Hey everybody, it's Andy and welcome again to my office in Modesto, California.
If you're new to the channel, I'm an attorney licensed to practice law in California as well
as New York, and in this video I'm going to go over something slightly different than what I
normally go, you know, go over in my videos. Um, the idea for this video came about because over the
last I'd say maybe year or so, I've had a lot of people ask me, um, hopefully independently ask me,
uh, ask me questions like "Okay, well, you know, Andy what does law school actually teach you? What do
you learn in law school? My kid, my daughter, my son, whatever is thinking about going to law school.
I'm thinking about going to law school myself, like what do you actually learn when you actually go to
law school?" So that, obviously, gave me a whole kind of, you know, new train of thought for, for
videos and this one is going to be the first one kind of that results from that train of thought.
So the topic for today is the idea of an If-Then statement. Uh, If-Then statement. So, I'll, you know,
write that over here. Um, if you're familiar with computer programming at all, like if you do it as
a job, a hobby, in school, etc., um, then the idea of an if-then statement hopefully should be pretty,
um, you know, familiar to you. Like, you know, you should know what it is. Uh, even if you're not
into computer programming, um, I think an if-then statement is probably something that you actually
are familiar with also. You just might not know it. So I'll give you a couple examples. So let's
say, for instance, that you have a lawn, like, you know, a backyard with a lawn, and you have
a sprinkler system and the sprinkler system is programmed to water your lawn every 30 minutes,
let's just say, every three days or something. Like, you know, really in the, really early in the morning,
the sprinklers turn on before the sun comes up, etc, and, you know, that's how your lawn stays green,
for example. Uh, so the, um, the sprinkler system is programmed to basically know "Oh, if it's a Monday,
for instance, and it's, you know, between 5:30 and 6 AM, I'm going to turn the sprinklers on for
30 minutes. If it's after 6 AM, then I'm going to turn them off. Uh, and then if it's a Tuesday
and I, you know, that's not the day that I water, then I'm not going to turn the sprinklers on
even though it's between 5:30 and 6 AM, for example." So, um, that's one kind of idea or kind of,
sorry, one, one type of manifestation of an if-then statement. Like, you know, if it's a certain day and
it's between a certain time, then I'm going to do this. I'm going to turn the sprinklers on, let's say.
I'll give you another example. So, I think most newer cars or modern cars -- not mine obviously --
but, you know, most newer cars now will have safety systems in place where they basically will lock
your doors, like, you know, lock your driver's door, your passenger doors, etc., uh, if you haven't
done so already, you know, um, right when you start, you know, start driving. So the, the computer in the
car, for example, might know "Oh, if the doors are unlocked and I'm in gear and my speed is above
let's just say five miles per hour, then lock the doors automatically. So, um, I mean, hopefully you
can kind of tell from these examples that an if- then statement basically is a kind of process, I
suppose, that's probably the best word, it's a process by which, you know, a computer or some other type of
kind of analytical kind of entity, you know, a person, for example, will look to say "Oh, if a, b, and
c are true, then do this." So, if this is true, then do this, that's where the if-then idea comes from.
If you take that same type of idea -- for example, if this is true, then do this -- you can apply it
to the law also. So I'll give you a couple examples. Um, I guess, criminal probably is
the one that most people kind of can easily grasp. So if you look at robbery, for example,
in California that's Penal Code section 211, there are criteria for the offense of robbery.
So if you read over 211, 211 actually not not that long, but if you read over 211, um, you'll
find out that "Okay, well, you know, to prove robbery, you know, the prosecutor, for example, has to prove
the defendant took somebody else's property, specifically personal property, from the person
or their kind of immediate surroundings, against the person's will, via force or fear. So it's
four criteria right there. So if the prosecutor can prove all of those, you know, even though the
the defendant might try to prove otherwise, if, you know, after taking all that into account, the
prosecutor, sorry, the judge, rather, the jury has to, has determined "Yes, the prosecutor did prove
those four elements beyond a reasonable doubt," then the defendant will be found guilty of robbery, for
example. So if, you know, those four criteria are true, then guilt for robbery is established. If
you apply that same idea to burglary, for example, uh, in California that's Penal Code section 459.
Uh, the criteria for 415, or, sorry, the criteria in 459 for burglary are different. Um, 459,
unfortunately, is a really long statute, but if you, um, kind of read it thoroughly, hopefully,
you know, a couple criteria should pop out. Number one is that the defendant entered a structure or
a vehicle. If I remember 459 correctly, most of the bulk to it, most of the length to it
is describing what qualifies as a structure, a vehicle, and so on. So, um, you know, basically proving
entry, like if, uh, if the prosecutor can prove that, then, you know, that's one kind of step, I guess,
or one part of proving the offense of burglary. The second criteria for burglary is that the defendant
entered the structure or the vehicle with the intent to commit a larceny
or any other felony. So robbery, for example, had four criteria. Burglary only has two. Um, yeah, so I
mean, basically, if the prosecutor can prove these two, even after, even after considering what the
defendant might, you know, bring up in, in kind of opposition, in, in defense. Iif the jury believes
that on balance, on net that the prosecutor has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that these two
criteria occurred, then the defendant will be found guilty of burglary. Uh, this same idea can
apply to civil offenses also so I don't mean to give you the idea that it is, um, you know, criminal
only, let's say. So, um, if you're a lawyer, if you're, if you're a, you know, law student or even if you
kind of watch the news, you know, kind of regularly, negligence. Um, I'm hoping you've heard of the term.
Negligence, most people hopefully have heard of the term. Uh, if you haven't, though, negligence, I
guess, if I had to paraphrase it, would be that a person basically didn't do what they are, what they
kind of should have done, I guess, or would have done had they been paying attention, let's say.
It's not technically correct, but basically that's roughly how, you know, roughly how to kind of think
about it. Uh, negligence, at least in California, has, you know, criteria also. So the four criteria
are the existence of a duty between the plaintiff and the defendant, the breach of that duty, and the
proximate causation of injury to the plaintiff. So those four. So, duty, breach, causation, and injury.
If, for example, the plaintiff can prove all four of those, even after, you know, whatever the defendant
might say in opposition, what they might say in defense, for example, then the the jury, for example,
can find that the defendant is liable for the damages that their negligence caused the plaintiff.
Um, yeah. So the thing is, the idea that of an if- then statement is that there's certain criteria
that if you can prove it, then this happens or this this is true. In law there's there's a very similar
kind of logic that applies too. Uh, the statutes, for example, the cases, for example, will say
for this particular offense, these are the criteria. Five criteria, four criteria,
whatever, and the question then becomes can the plaintiff or can the prosecution prove that these
three or four criteria are satisfied? The defendant, you know, will basically try to prove that, you know,
these three or four criteria are not satisfied. And it's up to the judge, it's up to the jury, it's up
to the court, to determine, considering both the plaintiff and the defendant's kind of arguments,
what's the net? In other words, even after considering the plaintiff's, sorry, even after
considering the defendant's opposition, am I the court, am I the judge, the jury still convinced
that plaintiff has proved, uh, their case, you know, beyond a, er, sorry, uh, by a preponderance of the
evidence or has the prosecutor proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and so forth.
So hopefully all that makes sense, like the idea that, you know, there are criteria, for example, four
criteria that if you can prove it, then this is true. Liability is established, guilt is established.
Uh, on a related topic to that, uh, there's something else -- possibly two other things -- that, you know,
kind of, you know, are worth mentioning also. So the first one is of the four criteria, for example, or
three criteria, is it necessary to prove all four of these? Like is it and, like is it one and two
and three and four? Or is it necessary only to prove one of the four? Uh, so for example, it's like
"Okay, well, the case, for example, the statute says as long as plaintiff or as long as the prosecutor
can prove one, you know, whatever, you know, element number one is, or element number two, or element
number three, or element number four, as long as any of these four are proven, then, you know,
liability is established or guilt is established or something. Uh and as
you can probably guess or hopefully be able to guess, if there's four criteria,
to be able to prove all four of them at the same time is going to be more difficult usually than
it is to prove just one of the four. Um, so an and or an or, if you're, if you're familiar with the term
"conjunctive" and "disjunctive", uh, that's basically what I'm kind of, you know, talking about. So, uh,
you know, whether or not you have to prove all, all four criteria, uh, or just, you know, one of the four
criteria, for example, that's, you know, one factor to keep in mind. The second factor to keep in mind
is that if the idea is that you have to prove, for example, three criteria simultaneously, let's say, or
you have to prove four criteria or five criteria or whatever, uh, one way to defend against a case
like that if you are on the defense side of it is to prove that "Okay, well judge, there's, you know,
four criteria. Even if I concede, for example, that these three criteria over here can be proven,
you know, I'm not, you know, I'm not saying that they can be, but, you know, even hypothetically
assuming that these three criteria can be proven, this one criteria can't. Under no circumstances can
this one criteria be proven. There's no, excuse me, no evidence whatsoever that this one criteria
can be proven. The requirement is that all four have to be proven and because this one cannot,
there's no way that this case succeeds, for example. So if the requirement is that you have to prove
all four criteria if you're the plaintiff or the prosecutor, uh, one way to defend against that is to
show that at least one of the criteria cannot be proven, and if you can do that, then basically you
can prevail because all four are required and, you know, at best, I guess, the plaintiff or the prosecutor
can only prove three, but not this fourth one. So, uh, hopefully that makes sense, I guess. Um, to kind
of summarize this video fairly quickly, the idea of an if-then statement is that there are certain
criteria that exist that if proven, then something else happens. So, for example, like I said before,
if the day is right, if the time is right, then your sprinklers turn on for 30 minutes, let's say,
or, you know, if the speed is correct and, you know, you're driving
and the car is in gear or something, then the car doors will lock on their own. The same idea will
apply to law also. So the thing is if you have certain criteria, uh, you know, a, b, and c, let's say.
If you as the plaintiff or you as the prosecutor can prove whatever those criteria are, then you,
you know, could win your case, for example, you could prove liability, you can prove guilt.
Uh and, you know, I guess on the flip side of that, uh, if you, for example, are on the defendant's
side, you might be able to kind of prevail on your case if you can prove, for instance, that
all four criteria have to be established, you know, the plaintiff has to prove all of those and they
can't. They can only prove three, at best. Um, yeah, so hopefully all that makes sense. Go ahead and watch
this video again, share, like, comment, subscribe, etc and I will talk to you guys next time. Thanks.