He was a genius to outsmart the law like that.

Doesn't he kidnap people and perform non-consensual surgery on them to place keys behind their eyes or whatever while they're unconcious? I don't watch torture porn movies

>>336 I only watch them while drunk, but I recall it's actually a half pig man and the receptionist from Becker that does that. The old guy just offers to help them if they roll around in some glass or whatever. He has brain cancer that makes him retarded.

Was he a genius?

>>272 >"I've never raped any woman in my life. It was their decision to not give me consent, it's on them."

>>354 Kek it’s a regular guy with a pig mask but everything else is right

It's scary because it actually happens.

Former ICJ judge here. Technically, he can be charged with taking people from one location to another one without their explicit will and signature. It is also true that he can be charged with putting people in situations that bear the risk of bodily injury and potentially fatal consequences. However, and this is important in understanding how such people are convicted. Jigsaw's intentions also fall into the equation which means that he a) intends to teach his "victims" a lesson for life and thus make them better persons, b) he gives them explicit instructions how to learn that lesson and c) he acts without malice. Moreover, on the aspect of kidnapping. Evidence obviously would show that he is too frail to actively kidnap someone, ergo this would be instantly dropped in a serious court. The chances of him being convicted of murder, let alone kidnapping are extremely low, 0.5% tops.

Kidnapping, holding people against their will, endangerment.

>>1043 Allegedly

>>272 >>272 Are you people fucking dumb or have not seriously watched these movies, if that crazy ass medieval torture shit really happened then fuckin obviously jigsaw would go straight to prison maybe even put on death row. They fuckin throw people into prison cells for doing a whole lot less than what crazy ass psychopath motherfucker does

>>1216 Lawyer here. Here's the beauty of Jigsaw by allowing his victims to choose their own fates, he technically cannot be convicted of homicide. Let me clarify. Webster's dictionary defines murder as having the following elements: >1. unlawful >2. killing >3. through criminal act or omission >4. of a human >5. by another human >6. with malice afterthought Jigsaw takes advantage of a couple of different legal loopholes. In this case, it would be in regards to point 2, 3, and 6. >2. killing Jigsaw never actually "killed" any of his victims, per-say. They always had a choice. >3. through criminal act or omission Even if Jigsaw did kill anybody, it was not through criminal act. There is nothing criminal about letting your victims choose their own fates, through their own free will. They are liable for their own actions. >6. with malice afterthought The whole point of Jigsaw's antics was to serve as a life-changing, positive rehabilitation. Therefore, Jigsaw acted without malice. I hope this clear things up for anybody who previously didn't understand the legal technicalities of this series.