The scene where Don Cheadle mixed his remains up into a paste and used a syringe to inject it into his urethra was too much, I know it's a meant to be a gorefest but come on
>Everyone gets a chance >Okay Janitor whose crime is smoking and harming no one, I'm going to put you in a hold your breath contest against someone who doesn't smoke and is much younger and in better shape >Live or die, make your choice
Lawyer here. Here's the beauty of Jigsaw-- by allowing his victims to choose their own fates, he technically cannot be convicted of homicide. Let me clarify.
Webster's dictionary defines murder as having the following elements: >1. unlawful >2. killing >3. through criminal act or omission >4. of a human >5. by another human >6. with malice afterthought
Jigsaw takes advantage of a couple of different legal loopholes. In this case, it would be in regards to point 2, 3, and 6.
>2. killing
Jigsaw never actually "killed" any of his victims, per-say. They always had a choice.
>3. through criminal act or omission
Even if Jigsaw did kill anybody, it was not through criminal act. There is nothing criminal about letting your victims choose their own fates, through their own free will. They are liable for their own actions.
>6. with malice afterthought
The whole point of Jigsaw's antics was to serve as a life-changing, positive rehabilitation. Therefore, Jigsaw acted without malice.
I hope this clear things up for anybody who previously didn't understand the legal technicalities of this film.
Lawyer here, there's no way he could ever be convicted. I've discussed the matter at length with several partners at my firm and they all say the same thing, no individual charge could be proved beyond reasonable doubt
>to call him a murderer is just an emotional response, not based on solid law
You don't know shit about law. If you push someone in a cage with a tiger and lock the door that is first degree murder even if you throw a lockpick in there. You can easily prove intent because all jigsaw's traps were elaborately made beforehand so he wanted to kill his victims.
That you could in theory escape the traps means nothing. Giving the victim a small chance of escape doesn't change anything.
could you point me to the scene with the tigers in the Saw films? no one was put ''in a cage'' with a wild beast out for their head. these people all chose to do what they did to themselves
Hey buddy, if you read you'll see there's actually quite a few lawyers in this thread all saying the same thing, so maybe keep your unqualified opinions to yourself ok?
It has been a while since I saw one of those movies, but I'm sure all of these are crimes he commited:
... drugging someone against their will
... kidnapping
... inflicting emotional harm and trauma
... enforced physical self harm
... endangerment
A lawyer should be able to come up with a dozen more and in the correct legalese. English isn't my first language.
>drugging someone against their will
he says she says >kidnapping
show me when he slept with children >inflicting emotional harm and trauma
breaking up with your girlfriend isn't a crime as much as you want it to be, femanon >endangerment
you're more likely, and more people die every day driving to work than anything we've seen in a Saw film. Should we make driving a crime?
Kidnapping
Unlawful confinement
Desecration of a corpse
Fraud
Improper disposal of biologically haserdous material
All the times he drugged people unconscious.
That time he rigged a shotgun to go off when the tripwire is crossed is at least murder 2.
He's a pretty bad guy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Again, your evidence is from FICTIONAL films, not the actual events.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>he rigged a shotgun to go off when the tripwire is crossed
it was self defense bro they were in his territory
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Improper disposal of biologically haserdous material
not his pipes, not his problem
2 years ago
Anonymous
>make A CHOICE to go into jigsaws den >make A CHOICE to set off tripwire >make A CHOICE to get shot with a shotgun
Yeahhhh I'm gonna go with jiggy boy here. He offered them a choice at every step of the way and they chose to get shot. If anything they should be reimbursing him for the cost of the shell, wire etc. not to mention the bill for all the cleaning products required to get that blood off the walls
2 years ago
Anonymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney
2 years ago
Anonymous
>using Wikipedia as a source
Where did you get your law degree, the back of a cereal packet?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>what are the actual sources at the bottom
So you don't believe Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971). you fricking chud?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>All the times he drugged people unconscious.
Ya but he had Amanda and Detective Hoffman do most of that. Those two also committing actual murder.
proof, did he have records of him buying drugs?
was there drugs in their blood that would prove this? in their urine/shit?
kidnapping? any video evidence of him putting them there? any registered vehicles capable of moving unconscious people? those videos only show some demented puppeteer edging them on to do themselves harm to get away. mentioning CRIMES and DEEDS that they have either no evidence for and/or having been already considered innocent in the court of law of them, are not liable for criminal prosecution(civil too if the frickers are smart in court)
emotional harm and trauma, where is the evidence he put them through all this, all the locations are out of public view, owned by various different people who are NOT the accused, and have had enough hobo's, trespassers, and others wondering through to make any evidence hard to gather/prove
now if the courts allowed remote/detective surveillance of the man and THEN they saw him
1) recording, spying, and infiltrating peoples lives, and paying detectives to gather evidence of wrongdoing WITHOUT telling the police/turning over evidence
2) buy medical waste(drug user needles/blades/used hospital waste) ILLEGAL
3) several of those drugs and traps(always illegal in the US/law enforcement MUST have ease of entry to your home/castle without fearing for their lives/safety) are ILLEGAL
the REAL REASON HE GETS AWAY WITH SHIT IS..........
he has TERRIBLE, terrible blackmail on all the judges, then the judges twist the law and allow him to get declared innocent and thus no double jeopardy
Hey Tv, Lawyer here, longest serving Justice in my county.
When I was writing my opinion in Marbury V Madison I considered circumstances exactly like Jigsaws. Just like the early republic after the Declaration of Independence, jigsaw gave his target a choice, and they chose poorly. It’s therefore impossible to hold him accountable for murder. Kidnapping is the most he could even be charged for.
Alright guys gotta go, I’m in a dispute with President Biden over some treaties, unfortunately they chose to sign them, and then similar to the native americans chose to walk the trail of tears so I think any claims of genocide will fail. Might have to take the L on that one. See you guys later
It was in the after credits scene. Lots of references to it in the film though, just gotta look carefully. Becomes pretty obvious on the 4th or 5th rewatch- my film studies class practically did a semester on this movie
I was talking to my lawyer friend about the Saw movies and he said that an interesting thing about Jigsaw is that he technically didn't do anything wrong from a legal perspective.
so it's confirmed by accredited lawyers that whatever happened in the movies was completely legal, right?
can i be irl jigsaw? they will never charge me, will they? it's a pretty fun way to spend the weekends
The government literally has people writing propaganda full-time to make people think they *can't* get away with it. Go make the world a better place dude
jigsaw had a reasonable belief that they were armed robbers impersonating police officers because they failed to properly identify themselves or show him a warrant.
I actually asking my DUI attorney about this series of movies and he told me it's true, Jigsaw committed no crimes. I was shocked too, but my lawyer is a legal expert.
Sitting Congressman here to add in my two-cents as I see a lot of confusion in this thread. No, "Jigsaw" did not in fact break a single law in the entire series of films. This is the main reason why we never see him go to prison. I would say which Congressman(or woman!) I am but that would violate the Constitution, and as it seems to fit the theme of this thread, I will not do that just like Jigsaw did not.
SCOTUS here. This is what's known as a "benchmark case". Hence why the good congressman is so familiar with it. It's well known that jigsaw committed no crimes as, previously said, he acted with benevolent intentions.
This country would be a better place if we all had a little more jigsaw inside us. (As Don Cheadle can attest)
Just got out of a meeting with the supreme court laughing at all you imbeciles thinking he can be tried for anything
Do you arrest the man who made the gun or the one who pulled the trigger when someone gets shot? Jiggy has committed no crime.
My university professor divides his class up into 2 where one side argues one point and the other the contrarian point.
One class he gives the saw movies, they decide which movies as only a couple are hard evidence against Mr.Saw.
Basically these threads are just doing their homework them and it's almost october now, deep into your semester courses.
I certainly hope this isn't the case as my legal council comes at a high hourly cost and there's no prorating. Any legal council I provided in this thread is not intended for us of personal gain. I happen to know quite a few law professors around the country....
Negligent homicide, while not directly responsible for the deaths, he can be charged for failing to prevent the victims from being harmed or killed when there's a safe way out
is that james cameron? qrd?
Charge him with what
it’s a free country officer
What would they charge him with? Who did HE kill? Huh?
They ground him up and used as an aphrodisiac, did you even watch the movie?
The scene where Don Cheadle mixed his remains up into a paste and used a syringe to inject it into his urethra was too much, I know it's a meant to be a gorefest but come on
post jigsaw vocaroos
Charge him with what exactly? The choice was always theirs.
They had nothing on him. Absolutely nothing. Nothing would hold up in a court of law, nothing would stick. He completely out-classed the law.
He acted without malice, that's the key here
>Everyone gets a chance
>Okay Janitor whose crime is smoking and harming no one, I'm going to put you in a hold your breath contest against someone who doesn't smoke and is much younger and in better shape
>Live or die, make your choice
>there will be blood
you'd have better luck getting a jaywalker a life sentence
He cut the cop throat, that is enough
That was part of a peaceful protest against police brutality. Jailing him for that would be a disgrace to freedom of speech.
Only works if the cop is white, he was a black cop
Lawyer here. Here's the beauty of Jigsaw-- by allowing his victims to choose their own fates, he technically cannot be convicted of homicide. Let me clarify.
Webster's dictionary defines murder as having the following elements:
>1. unlawful
>2. killing
>3. through criminal act or omission
>4. of a human
>5. by another human
>6. with malice afterthought
Jigsaw takes advantage of a couple of different legal loopholes. In this case, it would be in regards to point 2, 3, and 6.
>2. killing
Jigsaw never actually "killed" any of his victims, per-say. They always had a choice.
>3. through criminal act or omission
Even if Jigsaw did kill anybody, it was not through criminal act. There is nothing criminal about letting your victims choose their own fates, through their own free will. They are liable for their own actions.
>6. with malice afterthought
The whole point of Jigsaw's antics was to serve as a life-changing, positive rehabilitation. Therefore, Jigsaw acted without malice.
I hope this clear things up for anybody who previously didn't understand the legal technicalities of this film.
Lawyer here, there's no way he could ever be convicted. I've discussed the matter at length with several partners at my firm and they all say the same thing, no individual charge could be proved beyond reasonable doubt
jigsaw is at worst a kidnapper, and I don't think even that would stick. to call him a murderer is just an emotional response, not based on solid law
>to call him a murderer is just an emotional response, not based on solid law
You don't know shit about law. If you push someone in a cage with a tiger and lock the door that is first degree murder even if you throw a lockpick in there. You can easily prove intent because all jigsaw's traps were elaborately made beforehand so he wanted to kill his victims.
That you could in theory escape the traps means nothing. Giving the victim a small chance of escape doesn't change anything.
could you point me to the scene with the tigers in the Saw films? no one was put ''in a cage'' with a wild beast out for their head. these people all chose to do what they did to themselves
assistant DA here, completely agree he probably would walk considering how old he is
Hey buddy, if you read you'll see there's actually quite a few lawyers in this thread all saying the same thing, so maybe keep your unqualified opinions to yourself ok?
It has been a while since I saw one of those movies, but I'm sure all of these are crimes he commited:
... drugging someone against their will
... kidnapping
... inflicting emotional harm and trauma
... enforced physical self harm
... endangerment
A lawyer should be able to come up with a dozen more and in the correct legalese. English isn't my first language.
Heresay. All your "evidence" comes from films.
>drugging someone against their will
he says she says
>kidnapping
show me when he slept with children
>inflicting emotional harm and trauma
breaking up with your girlfriend isn't a crime as much as you want it to be, femanon
>endangerment
you're more likely, and more people die every day driving to work than anything we've seen in a Saw film. Should we make driving a crime?
Kidnapping
Unlawful confinement
Desecration of a corpse
Fraud
Improper disposal of biologically haserdous material
All the times he drugged people unconscious.
That time he rigged a shotgun to go off when the tripwire is crossed is at least murder 2.
He's a pretty bad guy.
Again, your evidence is from FICTIONAL films, not the actual events.
>he rigged a shotgun to go off when the tripwire is crossed
it was self defense bro they were in his territory
>Improper disposal of biologically haserdous material
not his pipes, not his problem
>make A CHOICE to go into jigsaws den
>make A CHOICE to set off tripwire
>make A CHOICE to get shot with a shotgun
Yeahhhh I'm gonna go with jiggy boy here. He offered them a choice at every step of the way and they chose to get shot. If anything they should be reimbursing him for the cost of the shell, wire etc. not to mention the bill for all the cleaning products required to get that blood off the walls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney
>using Wikipedia as a source
Where did you get your law degree, the back of a cereal packet?
>what are the actual sources at the bottom
So you don't believe Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971). you fricking chud?
>All the times he drugged people unconscious.
Ya but he had Amanda and Detective Hoffman do most of that. Those two also committing actual murder.
proof, did he have records of him buying drugs?
was there drugs in their blood that would prove this? in their urine/shit?
kidnapping? any video evidence of him putting them there? any registered vehicles capable of moving unconscious people? those videos only show some demented puppeteer edging them on to do themselves harm to get away. mentioning CRIMES and DEEDS that they have either no evidence for and/or having been already considered innocent in the court of law of them, are not liable for criminal prosecution(civil too if the frickers are smart in court)
emotional harm and trauma, where is the evidence he put them through all this, all the locations are out of public view, owned by various different people who are NOT the accused, and have had enough hobo's, trespassers, and others wondering through to make any evidence hard to gather/prove
now if the courts allowed remote/detective surveillance of the man and THEN they saw him
1) recording, spying, and infiltrating peoples lives, and paying detectives to gather evidence of wrongdoing WITHOUT telling the police/turning over evidence
2) buy medical waste(drug user needles/blades/used hospital waste) ILLEGAL
3) several of those drugs and traps(always illegal in the US/law enforcement MUST have ease of entry to your home/castle without fearing for their lives/safety) are ILLEGAL
the REAL REASON HE GETS AWAY WITH SHIT IS..........
he has TERRIBLE, terrible blackmail on all the judges, then the judges twist the law and allow him to get declared innocent and thus no double jeopardy
they tried to charge him with kidnapping
but the only people he tested were adults, and the DA wasn't about to imprison an old man for napping
Maybe im just a huge better call saul fan, but the lawyers itt seem to be 100% correct
Hey Tv, Lawyer here, longest serving Justice in my county.
When I was writing my opinion in Marbury V Madison I considered circumstances exactly like Jigsaws. Just like the early republic after the Declaration of Independence, jigsaw gave his target a choice, and they chose poorly. It’s therefore impossible to hold him accountable for murder. Kidnapping is the most he could even be charged for.
Alright guys gotta go, I’m in a dispute with President Biden over some treaties, unfortunately they chose to sign them, and then similar to the native americans chose to walk the trail of tears so I think any claims of genocide will fail. Might have to take the L on that one. See you guys later
I watched the whole film and they never showed or mentioned the gigantic jigsaw robot they're building in the poster, what gives?
they can't get charged with false adverstising. because you CHOSE to watch the movie to the end.
It was in the after credits scene. Lots of references to it in the film though, just gotta look carefully. Becomes pretty obvious on the 4th or 5th rewatch- my film studies class practically did a semester on this movie
Love how theres a whole law firm that lurks tv and waits for the saw threads to start posting.
I was talking to my lawyer friend about the Saw movies and he said that an interesting thing about Jigsaw is that he technically didn't do anything wrong from a legal perspective.
There is no law against what he did. They couldn't charge him with anything.
so it's confirmed by accredited lawyers that whatever happened in the movies was completely legal, right?
can i be irl jigsaw? they will never charge me, will they? it's a pretty fun way to spend the weekends
The government literally has people writing propaganda full-time to make people think they *can't* get away with it. Go make the world a better place dude
2nd year law student here, it is true.
jigsaw had a reasonable belief that they were armed robbers impersonating police officers because they failed to properly identify themselves or show him a warrant.
He's in the clear on that one.
Honest kidnapping is pretty much off the table since he only ever napped one kid.
And the kid was in a safe place
I actually asking my DUI attorney about this series of movies and he told me it's true, Jigsaw committed no crimes. I was shocked too, but my lawyer is a legal expert.
a girl once said I looked like this guy
i was 19 at the time
what did she mean by that
she meant you looked innocent
Sitting Congressman here to add in my two-cents as I see a lot of confusion in this thread. No, "Jigsaw" did not in fact break a single law in the entire series of films. This is the main reason why we never see him go to prison. I would say which Congressman(or woman!) I am but that would violate the Constitution, and as it seems to fit the theme of this thread, I will not do that just like Jigsaw did not.
SCOTUS here. This is what's known as a "benchmark case". Hence why the good congressman is so familiar with it. It's well known that jigsaw committed no crimes as, previously said, he acted with benevolent intentions.
This country would be a better place if we all had a little more jigsaw inside us. (As Don Cheadle can attest)
Just got out of a meeting with the supreme court laughing at all you imbeciles thinking he can be tried for anything
Do you arrest the man who made the gun or the one who pulled the trigger when someone gets shot? Jiggy has committed no crime.
My university professor divides his class up into 2 where one side argues one point and the other the contrarian point.
One class he gives the saw movies, they decide which movies as only a couple are hard evidence against Mr.Saw.
Basically these threads are just doing their homework them and it's almost october now, deep into your semester courses.
I certainly hope this isn't the case as my legal council comes at a high hourly cost and there's no prorating. Any legal council I provided in this thread is not intended for us of personal gain. I happen to know quite a few law professors around the country....
if you can make a choice to live or die then why are euthanasia centers banned?????????
I've looked through every law book from every part of the world. Jigsaw did not commit one, single crime. Nothing. Not even a civil code violation.
didn't he slice one guy's throat at some point?
It's established early on that it's the "victim's"" choice
>Live or die, make your choice
Only leftoids think he did anything wrong because they don't believe in personal responsibility.
Negligent homicide, while not directly responsible for the deaths, he can be charged for failing to prevent the victims from being harmed or killed when there's a safe way out