Plumbing the Death Star - Which Villain Could You Represent (and win) in Court?

Episode Date: February 19, 2023

It’s time to lawyer up as the boys put on their cheapest suits and form the shoddiest of arguments to defend some of the worst criminals known to man. Zammit asks the court if Smurfs are basically chickens and just how wrong eating said chickens is, JD queries if doing nothing is a crime even though the crime his clients are accused of is doing nothing and Jackson brings forth the wild allegation that if the Big Wheel was not named Jackson Wheel he would never have made a Big Wheel to terrorize the city of New York. There’s nothing but contempt of court as surprise witnesses are called to the stand as the defendants all hope for a mistrial. Buy our terrible merch here and check out the Bad Brain Boys on Apple Podcasts at apple.co/badbrainboys. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ahem. Ahem. You're listening to the Sandspence Network. Hey everyone and welcome to this week's episode of Plumbing the Death Star. I'm Joel. I'm Jackson. And I'm also Joel. And this is a podcast where we ask the important questions like, which villain could you represent and win in court? Not weird.

I worded that weird. But you get the idea. You know what the episode's going to be about. You're across it. Look, a lot of villains out there. Yeah. And I think the easiest villain that I could easily represent in court and win and convince a jury. Yeah.

A jury of its peers. Of their peers, yeah. That they did actually nothing wrong. Okay. Gargamel. Oh, the Smurf eater. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Is it so wrong to eat a chicken?

Some people say yes. If I were to present to you a delicious chicken sandwich and say you love chicken, would you eat said chicken sandwich? Yes, I would eat the chicken sandwich, of course. I love chicken sandwiches. Exactly. Now, say I am a farmer of chickens and I raised these chickens. I farm these chickens to be made for slaughter to eat. And look, maybe, and we all know about farm, like factory farming is bad.

You want a lot of hectares for your chickens. Okay, yeah. And so instead, as a good farmer, I'm like, well, you know what? I have wild chickens, and they can run wild. I still keep control. My wild chickens will roam free. Free range chickens. If I then went into

the woods and got those chickens, slaughtered them, cut them up, and fed them to the am I evil? Wait, are they your chickens? Or are you... They're loose chickens, let's say. No, no, no.

Why? Is this your opening statement? What do you mean? Wait. Hang on. Sorry. Objection. What?

Okay, okay. How about? How about? Okay, maybe. Okay. No, no, no, no. Let's not move past the chicken thing. No, no, no.

I'm saying the chicken thing. I'm saying the chicken thing. No, no, no. You're right. Because you're like, wait, is it your... Let's say I have an acre. Yeah. And say I then just start giving pens. Because you're like, wait, is it your own? Let's say I have an acre and say I then just, I don't think even pens.

I let the chickens roam free. Are they your chickens? That's the only question. Objection. They are not the client's chickens. So, you'll say, They're loose chickens. Okay.

Objection. I'm representing the Smurfs. Yeah. Objection. The Smurfs are people. They're not people. They are Smurfs. Yeah, but even if,

hang on. Okay, say you're a hunter. Yeah. Say you go into the woods. Okay, say you're a hunter. Yeah. Say you go into the woods. Do you have a hunting license? Do we need a hunting license where we currently are? Well, I mean... Is Gargamel...

Within Gargamel, where there is magic and wizards, do we need a hunting license? I'm pretty sure, and because I am in Australia, it's tricky, but I'm pretty sure you do need a hunting license for everything. Objection. I don't know if you need a license to hunt people for sport.

You're right, the most dangerous game, yeah, no license is required. Hypothetically, Gargamel does have a license to hunt in those woods. Okay. What crime is he on trial for? The killing of Smurfs. Or the attempted killing of Smurfs, because I guess he's never

killed a Smurf. So I guess Gar of Smurfs. Or the attempted killing of Smurfs, because I guess he's never killed a Smurf. So I guess Gargamel's on trial for the attempted murder. So is it wrong to go to the woods near your house? Maybe you own those woods. I don't know. He has a big castle. Maybe he has a lot of land. I don't know who owns those woods.

I don't know if Papa Smurf has ever shown any deeds for said woods. No. Papa Smurf ever shown any deeds for said woods? No. In fact, I believe that my client owns these woods and that these disgusting mouse-like rodents. I'm sorry saying that to you, Papa Smurf. That's fucking rude, dude. I'm so sorry saying that to you.

These mythical creatures who just popped up overnight causing nothing but hassle. creatures who just popped up overnight causing nothing but hassle. If you had some kind of like, say, infestation of termites, and then you got an exterminator

in to get rid of those termites. Could the feds prove that the smurfs are like termites? Well, in what way? Well, they came into my client's backyard and they just won't leave. They're causing a nuisance. They're kind of doing all kinds of property issues.

I'd say yes. And he simply wants to go and exterminate. Sorry, objection, Gargamel. You often are trying to find their village and kidnap them. It's a very large forest. If I go into someone's house and shoot their dog, and that's a dog. Not even that. If I go into someone's house and shoot them.

Sorry, they were on my property. Those are loose people. Sorry, I was in their house because they were on my property. I didn't realize that the Smurfs were humans. I didn't realize that the Smurfs had human rights I didn't realize that the Smurfs had human rights. The Smurfs clearly display sentience. Do they? Or is that just something that they do?

How do you know that they are responding to your questions? Or if that's just a natural... They hired a lawyer. Or if that's a natural ability of these animals. It's like a dog accidentally hired. Just by its unwitting behavior. Hello, yes, I'd like to hire a lawyer for attempted murder.

Thank you. Get off the phone, dog! Woof, woof, woof, woof. That's better. His barks just sounded like that for a bit. Let's say, yeah, so if Gargamel owns those forests and there's also like a... He doesn't. We're going to need to take a brief recess. Let's say, yeah, so if Gargamel owns those forests. But he doesn't.

We're going to need to take a brief recess. But we don't know who owns those. They're probably the king's forests. They're not Gargamel's. He lives in a shack with his cat. Which he abuses frequently. I think you're going to need to change your pitch. I think this is now an attempted murder case.

Can you murder a chicken? Nobody can abuse a chicken. The Smurfs aren't chickens. But even if this lawyer wants to roll in and be like, they're animals, animal abuse is a crime. What abuse has Gargamel done to these Smurfs? He has provided... Threatened them. Picked them up. You can yell at a threatened them, picked them up, helped them captive,

put them in cages. You can yell at a dog, but not too much. You can yell at a chicken being like, I'm going to kill you and eat you. It's not a crime. It's not a crime to threaten a chicken. Is it a crime to threaten a chicken, your honor? What if you made a fake chicken so it could seduce

real chickens so then you could kill a chicken? What is the difference between a fake chicken, using a fake chicken to seduce the real chicken, and using a bird call to attract the birds to come to me when I have a gun? Yeah, but that, again... Yes? What is the difference, your honor?

Your presupposition is that the Smurfs are chickens. Yes. They're wearing fucking pants. You can put a chicken in pants. They made the pants themselves. If you gave a monkey a needle and thread, they could sew themselves a lovely pair of shorts. No, a monkey would actually use it as a weapon.

I'd like to call a witness to the stands. A monkey. And I'd like to give it a needle and thread and some fabric. And let's see how long it takes this monkey to make pants. I have gone to a park and I have seen a bear wear a tie and a hat. Did the bear put the tie and the hat on itself? It is unknown, but it kept swiping picnic baskets. We like to call surprise witness Yogi Bear, you understand?

If I am but a humble bear, then clearly these smurfs are also people. And could someone lead me to the picnic baskets? If you are a humble bear, how are they people if you're a bear? Don't shoot me. I should not be hunted for sport. Yeah, well, I guess I would. Oh, boo-boo. I don't know.

Yogi Bear is in his mind. No, Boo-Boo's Yogi Bear's partner. Why are we talking? Was he in the crowd? Yeah, he was in the crowd. And Boo-Boo, so Yogi is saying that if he is a bear. Boo-Boo's even smarter than Yogo is. Yogo?

Yogo. We're talking Yogo Gorilla? Is Yogo Gorilla taking the stand? Did you say Booboo is even smarter than Yogo is? I don't know. You're going to have to play back the tape, man. Booboo is smarter than Yogi, and Yogi is smarter than the average bear, which is the Yogi...

I'm starting the Yogi Bear defense. Yogi Bear talks. Yogi Bear. I'm saying the Yogi Bear defense. Yeah. So are you saying that Yogi Bear is human? Smarter than the average bear. Yes. So therefore, he's an animal, but surely in this world would have more rights. If you killed, would it be a crime to kill Yogi Bear? Would it be a crime, Your Honor? Yes, he's in a nature reserve.

I believe it would be. But under what, why? Well, he's in a nature reserve. Isn't the park ranger always trying to shoot himogi Bear. I believe it would be. But under what? Why? Well, he's in a nature reserve. Isn't the park ranger always trying to shoot him? No. I think he's just annoyed that Yogi Bear keeps stealing the picnic baskets. The people versus Yogi Bear will be happening later this day. Oh, no.

For batty fever. Yogi Bear's going down. So if Yogi Bear does what bears do and attacks some people, and you were to shoot Yogi Bear, is that a crime? That would be self-defense if Yogi Bear were to attack you. The Harambe case. It would be the Harambe defense. If you had an infestation of Smurfs that was digging up all your root vegetables. Mr. Zammett, could you please show evidence that the Smurfs have in any way negatively impacted your client?

Well, he loves to go foraging in the woods, and they have destroyed all the mushrooms that he uses for his ingredients and all the potions that he uses for his livelihood. So they have basically ruined a whole forest worth of ingredients that my client uses to have a living. Well, I think we need to establish some... We want reparations. I think we need to establish first whether or not the Smurfs are an animal

or they are a sentient creature. To do that, Mr. Zamit, I would like you to define sentience. As the person. Sapience. Excuse me. Like a monkey. Sapien comes from the word... Sapien comes from the Latin word sapien.

Sapien being from the Latin word sapien. Sapien being funky. God knows the background. Being like, lawyer, what are you doing? Mr. Savage, what are you doing? To be honest, I don't know how I would want to find sapiens. Would you like a brief recess? Let me quickly grab my phone. What else is Mr. Savage taking his break.

Mr. Doofus, would you like to do? Okay, never mind. I'll go fuck myself. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, Sapien. Okay, so it's wise or attempting to appear wise and intelligent or relating to the human species. Now, are you proposing that these blue fuckos over there are related? Objection language.

Don't call the clients fuckos. These blue things. The disdain for my clients is palpable in this courtroom. These tasty morsels. Are you telling me that these are related to humans in some way? I would say. What creatures of God's given earth have given sapiens? Us and that's it, correct?

A field of religion for some reason. We were given domain of every living thing. Damn it! Liar! Okay, fine. For argument's sake, let's assume that the Smurfs are an animal. Also, I do have a bit of a

follow-up on Yogi Bear. Ranger Smith just keeps threatening to send him to the zoo. Okay, that is also a problem. That's an issue for another court case. Okay, so let's assume they're animals. Yes. All right, I don't think that's the case, but that seems to be what your argument's predicated on.

Yeah, okay, so they're animals, and now that brings us to the loose chicken appeal, which was, yeah, but that's someone else's property. Well, they're not property. They're a wild animal. Can you own a raccoon, sir? No, but- Can you own a wild turkey? No, you cannot.

You can own a wild turkey. You can't own a wild turkey. You can own the land a wild turkey is on. Yeah, I'm getting impartial as the judge of this one. I gotta get impartial. So you're saying that Gargamel is off scot-free for all these heinous

allegations that these whatever have thrown at him. Only if we can prove that Gargamel owns that land. Well, no, I suppose if we are agreeing that the Smurfs are chickens, we're going to throw out this court case. Because a chicken can't be defended in court. He can't defend

a chicken in court. I suppose I'm calling a mistrial on this one. Because accidentally somehow chickens have hired a lawyer for a court case. So I suppose this is a mistrial. So it's a mistrial and Gargamel is innocent. That's great. We're going to sue these chickens. Well, you can't do that either.

Well, we're going to eat them. I don't know if you could do that either. Why not? Well, I guess you can just eat a loose chicken. I suppose nothing's stopping that from happening. If I was to see a loose chicken roaming the woods and I was feeling peckish, could I not eat said chicken? I suppose in that situation, if the woods were not a national park.

Correct. They're not a national park. If the woods did not belong to anyone, they weren't private property. Not private property. They would be government land. Uh-huh. I don't know the law on that. Say that they, because can you go hunting in the woods?

You probably would still need a hunting license, but assuming Gargamel has a hunting license. Okay, so basically it's like, what's the fine for hunting in the woods? You probably would still need a hunting license, but assuming Gargamel has a hunting license. Okay, so basically it's like, what's the fine for hunting without a license? Yeah, that's probably- Also, I got confirmation that Gargamel does not live, like, does not own the land that the Smurfs are on. Uh-huh, uh-huh.

So he would need a hunting license. Uh, yeah. The king? Uh, it might- So he just needs basically a hunting license from said king, and then we're sweet. So we're getting off with, what, a $50 fine? Well, I imagine there'll be a $50 fine,

then a later court case to prove the Smurfs are sapient beings. And then we'll come back to this. To be honest, look, I can happily pay that fine. If you just give me one of those Smurfs, I can turn it into gold. I think that will happily pay for any fine. I think we need to take the Smurfs into custody for the moment until we figure out what the fuck the Smurfs are. Then we have another trial once we've established that

and then when that's figured out. Well, you cannot have a trial to establish if they are human or not or sapient or not. Well, that's for a scientist to decide. And then charge my client because what you're doing there is after the fact. You will receive. If you are now giving this, if you're proving that these Smurfs are going to be sapient- This is my least favorite day in court.

From this day forward, then you cannot charge my client with crimes that happened before they were given sapience. You will receive a refund if it turns out the Smurfs are guys. Your client will. This has got nothing to do with you. So if they are proven to be guys, you will receive a refund, but we will be back in this courtroom

because then your client will be suddenly charged with attempted murder of same-sex beings. I think that should be thrown out because what you're doing is you're making a law. Contempt of court. Yes, there is a contempt of court here because what you're doing is you're making a law. Contempt of court. Yes, there is a contempt of court here. Because what you're doing

is there is what you think is a crime, but because you can't prove it, then you're moving the goalposts. Sir, I am just a judge. I'm here to uphold the law. Well, the law currently is that those Smurfs are null. There's no jurisdiction about said Smurfs. There's no judgment on those Smurfs are null. There's no jurisdiction about said Smurfs. There's no judgment on those Smurfs. So you cannot prosecute my client for what happened in the future. Your client will not be fined.

Thank you. But once the Smurf sentience is defined. And if the Smurfs are proven to be sentient, and then if my client then chooses to hunt them for food or for gold, as in to turn them not because of or for money, then yes, he will have committed a crime. But until anything before that day, not a crime. Well said. That's how the laws work.

Well, this is what we're agreeing with. I don't think there's precedent for this. I'm going to be honest with you. I don't think this has ever happened before in a courtroom. There would be precedent to be this. There would be, say, for example, let's say a car that's abandoned or whatever, and say someone graffitied said car, and you're like, oh, I'm going to charge this person for graffitiing a car or whatever it is.

And you're like, well, who owns that car? And I'm like, well, no one currently, but if I buy it tomorrow, then I'm going to charge you for damaging my possession. But it wasn't your possession at the time.

So these creatures were not sapient at the time of the alleged crimes. But we would be... Yes, but you cannot retroactively imply that they were. But that's different because we would be establishing that they'd been sapient the whole time. Well, you're retroactively imply that they were. But that's different because we would be establishing

that they'd been sapient the whole time. Well, you're retroactively then implying, and then there is no laws currently about not murdering Smurfs. I've said contempt for court for this guy already, and he just doesn't listen. Smurfs have a king. Which means that if there's a king of Smurf... Gargamel, you're on your own.

Gargamel, what? You're king. I don't know what I just said. Maybe the Smurfs do own the woods. Maybe. Oh, fuck. But then also, if there's a king, there's a chance, I mean, knowing the Hanna-Barbera world, that they're part of the political makeup. So therefore, maybe you've declared war?

Maybe the attacking of Smurfs is a war crime now, and we need to take this to a higher court? Yeah, maybe. I didn't realize that they had a king. Gagmo, you just said they were chickens. I think also if they've got a king, that's pretty fairly establishing. But bees have a queen. Okay, fair enough. We're back to the chicken defense.

Aren't you on the Smurf side? Yes. You're flip-flopping. Well, it also depends. The crimes happen under Smurf kingdom territory Or they happen under human Queen Bee we named as people The King Smurf is a King Smurf

Due to the Jew process in the Smurf village Also my client made a Smurf I don't see how that has any bearing That's another situation How can you say All these heinous things when he's providing Smurfette to these lonely creatures Well we he's providing Smurfette to these lonely creatures? Well, would we like to get Smurfette to the stand?

Ooh. Ew, don't do that. Gargamel made me to honeypot the Smurf village, but it didn't work. Also, I've been pretty fucked up. Everybody's been saying I'm not sapient, but I'm right here. And then also Smurf magic made me good. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

Kill him. Gargamel also had to make me sapient so I could properly honeypot the Smurfs. It's basically, Kat is a computer sapient. I programmed her. I'm sorry, my client programmed her. Are you? Gargamel. I programmed her. I'm sorry, my client programmed her. Are you? Gargamel.

I programmed her. You've fallen into Gargamel's spell. Because that's artificial intelligence. Yeah. Well, this is magic intelligence.

But she's an artificial, so it's magic intelligence. So what's the difference between artificial intelligence and magic intelligence? Well, you have to make her sapient enough to trick

the other sapient smurfs. Well, this is just the curing test for magic, right? For magic AI. She's not real. She's got a soul. Well, yeah, for this one. The other Smurfs.

How do you not know that they... If I could create this, how... If Gargamel could create this, how do you not know that another wizard made these? Are you saying your client made the other Smurfs? I'm saying if Gargamel can make Smurfette, why does it say that another wizard didn't make these Smurfs? Is that what you're claiming?

Where did they come from? Are you claiming these other Smurfs were made by a wizard? Where did they come from is all I'm saying. Do they have actual natural sapience or are they all magically sapient? Smurf's got to be fuming right now, dude. Have you met the King Smurf? No, I haven't. My lawyer, the Smurf's lawyer, as I'm sure.

Papa Smurf's probably sharpening a knife now. Give me one of those tragic cases of walking out of a court case and getting shot in the back or stabbed in the back. Absolutely, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Killing the lawyer. Yeah. Gargamel still alive, so I guess it's got to go for scoffery. And I guess I ended in a mistrial, so I'm going to take it.

Yeah, I guess a mistrial is sort of a win. I guess, yeah, that's what you'd be kind of pushing for because, again, there is no laws about if they are people or not and if they do decide that they are people, then the crimes happened before that. But will Gargamel stop? That's not for me to decide, your honor. You'll be back in court.

You'll be back in court for sure. Way bigger charge. Yeah, then it's going to be hard because we've already proven that they are people. That's true. But if they're in court... If they're in court, it's been proven anyway, otherwise they wouldn't be in court.

If you were to be like, you know, chickens of people, and then they suddenly... No, no, no. It would be like if chickens hired a lawyer, and then took their ingams to court, then we're like, well, first off, we speaking. And then took the Ingham's to court. Then we're like, well, first off, we were acting that chickens weren't people for the longest time.

And this is the first we've heard of this. That's a different argument. Now you're arguing Gargamel didn't know. I just thought Gargamel didn't know. Gargamel just thought they were like chickens that had houses and cars. Yeah, and that I had full-on conversations with. Does a bird not make a nest? Does a bird not squawk at a bird?

Are they not talking? A bird doesn't have a chair. A bird can sit down. A bird doesn't say, hey, buddy, what are you doing? How are you doing? I'm a smart bird. This is brawny bird. I've got some birds that I've witnessed that will speak.

I'm Papa Bird. How are you doing? Yeah. Yeah, you can't hold a conversation with a bird. I can hold a conversation with certain birds. Bring in a bird. Okay. Bring a bird into the courtroom, Dan.

In fact, I can hold a conversation with a bear who was on this stand this very day. Yeah, Yogi Bear's raising his hand. I'm, I would say. Enough out of you, Yogi. I would say I'm a sapient too, hey? Shooting me would be a crime. I got a little tie and a hat on. My good friend Boo Boo.

He wears a little bow tie. I think really, Your Honor, what we're really finding here in this wonderful world of Hanna-Barbera, in this realm of Hanna-Barbera, is that we genuinely don't know when sapience begins and when it ends. Because we don't know where is is yogi bear sapient uh what about snagglepuss snagglepuss is he just loves crime we honestly don't know a lot about these things and and you might have your own hunch but nothing has been proven in a court of law there has been no laws to establish that these people are or these things are actually people.

So in doing that, my client acted as someone who looked at a situation and was thinking that there is nothing but pests that are ruining where he sources his ingredients for the potions and lotions that he makes for his income. and lotions that he makes for his income. He saw a problem and he looked at this and he figured that the best way was to either A, use these things as part of his own potions and lotions or to try and get rid of them out of the place where he would be harvesting mushrooms and other certain things. He didn't understand or realize that these are, and like many people in this court, we don't realize or understand if these people, all these things are actually people. Nothing has been established. So, no, how can you break the law if you don't even know the law you're breaking?

Hi. Yes. Reminder that this is your defense case. I don't know why you're on the offense. And as stated multiple times in that closing argument, a lot of constant lies. Prove them. Prove them. We did. Get down. A lot of constant lies. Prove them! Prove them! Get down! Sit down! It's his closing statement!

This courtroom is so chaotic. Sir, we did multiple times. What you just said went back on claims you yourself made. It sounded like you weren't even really thinking while you were talking. That sounds a bit wrong.

I don't even think I need to say anything. I think the fact that the Smurfs are here clearly have been like, hey, Gargamel attacked us, and now your closing claim is, yeah, he attacked you, but it's because he needed mushrooms. And he didn't know you were mushrooms. Your closing statement's done. It's his.

So yeah, I think that Gargamel is 25 to life, as made. As your client wishes. Yeah So yeah, I think that Gargamel is 25 to life. As your client wishes. You need to establish those laws. Okay, well, I think obviously we can't decide. I think, let us know. Because you've got to act as the jury. Listen as you're the jury. Is Gargamel

getting hanged from his scrawny little neck? Is Gargamel getting hanged for the crimes of eating said Smurfs? Or... Attempted murder. Attempted murder. Or is he getting off scot-free as Mistral

because they haven't been identified as sapient yet? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I would almost be certain that they have. Absolutely. I think I said, let's assume they're chickens

for sake of argument. And that was... You were like, great, they're chickens. I think that Gargamel or the Smurfs in that situation should have hired Harvey Birdman. Yeah, I agree. Harvey Birdman should be doing all these coins. 100%.

He's busy. Dead under a bus. None of us are lawyers, so yeah. Well, so basically the clients that I think I could represent, I think I could do this with ease because, look, they haven't done any murders. Okay. They haven't done anything. They haven't tried to wipe out an entire village, which, and I guess an entire species, which, again, just a reminder, would be genocide.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That is a war crime. I should have been in a bigger court. The military courts were busy that day. Instead, Your Honor, my clients, this is my introduction speech, just simply existed. I'm here to defend the cast of Seinfeld. Jerry, Kramer, Elaine, and George. Omar said Julie.

Okay, and what crime are they being defended of? So, at the end of Se of seinfeld they go to prison for the crime uh well for breaking the good samaritan yes sure sure sure the crime of indifference i think they also say okay which frankly yeah should not be against the law okay so you're here to argue that the crime itself is uh is not i'm saying that personally i disagree with the crime but I also think they're innocent. We have footage of them filming the person in distress and them doing literally nothing and maybe kind of mocking what was happening to that individual.

Are you familiar with the YouTube era? Prank videos are all the rage. Are you arguing that your clients were doing a prank video? Are you arguing that the person that was getting assaulted was doing a prank? I'm arguing that it was easily misconstrued by my clients. They thought they were in a Mr. Beast video. They thought they were in a Mr. Beast video. They thought they were witnessing something truly viral.

Okay. Okay. And when the police intervened? Well, the police... I guess at that point it's too late. Stay out of the way. If the police are intervening, it's no longer their place. That would be obstruction of justice, Your Honor.

Okay. Well, your clients still committed the act. Of what? Doing nothing. Whether or not... Doing nothing a crime. Well, when the Good Samaritan Law Is in place Whether or not your clients thought they were in a Mr. Beast video

Who let the record show was not born For another 10 odd years They still committed the crime They didn't If you don't know it's a law Surely you could get off. When was the Good Samaritan Law introduced? It's actually not called the Good Samaritan Law.

It's called like the Judean something. Yeah, okay. Because if you will, Your Honor will remember that the cast of Seinfeld, they were out of towners. They didn't know about this particular law. And where they're from, you know, another state in America, this law is not part of their culture. Sure, sure. They're filthy New Yorkers.

New Yorkers. New Yorkers. Where they constantly have to navigate terrible New York streets, people offering them real New York-style pizza. Taxis. And Rockefeller Plaza. These are the things I know about New York, Your Honor. While our lawyer looks up some of the stuff that the Seinfeld members went through.

As your lawyer looks up the law, it's so funny for you to be like, quick recess, I'll just go to your phone. So as you can see, they are used to potentially, I mean, are we really going to sit here and try and take the population of New York to court because they probably

wouldn't help these people out? The population of New York is not on trial. The people who are on trial are Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer, not Julie, as you nearly said. Yes, but as almost Julie is and the rest, they are New Yorkers. And really, are you blaming them for their New York upbringing? Your Honor, when you're adding the New York upbringing

with obviously the general, I'm assuming, despicable rudeness of every New Yorker that comes through this small town in Massachusetts. Terrible, terrible people. Do you really want to fill an overpopulated prison with more New Yorkers for a crime that they didn't even know was against the law? And I would say, in fact, by definition was a victimless crime. They did nothing. They literally did nothing. That's not a victimless crime. They did nothing. They literally did nothing. That's not how a victim was. They did nothing.

The events, if they were not there, play out exactly the same. But there was still a victim to the crime. Victimless crime. And while. There was a victim to the assault. Yeah, while the police were arresting our clients. Well, who was going after the actual assailant? Well, that was taken care of.

Okay, that's good to hear. It's good to hear. Yeah, it is good to hear. They filmed it, right? Yeah, we have the footage on camera. The crime took place. Well, you are arguing for... Did our clients film this?

Yes. Kramer filmed it. So isn't that good? Osmo Kramer has filmed the crime. In fact, I would argue that their clients, they weren't doing nothing. They were doing something very helpful. They were filming it so that your police can do your job.

In the video, they're very obviously just making fun of what's happening and just filming it as a laugh. Is that a crime to make fun? That is a crime where you are acting against the Good Samaritan. Yes, that is a laugh. Is that a crime to make fun? That is a crime where you are acting against the Good Samaritan. Yes, that is a crime. Correct. That is just their regular New York...

So you're claiming cultural ignorance. Yes. And also, again, they're filming it, which is giving an evidence to a far more serious crime. So you're imagining that because of... We don't know what... Say out the client's... Objection, Your Honor. We don't know what- Say our clients- Objection, Your Honor.

I don't imagine anything. These are all facts. Cutting off the judge. I don't know how I feel about that. Imagine our clients intervened. They didn't. Imagine if they did, though. What would have happened if-

They might have stopped the assault. But what would the assailant then maybe have attacked our clients? Well, it would have been five on one, so I think it's probably unlikely. Oh, so you think that justice is in form of numbers. So the numbers are correct. So five people versus one is a correct sentence. No, I just think the reason we have the Good Samaritan law in place is so that we can help people who are being attacked.

So you like gang justice? Is that what you're saying? You're a big fan of street justice. Contempt of court. Contempt of court to the both of you. What are you doing? I'd like to sue the judge for... I'd like to fight the judge.

Fight the judge. Two on one. Apparently he thinks that's fair. Here's the problem. I've realized the problem. I've played judge in both of these and the level of respect you have for me is so much lower than the level of respect

you'd have for a judge. That's what's happened here. I see. And then to bring in eyewitnesses to parade all of these guest stars, Your Honor, it's all a bit showboaty and proves nothing about the actual incident that took place.

So you have a problem now with the way the case was handled? I have a problem with all of it, Your Honor. Yeah, but specifically just then you were bringing up the case. You didn't like the way Justice... How is that relevant to this case? They were trying to prove... Are you arguing mistrial for the previous case? I think what case?

It's the same case. Oh, I thought this was a separate case. I also thought this was separate. So you're doing the case from Seinfeld. I'm doing the case from Seinfeld. Okay, this is the Seinfeld case. We're in Seinfeld right now. All right.

Okay, I understand. Because I can't defend them if they're already in jail. No, that's very fair. It's the case of Seinfeld. We're in Seinfeld now. Okay. So you're arguing so that we should have a misjudge because all that's happening is they're trying to-

Well, we needed character witnesses. Yeah, but it's just an attack. Because character witnesses for what? The fact that they- Well, to prove that this is the kind of- Well, in fact, this is against your argument earlier where you said they were doing it, filming it to help out the court case, that they... Well, to prove that this is the kind of... Well, in fact, this is against your argument earlier where you said they were doing it, filming it to help out the court case,

that they were actually good people because as we've seen from all these character witnesses, no, they're not. We didn't say they were good people. We said they were filming it. And I said they're from New York and implied that that actually makes them bad people. But it's just cultural differences.

It's just cultural differences. What's rude in New York is rude in Massachusetts. I don't know if that holds up in court. The crime still occurred. If you stab somebody in the heart. Yeah. That's a very different case, Your Honor. Well, if you commit.

A violent crime versus simply the crime of standing on the side of the road. Simply the crime of existing. The crime is of not intervening, i.e. a crime we have. You looking at your watch? Yeah, not intervening, i.e. a crime we have. You're looking at your watch. Yeah, just seeing what lunch is. Yeah. Contempt of court. I'm contempt of court.

Yeah, you should throw this case out and then I give a thumbs up to Steinfeld. We did it. What is the law there that they break? Is it like anyone who witnesses a crime that's happening and doesn't do anything? I think if you're a bystander, you're meant to intervene. I think it's like breaking a duty of care, basically. Yeah, you have a duty of care to the other people around you if you see them in danger to help out and by not not only not helping out but actively mocking the person who is suffering one of the other clients jerry seinfeld

is a comedian sure and by filming this event he was helping out the only way he knew how through comedy okay making his friends. Making his friends and whoever was to then, are you familiar with the YouTube era, Your Honour? People watch these things and they find them very funny, engaging, they laugh, they have a good time. Look at Jerry Seinfeld. He is not a physically capable man of stopping an assailant. He does what he does best. He cuts through things with his words.

So are you arguing... Look at George. A loathed individual. What if they made a horrible turtle that was sick into a guy? What can this man do that is any kind of competent? So are you arguing that by filming it and making

fun of this man, that was them attempting of competent? So are you arguing that by filming it and making fun of this man, that was them attempting to intervene? Yes! That was them attempting to help in the best way that they can. I must point out earlier, this was not your argument. Correct. We're moving the goalposts. It is unusual for the lawyer to swap

argument halfway through, especially when your new argument is the complete opposite of your earlier argument. And also, Your Honour, are you familiar with why we have the duty of law, law? Please, enlighten us. I am not. It's to uphold the golden rule, which is to treat others in

how you want to be treated. Your Honour, Jerry, Elaine, Kramer and George would not mind being treated the way that they treated. In fact, would rebel Well way that they would, they treated. In fact, well, that might be their personal preference,

but that has no bearing on the law. This law is built around the fact it's built on the entire purpose of upholding to treat others. How you want to be treated. You're on a, that's exactly how I want my, my clients want to be treated. What's the deal with our lawyer?

He's no good up there. The lawyer. They changed the argument, Jerry. They changed the argument halfway through. You can't do that. Jerry, I'm going to jail for life, Jerry. Giddy up. So, yeah, if that is the law, it's to uphold the golden rule.

That might be the spirit of the law, sure. It's not the word of the law, but go on. No, that's the spirit of the law. It's what it's designed to do, to uphold the golden rule. The actual word of the law. So what is the wording of the law? Because that is entirely, a lot hangs on the wording of the law. Well, I would really hope that you as the lawyers would know

this. I'm just joking. I'm his assistant lawyer at this point, I think. I'm here to vamp for time while he looks at Lewis Moore up on his little Google machine. I mean, this whole courtroom is a fucking schmuzzle, because I'm also the opposition, apparently. I'm going to act as both judge and

executioner, but not jury. That's you, the listener. Yeah. Your Honor, as of 2009, there was only 10 states that have the Good Samaritan law. Okay. And in fact, if you're familiar with pretty much any, with most English speaking countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another. Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.

Okay. But in this case. But in this case, because the law was passed. The law does exist. And we're trying to find out what is the wording of said law? Was it just to come to the aid of? Or was it to treat others how you would like to be treated? No, it is to come to the aid of anybody who is that the function of the law is to treat others as you would want to be treated.

And they would love to be ridiculed. But the word of the law, I'm assuming, is that you must intervene on the behalf of anybody in danger, whether that's from an assault or a disaster or anything like that. Furthermore, the rescuers need not endanger themselves in conducting the rescue, Your Honor. If I am stopping a carjacking, Your Honor, am I not at risk of having my head caved in? Could be run over. We don't know the risk.

Could be run over. Could be attacked. He probably had a weapon. I forgot to review the footage. So you're arguing that your clients- Didn't actually break the law that everyone's claiming they broke. That if they'd intervened, they would have been killed. They would have been endangered.

Yes, endangered. Not necessarily killed. It's just if you stop- Can you prove that? Well, yeah. Yes, it's on footage. Can you prove that your client specifically would have been unable to- They would have specifically been endangered?

Well, have you ever heard of a little program called the Three Stooges? Now, if you have- Oh, no, he's doing the Three Stooges. Now, if you have... Oh, no, he's doing the Three Stooges defense. If you have a doorway and three people try to go through the doorway at the same time, what happens? They won't be able to. They'll be unable to go through the doorway. They get stuck. They might get squished.

One of them might pop out. They get in each other's way. Sure. Now, there is a situation where one person is trying to carjack another person. Is that right? The carjacker? Yes. One person trying to carjack another person, and you are accusing the four people.

I'm not accusing. I'm the judge. Sorry. The four people, our clients are being accused of doing nothing, yet there is four of them. If they all rushed over to help, who knows what could have happened? They might have panicked the attacker, which could have then accidentally put the accelerator on and then suddenly someone is run over. Maybe the car could have had a gun, could have opened fire.

Car jumps the curve. Suddenly we're endangering other pedestrians and we're endangering maybe buildings as well. So are you arguing that because your clients didn't want to get involved because they feared for their own lives, that the best course of action was to instead pull out the camera and start making fun of the man being gotcha? I would argue that the best course of action would be to pull out the camera so that there's evidence of the crime happening so that people could later identify that man. I would say, Your Honor, there's no rule about being mean with your friends. Your Honor, there's no rule about being mean with your friends. But this law, if you cannot physically intervene,

surely they could have gone to get a police officer. But the police were already there. They're on the scene. Well, they were doing what they were doing. They were recording the crime happening so that for the person that was committing the crime could then be charged and prosecuted. Whilst the commentary in said video may be cruel and unnecessarily, it could also be strewed as funny

and an icebreaker in a terrible situation. But they were trying to lighten the mood. They weren't trying to do anything, Your Honor. I just simply think that based on how the law was written, I believe that they definitely did things that definitely helped the case,

but I think they definitely did enough and with the way the law is written, should not be on trial at all. I think that whilst the Good Samaritan Law

may exist in this tiny town in Massachusetts, I do not believe they broke that. Okay. Thank you. We don't have anybody for a closing statement on the opposition. Correct. But we'll take that. Okay, thank you. We don't have anybody for a closing statement

on the opposition. Correct. But we'll take that. Thank you very much. As the opposition, sorry, first you said they didn't do anything, then you said they did do something. They have absolutely broken the law.

That's already been established. No, not necessarily. Now they're saying that they're not. We were saying they were wrong. Okay, look. The approach was simply, look, they did these two things. This could have helped. And even if it didn't help, they still did the bare minimum to not go to jail for this.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, well, we'll leave that to the jury to decide. Thank you, Mr. Dushill. I'm hearing a huge not guilty. That's right. I'm hearing a lot of mistrials in the last two cases. Well, I yelled contempt of court like three times, but it doesn't stick with you guys. A lot of mistrials happened.

I guess those are separate court cases. Alright, here's what I'm thinking. Who are you defending? Imagine your name is Jackson Wheel. That's what you're christened when you're born. Is it not inevitable that you were going

to make a gigantic wheel to terrorize Spider-Man and his friends across New York. Is this not predestined for a man named Jackson Wheel? Yes. Yes, defense lawyer? Yeah, so as you know, my name is defense lawyer Dusha. Surely a last name so, compares quite heavily to

Wheel. I have never done any doucher-related crimes. Yeah, he's never dressed up like a giant douche and tried to moisten Spider-Man. Whereas, I guess, your client Jackson Wheel Jackson Wheel, aka

Big Wheel, the Spider-Man villain. So you're saying if you you've heard the expression, you know, by any other name. So if he was called something else, like he would be very different? I think if he, well, and I can prove that. If he was named anything else, he would not have created a gigantic wheel to crush his enemies. How can you prove that? I can prove this because what, obviously, my client is on trial for today is the crime of embezzlement and then further petty crimes. This is because my client attempted to embezzle the company he worked for.

And to do so, he got the high-tech supervillain whose name is Rocket League, maybe? That is a video game. Whose name is Rocket Racer, excuse me, to do the embezzling for him. Unfortunately, my poor client already stressed from the embezzling for him. Unfortunately, my poor client, and my poor client already stressed from the embezzling he's doing, he instead, this Rocket Racer customer, he uses it to blackmail my client. He says, well, I'm going to blackmail you with the embezzling you're doing.

Yes, so he embezzles. So he's guilty. And then my client becomes so despondent, he considers killing himself. So tragic. And then Rocket Racer comes up and says, don't kill yourself. And then he cruelly nicknamed him Big Wheel because his name is Jackson Wheel. And then despondent, upset, he goes to the tinkerer and gets him to make what's that? A big wheel because he'd been just so cruelly nicknamed Big Wheel.

And it is then, under all of these circumstances, that he goes and terrorizes New York in a big wheel. Are you familiar with Daredevil? I am. So he's... He's not here. So I believe he was often not exactly like scathing, kind of cool, one could argue. Yet Daredevil was like, that's the name that I was picked on. They called me Daredevil.

And then he used that to not embezzle and not terrorize Spider-Man, but to fight crime and actually be friends with Spider-Man. Well, I'd like to call a witness to the stand. Also, you said you're on trial for embezzlement and then admitted to embezzlement. This is the farcest court case in the world. I'd like to go Spider-Man to the stand. Thwip, thwip. It's me, Spider-Man.

Spider-Man, feeling so sorry for Big Wheel, forgave him at some point. If Spider-Man... Big Wheel, I forgive you for your crimes, but they are still crimes, so therefore punishable by law. Just because Spider-Man can forgive... Spider-Man actually pushed my client in a river, just saying.

Self-defense. Flip, flip. And did you forgive Spider-Man? For what? Pushing you into a river. I'm the lawyer. Did your client forgive Spider-Man for pushing him into a river? He did. I'm just curious. He forgave Spider-Manman pushing him to river he did curious he forgave spider-man for pushing him once again that's um uh so you know we could still prosecute spider-man for assault there yeah maybe we should okay so and then then just so then so spider-man forgiving

so sorry so your argument that spider-man forgave him and because if so your client spider-man's such a paragon of goodness you're saying that new york's first son as we call him jay jonah jameson would like to add a word with that um so but you're saying that just because paragon of goodness in New York. He's New York's first son, as we call him. J. Jonah Jameson would like to add a word with that. But you're saying that just because someone forgives the perpetrator or whatever forgives him, that should be enough, yet you just said we should prosecute

Spider-Man, even though your client had forgiven him for assault. Yes. I did say that. That is true. So the court cases today may have been a little iffy. We haven't had one that has admitted to two separate crimes that they're on trial for. In the opening statement? You didn't even make a case.

Oh, he was sad from the embezzling, so that's punishment enough. Then Spider-Man said it's okay. If you commit a crime and you're sad because you get blackmailed for said crime. Yeah. Blackmailed for the crime. For the crime by another villain. Well, he would not have become. Now, you said if his name was anything else, he wouldn't have become.

So his crime is being Big Wheel. Yeah. And had he not been named Jackson Wheel, he would never have become the Big Wheel. So you're saying that if he wasn't called Jackson Wheel, would he still have gone with a life of crime? I don't think he would have. But he already embezzled before he was called Big Wheel. Well, he was called Jackson Wheel at that point.

But the wheel had nothing to do with his crime. Perhaps the embezzlement is a separate case we need to address later on. If his name was Jackson Steal Money, he would also probably be stealing money. But the crimes as Big Wheel, those are under the mitigating circumstances of being named Jackson Wheel. If he had been named Jackson Do Good, he would never have become the big wheel. He might have become a superhero, feasibly. Why do you think that? Well, because...

Because the Tinker... No, the Rocket League man. Rocket Racer. Rocket Racer, sorry. Yeah. Would he have not just used a different scathing nickname? Possibly. Therefore, making your argument.

Also, do last names have anything to do with it? I mean, you still got Spider-Man at the stand. Hey, Spider-Man. Yes, Thwip Thwip. Is your last name Spider-Man? No. No, Thwip Thwip. What's your last name? Thwip Thwip.

Thwip Thwip. Damn, he was under oath. He was under oath too. That's contempt of court. Contempt of court for Spider-Man. That's actually, what's that called? Perjury. Perjury for Spider-Man. Added to the rest of his crime.

He could have pleaded the fifth or whatever. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. We don't know who he is, so we can't take him to court. In fact, yeah, so you grab up Spider-Man to go take the stand, but like- I don't know if that was legal. Is that Spider-Man? I don't know. I court. In fact, yeah, so you grab up Spider-Man to go take the stand. I don't know if that was legal. Is that Spider-Man? I don't know. I mean, he flipped, but, well.

He had the powers of Spider-Man. But there's so many people that have the powers of Spider-Man. I know we have no way of proving he's Spider-Man. I felt like it was Spider-Man. I felt in my heart of hearts that it was Spider-Man. Yeah, a hunch in my gut that was Spider-Man. I'm not going to tell my kids that I met Spider-Man. You can't take that away from me, that that was Spider-Man that I met.

Sir, sorry, defense lawyer Jackson. Just want to double check. That is my name. Bailey, I guess. Yeah. Sorry, defense lawyer Bailey, do you have any inclination to become a bailiff? Excuse me? Do you have any inclination to become a bailiff? No, I don't.

I'm not saying it's an exclusive thing that's going to happen to everybody. I just want to double check what your client is on trial for today. Because I was originally told it was embezzlement, but you admitted to that. Then I was told it was assault, but you admitted to that. No, Spider-Man did the assault. This is Big Wheel's and the Crime of Being. Being Big Wheel. Being Big Wheel.

And crimes committed as the Big Wheel. And what are those crimes? Assault? Those crimes are assault of Spider-Man. We should probably get him back. So you assaulted Spider-Man, but then... I'm saying that none of this would have happened if his parents had given him a different name. Honestly, his parents should be on trial.

Well, his parents' last name... Sorry, presumably his father. I'm assuming, did parents should be on trial. Well, his parents' last name. Sorry. Presumably his father. I'm assuming. Did Jackson take the name of his father or his mother? I'm assuming father. Yeah, I'm assuming father. So was his father a criminal?

No. And he had the last name Wheel. Yes, that's true. Like I said. Could he have become, I don't know, a mechanic, a racer. It's feasible. But what he became was a big wheel. So you're saying that maybe it had nothing to do with his last name.

It was just chance? Well, I think his last name didn't help. You know, I think if he'd had a different surname, then maybe there would have been a chance. He would have been less likely to go into crime. The crime of being a big wheel. The embezzlement, obviously. So the crime of being a big wheel, I mean, sure. So if his name was Jackson Sword.

Yes. He might have become the Big Sword. And I guess by your definition, he wouldn't do the crimes of Big Wheel. He'd be doing the crimes of Big Sword. Big Sword's not on trial today. Big Wheel is. Do you think that there is a crime preventing your client from being Big Wheel?

Do I think there's a crime preventing my client? Do you think there's a law that your client is breaking, or the law being being Big Wheel? I assume being Big Wheel is not legal. Being Big Wheel is perfectly legal. It's probably not street legal. It's the assault. I would say it's operating a vehicle.

With weapons attached. An unlicensed vehicle with weapons attached. And something called Wally Arms. Hang on. If anything, it's- Waldo Arms. Okay, so really it's piloting a, I guess, experimental craft. Which therefore is the endangerment of public, I think.

Which has nothing really to do with his name. But he wouldn't have become Big Wheel if he hadn't been named Jackson Wheel. You keep saying he became Big Wheel, but that has nothing to do with the crimes today. His name is Jackson Wheel, and he committed the crimes. Rocket Racer should be on the stands. Because he nicknamed my client Big Wheel, which got the Big Wheel idea in his head. You keep bringing it back to the name Big Wheel,

but the crimes have nothing to do with that today. The crimes are endangerment of public, reckless driving, assault. Yeah, but if he hadn't been Big Wheel, he would never have made a Big Wheel. Are you familiar with the concept of drunk driving? Yes. My client was sober while he was in the big wheel.

Are you familiar with that, sir, if they didn't drink those drinks, then they could not have possibly been drunk driving. Yes. You understand how that is a stupid argument. Correct. Do you understand this, defense lawyer Bailey? I don't know what to do.

If he didn't shoot that gun, he would never have been a murderer. Yeah. So if your client had stabbed a man, if he had never picked up a knife to stab the man, he would never have stabbed the man. Is that your defense? Is that your argument? My argument is my client is christened Jackson Wheel.

Yes. So he's christened Jackson because his surname is Wheel. Rocket Racer should be on the stand. Your defense is Rocket Racer should be on

trial. Rocket Racer is the cause of all this. For what crimes did Rocket Racer commit? Well maybe he

shouldn't be on trial. He should just be here. Blackmailing. Blackmailing Michael. Blackmailing. Blackmailing my client. Blackmail. How did he blackmail him?

Because he committed the embezzlement. No, no, no, no, no. Not what did he hold. Like, I know that. What was he like? He threatened to take the embezzlement to the police. Yeah. In exchange for.

Money, I assume. I don't have an assistant lawyer while I do research. Just blackmailing him, I think. Because with blackmail, especially if you want to take it to court, you probably should know what was threatened. Yeah, I think just for money, I'm assuming. Yeah, it's like, if you don't give me money... I I mean he knew he was rich because he just embezzled his company

If you don't give me money I'll tell everyone you embezzled Oh hang on, my client one of his crimes as Big Wheel this might just be worthwhile knowing is to chase down Rocket Racer to try and crush him under his Big Wheel So what?

So street justice Spider-Man was also seeking Rocket Racer who is a bad guy to try and crush him under his big wheel. Attempted murder. So street justice. Spider-Man was also seeking Rocket Razor, who is a bad guy. Yeah. And as you know, Spider-Man, there has been many times where- And also, my client, because he was unused to the big wheel, fell off a building. Is that a crime?

Are you suggesting- Is your a crime? Are you suggesting Chuck Lyon dead? We thought he was dead for a long time Because he fell in that river But he came back okay Are you suggesting That Big Wheel is not actually a villain But he's actually a hero

And he was using his inventions To try and take down A villain of Rocket. At the very least a vigilante. And if vigilantism is on trial, there's got to be a bigger court case. Because we live in fucking Marvel's New York City, okay? That's fair. You can't fucking swing a fucking dead cat without hitting three vigilantes.

And we have tried to outlaw vigilantism several times. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's too big for the court case today. We need S tried to outlaw vigilantism several times. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's too big for the court case today. We need S.H.I.E.L.D. for that. Yeah, exactly. So you're trying to get the charges downgraded to vigilantism. Yes.

And then you're trying to get vigilantism thrown out because it's a problem in the city. But you do know the reason why we can't prosecute, say, Spider-Man is that we don't know his identity. We now know who Big Wheel is. His name is Jackson Wheel. Yes, it is true. So we do know that we can actually, and you're saying that he's always been the Big Wheel? And now we've also got him for embezzlement. Hey, Spider-Man, you ever embezzled? Flip, flip?

No? Yeah. Yeah. So you're saying that your client- Whoa, statute of limitations my client was at the bottom of the river for I think 25 years

okay surely we can throw out that crime now we can sure you know what I will be kind the

the the the court the courtroom will be kind and throw away the people of this big wheel will throw away the embezzlement course because he was under a river for 25 years.

However, he's still a vigilante. He is. Well, he kind of just sort of hangs around these days. And he still uses and drives. He does still use the big wheel. He still drives the big wheel. And he's gotten used to it now. So no more falling off.

It doesn't matter if he's gotten used to it. Is it a registered vehicle? I do not believe he has registered the big wheel. So driving an unregistered vehicle. What's the fine on that? What are we talking? Oh, it's jail time. How many Somalis?

Well, look, if we find you, and again, he's like a public endangerment. And he's dangerous driving in an unauthorized vehicle, presumably without a license to operate this unauthorized vehicle because they don't exist. Yeah, no big wheel licenses are handed out. It's almost killed people. Almost. Man slaughter. Attempted man slaughter. Can we downgrade it to attempted man slaughter?

Can you attempt man slaughter? I don't think you can attempt man slaughter. The moment you attempt man slaughter it's no longer man slaughter. Man, I hope I accidentally kill this guy. I'm also realizing that Spider-Man didn't forgive Big Wheel. He just pities him.

I don't know if that affects anything. Sorry, Spider-Man, what was that again? Did you forgive him? Oh, no, I just pity him. Look at him. Jackson Wheel, what a fool. Put him in jail. Flip, flip.

Well, as you know, we don't really take the words of costume crime fighters to mean anything. Oh, flip, flip. In this court. It was bad. He was my only witness. Yeah. Yeah. We have your footage of him using a big wheel.

25 to life. Well, big wheel, at least we got you out of the embezzlement charges because you were under a river for 25 years. It's not up to us to decide. Do you have any closing arguments, actually? Do you have any closing arguments for Big Wheel? If you say he wouldn't have been called Big Wheel. Any closing arguments?

Who amongst us hasn't dreamed? Who amongst us hasn't looked at the stars and thought, what could I be? Could I be more than just myself? Could I, instead of walking on my two measly, pathetic legs, roll like a god down the streets of New York City? And if all that was required to achieve that dream was a little bit of embezzlement from a company that probably wasn't going to miss it anyway, and if in the course of driving your dream vehicle, you managed to accidentally negatively affect some people and then fall in a row.

Is that such a bad thing to dream, to hope, to want to be more than you are? I don't think so, jury. I think that that's just lovely. Thank you very much. Would the defense want to just take that or do you want me to take that? Well, I was about to hit my gavel and say guilty, but yeah, yeah, please. Maybe you should use the words, you know, is it bad to dream, but at what cost? At the cost of other lives?

Maybe a reckless endangerment? Is it bad to dream? No. Is it bad to attempt murder? Yes. You know, dreams are just that, dreams. Dreams cannot really affect reality. Your client did.

Yeah, and then fell off a building into a river, clearly showcasing their total lack of care. And maybe not even the last victim of his crimes, because he kept going, but one of the victims of his crime was himself. Tragic case. Yeah, tragic case of him being a victim of his own crime. If anything, it sounds like jail will be a great place for him.

Yeah, get that big wheel. At least we should confiscate the big wheel. I think we should study the big wheel. Yeah, I guess so. Yeah, let us know. Thanks for joining us in court today, everyone. Did we do well? Did all our clients off scot-free?

Who argued the best? Who argued the worst? And case dismissed. I've been Joel. And I've also been Joel. See you in the courtroom next time, plumbing the death stuff. Excelsior.