Turning the Team In To Military Police

[amyk]

Inspired by another thread, I thought I would start this one. I think there are multiple times in the show people who probably legally should turn in the team don't do that. We were discussing Corporal Charlotte Brown in another thread (the woman from SAY IT WITH BULLETS) and how she really technically should have been required to turn the team into the military, as a "good soldier."

I was thinking that the sheriff in BAD ROCK did something he probably legally should not have done by letting the team go.

What other characters really had a legal duty to turn the team into the military police?

[Bert]

The police inspector who hires the team in A SMALL AND DEADLY WAR is another. He even says something about how it's his duty to turn them in, but really needs their help.

[Katia]

Jun 4, 2023 0:30:13 GMT -5 Bert said:

The police inspector who hires the team in A SMALL AND DEADLY WAR is another. He even says something about how it's his duty to turn them in, but really needs their help.

Oh, good one!  I totally forgot about him.


What about the park ranger in... was it "Crystal Lake"? I mean, technically she did turn them in, but went back on it and helped them (right? I'm thinking about the right episode here?).



I mean, I suppose, technically, anyone should, if they're a "good citizen"? Just, not a legal requirement for most people. (And, I imagine some people might lose their jobs if it was found out that they knew about criminals and didn't say anything... I probably would.)

[Pico Bob]

I think the sherrif in ACCENT was similar. She captured the team and then let them go.

Judge Mordente in JUDGEMENT DAY should have reported the team. But it probably didn't make much difference given how Decker was tracking him.

Plus not forgetting General Stockwell of course.

[HoudiniDerek]

Beller Air was probably ready to turn them in had they landed the plane with no issues.

[Katia]

Jun 5, 2023 9:00:53 GMT -5 Pico Bob said:

I think the sherrif in ACCENT was similar. She captured the team and then let them go.

Judge Mordente in JUDGEMENT DAY should have reported the team. But it probably didn't make much difference given how Decker was tracking him.

Plus not forgetting General Stockwell of course.

And Fullbright!  How could I forget him.

Possibly the various foreign dignitaries they met up with should have-- not sure if for legal purposes, but definitely for diplomatic ones.

[amyk]

Jun 4, 2023 0:30:13 GMT -5 Bert said:

The police inspector who hires the team in A SMALL AND DEADLY WAR is another. He even says something about how it's his duty to turn them in, but really needs their help.

Oh, yeah, he's one of my favorite clients, willing to do something against his principles (by hiring wanted criminals) in order to stop something else that is even more against his principles (crooked cops).

[amyk]

What about the park ranger in... was it "Crystal Lake"? I mean, technically she did turn them in, but went back on it and helped them (right? I'm thinking about the right episode here?).

Yeah, the park rangers are in CRYSTAL LAKE.

What about Annie, the firefighter? Are firefighters sworn to turn in criminals? I'm not sure.

But yes, probably any citizen is not supposed to willfully harbor criminals and help them escape from the authorities.

[Katia]

Jun 5, 2023 20:41:21 GMT -5 amyk said:

Jun 4, 2023 0:30:13 GMT -5 Bert said:

The police inspector who hires the team in A SMALL AND DEADLY WAR is another. He even says something about how it's his duty to turn them in, but really needs their help.

Oh, yeah, he's one of my favorite clients, willing to do something against his principles (by hiring wanted criminals) in order to stop something else that is even more against his principles (crooked cops).

I kind of want to know how he felt about them afterward.

I wonder if they ever try to convince clients they're innocent.

Jun 5, 2023 20:43:30 GMT -5 amyk said:

What about Annie, the firefighter? Are firefighters sworn to turn in criminals? I'm not sure.

But yes, probably any citizen is not supposed to willfully harbor criminals and help them escape from the authorities.

I don't think so, but I bet she's another one who could get fired for not doing so.  Then again, she could probably also get fired for letting civilians go on calls, so...

[HannibalSmith]

As an attorney that handles a fair amount of criminal work, I have a unique insight into this topic.
Now, I practice in SC, so the laws may not be the same in CA or the other jurisdictions that the team may find themselves, but generally speaking, I know this:
1) No ordinary citizen has any duty to turn in a criminal. Period. A police officer or military official may lose their job (or face court marital, which is military law, to which I have no experience), but will not face criminal prosecution in a civilian court.
2) The bigger question should be: can someone be charged for hindering an investigation, harboring a fugitive, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, accessory, etc. Those are the bigger questions that would have to be broken down case by case, but there are cases where a client could face potential criminal and civil liability under the theory of conspiracy or obstruction, among others.

[amyk]

Wow, that's interesting! Thanks for your insights. Yes, I do understand that the laws are different depending on jurisdiction, but I appreciate knowing your take on this.

[Katia]

Yes, I guess we should have differentiated between "legal," "ethical," and "terminate-able."

Jun 9, 2023 10:51:54 GMT -5 HannibalSmith said:

2) The bigger question should be: can someone be charged for hindering an investigation, harboring a fugitive, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, accessory, etc. Those are the bigger questions that would have to be broken down case by case, but there are cases where a client could face potential criminal and civil liability under the theory of conspiracy or obstruction, among others.

This, as I've said before, is the part that always gets me.  Of all their clients and people who know them... the military hasn't gotten to one of them?  Not one?  Either to threaten them with being charged as an accessory, or try to offer a reward?

[HoudiniDerek]

Jun 10, 2023 22:16:43 GMT -5 Katia said:

Yes, I guess we should have differentiated between "legal," "ethical," and "terminate-able."

Jun 9, 2023 10:51:54 GMT -5 HannibalSmith said:

2) The bigger question should be: can someone be charged for hindering an investigation, harboring a fugitive, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, accessory, etc. Those are the bigger questions that would have to be broken down case by case, but there are cases where a client could face potential criminal and civil liability under the theory of conspiracy or obstruction, among others.

This, as I've said before, is the part that always gets me.  Of all their clients and people who know them... the military hasn't gotten to one of them?  Not one?  Either to threaten them with being charged as an accessory, or try to offer a reward?

I think part of this is that the military already looks bad for the A-Team escaping all the time. To add on by harassing hard-working people that have been hounded by bad guys looks even worse. They already have to arrest the bad guys the team captures, so it would seem worse to come back and bother people that have been helped by the team.

Plus, after the team has done their job, it seems likely that they don't believe the team will come back.

[HannibalSmith]

Jun 12, 2023 9:45:29 GMT -5 HoudiniDerek said:

Jun 10, 2023 22:16:43 GMT -5 Katia said:

Yes, I guess we should have differentiated between "legal," "ethical," and "terminate-able."


This, as I've said before, is the part that always gets me.  Of all their clients and people who know them... the military hasn't gotten to one of them?  Not one?  Either to threaten them with being charged as an accessory, or try to offer a reward?

I think part of this is that the military already looks bad for the A-Team escaping all the time. To add on by harassing hard-working people that have been hounded by bad guys looks even worse. They already have to arrest the bad guys the team captures, so it would seem worse to come back and bother people that have been helped by the team.

Plus, after the team has done their job, it seems likely that they don't believe the team will come back.

Another point to remember: the military can not charge civilians (i.e., non-military) with a crime under normal conditions (periods of martial law, which was not in place during the 1980s, is an exception). Only the local District Attorneys (or Solicitors as they are known in South Carolina) can bring criminal charges against civilians. Police officers can bring charges for low-level offenses (such as failure to yield right of way), but those are not applicable here.

[amyk]

Jun 10, 2023 22:16:43 GMT -5 Katia said:

Yes, I guess we should have differentiated between "legal," "ethical," and "terminate-able."

Jun 9, 2023 10:51:54 GMT -5 HannibalSmith said:

2) The bigger question should be: can someone be charged for hindering an investigation, harboring a fugitive, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, accessory, etc. Those are the bigger questions that would have to be broken down case by case, but there are cases where a client could face potential criminal and civil liability under the theory of conspiracy or obstruction, among others.

This, as I've said before, is the part that always gets me.  Of all their clients and people who know them... the military hasn't gotten to one of them?  Not one?  Either to threaten them with being charged as an accessory, or try to offer a reward?

Well, the military did get to Kid Harmon's dad....or rather, his dad got to the military! Do you think he would have been willing to collect the reward? I think he was holding a flyer that was offering a reward when he contacted the military.