Legality of zombie "killing"

Status
Not open for further replies.
1

19-3Ben

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
5,149
Location
CT
Ok, so I'm a total first year law school nerd. Please excuse me for a second. I'm wondering about the legal ramifications of "killing" a bunch of zombies. You see, if "taking a life" is a requisite component of 'murder' or 'killing', I'd think there ought to be no legal restriction on zombie killing. Since they are already dead, or "undead" if you prefer, it is impossible to take their life. Similar to shooting a corpse.

It seems to me that the worst one could be charged with is mutilating a corpse, or discharging a firearm within city limits and the resulting disturbance of the peace.

However, what if Andrew (just to pick a random name) does not know that zombies are already dead, and he still goes after them and kills them? You see in this case, Andrew has both mens rea (the intent to commit the crime/act in an evil manner), and actus reus (the commission of the illegal act) in his attept to kill them. However, the fact that they are already dead prevents Andrew from being physically able to kill them. Is he guilty of attempted murder?

In which kind of "life status" does the law consider zombies to exist? Are they in a "quasi-lifelike state"?

What other factors might I be missing here?
I purposely posted this question on THR because I know how many lawyers/judges/legal types hang out here. This is a very urgent matter. I hate zombies, but do not want to jeopardize my eligibility for admission to the CT state bar at the end of law school.

By the way, assume that we are talking about goint out purposely to kill zombies. No weaseling out of this by calling it self-defense. Andrew is a blood-thirsty zombie killer, who is going out of his way to kill them. This is a prima facia case of unbridled hatred for the undead among us.
 
Ugh...all that legaleze makes my head hurt...

I figure if we're overrun with zombies, law and order pretty much fly out the window.
 
My take? A zombie is a human formerly living, then became dead, and in some form or another is actually alive again. If a zombie is capable of movement and interaction they can no longer be considered dead in my opinion.

I imagine it wouldn't be a stretch to say that many people would feel that the zombie is entitled to the full protection of the law.
 
Actually, if you read Max Brooks book Zombie survival guide, in the historical section there is a story of a man who singlehandedly stopped a zombie outbreak by killing a fresh zombie by cutting of his head and burning it in the fire. He was rewarded by being hung for murder. This was in Africa, though, so he the fact he was a porter and the zombie used to be a popular white hunter, he was in the very definition of Kobiashimaru.
 
However, what if Andrew (just to pick a random name) does not know that zombies are already dead, and he still goes after them and kills them? You see in this case, Andrew has both mens rea (the intent to commit the crime/act in an evil manner), and actus reus (the commission of the illegal act) in his attept to kill them. However, the fact that they are already dead prevents Andrew from being physically able to kill them. Is he guilty of attempted murder?
Click to expand...
Ok, not to get too serious here and take your zombie fun away, but I seem to remember from a criminal law course I took about a couple of fellas who had sex with the body of a woman who had died of alcohol poisoning. They thought she was just passed out. The were convicted of attempted rape, but not rape itself. OK, I'm honestly not sure of the details, that's just how I remember it. they may have actually been convicted of rape, but I don't think so...

Again, sorry to get serious here.....
 
Ok, so I'm a total first year law school nerd. Please excuse me for a second. I'm wondering about the legal ramifications of "killing" a bunch of zombies. You see, if "taking a life" is a requisite component of 'murder' or 'killing', I'd think there ought to be no legal restriction on zombie killing. Since they are already dead, or "undead" if you prefer, it is impossible to take their life. Similar to shooting a corpse.
Click to expand...

The key to this question is the legal definition of "life". i dont know what it is, but I bet it answers your question. Well, really it comes down to what the shooter knows and believes. The burdon would be on you to prove that you reasonably believed your target to be "dead".
 
Well... zombies could quite likely be considered as pests. They are dead legally, and buried. You did not disturb them, they are disturbing you, thus playing the role of pests. Texas does not have specialized seasons for hunting pests.

P.S. The game wardens don't want you to call them up if you're driving and hit a zombie. Turn on your windshield wipers and move on.
 
I'd say "gross abuse of a corpse" at most. Trust me, this will not be on the bar exam. :uhoh:




Maybe this should be over on the "Strategies and Tactics" page. The mods over there just love these practical discussions.
 
You see in this case, Andrew has both mens rea (the intent to commit the crime/act in an evil manner), and actus reus (the commission of the illegal act) in his attept to kill them. However, the fact that they are already dead prevents Andrew from being physically able to kill them. Is he guilty of attempted murder?
Click to expand...
Wasn't this on an episode of Law & Order? The example they gave was a guy passes a window and sees his worst enemy sleeping and shoots him. Unbeknowst to him the guy was already poisoned by someone else. According to the show he could be charged with murder since that was his intent and the only thing that prevented him from accomplishing it was physical impossiblity; due to his victim already being dead.

Seems to me that Andrew falls into the same category. Prove that he doesn't realize that zombies are, in fact, undead, that undead is a distinct status seperate from alive, and that he did intend to kill the (unknown to him) undead, and he'd be guilty of attempted murder.
 
It's my understanding that zombie's have been declared unlawful enemy combatants; thus, they have no legal status and are entitled to no civil protections. Feel free to kill away. :)
 
It's my understanding that zombie's have been declared unlawful enemy combatants; thus, they have no legal status and are entitled to no civil protections. Feel free to kill away.


funny you should mention this. zombies have also been classified as domestic terrorists, and as such, are not entitled to due process. so not only would it be acceptable to kill them as enemy combatants, but if one was trespassing in your garbage can, you could detain him indefinitely without bringing charges.
 
Actually, they're legally dead. You could use their death certificates as documented evidence. The physical evidence would be the long-term lack of neural and cardiovascular activity. Since the corpses are where they should not be and eating people, it only further complicates what charges could be filed against him. He also has very good reason to believe his life is endangered(who isn't by zombies). The legal counsel for the zombies would no doubt be provided by the ACLU since it was their membership that was slain by "Andrew".
 
ok, i've got a good one for you...... very close to zombies

i work at a trauma hospital, we get head injury patients that are so bad they suffer total brain death. but most of the time, it doesnt kill the body. (though some people react differently and their bodies try to shut down when the brain is dying)

so, you have a documented brain dead person, EEG, apnea tests, cold water in the ear test (forgot what its called) yada yada right...... they have documentation stating they are brain dead.........

can you commit a physical crime against them?? rape (ala kill bill), murder, etc???

discuss
 
What about vampires?

They are portrayed as sentient, and capable of reason so I would say, if they really exisited, they would be considered a "being".

If vamps typically prey on humans they could be hunted and destroyed but what abut one that gets his blood through free exchange?

Can you destroy him because of what he is or does he have the right to be unmolested?

What if he commited evil acts way in the past but there is no one living today to be a witness against him? What rights does he have now, if he has not commited evil acts for centuries?
 
Well, my father, (aka Dad Esq) says I don't have to worry about the bar exam.
If I honestly believe that I have the ability to kill zombies, they won't admit me to the bar anyway.

As for the vampires. hrm.....interesting. If I'm not mistaken, unlike zombies, vampires don't ever actually die do they?

It seems like that would make a big difference. Once someone has died, the law regards them as dead, and (AFAIK) does not account for the possibility of coming back to life as an "undead" being.

However, there is nothing that gives life a certain "expiration date". So someone can continute to live for an unlimited amount of time, and never have their rights expire.
As for restricting or banning classes of people/things for what they have the potential to do...well, you can ask the VPC, Brady Campaign, and handgun control inc. all about that. They are experts!
 
The hypo asks the wrong questions. The answer does not turn on the man's intent, actus reus or mens rea. It turns on the status of the undead in question. Are they alive? Do they have status as human beings? One analogy would be to an unborn child who's life was ended during an assault, in a state with no fetal homicide statute.
 
1. You made my day because I thought I was the only one geeky enough to ponder these things.

2. If I use an AR-15 to kill these zombies we may increase the chance of showing that assault weapons are a necessity and should not be feared.
 
OK, a branch to the original hypothetical:

-what if the 'zombies' are not the re-animated corpses of the dead and buried, as found in most horror movies, but instead victims of some type of incurable disease, ie the 'rage virus' in the movie 28 Days Later?

In this scenario, they're alive but in all likelihood would be judged to be criminally insane (incurably so). However, given the unthinking aggression induced by the rage virus, they'll attack anyone they see who doesn't already have the virus, so you could call it self defense, except that 'Andrew' deliberately went out looking for them with the intent to kill them if he found them.
 
Warren- Vampires CAN be killed. Silver, wodden stakes, etc...I was merely remarking on the difference between vampires and zombies in that a zombie is dead and then comes back to life, whereas a vampire (I don't think but could be wrong), just transitioned from person --> vampire, without having to die first. It seems there may be a difference because of losing one's legal status as "alive" due to being "dead". (Yes I know. I even amaze myself with the profundity of that statement.)

Cosmoline- I did ask whether the zombies are considered to be "alive" by the law. But I still do think intent matters. If someone batters a pregnant woman and causes damage to the fetus, he is more culpable if he knows she is pregnant and is purposely putting the fetus' life in jeopardy. On the other hand I'll defer to you, being out on the raggedy edge of the verse. You may have experience with Reavers, which is closer than I'll ever get to zombies.

kd7nqb-Nope. lotsa geeks like us. Some of us even get dates!!! With wimmin!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
Terrorists Recruiting Zombie Army To Invade U.s.
Replies
13
Views
798
pax
P
N
  • Locked
The Dead are rising! What do you grab?
2 3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
6K
Justin
Justin
D
  • Locked
A Poem With All The Good Stuff. Pirates, Zombies, and Guns.
Replies
4
Views
356
bruss01
B
J
  • Locked
Think Castle Doctrine Gives You Legal Right to Shoot....Think Again
2 3
Replies
61
Views
5K
alsaqr
alsaqr
C
  • Locked
Archaeological Institute of America discovers an ancient zombie outbreak
Replies
3
Views
601
Justin
Justin
Back
Top