Do Jerry Springer Show guests get arrested for assault, if not battery?

[Eddie Powalski]

Do Jerry Springer Show guests get arrested for assault, if not battery?

If not, why not?

Can you sign away your rights not to be a victim of assault & battery?

[micky]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 03:20:09 +0000 (UTC), Eddie Powalski
<Ed...@example.com> wrote:

>Can you sign away your rights not to be a victim of assault & battery?

I"m sure you can do that or professional boxers might all get
arrested. The people (is that too grandiose a term?) on Jerry
Springer must do that.

I wonder what professional hockey players sign? What it says? Do
college hockey players get sticked etc. like pros do? Whatever
happened to the hockey player charged with assault or something in
Canada?

[Mike Jacobs]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:20:09 PM UTC-5, Eddie Powalski wrote:
> Do Jerry Springer Show guests get arrested for assault, if not battery?

I don't know anything about the Springer show lately. Are you
talking about a particular episode, or are you alleging that
_every_ episode of the show involves people beating each other up?

> If not, why not?

I seem to recall there was an episode years ago (may have been a different talk show; that doesn't matter to the relevance of the example) where some guy's "secret lover" was brought out from
behind the curtain, and the "secret lover" turned out to be a gay
man. The fellow who was set up for this gag was not gay (not
openly anyway), went ape, and IIRC shot the other guy. If
something like that happened, no waiver the show's guests might
have signed would prevent the perp from being charged with the
homicide.

> Can you sign away your rights not to be a victim of assault & battery?

Actually, yes. Consent is a complete defense to the crime or tort
of assault or battery. I suppose you've heard of the concept of
"contact sports?" From what you imply, the Springer show is
somewhat of a contact sport, like boxing or football. Doubtless
the show's suits do have the guests sign waivers drafted by the
show's lawyers, before the episode is shot. But, like boxing and
football, there are certain acts which are against the rules and
therefore beyond the pale of the protection afforded by that
consent. The law does not permit anyone to consent to being
killed. That's why dueling, euthanasia, and suicide are crimes in
most if not all US jurisdictions.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685

[slide]

As to your question about signing your rights - of course you can both
actively and passively. You use the Springer show as an example but what
about boxing matches? How many boxers sue each other for having been
punched? Look at a football match. An assault and battery every few
seconds! I can go on but I think you could too.

In the case of the Springer show, my guess would be that the
participants sign a waiver prior to appearing. After all, they do get
what they seem to lust for - 15 seconds of fame.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Eddie Powalski <Ed...@example.com> wrote:

> Do Jerry Springer Show guests get arrested for assault, if not
> battery?
>
> If not, why not?

As long as the damage done is not substantially more than is usually
engaged in on the show, those who are there are generally thought to
have assumed the risk of that sort of thing. If someone comes on
with a gun and shoots someone else, that's far beyond what is normal
on the show, so is beyond the bounds of the assumed risk.

> Can you sign away your rights not to be a victim of assault &
> battery?

Yes, to an extent. Otherwise football players would be in jail
during the entire off season.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[D.F. Manno]

In article <kv1bl8$thg$1...@dont-email.me>,

Eddie Powalski <Ed...@example.com> wrote:

> Do Jerry Springer Show guests get arrested for assault, if not battery?

Probably not.

> If not, why not?

Because it's a television show - it's not real.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@aim.com

[Eddie Powalski]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:54:45 -0700, Mike Jacobs wrote:

> Are you talking about a particular episode, or are you alleging that
> _every_ episode of the show involves people beating each other up?

Very many episodes consist of assault; and quite a few reveal
clear battery.

Here is a show that I purposely looked for so as to provide
an example for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vq2r7hPUNo

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"D.F. Manno" <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
> Eddie Powalski <Ed...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Do Jerry Springer Show guests get arrested for assault, if not
>> battery?
>
> Probably not.
>
>> If not, why not?
>
> Because it's a television show - it's not real.

But that guy's jaw really hurts.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[slide]

On 8/23/2013 11:54 AM, Mike Jacobs wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:20:09 PM UTC-5, Eddie Powalski wrote:
>> Do Jerry Springer Show guests get arrested for assault, if not battery?
>
> I don't know anything about the Springer show lately. Are you
> talking about a particular episode, or are you alleging that
> _every_ episode of the show involves people beating each other up?
>
>> If not, why not?
>
> I seem to recall there was an episode years ago (may have been a different talk show; that doesn't matter to the relevance of the example) where some guy's "secret lover" was brought out from
> behind the curtain, and the "secret lover" turned out to be a gay
> man. The fellow who was set up for this gag was not gay (not
> openly anyway), went ape, and IIRC shot the other guy. If
> something like that happened, no waiver the show's guests might
> have signed would prevent the perp from being charged with the
> homicide.
>

Jenny Jones Show:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950310&slug=2109425

[deadrat]

If the moderator doesn't thank you on behalf of the newsgroup for
sifting through Springer shows to bring us the relevant clip reel, let
me offer my personal gratitude. As it was I almost got sidetracked by
the YouTube recommendations "Mom Stole My Lesbian Lover" and "I'm
Pregnant By a Transsexual."

What you don't know is whether the producers have gotten together with
the "guests" before the show and said something like the following:

"OK, Norby, you're gonna come out and tell John that if he didn't spend
so much time at the gym, then you wouldn't have so many opportunities to
bang his wife. When he says that, John, you get up and charge him.
Both of you flail your arms, but remember no closed fists, no biting, no
scratching, and no using the furniture as weapons. Security will grab
you immediately. Let them drag you apart, but keep flailing your arms.
Now in the confusion, one or the both of you might get a black eye or
a bloody nose, but that's the risk. Sign the consent form here, and the
release of liability form there. Protect yourselves at all times."

[Mike Jacobs]

On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:51:30 PM UTC-5, D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article <kv1bl8$thg$1...@dont-email.me>,
>
> Eddie Powalski <Ed...@example.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > If not, why not?
>
> Because it's a television show - it's not real.

Mr. Manno, why would you assume the laws don't apply to what
happens to the actual live humans shown on a TV show -- as opposed
to what happens to their _characters_ in a fictional drama or
comedy?

If, say, Don Draper, the character played by Jon Hamm on "Mad
Men," jumps off the roof of a Madison Avenue office building in
the opening title sequence of the show every week, no one really
gets hurt -- and, like a cartoon coyote, he's back the next week
to do it again. But if somehow (heaven forbid) Mr. Hamm were to
actually fall or get pushed off of a roof and be injured as a
result, the law would be all over the cast and crew of the show
like ants on a spilled ice cream cone. OSHA violations, negligence
lawsuits, homicide investigations... the list could go on and on.
There was a situation a few years ago, IIRC, where a real, fatal
helicopter crash occurred during the filming of a Vietnam-war
battle sequence for a TV show or movie. I don't remember the final
upshot, but, real people got killed, and that was definitely a
matter of concern for the law. Investigations were undertaken, and
some sort of legal proceedings occurred.

On talk shows, game shows, "Judge Judy"-type court shows,
televised sports, and other so-called "reality" shows, the
"actors" are non-professionals at show biz, playing themselves,
and even though the situations are often highly artificial and the
actors may be encouraged to "ham it up" and thus be far from
"real" in that sense, these amateur actors are expected to ad-lib
their lines and react with "real" emotions and actions as the plot
develops. If anyone gets punched, it's a "real" punch. And thus,
the law cares about it, if the person who got punched did not
consent to that battery and/or assume the risk (as discussed
elsewhere in this thread by many other posters) or if the harmful
act goes beyond the pale of the expected/anticipated/consented-to
intrusions which the participant had agreed to accept as part of
the deal and the "rules of the game."

[nos...@isp.com]

On Mike Jacobs <mjaco...@gmail.com> said in part:

> IIRC, where a real, fatal helicopter crash occurred
> during the filming of a Vietnam-war battle sequence

> for a . . . movie. I don't remember the final upshot,

> but, real people got killed, and that was definitely
> a matter of concern for the law. Investigations
> were undertaken, and some sort of legal proceedings
> occurred.

It was about twenty years ago (the early-1980s). The director (John
Landis) was prosecuted for homicide and other alleged crimes and/but
after very lengthy pretrial proceedings and a trial, he was acquitted.
The killed children's parents and killed actor's (Vic Morrow's)
children (one of whom is the wonderful actress, Jennifer Jason Leigh)
sued for wrongful death and settled for substantial but not publicly
disclosed sums.

> On talk shows, game shows, "Judge Judy"-type court shows,
> televised sports, and other so-called "reality" shows, the
> "actors" are non-professionals at show biz, playing themselves,
> and even though the situations are often highly artificial and the
> actors may be encouraged to "ham it up" and thus be far from
> "real" in that sense, these amateur actors are expected to ad-lib
> their lines and react with "real" emotions and actions as the plot
> develops.

More than expected. As Mr Jacobs said earlier: instructed. These
shows are very substantially scripted even if partly improvised.

> If anyone gets punched, it's a "real" punch. And thus,
> the law cares about it, if the person who got punched
> did not consent to that battery and/or assume the risk
> (as discussed elsewhere in this thread by many other
> posters) or if the harmful act goes beyond the pale of
> the expected/anticipated/consented-to intrusions which
> the participant had agreed to accept as part of the deal
> and the "rules of the game."

It ought not be surprising (and, as he suggests, it would not be
surprising to Mr. Jacobs) to know that, as is generally the fact, the
contracts/releases the (even if not otherwise "professional")
participants/performers are required to sign only after confirming
that they fully understand them before so doing are drafted by
sophisticated attorneys who are mindful of probably applicable law not
least including what acts may and may not be validly/effectively
consented and what sorts of causes of injury and injuries may and may
not be consented to as a predicate to waiving claims of liability
arising therefrom. In addition, these contracts nowadays include
strict forum selection and required alternative dispute/claim
resolution (e.g., binding arbitration) in an effort to avoid
lawsuits/trials in a judicial forum. And that this generally is so is
also found in the Law Book Of "Duh!!"

[D.F. Manno]

In article <056d44cc-5ea9-401a...@googlegroups.com>,

Mike Jacobs <mjaco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, August 23, 2013 2:51:30 PM UTC-5, D.F. Manno wrote:

> > Eddie Powalski <Ed...@example.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If not, why not?
> >
> > Because it's a television show - it's not real.
>
> Mr. Manno, why would you assume the laws don't apply to what
> happens to the actual live humans shown on a TV show -- as opposed
> to what happens to their _characters_ in a fictional drama or
> comedy?
>
> If, say, Don Draper, the character played by Jon Hamm on "Mad
> Men," jumps off the roof of a Madison Avenue office building in
> the opening title sequence of the show every week, no one really
> gets hurt -- and, like a cartoon coyote, he's back the next week
> to do it again. But if somehow (heaven forbid) Mr. Hamm were to
> actually fall or get pushed off of a roof and be injured as a
> result, the law would be all over the cast and crew of the show
> like ants on a spilled ice cream cone. OSHA violations, negligence
> lawsuits, homicide investigations... the list could go on and on.
> There was a situation a few years ago, IIRC, where a real, fatal
> helicopter crash occurred during the filming of a Vietnam-war
> battle sequence for a TV show or movie. I don't remember the final
> upshot, but, real people got killed, and that was definitely a
> matter of concern for the law. Investigations were undertaken, and
> some sort of legal proceedings occurred.

The helicopter accident on the set of "Twilight Zone: The Movie" is
irrelevant to this discussion. The crash - caused by pyrotechnic special
effects accidentally being detonated too close to the chopper - wasn't
in the script. No one involved with the production intended for it to
happen.

The "final upshot" was that director John Landis and others were
acquitted of manslaughter.

> On talk shows, game shows, "Judge Judy"-type court shows,
> televised sports, and other so-called "reality" shows, the
> "actors" are non-professionals at show biz, playing themselves,
> and even though the situations are often highly artificial and the
> actors may be encouraged to "ham it up" and thus be far from
> "real" in that sense, these amateur actors are expected to ad-lib
> their lines and react with "real" emotions and actions as the plot
> develops. If anyone gets punched, it's a "real" punch. And thus,
> the law cares about it, if the person who got punched did not
> consent to that battery and/or assume the risk (as discussed
> elsewhere in this thread by many other posters) or if the harmful
> act goes beyond the pale of the expected/anticipated/consented-to
> intrusions which the participant had agreed to accept as part of
> the deal and the "rules of the game."

You're presuming that the "violence" on Springer isn't as scripted as
"Mad Men" is, and that the "injuries" shown are actual harm and not
faked. I contend that it is as choreographed as much as pro wrestling
is. The "guests" may be "real people" but on the show they're as much
actors as Jon Hamm is.

Think of any movie or TV drama with a fight scene. Are the actors
committing assault?
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@aim.com

[Mike Jacobs]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:14:32 AM UTC-5, D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article <056d44cc-5ea9-401a...@googlegroups.com>,

> Mike Jacobs wrote:
<snip>

> > There was a situation a few years ago, IIRC, where a real, fatal
> > helicopter crash occurred during the filming of a Vietnam-war
> > battle sequence for a TV show or movie. I don't remember the final
> > upshot, but, real people got killed, and that was definitely a
> > matter of concern for the law. Investigations were undertaken, and
> > some sort of legal proceedings occurred.
>
> The helicopter accident on the set of "Twilight Zone: The Movie" is
> irrelevant to this discussion.

I raised the example simply to show that the law _does_ care about
what happens on a TV or movie set. Of course I agree it's
irrelevant to the issue of whether flailing fists on Jerry
Springer's show are an intentional assault or battery, but that is
not the only legal issue that was under discussion in this thread.
And my comment was in response to _your_ statement (snipped) in
the post I was replying to, that the law _doesn't_ care "Because

it's a television show - it's not real."

> The crash - caused by pyrotechnic special
> effects accidentally being detonated too close to the chopper - wasn't
> in the script. No one involved with the production intended for it to
> happen.

Which is why it wasn't an _intentional_ tort. But it was still
prosecuted as a crime (which did not result in a conviction), and
was still the subject of a civil suit for wrongful death caused by
negligence (which, brother nospam reports, did result in a
confidential settlement before trial). My point remains simply
that the law _does_ care about what goes on in front of the camera.

> The "final upshot" was that director John Landis and others were
> acquitted of manslaughter.

Yes. (But he was sued successfully, I learned.)

> > [Reality-show] "actors" are non-professionals ... playing themselves,

> > and even though the situations are often highly artificial and the
> > actors may be encouraged to "ham it up" and thus be far from
> > "real" in that sense, these amateur actors are expected to ad-lib
> > their lines and react with "real" emotions and actions as the plot
> > develops. If anyone gets punched, it's a "real" punch. And thus,
> > the law cares about it, if the person who got punched did not
> > consent to that battery and/or assume the risk (as discussed
> > elsewhere in this thread by many other posters) or if the harmful
> > act goes beyond the pale of the expected/anticipated/consented-to
> > intrusions which the participant had agreed to accept as part of
> > the deal and the "rules of the game."
>
> You're presuming that the "violence" on Springer isn't as scripted as
> "Mad Men" is,

I didn't say that. In fact, I'm mostly agreeing with you.
"Reality" shows are not about "reality;" they are simply loosely-
scripted in comparision to "fictional" shows. I.e., the specific
lines spoken and specific physical steps taken are ad-libbed on a
"reality" show rather than being completely choreographed in
detail, even though (as I agree) the plot outline and story arc
are largely given to the participants in advance. And this loose
scripting is both caused by, and a desired effect of, such show's
use of non-professional actors -- people who are _not_ good at
conscious "role-playing" and who thus wear their emotions on their
sleeves when exposed to certain, pre-programmed stimuli as laid
out by the show's handlers.

> and that the "injuries" shown are actual harm and not
> faked.

Here, I think we _do_ disagree. If someone on Jerry Springer is
merely flailing his arms and acting angry but not making contact
-- and presuming that this is what he was instructed to do by the
show's handlers -- then no harm, no foul. Both participants know
it is merely an act, so it is not really the tort of "assault" (it
does not put the other person in apprehension of an unpermitted,
harmful or offensive body contact).

But we were talking about situations where the hitter really
_does_ make contact with the victim. I'm assuming those are the
only situations that would be likely to result in a criminal
prosecution or a civil lawsuit for battery (and/or for
negligence). And, in such situations, I very much disagree that
there is any likelihood the show's lawyers instructed the angry
participant to _really_ hit the other one. If the guys in suits
did that, then they too would be wide open for criminal
prosecution or a civil claim, and you _know_ that is one party
_they_ definitely want to avoid, even while presenting the viewing
public the illusion of edgy, uncontrolled "real" emotions coming
unhinged onscreen. If a participant really _does_ go unhinged and
hits someone on purpose, that goes beyond the show's
"choreography" to use your word.

> I contend that it is as choreographed as much as pro wrestling
> is.

That's a good example, and is what I had in mind when I mentioned
"sports" in my list of types of "reality shows" where this might
occur.

But even in pro wrestling, although the moves are choreographed,
they are not faked. Those guys really do hit each other in the
gut, head-butt each other, pound their opponents heads into the
ringposts, whack each other with chairs, etc. But, unlike the talk
show guests, the pro wrestlers are pros, and they are physically
trained to endure such abuse and take it in stride. That doesn't
mean the hitter is pulling his punches; it's a circus act, with a
rigged outcome, but even circus performers undertake a real risk
of being injured or killed if something goes wrong.

> The "guests" may be "real people" but on the show they're as much
> actors as Jon Hamm is.

They are actors, yes. But I disagree they are "as much actors as
Jon Hamm is." They are also not as good actors as Man Mountain
Mike and Hulk Hogan are. Because they are _amateurs,_ and are
really not very good at following directions, and because the show
is generally taped live, without getting a "re-do" if they mess
up, the unexpected/unordered harmful or offensive physical contact
can and does sometimes happen.

> Think of any movie or TV drama with a fight scene. Are the actors
> committing assault?

No, but I disagree that the way in which such scenes with
professional actors are choreographed (and shot over and over
again until the director feels he got it "just right") has
anything to do with the sloppy, loosely choreographed actions of
an amateur actor on a "reality" show. With that difference comes
the much-enhanced risk in the amateur scenario of someone going
beyond the "line in the sand" as it were, and thus getting into
some kind of trouble with the law (either committing some crime,
or incurring civil liability for a tort).

[John F. Carr]

In article <548d0d0e-fa77-482a...@googlegroups.com>,

Mike Jacobs <mjaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can you sign away your rights not to be a victim of assault & battery?
>
>Actually, yes. Consent is a complete defense to the crime or tort
>of assault or battery.

In my state one may not consent to battery causing bodily harm.
For example, a garter-clad woman may not consent to be spanked
hard on the bottom with a wooden spoon wielded by another woman.
That was the scene police in Attleboro, Mass. found when they
executed a warrant in mid-2000. Assault charges followed.
Keyword "paddleboro" will get you the rest of the story.

Courts may use this principle to reject as a matter of law some
defenses to rape and domestic assault charges. You can't tell
the jury "she likes me to burn her with a cigarette during sex."

--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)