Real Lawyer Reacts to My Cousin 4th Generation Nuclear Weapons 2 days ago   25:41

Share
LegalEagle
Is it possible that the two yutes...excuse me, two YOUTHS...
Get my favorite suits -- INDOCHINO -- for 50% off + free shipping (plus it helps the channel) https://bit.ly/2IeeB8W

I love My Cousin Vinny. Most lawyers do. It is just a great movie that involves great lawyering. Everyone should watch this movie. But the question is: Is Vinny Gambini a good lawyer? We'll find out today.

The movies starts with two students driving through the South on their way to California. Once they arrive in Alabama, they stop at a local convenience store to pick up a few snacks. The store clerk is murdered just after they leave and, in a case of mistaken identity, they are fingered for the crime. Facing execution, the students do not have enough money for a lawyer, so they hire their cousin, Vincent Laguardia Gambini (Joe Pesci). After failing the bar 5 times, Vinny has been a lawyer for about six weeks and has to learn the process on the job. Vinny has to defend his clients and battle an uncompromising judge, some tough locals, and even his fiancée, Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei).

(Thanks to Indochino for sponsoring this video and helping to make this channel possible)

New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
https://www.youtube.com/legaleagle?sub_confirmation=1

★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: https://goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: https://goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: https://goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: https://goo.gl/NHUoqc

I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous.

Today I'm taking a break from representing clients and teaching law students how to kick ass in law school to take on lawyers in the movies and on TV. While all legal movies and shows take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth.

This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reaction" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!

All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!

========================================================

★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ ➜ https://twitter.com/LegalEagleDJ
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ https://www.facebook.com/legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta ➜ https://www.instagram.com/stellathelegalbeagle

For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv

Comments 3985 Comments

LegalEagle
Seriously, guys. If you're thinking about a suit, I can't recommend Indochino enough. https://bit.ly/2IeeB8W (plus it helps out the channel)
Dixie Champagne
Love it, and thanks for the link and discount code. It's nearly impossible for a woman to get a properly-fitted suit, the slacks are always wrong, and I can wear men's work pants off the rack, no prob
Tommy Dolan
Never hire a lawyer it deems you incompetent and ward of the court, challenge jurisdiction
Jeff Stone
Fun movie. Hollywood should start making good movies again.
Timothy Grubel
Are you a lawyer or a marketer?
Randall P
Another excellent lawyer movie to review has a strong similarity to your channel: the name.  The 1986 movie titled "Legal Eagles" with Daryl Hannah, Debra Winger, and Robert 'The Douchebag' Redford (c'mon, the guy was Hydra.)  It's a fun movie.
mascotgraphics
Imagine how boring the movie would have been if they made everything accurate to the legal system. It would no longer be a comedy.
MrVanagon1
stop trying to sell suits
Jimmy Roo
Note to self: never buy cheap looking Indochino suits. Spend less money on better looking suits.
crissy214
RIP Lane Smith
anakin skywalker
you should do Liar Liar I'd love to hear your opinion on that
John Keith
It is a great movie, and who doesn't love Marisa Tomei...
04gopackgo92
I had to go to jury selection. The defence attorney had on a suit that was for a man a few inches taller and 30 pounds heavier. He looked really sloppy. One of the potential jurors was dismissed after telling the defence attorney he should get a tailor.
Ernest Matthews
This was a cool video. I love the movie and was not expecting a lawyer to give it an A. Thank you.
Rod Doney
About suits, here in Auburn Washington there was an atty who got sober and defended DUI's in the area. He would wear the most outlandish suits you could imagine, but he had an excellent reputation and was admired by all. I dont recall his name right now and he passed some years ago in the '90s.
jay callaham
One of my fav movies
exoskins1
The importance of the photographs should have been explained.
William Hummel
I'd love to see you do an episode about The Exorcism of Emily Rose. I found myself agreeing with the verdict at the end of the movie: That the priest was guilty, but that time served was adequate for his punishment.
justin oneill
You should react to “the judge” with Robert Downey jr. it’s a great movie
Andrew H
17:40 Speculation (probably a long shot): Joe Pesci could have made a mistake in saying "Don't forget this one and this one". The prosecution could possibly argue that the defense coached the witness. He could have asked the witness to take a closer look at the photo and verify his count of the bushes, rather than specifically pointing them out for him. (Of course, I'm no lawyer, I'm just making a theory.) I would think that *any* discrepancy whatsoever could make or break a verdict.
Add Reply

4th Generation Nuclear Weapons Real Lawyer Reacts to My Cousin 2 days ago   15:08

Share
This is an overview of the 4th generation of nuclear weapons outlined in the report, Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects, condensed into an easy to digest video.

Full report click here,
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071v5

FAQ:
Q: In a nutshell what is a Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapon (FGNW)?
A: It is a nuclear fusion weapon that doesn't use a fission trigger. The most feasible method to trigger fusion in a FGNW is to use microscopic amounts of anti-matter.

Q: What advantages do FGNWs have over conventional nukes?
A: They are "clean" (radioactive fallout negligible, about on par with conventional depleted uranium weapons that are already in use), they are very small (potentially can fit in your pocket), and fill in the "yield gap" between the most powerful conventional weapons and the lowest yield conventional nukes.

Q: Will FGNWs really be more politically acceptable to use in actual combat?
A: Who knows? Only time can tell for certain, but their "radioactive cleanness" is a compelling argument in favor for it.

Q: What would be the TNT equivalent of a FGNW be?
A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would release around 302 gigajoules of energy (about 72 tons of TNT), so around that.

Q: How much antimatter is needed to catalyze a single FGNW?
A: A 3 gram pellet of fusion fuel would need 1x10^11 antiprotons to catalyze nuclear fusion

Q: Isn't carrying antimatter dangerous? What would happen if containment failed?
A: The quantity of antimatter is extremely small. 1x10^11 antiprotons would release the equivalent of about 6 milligrams of TNT, that's less than a firecracker. However the energy would be released in the form of ionizing radiation so it would be a radiological hazard if containment failed.

Q: Wouldn't failure of antimatter containment result in the FGNW detonating?
A: No, nuclear fusion requires very precise injection of antimatter to catalyze fusion. Failure of containment would not result in the precise injection of antimatter to the fusion fuel. Added safety measures can be taken by separating the fusion fuel from the antimatter containment until the weapon is ready to be armed.

Q: If you accidentally drop it, wouldn't containment fail?
A: These weapons are intended to be incredibly rugged with one of their applications being bunker busters. They contain little to no moving parts and are "full like eggs". The FGNW report indicates that the overall ruggedness would be far superior over conventional nuclear bunker busters so no, simply dropping it wouldn't cause containment to fail.

Q: Wouldn't FGNWs be attractive for nuclear terrorism?
A: No, it's easier to build conventional nuclear weapons. FGNWs require extremely large particle accelerators to manufacture the antimatter necessary for the FGNW. A terrorist who wants a suitcase nuke is better off with something like the M-388 Davy Crockett.

Q: Are FGNW a proliferation concern?
A: No, see above.

Q: Why not make pure anti-matter weapons instead?
A: A couple of reasons. It's prohibitively expensive. It's single handedly the most expensive substance in the world and incredibly difficult to make. Right now, if we took all the antimatter we produced and annihilate it, it would only be enough to power a lightbulb for a few hours. On the other hand, fusion fuel is incredibly cheap and abundant, you can literally make it from sea water as all it is are isotopes of hydrogen. But even if we had large quantities of antimatter, it's questionable how useful it would be as a weapon on its own. It's incredibly difficult to contain as if it touches any normal matter, it will annihilate. Containing microscopic quantities is not a problem, but macroscopic quantities are. Even if you could contain it, it would be incredibly unstable. Fusion and fission weapons fail safely, if you damage a nuclear weapon the nuclear weapon doesn't detonate. An antimatter weapon would detonate as soon as containment fails. From a cost-benefit point of view, pure antimatter weapons do not make sense.

Q: Can you use conventional explosives to catalyze nuclear fusion?
A: No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion