution is perfect. Well done!
As Ron White says “I have the right to remain silent, I didn’t have the ability “.
Did you hear about the Glasgow lawyer that got stopped by the police. The officer said 'you were doing 100 in a 40 zone', the lawyer says 'you'd do a hundred if you had 50 kilos of heroin under your backseat'. The officer is shocked and stammers, 'You can't put heroin under the backseat of your car' and the lawyer replies. 'that's exactly what my wife said, so I had to shoot her and throw the body in the boot, do you want to see the gun, it's in the glove compartment?'. The officer runs back to his car and radios for armed response, helicopters the whole works. An armed officer approaches the vehicle, "Sir, exit the car and place your hands on the vehicle''. The lawyer complies. The policeman opens the glove compartment and it's empty. He then orders the suspect to give him his car keys and opens the boot and that's empty as well. He checks under the back seat, nothing. Puzzled he says to the lawyer still standing with his hands pressed to the car, 'I'm sorry sir, our officer told us you were an armed drug dealer with a corpse in the boot." "Really?," says the lawyer, " and I bet the lying bastard says I was speeding as well."
I know it's an old joke. Good one though.
10/10 man, great joke.
I bet that'd work too... as long as the officer wasn't recording.
atthebridge that reminds me of another joke
A New York City lawyer type buys a new super fast car. He then starts speeding through a little town and slows at a stop sign, then speeds away! A cop sees him not stop at the sign and begins chasing him, pulling him over shortly the cop asks “sir you didn’t stop at the stop sign” lawyer smiles and replies “if you can show me the difference between slow down and stop? I’ll pay the ticket and pay you 1,000$” cop asks the lawyer to step out the car... cop starts hitting the lawyer with jumper cables then stops and asks the lawyer “would you like me to slow down or stop?”
In this day and age, the officer would just shoot the lawyer on the spot. lol
Edit: Least in America anyway. :D
@@wdf70 only if the lawyer was black
Objection, regarding the “burglar falling through roof” case.
While the story in its modern iteration is absolutely fictitious, based on a misunderstanding of law in the State of California, and only used to push for tort reform, _Bodine v. Enterprise High School_ was an actual case in 1984.
The backstory is that in March 1982, 18-year-old Ricky Bodine and some friends tried to steal a floodlight from the roof of a nearby high school. Bodine climbed onto the roof, unbolted a light and lowered it down, then walked towards the other side of the roof, falling into a painted-over skylight and sustaining severe trauma, rendering him a spastic quadriplegic. While in a coma after the event, his parents sued the school and school district for negligence of duty of care.
In many common law jurisdictions, trespassers are not owed duty of care, meaning that property owners are not required to inform trespassers of dangers on their property and are not liable for injuries or deaths that are sustained by trespassers, while they are for invitees and, to a lesser extent, licensees.
However, in the State of California, the law as written in Civil Code §1714a (and reiterated by _Rowland v. Christian_ in 1968) states that:
“Everyone is responsible, not only for the results of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.”;
where this “another” is not assumed to be a licensee, invitee, or trespasser, meaning that Californians have a general duty of care for all people who may be on their property, legally or otherwise.
Therefore, as Bodine did not wilfully injure himself, nor was he negligent in his conduct - as the skylights were painted the same colour as the roof and unmarked, he could not see them and in turn avoid them as weak spots; he could only reasonably assume that the building was up to code and that the roof was everywhere stable enough to support the weight of a person - the high school would have probably been found liable if the case hadn’t been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, having reached a settlement between the Bodine family and the school district’s insurance company a month later.
I should also note that things have changed somewhat since then, with the 1985 addition of §847 to the Civil Code, which states that property owners are not liable for injuries sustained when the injured had committed one of a number of felonies, including burglary, though not including trespass (which is usually a misdemeanour in California anyway).
Alex Trickier the fact that this didn’t get an actual reply is absurd
id like to add to this that one of my best friends grand parents had someone fall through a sky light breaking into their home, he sued them and won.
In addition, a later video on this channel "The Shotgun Booby Trap" reviews a similar situation where the trespasser/robber wins the suit against the homeowners as well.
@@jenniferhof9448 However in that case the home owners set a trap that would have hurt anyone including people in the house for lawful reasons. For example if the house had been on fire and first responders arrived to search the house, this is largely why "spring guns" or "booby traps" are illegal. Also almost universally in the United States you can only use lethal force to protect life and great danger to property. Think of it like if someone is pouring gasoline on your house in preparation to burn it down or if someone was attempting to steal or defame the Mona Lisa. Those would be instances of using lethal force to defend property would be lawful, however someone who is burglarizing an unoccupied house is neither endangering life or great danger to property. The case of the booby-trap is also different because the home owner willfully set a trap knowing that if triggered would cause great injury or death. The premise of the "Bodine v. Enterprise High School" is that through a level of negligence they caused the injury of someone.
Objection: Ricky was negligent enough to ignore the fact that climbing on the roof is a dangerous, bad idea if you're just some kid, not a construction-worker or something. Ergo, he brought that on himself.
I have to admit, I was more interested in you reacting to the movie's silliness than I was in learning about how accurate it was in a legal sense.
The wish was more thorough than it was initially presented. Not only could Reed not tell a lie, he was also compelled to always tell the truth, thus preventing even "lies of omission". Otherwise he could have said nothing when leaving the elevator, simply answered "yes" and nothing else to the police officer that pulled him over, or even answered "no" because he couldn't have known _specifically_ why the officer pulled him over.
the wish was intended to ensure that he couldn't 'lawyer' his way out of things. lies of ommission etc are all part of the original complaint.
An issue with this film is that the claim is that "he can't lie", but the reality is that "he must spill the beans". It is proven that he will say anything that is true when asked; regardless if he wants to answer or not, or possibly if he even knows the truth. - As you said, giving a different truth is possible, and a very obvious general true answer is "I don't want to answer". The character in this film should be experienced in this, and this inability to lie should not hinder him that much.
I've been considering this, and I think it's mostly reasonable. He's extremely arrogant and used to talking through every obstacle. He's unaware of the curse, and it's just the first few days. He'd adapt eventually but not yet.
@@bjacobcampbell9578 Fair point then. Still feels like this is such a big thing that he would change his behaviour. He might blurt out one thing, but he should keep it quiet after that.
Unless his silence would fall under "lie of omission", compelling him to verbalize truth (exactly as he understands it) when asked.
Exactly it's not that he just can't lie he immediately says anything that comes to his mind in most cases as well
Wikipedia says this "he is unable to lie, mislead, or even withhold a true answer (lie by omission)". Which means that he can't just stay silent or avoid the question.
12:00 - The time when you realize Legal Eagle and Fletcher have THE EXACT SAME HAIRSTYLE
They were almost dressed exactly alike, too. I wonder...
@@feralcyborggaming1531 You wonder if Fletcher also uses Indochino?
Lol I was there at 1.30 when he was on the steps!
@@feralcyborggaming1531 not at all...
Its mandatory for Lawyers that aren't bald or wearing their hair in a ponytail hahaha
For me, the thing that amazes me the most about lawyers is that they have to manipulate THE TRUTH in order to win a case. Lying would probably be the easiest way out and a lot of people have the idea that lawyers lie to win cases but in reality they just use true events and facts instead. Truly an incredible skill to have!
The phrase "it's not what's true, it's what you can prove in court." That phrase burns me. I hate that such is the way law works.
@@franciscocota6440 I'm probably not going to talk you out of this, but let me just offer a justification for it: In any civil dispute, the participants in that dispute know who's telling the truth: it's them, not the other side. Of course, both participants believe exactly the same thing, and they can't both be right (except, in rare cases, when they are). I would estimate that 90% of civil litigants do not intentionally lie about any aspect of their case. Don't get me wrong, some may be deeply fooling themselves or self-justifying, but intentionally lying is rarer than people think. (Obviously this is less likely to apply to criminal defendants, but that raises issues that I don't intend to really address here.)
So both participants *know* they're telling the truth. The law, on the other hand, has no idea which participant is telling the truth and has absolutely no scientific way to determine that. In the absence of certainty, we've come up with an alternative: Trials. Trials are intended to determine (1) what the facts actually are, and (2) how to apply the law to those facts. Usually, that is done by letting a jury, as the voice of society, hear the evidence and decide on the answers to those questions.
But how does the jury determine this? Do we just tell them anything anyone has ever said about the case, with no regard to what other motivations that person might have had, or whether they were under a duty not to lie? We quickly figured out that wouldn't really work - and if anything would reward wrongdoers that are more willing to create fake documents or make statements that are false. And as I said above, we can't just put the statements and documents into a truth-detecting machine and let it figure the answer out for us.
So the solution is that we created rules to determine how best to separate the evidentiary wheat from the chaff. Those rules aren't always perfect; because they have to apply to all proceedings, they sometimes exclude stuff they shouldn't or allow in stuff they shouldn't. But overall, they're designed to get as close as possible to "what's true" when the reality is there is simply no way to know for absolute certainty what's true. That's why the phrase "it's not what's true, it's what you can prove in court" is less accurate than "we'll never know what's true, but the closest we can come is to make someone prove it in court."
13:42
😊😊
❤y😊😢
I just realized you’re cosplaying as Jim Carrey’s character
The tie doesn't really match, tho... >:-]
Doesn’t he usually dress up like tho?
Xp Level Googolplex wooosh
Jish redditors when they wooosh a normie 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Almost all the lawyers in TV and movies have his same haircut
Point of order (I hope I'm using that term correctly): Fletcher Reed is not only incapable of lying, he's incapable of lying according to a young child's definition of lying. I believe that, if we were to carefully study earlier scenes where Fletcher attempts to explain to his child why he "has to lie", we would see the child at least appearing uncomfortable with the idea of equivocating, creative truth-telling and lies of omission. Therefore, Fletcher not only can't lie, he is incapable of saying anything other than the (or an) objective truth when asked a direct question.
To reiterate for the lie through omission, Fletcher is not able keep his silence when asked a question and must answer to the best of his ability. I'm not sure how much they keep to that through-out the movie though, it has been a while since I've seen it.
I 100% agree with your point. However you in fact ARE using the wrong terminology. "Point of order" is used in parliamentary procedure (ie during a meeting of Congress), while an "objection" would be used in legal courtroom. Both mean the same thing, that a rule has been violated. But if you were to be in either situation and use the wrong phrase, you'd be seen as a complete rube.
He has to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as per his profession's diction for the courtroom.
@@vaullus6074
Actually, as funny as it may be, during the beginning and middle he couldn't lie whatsoever and seemed compelled to the direct truth. Later on, he seems to find ways around not having to answer directly like when he kicks his own ass in the bathroom. Judge asked him "who" did this and proceeds to describe himself in a third person round about way as opposed to just yelling "I DID YOUR HONOR".
Now, if he did this throughout the movie, there'd be no movie and it wouldn't be funny but it's worth noting the inconsistency lol
All right, although I didn't feel all that strongly about it, I'll state it as an objection. Specifically, I would voice said objection at 16:46, 19:10 and 26:48.
The way the magic truth spell seems to work is on the basis that omission counts as deception. Even though he knew to keep his mouth shut, he was seemingly compelled to speak.
This is why kids shouldn't do magic. They don't understand nuance.
Well, the movie isn't called "Deceiver Deceiver", now is it?
IT WASS MMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
Objection: to the point that he can just stay calm. I think the way it was played and applying some logic, I think he was so accustomed to tell lies that he just tries to lie even after the magic, and as he tries it almost out of habit or necessity by his behavioural nature, he ends up telling other true things! So, that's how Jim Carried that character, I propose...
My assumption was just that the curse takes a very broad definition of lying. Not only can he not lie directly, he also can't mislead, withhold information, ask a question if he knows the answer is going to be a lie, or, as it turns out, even deceive by remaining silent IE choosing not to speak when he has relevant information. Truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth.
@@billyweed835 I agree. Not volunteering information can be considered a form of lying by omission. So it would still be considered lying under the curse.
"So what I told you was true. From a certain point of view." ---- Obi-Wan Kenobi
Oh yea amen on this statement.
Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
Subjection your honor
lance turley I will do what I must
"From a certain point of viewwwww" -also yoda
Have you ever thought of giving "To Kill A Mockingbird" a shot?
OMG YESSS!!!
Absolutely yes please.
Such a good movie
I did, and it worked. The birdy is dead now
Yes!!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Objection: Near the end of the film, Jim Carrey's character says that not only does the curse prevent him from lying outright, but that he "can't do anything dishonest," period. This would presumably include lies of omission, hence why Fletcher is unable to stay quiet when the cop questions him. Furthermore, the director's commentary clarifies that Fletcher's curse is like a sort of word vomit, where he is forcibly compelled to tell the truth at all times. He is literally unable to stop himself from telling the truth when someone questions him on anything, hence why we see him trying to prevent himself from hearing his secretary's question once he realizes he doesn't want to answer it.
My only objection is. We’re objecting about his commentary on the movie. Not what happened with production. So your story about the director is irrelevant
@@weebandgaminginc.7593 Objection: It's not irrelevant, because the director is clarifying how the curse works. It isn't just a production story, it's in service of the plot of the movie.
@@GamingintheAM0801 sustained. My bad
I'm honestly surprised he missed that
I'm
One of the best parts of this movie is the way Fletcher's charisma digs his own grave. When we first meet Jennifer Tilly's character, she's extremely nervous about the concept of lying in court (as one should, given the situation). Fletcher is so good at convincing her she's the victim, she has a complete character transformation. He might have had a chance were it not for this monster of his own making.
Also, best legal advice ever, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSH*LE."
Dude...she was playing him. She manipulates men thats her ENTIRE character ffs. The entire reason they were in need of Fletcher was that the female lawyer and old man were not getting anywhere with her, so they brought in the young attractive man they had on a leash. She was never nervous, she was trying to get Fletcher to drool over her and the second he starts to fawn over her and feed her that shit story she lights up and wants the firm. Do you not remember the "its not true, is that a problem?" line she has BEFORE he "convinces" her with a story that she knows can get her everything she wants?
Be careful out there man, you are gonna get eaten alive.
@@Doomsblues It's sort of the whole premise of the movie, isn't it?
Daredevil. The Netflix show obviously not the movie lmao
Oh my god yesss😄
the Ben Affleck Movie
HEEEELLLL NOOOOO!
well, just the "court room scenes" at lease, and his "Justice is blind" argument
Make sure to get some Affleck daredevil too
“I object your honor!!”
“To yourself?”
I HOLD MYSELF IN CONTEMPT!!!
lmfao
Oh, I object to myself all the time. It usually gets ignored though.
@@LadyOnikara sustained
@@missamieholly2313 why should you be any different
"Do you know why I pulled you over?" = "care to incriminate yourself?"
Or given a chance to. Confess and get off with a warning or. Nothing
Wrong Answers to "Do you know why I pulled you over?":
You want to race me?
You're lonely?
You need directions?
To compliment me on my driving skills?
You have a quota?
@@disorganizedorg even if the last one is probably true 😂
"You owe me $20 and you stopped me to pay me back?"
"You want my autograph?"
@brian michaud I just said no the last two times, once time I did get a warning because I sneezed and a cop drove past.. I normally speed on that road however I told a white lie and said that I must have stepped on the gas pedal a little bit too much when I was sneezing.. the guy letme off with a warning cause while he was asking me what happened I had a sneezing fit. since I was driving home to get medicine he let me go
I binged your channel's content and got myself a nebula subscription. Well done mate! Takk skal du ha!
Send me $10 a lawyer doesn't need it
@@wildlifewarrior2670 how have you entertained me?
@@alphaque9933 don't know
@@wildlifewarrior2670 till then, my ain't going your way
@@alphaque9933 are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!? Is this not why you are here? Is this not what you want?
I'm not dirt poor... ...I'm Judgement Proof - you can't sue me, I'm below the law!
I got rear-ended at a red light, absolutely destroyed my car. The person in the other car said "Well, I thought you were gonna run the red light." They didn't have insurance either. Took it to small claims court, and they never showed up. The judge ruled in my favor and I got a settlement of $3000 to replace my car... which I never received because the other person refused to pay it and there was nothing that could be done about it. Couldn't even take it to a collections agency since it was "too low of an amount" for them to do anything about it, even thought that was several months worth of my salary at the time.
TL;DR: I spent a bunch of money in court fees to win a case and get nothing.
Hahaha!
I'm below the law!
@@TFVids I feel really bad for you, man
Is your profile image Bonanza star Lorne Greene?
@@darkartsdabbler2407 Yep, in his Battlestar days.
Objection: While the explicitly stated rules of the "wish" are that he cannot lie, it is implied multiple times in the movie that this is including a "lie of omission," meaning that when asked for information, he must reasonably provide relevant information. As he was unaware of how long the officer was following him, the relevant information would be at least the violations he knew he made. The unpaid parking tickets are a bit of a stretch, but still related as traffic violations. This was only volunteered when asked "is that all?" to which he provided the information of tickets as related not to the stop but related to his traffic violations that might reasonably be found in a check on his history.
Additionally, he is compelled to actively speak truth. He is prevented from remaining silent when asked for information even outside of the traffic incident. He is compelled to speak in many occasions when it is against his interest to do so. This seems less like "won't shut up" and more of "can't shut up."
@@Organous "IT WAS MEEEEE!" I mean, he has no reason to admit that he was the one who farted.
kyuubinaruto17 he thought it. he couldn't omit it.
@@kyuubinaruto17 The curse is the reason he admitted it. He clearly had no desire to say it.
I agree. Basically he is forced to follow the rules of the court: The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Very fitting for a lawyer that lies a lot.
“You’ve been here before haven’t you” Never noticed the humor in that line before this vid.
@Axel Smith He is implying that he has taken him to court before and those exact events happened as told.
I REQUEST A CONTINUANCE! Your honor, I need to go to work and thus have a schedule conflict that prevents me from watching part 2!
Objection: The child made the wish and if the wish follows what that child believes... then what is taught in school is that omittance of said truth when the truth is known might be considered a lie, thus forcing Flecher to always tell the "whole truth".
I agree!
And nothing but
The argument could also be made that Fletcher's own interpretation of what constitutes a lie helped to mold his oversharing of the truth. Since he prides himself as being essentially a professional liar, that would mean he would also have to have an overly acute sense of what constitutes the whole truth versus a manipulative lie. His ability to contort the truth to suit his needs could've helped shape the truth as he presented it.
As an accomplished liar, details would be key for him in every lie. It would be similar to painting a life portrait of a forest scene, small details make the whole painting come alive. Well, in a person like Fletcher, translating those details over to telling the truth versus lying would mean you would be oversharing information based simply on established habits. It would be a compulsion at that point.
The whole truth, only the truth, nothing but the truth !
When he first tried to talk when he found out he couldn't lie, I expected everyone around to think he was having a stroke. Nobody said anything. Even as a kid I thought it was so weird. He looked like he was dying and they just kinda nod along while he can't speak.
It's over exaggerated for comedic purposes. Kinda Jim Carrey's thing.
That’s why I’m the bloopers, one of the actresses were dared to yell: “over actor” during the court scene which you can view at the end of the movie.
But seriously, the entire movie Carrey is acting erratically! Most people, upon seeing his behavior, would call the cops or an ambulance. Maybe both! It bugged me during the whole movie that nobody thought there was something wrong, especially in the courtroom.
Education on stroke symptoms in the general public was pretty poor then, honestly. The big PSA campaigns about it came years after this movie.
Even disregarding the stroke thing, I'd be skeptical about retaining an attorney that behaves so erratically, and I'd be sending them for a full medical workup including a tox screen.
Thanks for clearing up the burglar suing the homeowner. That situation has been bugging me for years.
Seconded. I feel so much smarter for knowing that, and it's now one of my minor life goals to get an opportunity to hit someone with it in conversation.
Related question, though: what about the one about the neighbor's kid trespassing into your yard, falling into your pool, and drowning? (Or variations involving various minor injuries?)
Yes. Something similar actually happened quite recently in my home state of Hawai’i too, and the burglar got away with thousands!!!
I don’t know how this works in the US but here in Germany there are lawyers that would simply sue for an amount that is less than what the defending would cost. So it would be cheaper to just pay.
@@markmyers2009 Keyword, settlement. Bodine sued for $8 million, if memory serves. Judges can't stop parties from voluntarily entering into stupid-ass settlements, and the quarter million awarded to Bodine was probably less than it would have cost the district to take the case to trial, even if they won. Bodine and his counsel were probably banking on the informal precedent from a year prior, where a similar incident happened leading to a student's death.
idiotic that this was even possible.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 the sueing the kid for slander at the beginning killed me
Objection, your Honor! "One of the funniest legal movies of all time" is a subjective statement and betrays the claim to review the piece as an impartial party for legal legitimacy.
I object to your objection!
Mr. Stone is not reviewing the movie's funniness, but its legal accuracy, which are completely separate categories and are able to be judged independently.
@@redforest9269 Sustained
OBJECTION!!! I JUST POOPED MYSELF
@@noahrose9647 I will hold you in contempt of court.
@@cheesecakelasagna Your honor. The defense shall state his opinion on this matter. I crapped again
Lawyer: *breathes slightly wrong*
California State Bar: DISBARRED
Sustained
Sweet home Alabama
Minish Princess
CA lawyers will just let their client lie his ass off in court because hey, I’M not lying your honor!
@@sarahk2722 Would counsel please come to the stand?
"Tell the truth" tends to = stream of consciousness in movies for the funnies.
I think, based on the evidence of the film, he's also required to truthfully answer questions directed towards him, which includes avoiding lies of omission. So yeh he basically has no filter as long as what he's thinking is objectively true.
Wat?
@@deefarmah2411 basically your "filter" is a social lie. For example: when the judge walked in Jim laughs. This is likely because he thinks of the judge as a joke, so presenting a calm and respected demeanor would effectively be a lie.
A poker face if you will
And so acting in any way so as to disguise your true thoughts or feelings would be a lie
“Honey, these weren’t lies. They were just creative ways of talking about the facts as they exist”
Thanks, LegalEagle. 👌
Have you done a video about laws broken in Mrs. Doubtfire?
Film theory did a video about that
Lucy Charnick he’d do it better
@@demonbullet6548 possibly we won't know until he does a video
MatPat did
He did dumbasses.
I'd *really* love to see your take on: "Adam ruins everything, Season 1 episode 24, Adam Ruins Justice" it brings up a lot of points and I've always wondered what somebody like you would think of it.
YES
!!!
I would love this
this please
Yeeeeees
Yes please that would be awesome!
I didn’t think Fletcher was able to fail answering questions. He seemed compelled when talking to the police officer, like he was fighting it
What I don't understand (from a real life perspective) is why he couldn't ask for a continuance based on medical emergency. He had no idea what was happening, why he suddenly couldn't talk in certain situations, and a brain tumor isn't just a possibility but outright likely (sudden stutter and speech problems is a huge indicator). At the very least Fletcher should have been a lot more concerned about his own health here. Not much good making partner if you don't survive to enjoy it.
there's a couple of factors here. first, admitting this is a significant new condition for him, a crippling condition, is an admission that he lies all the time normally. Nominally being unable to lie shouldn't interfere with his duties. even if we all know that everybody lies, we are all supposed to be keeping up appearances. nobody is supposed to admit they are dishonest, that ironically honest admission is subversive. second, while i guess it could be a tumor, in practice it's going to come across as mental illness, which there's a stigma against. In fact, since it doesn't even sound like a real mental illness (because it isn't one, it's a curse) it's not going to have the social acceptance of a "real" mental illness and likely will come across as malingering. if he says in effect "your honor, i need a medical continuance because i've gone insane and cannot lie any more" that's not going to go well for him.
@@scottmatheson3346 While the issue of stigma is valid, what he's experiencing is a compulsion which is a symptom of many particular mental illnesses. What he SHOULD do is get a medical diagnosis from a doctor ASAP, and a competent doctor would 100% validate the condition because the level of compulsion he experiences is clearly problematic.
@@dreamcanvas5321I concur.
If I finish watching all your videos, does that legally make me a lawyer? I’m going to say yes.
Sorry. Objection:*
@@bdollhall LMAO
OBJECTION....
We need to hold a party for ous lawyers...
bdollhawley overruled
@@daltonnance2126
*HOLD IT*...
I wanted just to Scream that, carry on..
Next time I get caught in a lie I’m going to call it a “creative argument”
That’s freaking hilarious 🤣
There is definitely a sense in the movie that the 'curse' to tell the truth goes beyond 'he can't lie' but that he has a compulsion to reveal truth.
OBJECTION: I am 5 years late but I remember seeing this in Sterkinikor theaters back many years ago and I loved it. Genius movie. And I love the video.
Daredevil, the Netflix version
Yesss
need it
I was just about to go to the comments section to write the same thing!
Dude! Yes!
OBJECTION: There was not enough usage of "The Claw"!
Objection! What about Legally Blonde?
💖
That’s such an awesome argument with the hair to call out the lie 👏🏻
Good call!!!
@@iriswaldenburger2315 that hair thing should have been mentioned by a detective, and not a lawyer, right?
/flushes toilet
Wow! Since I know this channel I never thought he would make a video about this movie, I'm happily surprised!
I think part of this hole wish is 'silence' is considered lying so he was kinda forced to talk to that cop. lies by omission and all that.
whole*
@@onyxJS *hole
Right it's a compulsion to tell the truth not just an inability to lie.
Just because you can’t lie that doesn’t mean you have to tell the truth. (To Americans)
“You have a right to remain silent”
-5th amendment
@@weebandgaminginc.7593 yeah but this is a magic wish. and not saying anything is technically lying since your omitting information with your silence. if he could rules lawyer his say out of saying truths under this curse he probably would
I’d be interested if you would deconstruct “Knives Out”.
I think that would be fun as well. Really good movie, and I think he could make a fun breakdown of it.
@Raymond Tremblay Mostly a detective movie, but he could talk about whether what happened with the will would be a realistic possibility, what the nurse's (sorry, I'm blanking on her name) real options are in each situation, etc.
OBJECTION! If Jim Carrey's character is a proper lawyer with a great win streak, then he should be able to afford a proper suit that fits! More to the point, he should be well versed enough to know that he, a relatively slender man, should NOT be wearing an American cut suit! With his build, he should be wearing an English cut! Fashion Court Adjourned!
youre forgetting what year it was
Yeah man!this movie was like 99
Maybe from today's perspective, definitely, but in the 1990s even skinny men wore suits with two vertical rows of buttons, myself included. And I am a European and we did not really recognize the "American cut"; it is just this particular style was everywhere. It is VERY 1990s.
Do you think American Psycho had good fashion advise? (Serious question)
1997
Even the first time I watched this, I was confused that he didn't say "I just got the case last night and have not had sufficient time to become familiar with it as a result" when asking for a continuance.
Pretty much any judge would have agreed.
Right! Even with how the curse causes compulsive truth telling, the fact that he fails to pull such a simple answer means that he was simply a bad lawyer who relied on lying.
He could not say that he needed a continuance because of the short time he had the case as that would be a lie. He knew he was ready for the case in that short amount of time. It was because he could not lie that he needed the continuance.
Objection (to the 'parking ticket' scene): The spell seems to include "lies of omission." That is, he is incapable of leaving someone with a false impression by remaining silent or redirecting the conversation. This could have led to a whole discussion of whether "lies of omission" are really lies.
calorion after listing off all of the offenses he just committed, the officer asks “Is that all?” Fletcher then shakes his head no. It’s not omission because he was point blank asked if that was all of the infractions currently against him.
Objection, this movie would have sucked if he behaved like a true lawyer.
The movie did kind of suck
Damien Leigh 😧
@@ThatWasPrettyFunny If by gold you mean piss, then sure.
@@damienleigh9943
Heresy of the highest order sir. You should be ashamed of yourself for not loving this movie
@@damienleigh9943 that not how you make friend dude.
I think the movie's definition of lying includes intentional withholding of truth. Fletcher could not stay silent when he was asked a question, because that would count as not telling the truth (aka lying).
Question: In this divorce case can the husband use the "Alienation of Affection" law to sue the lovers the wife had affairs with?
No just the wife
Why on Earth did you NOT have the title be “Liar Liar gets Lawyered Lawyered”?
Because his current title is more likely to be recommended in the youtube algorithm
@@aidenthecrane2893 maybe the thumbnail then
@@aidenthecrane2893 _pathetic_
Liar Liar Meets Lawyer Lawyer.
Objection: You should have a Begal next to you, and he should be the Legal Beagle.
SenatorCornelius Stern But Fair
Leagle eagle beagle
I withdraw my objection. He does indeed have a Legal Beagle. her name is Stella
What of the Reagle Beagle then?
SenatorCornelius Stern But Fair no. Fur lock bones
Legal beagle retrieval?
Objection! Speculation.
The concept of lying in the movie includes lies by omission.
Is a Lie By Omission a legal term? Now I want to hear him talk about that.
Jascha Bull I think it must - when someone is sworn in and they say “the truth, the whole truth...” I’d reckon that’s the part where it comes into play.
I’d also like to hear him talk about that!
Yes, he couldn’t say he wants a continuance because he’s only been on the case for a couple of days because that’s not the true reason he wants a continuance. When asked to state his reason, he is compelled to give the truth - he wants to stop because he can’t lie.
Maybe the rules have to deal with intention to lie? So like he has to tell the truth (as the kids says) anytime he has the intention to lie?
14:57 - lmao this little scene is comedic gold.
Law Abiding Citizen would be a good one to review. Movie had me cringing so hard. 3 of the oiliest criminals you'd ever see and the greatest prosecuting attorney forces his client to settle to protect his court room stats.
You should react to the classic TV series, "Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law".
Yes!
I third this!
Fourthing it, this would be amazing. Loved that show.
5thed it
Nthed.
"Stoooop! Stop talking to the coooop." with the matching hand gesture had me laughing!
I would love to see you react to Legally Blonde!
i like the towyard guy, you've been here before havent you. 🤣🤣 love this movie, fun seeing it disscussed by a real lawyer.
OBJECTION: You speculating that Jim Carrey's character doesn't have a load of cocaine in the trunk of his car. He may well be trying to avoid a car search
Normally you would have a point. However, if he did have cocaine in his car, the curse would have forced him to volunteer that information.
You can't speculate that something didn't happen. Burden of proof lands on the accuser.
@@Thrifty032781 But the police officer asked him ¨Do you know why I pulled you over?¨ it does not make sense that he thought it was due to the cocaine in the trunk unless the officer was Superman with X-Ray vision.
As I recall, he gets arrested and his car gets impounded. Do you think that his car wasn't searched?
@@georgeberry1959 sure you can, there is this thing called probable cause.... think awhile and figure out what it is ...
Objection! Lying can be broadly understood to mean any distortion of the truth. Multiple examples in this film may not involve saying something that is false, but they would still be widely interpreted as lies.
For example, Fletcher's desire for a continuance may be justified by true statements, but those justifications would still qualify as lies, as they would not be the true reason he wants that continuance.
Another example: He may have the right not to talk to the cop, but if that involved him being dishonest, many would call that lying by omission.
The film has clearly taken a looser definition of lie.
thats true... even if he say someting real he should still lie because that is not actual reason. actual reason is he cannot lie
He seems to be good lawyer but I doubt he fully understands how deep lies can be :P (for a lier... not noticing this is terrible XD)
Yes he cannot lie... NOT EVEN FOR REASON! even if action he saying actually happened. because he is prepared for case despite being new.
Agree on that. When he's interrogating one of the lovers of his client, he can't even make HIM lie. The curse is way deeper than it seems.
Fletcher wasn't asked why he wanted a continuance, he was asked if he had good cause, and as Stone pointed out, being recently assigned to the case may constitute good cause and Fletcher would have been truthful to say so.
@Catcrumbs And that's exactly a line of reasoning you'd expect from someone dishonest. When you start focusing on being honest instead of figuring out how you can bend the rules, you'll understand.
@@Catcrumbs yes but thats not the cause!
for this case being recently assigned to case DIDNT cause problem for him... so putting this as a reason is a lie because its not someting bothering him. if it was sure but its not. if he was capeble of lying he wont need to ask continuance so when he must say truth that respond is not an option
you are not thinking deep enought about lies mate
what we call for your case is "making up excuses" not "telling alternative truths"
you cant say "I ate candy because I was hungry" when you ate it because you wanted to someting tasty despite being hungry.
its only not a lie when it actually maters! not when it can be good cause
"Hey what's your problem buddy?"
"IM AN INCONSIDERATE PRICK!"
Lmao that's the best part. Not sure when it is, but I'll never forget it.
It happened before he got pulled over by the motorcycle cop, he cut off the van driver.
I'm kicking my ass
"I'd have got him 10." Is my favorite.
Objection: in Australia trespassers are able to sue the landowner if they are injured on the property. There have been several cases where home invasions have happened and the home owners have defended themselves or the invader has simply injured themselves and the home owner has been fined or even jailed.
That's because my country sucks.
Yet another reason to avoid living in Australia
Or avoid getting caught lol
Nope! Not for home invaders or people who have illegally entered the property. There is no duty of care in Australia for these trespassers. It's more for trades people or friends/family/visitors who have injured themselves on the property.
While it depends on the jurisdiction, that is not the case in Western Australia following the occupiers liability act. If someone enters a property with an intention of committing a crime (which trespassing is) then the occupier owes them a duty of care to not intentionally set traps for them. They owe them no duty of care beyound that. So if a home invader trips on a staircase, the occupier didn’t owe them a duty of care. But if the occupier purposively set up a trap, like a hidden pit fall, then yeah the trespasser has grounds to sue them.
So for the example of a robber falling through a faulty skylight, the occupier of a house has no duty of care towards the robber to ensure the skylight is compliant with safety standards.
OBJECTION !!! It was a “ have to speak truth when asked any direct question “
Not “ can’t lie “ curse !
So he was SPELLBound to speak the truth at traffic stop even if he wanted to stay silent !!!
I
q
“Is that even consensual?” Me watching a really aggressive porno
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I read an article once saying that BDSM pornstars are often actually really into it
😂😂😂😂
The most terrifying this I learned during this video is that apparently exercising your right to remain silent can be taken as proof of guilt of some other crime and that exercising your right to remain silent can give the police the right to search your vehicle.
However, in court, not only can the defendant not be forced to take the stand due to their constitutional rights, the prosecution cannot even comment on the fact that they have refused to do so.
@@ba-wp5zs Which they tried to do in the Rittenhouse case and got nailed for it.
Loophole
You mean all three quarters in his piggy bank, you monster!😂 1:24
Q: What do you get when you cross a liar with an alligator?
A: A litigator.
*rimshot*
Then what are therapists?
@@hunnybadger442 overpaid
@@williampetersen9915 break it down..
@@hunnybadger442 That was broken down.
"I will take him to court and sue him for all that he is worth!"
All 5 cents?
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not if he has grandparents. I distinctly remember visiting grandparents and great aunts/uncles, and them giving me anywhere from 5-10 dollars despite my parents' objections.
And half a candy bar, can't forget that.
Take half of his Transformers collection
199th like
Objection! The prosecution hasn't made a video on Matt Murdock/Daredevil!
yes please, daredevil can hear the jury behind closed door isnt this illegal
objection! irrelevant to current case!
The only crime there worth prosecuting was that Ben afflec starred in the movie
@@lets_rock_and_ride5943 and that's worth the electric chair right there
@@MrAndrewGregor I'm no lawyer but common sense tells me that
Nope.... why
Objection: if you read the plot on websites, it usually says that Fletcher finds himself, “Forced to speak the truth.” So unless, at the last minute of being asked a question, he comes up with another question to ask as an answer, he will speak his truth.
Today I learned that, contrary to popular belief, lawyers actually do have a code of ethics and cannot just willfully lie in court..
I mean, ofc..
Why would they be allowed to lie in court. I’m not an attorney (yet) but I think that’s grounds for a mistrial
Wouldn't some lawyers twist the truth and make a lie that most people could believe?
@@thestruggler7926 I actually think the lawyers use the facts of the case to provide the best defense possible. And they may fabricate a little
I thought it was like the rule that companies can't lie on packaging, like technically it's right but it's so full of loopholes that as long as they don't say something completely ridiculous like it cures cancer they can do what they like
Objection: The nature of this "curse" might compel the victim to not just tell the truth, but the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Therefore, the cop example may not have been the wisest course of action Carrey's character could have taken, but it was, in all likelihood, the only one. And since he couldn't be certain what exactly the cop stopped him for, he attempted an answer that presumably was meant to be evasive but ended up implicating him even more.
You might object and say "Then why didn't he tell the truth about the case he had against his counterpart?". The way I see it is that she was of equal standing to himself in the court and he was under no obligation to reveal the case at all, so he got away with being (relatively) silent rather than tell the lies that made up his case. The cop was a different matter, he was the higher authority in that particular matter and Carrey's character felt, unnaturally, obligated to reveal all his transgressions when asked. And before you object again, he didn't reveal it all to the judge, the higher authority in court, because he never demanded from him to tell everything like what the cop did.
That is my objection.
Everything else is sustained.
(Hey, doing it like this is kinda fun)
I took the curse in the movie to mean that he was compelled to answer any direct questions, not just unable to lie. So being silent wouldn't work for the cop. But it's been a while since I've seen this movie, and I can't remember if that logic is consistent throughout.
@@adamkuch9377 It's not exactly consistent following that logic. That's why I described it as I did above. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure even that fits 100% either.
Agreed
The curse/wish states he must not lie, If he ISN'T telling the whole truth, he is technically lying by omission.
@@ThighconOfSin No, not really.
There is a difference between "not saying a lie (therefore technically truthful)" answer and an answer that is the truth to you full knowledge. Thus there isn't a difference between telling a lie, and not telling the full truth (lying by omission).
He has to tell the full truth (not just "he can't lie"), and not telling the full truth is lying by omission.
@@jonb1186 I agree. My assumption in that scene was that since he didn't know how long the officer was following him, that he listed everything he did incorrectly from the time he got in to the car until he was pulled over.
As soon as he mentioned Torts, my brain immediately went to the general rule of duty and that is proof to me that my Torts 1L class has truly broken me.
As soon as he mentioned torts, I immediately thought of a bakery.
About the traffic stop, I believe the assumption is that he cannot lie by omission. So not only can he not tell an untruth, he's also incable of withholding truth.