Timeline for If a person is dressed up as non-human, and is killed by someone who sincerely believes the victim was not human, who is responsible?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2020 at 22:49 | comment | added | bta | To make things even more confusing/interesting, there are two things to consider here: criminal charges brought by the state (homicide, etc), and civil charges brought by the deceased's family (wrongful death). Someone could be considered responsible for the death in a criminal case but not in a civil case, or vice versa. | |
| Nov 30, 2020 at 18:08 | comment | added | Abion47 | I would argue that Bob would be at the very least charged with some form of negligence, most likely negligent homicide. A person is found negligent if they do or fail to do something that a "reasonable person" would do or fail to do in a given situation, and I don't think it would be hard for any prosecution to argue that a reasonable person wouldn't believe in the supernatural to the extent of hunting and killing. Self-defense situations might throw a wrench in that approach, but as the question is worded, it's pretty clear that Bob sought out Charlie so self-defense doesn't apply regardless. | |
| Nov 30, 2020 at 12:32 | comment | added | paul23 | Any country that has such laws should be considered a humanitary crisis at least. And probably (like the us) the axes of evil for allowing violence on purpose nad not banning weaponry. | |
| S Nov 30, 2020 at 5:32 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected to inclusive language
|
| Nov 29, 2020 at 19:31 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 30, 2020 at 5:32 | |||||
| Nov 29, 2020 at 17:07 | comment | added | o.m. | @CharlesStaats, I guess that depends very much on the jurisdiction and the trial. If this "hypothetical" really happened it would be a media circus. | |
| Nov 29, 2020 at 17:05 | comment | added | Charles Staats | And if the deception involved showing Bob a falsified death certificate for Charlie's character? Then (as far as Bob can tell) determination of death has been made by a licensed professional, rather than by Bob himself. Would this absolve him from a homicide charge for hunting down Charlie's walking "corpse"? | |
| Nov 29, 2020 at 16:23 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 297 characters in body
|
| Nov 29, 2020 at 9:35 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @o.m. "I didn't tamper with the corpse, the corpse tampered with me!" | |
| Nov 29, 2020 at 6:41 | comment | added | o.m. | @CharlesStaats, zombies and liches are ex-human, and the law usually does not allow a layperson to determine death (which would make it tampering with a corpse, instead). | |
| Nov 29, 2020 at 1:31 | comment | added | Charles Staats | I feel like this is missing something. If I hunt down and kill a lion, I am not guilty of homicide even if self-defense does not apply. (Guilty of a felony very probably, but not of homicide.) I think this needs to be addressed to handle the question "What will the three of them be finally charged with?": in case self-defense is found not to apply, what should be the charge for someone who hunted down and killed a (they believed) non-human zombie/vampire/lich? Does it depend on the fake news reports fed to Bob (e.g., if he was led to believe that zombies are mindless)? | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 18:40 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 289 characters in body
|
| Nov 28, 2020 at 18:25 | comment | added | o.m. | @vsz, that's a point. Look at the text in the first bullet point, should I make that even clearer? | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 18:23 | comment | added | vsz | This is a great summary, but I think a crucial point is missing: if Bob wasn't currently under attack by Charlie, but he specifically went out to hunt down the "monster", like hoping he can catch it off-guard, couldn't then the prosecution argue against self-defense? In a normal situation if a mugger physically assaults you, you have the right to self defense, but if you just notice someone on the street who mugged you yesterday, you don't have the right to go up to him and stab him in the back. | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 17:53 | comment | added | o.m. | @user6726, I appended a sentence to the first bullet point. | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 17:52 | comment | added | o.m. | @user6726, right, but if I see an apparent assault by someone who looks like a zombie and no film crew, I should disregard the makeup/skin condition/whatever and act as if it was a human attacker. Otherwise all muggers would dress up as mummies. | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 17:50 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 130 characters in body
|
| Nov 28, 2020 at 17:50 | comment | added | user6726 | A reasonable person would know that zombies are not real, therefore the acts on display are not real. E.g. if you see an apparent assault but also see a film crew, it is not reasonable to believe that the "victim" is being attacked. | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 17:46 | comment | added | o.m. | @user6726, If Bob thought that Charlie was threatening because he was a zombie, that would apply. But not if Bob thought that Charlie was threatening and a zombie. See my first bullet point regarding perceived threats. | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 17:18 | comment | added | user6726 | Are you proposing that an unreasonable belief can support justifiable homicide? Not in Washington: RCW 9A.16.050 requires reasonable grounds. | |
| Nov 28, 2020 at 17:10 | history | edited | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 161 characters in body
|
| Nov 28, 2020 at 16:45 | history | answered | o.m. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |