So put your hands together and
give it up for Frito Pendejo. - You're my lawyer? - A lawyer with a corporate sponsorship? That completely ridiculous. Legal Eagle is sponsored by
CuriosityStream and Nebula. Get 26% off using the
link in the description. (upbeat music) Hey, legal eagles, it's
time to think like a lawyer because today we are
analyzing "Idiocracy", the movie that, if memory serves, is about the world's most average man who is cryogenically frozen and then wakes up hundreds of years later after the world has
gotten much, much dumber. - You want us to put water on the crops? - Yes.
- Water? - Like out the toilet? - Which of course implicates all kinds of laws and regulations, including I think a trial. So it should be fun to
compare real life laws with the laws of the fake future after the world has gone down the toilet. - [Rita] What the (bleep)? God damn, shit's changed in a year. - So without further ado,
let's dig in to "Idiocracy". - [Automated Voice] Would you like another extra big ass fries? - I said I didn't get any. - [Automated Voice] Thank you. Your account has been charged. Your balance is zero. Please come back when you can
afford to make a purchase. I'm sorry you're having trouble. - [Woman] My kids are starving. (buzzer sounds) - [Automated Voice] This
should help you calm down. - Well I'm sure most corporations would love to be able
to gas their customers if they're getting obstreperous like that. I think that that probably
qualifies as battery. Battery itself doesn't have
to be the physical touching, It can often involve offensive contact. And if a regular customer
would not be okay with being gassed with
some sort of sedative, that probably qualifies. Carl's Jr. of the future engaging in some questionable practices. - [Automated Voice] Welcome to Carl's Jr. Would you like to try
our extra big ass taco now with more molecules? - Hey! Is this particular
individual the unfit mother? - Me? No. - Okay, this particular
individual is unscannable. - So obviously Luke Wilson
is not an unfit mother, but I think this does raise the question of when are the police
actually allowed to arrest you? And under the fourth amendment police are authorized to make an arrest so long as they have probable cause. And in legalese we say probable cause must be based on specific
articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those other facts. So here you cannot make a
reasonable inference from a kiosk an automated kiosk, a robot effectively, saying that Luke Wilson,
obviously not an unfit mother, is an unfit mother. Here, not surprisingly, these police do not have probable cause to arrest Luke Wilson. But by the same token most courts say that if police mistakenly arrest someone due to a misidentification, then there's no constitutional violation so long as that mistake was reasonable. So it's a question here whether the police were
acting reasonably or not. Probably not. And as to the question of whether the police
can just tackle someone during an arrest, police are generally allowed
to use reasonable force to restrain and arrest someone, assuming that they have a probable cause to be able to arrest
someone in the first place. But I for one find it
completely unrealistic that any police officers
in the United States would ever use unreasonable force to detain and then take
someone into custody. That just, that doesn't happen. - Wait a second. There's the other pod
from the army experiment. There was a girl, she was
from the same experiment. - Yeah, that's enough
of your bullshit, sir. (Joe yelling) - [Narrator] Joe was arrested for not paying his hospital bill-- - Okay, so Joe is arrested, obviously in a situation
that's completely unreasonable. Then he's in the back of the squad car and they mace him for asking questions. Police, when they have someone in custody and they have someone
that is resisting arrest or attacking an officer, are allowed to increase
the force that they use to counter the resistance. But it's an unreasonable use of force to mace someone who is handcuffed and is not threatening the officers. But again, this is completely unrealistic. We never see police officers just indiscriminately
using mace or pepper spray against people who were
not resisting arrest or just going about their day exercising their first amendment rights to freedom of expression. - Now since y'all say
you aint got no money we have proprietarily obtained for you one of them court appointed lawyers. - Okay, so that is
absolutely a real thing. There are court appointed lawyers, they're called public defenders. There was actually a 1963 case called Gideon versus Wainwright that established the constitutional right to people who are accused of criminal acts who can't afford an attorney because it would be such an injustice to deny them an attorney to represent them in this criminal trial. Then the state can and should provide them with a public defender to at least provide some defense. Though we've seen in a lot
of different situations where some states seemingly on purpose will underfund the
public defender's office. We've seen allegations
of that in Louisiana where often the district attorney gets millions of dollars per year but the public defender's
office will get nothing and they're not able
to provide the defense that accused are
constitutionally entitled to. - So put your hands together and give it up for Frito Pendejo. - You're my lawyer? - A lawyer with a corporate sponsorship? That's completely ridiculous. Legal Eagle is sponsored by
CuriosityStream and Nebula. I mean here the whole courtroom
has various corporate logos completely plastered over everything. There's a flag that has a corporate logo, it appears to be funding
the criminal justice system. Often people talk about Judge Judy or the TV shows that you see
that have an actual real judge. It's actually private arbitration where the contestants agree to be bound by the decision of Judge Judy or whoever is playing the judge. But it's still not a real courtroom. It would be completely ridiculous for the actual state courtroom to have corporate sponsorship. And you can imagine that
there'll be all kinds of reasons why you wouldn't want private enterprise to interfere with the criminal
justice system itself. - [Judge] Prosecutor. Why do you think he done it? - 'Kay, number one, your honor, just look at him.
(crowd laughing) - I assume that this is some
sort of opening statement here. You're not allowed to
actually make an argument in opening statements, that's a common misconception. You're supposed to say what
the evidence is going to show. Really seems like they're not
going to enter any evidence, it just seems like they're gonna go with whatever the prosecutor says here. - We've got all this evidence of how this guy didn't
even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't
even have his tattoo. - Okay, I stand corrected. He is now saying that he has evidence that's going to show something. He skipped out on some
sort of hospital bill. Why that would be a criminal
issue I'm not entirely sure. And then he lapses into hearsay, saying that he heard that he doesn't have the scannable tattoo. No idea why this would be the place where he'd rely on hearsay evidence because he'd just looked
at the wrist of the accused and find out whether he
actually has the tattoo or not. Though as we've talked a
lot about on this channel, the exceptions to the hearsay rule really swallow the hearsay rule in general so that usually if you
have hearsay evidence you can find a way to get
it admissible into court. The way he has raised at here
might be the rare exception where that hearsay is not coming in because there's lots of
other kinds of evidence that would be better. It seems like in the future
the courts are not great. - I know, and I'm all
"You gotta be (bleep) me." But check this out, man. Joe should be like guilty. Peace.
(crowd cheering) - Honestly, that is not
the worst opening statement I've ever heard in my life. (crowd cheering)
- Objection. - What are you objectifying on? - It's too late to object. - Your honor, I object that this guy also broke my --. Yeah. - What? - And you know what else? I object that he's not gonna
have any money to pay me after he pays back all the money
he stole from the hospital. - Okay, lots going on here, lots wrong. First of all, if the public defender is a
material witness to the case then they'd be conflicted out. There's no way that they could represent this particular individual. And of course they'd probably
be called to the stand if they're actually ever going to ask for evidence to be submitted. On top of that, it is a big problem in both the criminal
and civil justice system that a lot of people aren't able to afford the verdicts that are
entered against them. That's being called judgment proof. The judgment is effectively invalid because they'll never be able to pay the things that they stole or
are liable to somebody for. That's a big issue, but as a public defender
you're not allowed to raise that as a defense
in the case itself. I mean there's already a lot of stuff here that would qualify for a mistrial. - [Joe] What are we doing here? - Okay, sir, we're engaged
in procuring your tattoo. - [Automated Voice] Welcome to the Identity Processing
Program of America. Please insert your forearm
into the forearm receptacle. Thank you. - Okay, it should come as a
surprise to absolutely no one that the government can't
force you to get in ID, though there are plenty of situations where a government actor can force you to produce an identification that you already have
if you have it on you. Though forcing you to get
a tattoo on your body, almost certainly unconstitutional. Though there are certain instances where a government can force you to undergo certain bodily modifications if it's in the interest of health, safety, welfare,
or the morals of society. And that sounds farfetched
and it sounds draconian, but we saw an example
of that very recently when we've been talking about vaccines, because in the 1905 case of
Jacobson versus Massachusetts the Supreme court ruled seven to two that a mandatory vaccination law was legitimate exercise of state power to protect public health and safety. In terms of the spectrum
of what's allowable between a vaccination and a forced tattoo, maybe there's a big
chasm between those two and maybe they're not that far away. It sort of depends on the
justification and the exercise and the reason for the exercise
of the state's police power. - Yeah, I don't see you in here. So you're gonna have to stay in prison. - Could you check again, 'cause I was definitely in prison, okay. I got sat on my face and everything. Maybe check those files back there. (upbeat music) - [Automated Voice]
Escape, escape, escape. (automatic gunfire)
(alarm sounding) - Okay, so the question here is can you use deadly force against a convict who
is attempting to escape? And the answer generally is yes. States like Florida give
officers the legal right to use any force that they
believe reasonably necessary to prevent the escape
of an arrested person. And not a single state requires the use of deadly
force as a last resort. Now the American Bar
Association has urged states to allow deadly force only when necessary to prevent an escape by a prisoner when the person is about
to leave the enclosed area without authorization, and the ABA also recommends that the officers shout a verbal warning before attempting to
shoot or use deadly force. But generally that's not required. - Oh yeah. - Hey stop, you're gonna get us caught. - [Automated Voice] Warning. Warning. Costco has detected a dangerous fugitive in aisle 16,702, - Okay, so the question here is can the state conduct basically warrant-less
surveillance of of everyone? While that is certainly a
constitutional controversy, under section 702 of FISA, that does allow the NSA to collect billions of
electronic communications, including those of Americans, and to use those communications
in a criminal investigation all without a warrant. And it seems that that authorization is alive and well in
the world of "Idiocracy" because that's how Joe has been caught. Is it a slippery slope? Will we continue down the path towards unauthorized or warrant-less surveillance? Will we ever roll that back? I guess we'll find out. Fun. - Look, if you guys are
taking me back to that jail just go ahead and shoot me, 'cause there's no way, ow (bleep)! Ow (groaning) ow. - What? - [Joe] Ow, (groaning) ow! - [Officer] What? - [Joe] Ow! - It's so unconstitutional, but at the same time,
it's really, really funny. So we've already talked about it being improper to mace someone who is under police custody who's not really posting any threatened and fighting back. And repeated macings would
similarly be unconstitutional, though there's a big issue in this country of not being able to get compensation from police officers who are going outside of the
constitutional bounds. In theory at least the way
that you would get compensation as someone who was a
victim of police brutality is you would file a section
1983 claim under federal law against the police department. But there are all kinds of reasons, including qualified immunity, as to why those police officers can often escape any kind of responsibility. So it certainly seems like the doctrine of qualified
immunity is alive and well in the "Idiocracy" world because I doubt these police officers are going to face any kind of liability for the repeated macing of their captive. - [Narrator] The results of Joe's IQ test had caught the attention of the highest levels of government. - [Joe] Hey, wait a minute. I'm the smartest guy in the world? Says who? - The IQ test you took in prison. You got the highest score in history. Brought to you by Carl's Jr. - Yeah, dumb ass, you're even smarter
than president Comacho. That's how come he's making
you secretary of interior. - Okay, so who are you? - I'm the secretary of energy. - He won a contest, got
to be a cabinet member. - What, a wildly
unqualified cabinet member in the White House? (upbeat music) That would never happen! - I'm the secretary of state. Brought to you by Carl's Jr. - Why do you keep saying that? - 'Cause they pay me every time I do. It's a really good way to make money. You so smart, why don't you know that? (guys giggling) - Corporate influence of
a member of the cabinet in the White House? That would never happen. - And that's secretary of education. - It's kind of stupid. - Well, he's President
Camacho's stepbrother. Still does a pretty good job. - Straight up nepotism
amongst the advisors to the president? - I can say that in the White House I worked with some phenomenal people. - That would never happen. - [Narrator] Dwayne Elizondo Camacho. Five time Ultimate Smack Down
champion, porn superstar, and president of the United States, had called a special summit-- - A president who used to be
on professional wrestling. - [Announcer] And look at this? Donald Trump, Donald Trump! - [Announcer 2] Donald Trump
taking down Vince McMahon! - A president who has sex with porn stars. - I laid there and prayed for death. - Is this a documentary? - Did this movie predict the future? What am I seeing right now? - [Narrator] President
Comacho stood before the world and promised everyone that Joe would solve all their problems. He would not only end the dust
bowl and heal the economy, but he would cure acne
and car sickness as well. - (laughing) A president who
doesn't know what they're doing and makes vague promises that
they can't possibly deliver? ♪ I give you my word ♪ - That would never happen. (chuckling) - [Announcer] Fox News! - He tried taking water from toilets. But it's secretary Not Sure who finds himself in the toilet now. And as history pulls down its pants and prepares to lower its
ass on Not Sure's his head it will be daddy justice who will be crapping on him this time. - We now go live to violence channel
correspondent Formica Davis at the Extreme Court with highlights. - I mean, this is completely unrealistic because Fox News appears to
actually be reporting the news. That doesn't seem realistic at all. - Thank you, Velveeta. Well it started off boring and slow with Not Sure trying
to bull(bleep) everyone with a bunch of smart talk. "Blah, blah, you got to believe me." That part of the trial sucked. - The Supreme Court does not do trials. Though interestingly this Supreme Court still does
not allow cameras inside. So it would have to be
an artist's "dupicshun". It would have to be an artist depiction to portray what's going on. - [Formica] But then the
Chief J just went off. He said, "Man, whatever--" - I mean, that's kind of awesome. You have to admit. - [Formica] "The guy's guilty as (bleep). "We all know that." And he sentenced his ass to
one night of rehabilitation. - I don't even know anymore. (orchestral music) - This guy just got his ass a pardon. (crowd cheering) - Yeah, so it used to be back in the day that if you wanted to pardon someone there was an entire
department at the White House that was responsible
for reviewing the file and making sure only people
who deserved the pardons would receive them if
they made the request. Though in recent days, it appears that a certain US president has completely circumvented
that process entirely and just decided to
pardon whoever they want. So this actually
surprisingly not farfetched. - [Narrator] And so after serving a short term as vice president, Joe was elected the president of America. - A former vice president who was elected to become
president of the United States? Hasn't happened yet but
maybe someday it will. (polka music) Okay, now it's time to give "Idiocracy" a grade for legal realism. (gavel banging) This 2006 movie posits a world where lawyers have corporate sponsorships, where the police are going around indiscriminately macing
and pepper spraying people who aren't resisting arrest. It posits a White House
that has filled the advisors with people who are wildly unqualified who got the job through sheer nepotism, a president who used to be
on professional wrestling and had sex with porn stars and who cares more
about his personal image than actually running the country. So obviously this movie is
completely unrealistic for 2006. For 2020 I give it an a plus. (automatic gunfire) - That's what I thought! - Now we may be devolving
into an idiocracy but there's still one place where you can get smart,
thoughtful content. It's called Nebula and it's where I put an
extended cut of this video ad-free with bloopers. And I put in some extra reactions about undercover cops and
the army getting friendly with a character names Upgrayedd. We're dealing with an army officer for absolutely no reason whatsoever getting the consent of
a criminal pimp here. But that's a phrase I never
thought I'd be saying. Because sometimes even legal
issues are too hot for YouTube because YouTube's algorithm
can be really capricious. Which is why my creator friends and I teamed up to build our own platform where creators don't need to
worry about demonetization or the dreaded algorithm. It's called Nebula and we're thrilled to be
partnering with CuriosityStream. Nebula is a place where creators can do what they do best, create. It's a place where we both
house our content ad-free and also experiment with
original content and new series that probably wouldn't work on YouTube. In fact, if you liked this video then you'll love what's on Nebula because not only are my videos ad-free, but for almost all the
videos I put up on Nebula they have an extended
discussion or bloopers or some extra content. And they also release early
before the YouTube version does. Nebula features lots of YouTube's top educationalist creators like Lindsay Ellis, Thomas Frank, and Charl the Coconut the coconut with his sidekick Patrick Willems. We also get to collaborate in ways that wouldn't work on YouTube, like Tom Scott's amazing game show "Money" where he puts a bunch of famous
YouTubers against each other in psychological experiments where they can work together
or profit individually. It is ridiculously good. So what does this have to
do with CuriosityStream? Well, as the go to source for the best documentaries on the internet they love educational content
and educational creators. And we worked out a deal where if you sign up for CuriosityStream with the link in the description you'll also get a Nebula
subscription for free. And to be clear that Nebula
subscription is not a trial. It's free for as long as you're
a CuriosityStream member. And for a limited time
CuriosityStream is offering 26% off of all of their annual plans. That's less than $15 per year for both CuriosityStream and Nebula. And because I'm a lawyer I made sure that 26% off is by contract the best deal you'll find anywhere. And since we've got to stay inside anyway we might as well watch CuriosityStream's awesome documentaries or just watch Tom Scott torture your favorite YouTubers on Nebula. So if you click on the
link in the description you'll get both CuriosityStream
and Nebula for 26% off. Or you can go to
CuriosityStream.com/LegalEagle. It's a great way to support this channel and educational content directly
for just $14.79 per year. So just click on the
link in the description or go to CuriosityStream.com/LegalEagle. Plus clicking on that link
really helps out this channel. So do you agree with my
grade for "Idiocracy"? Did it really predict the future? Really kind of seems like it. Leave your objections in the comments and check out this playlist over here with all of my other reactions, including my reaction to "My
Cousin, Vinny" and "Suits" and all the other legal
procedurals out there. So click on this playlist
and I'll see you in court.
I watched to the end and he said “A former Vice President that gets elected to the office of President? It hasn’t happened yet, but maybe someday it will.”
Wut???? In my lifetime there was George H.W. Bush, and a quick Google results in 3 others. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Martin Van Buren.
I enjoyed this up until that moment.
30 seconds in I got too annoyed by him