MovieChat Forums > The Glass House (2001) Discussion > The legality of what she does at the end...

The legality of what she does at the end (BIG SPOILER)

posted 8 years ago by Sam-953-169285
13 replies | jump to latest

THIS HAS A BIG SPOILER!

At the end, she did not have to run him over to get away. She could have just drove away, as her brother said. Obviously she did what she did because he killed her parents but legally she would be guilty of murder. The movie gives people the impression we can get away with killing someone if we have decided it is justified or if we think they might kill us some time in the future.

California, and as far as I know most states, have the concept of imminent threat. The threat must be real and unavoidable without the use of deadly force. In other words, if you can get away from the actual threat at that moment then you cannot legally use deadly force.

I am not an attorney but the law must be understandable conceptually by everyone so don't say I must be an attorney to know what it says.

Many people don't understand about the requirement for an imminent threat and when the use of deadly force is legal and this movie perpetuates that misunderstanding.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

She was a kid Sam, let it go. He could have shot her through the back of the car. Besides, she didn't kill him, she just knocked him down.

[–] Sam-953-169285 8 years ago

She could have killed him. The point I am making is that it teaches others to do that and they could go to jail. It is typical of writers to escape from reality but people are murdering other people in real life.

Do you actually believe that it is okay for a kid to murder people?

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

Honestly, you California people. It's not murder when said person is advancing on you with a gun.

[–] Sam-953-169285 8 years ago

What states do not have the concept of imminent threat? Can you name one?

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

He WAS an imminent threat.

[–] Sam-953-169285 8 years ago

You said "you California people" as if California people are different. So what state does not have imminent threat or something essentially the same in their laws?

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

I said "you California people" because you often seem soft on issues like justifiable death, including capital punishment and, in your case, self-defense.

[–] Sam-953-169285 8 years ago

That is totally irrelevant. I said California because that is where the story is set. The relevant laws in California are very much like all the other states.

Your implication in your original reply to me is that we should be softer on what justifiable death is.

[–] whitespirit26 8 years ago

My implication is that you should recognize the threat in this scene and stop browbeating it.

[–] Calvin_Ligula 8 years ago

"I am not an attorney..."

Then stfu.

[–] Wuchak (8774) 5 years ago

Since he had a gun he was an imminent threat seeing as how -- if she simply tried to drive away -- he could've shot her from behind.

She was only 16 so it's not like she was considering technical legalities. The guy murdered her parents and proved himself to be a murderous psycho.

The teen merely did what she had to in order to survive in an intense life-or-death situation. Case closed.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

he had a gun

[–] JohnnyJohnson (312) a month ago

1. She's still a kid.
2. Her custodians drugged her and held her hostage.
3. Her new 'mother' was a drug addict who was losing her medical license.
4. Said 'mother' ends up dead next to her in her bed.
5. Custodial father was physically abusive and just killed her trust attorney. 6. He was holding a gun and was going to shoot her in the cop car

Given what had to be a severe emotional and mental state she was in, and those six things, I just don't see the long arm of the law coming down hard on her at all.