Zombie CSU (45 page)

Since Wellington’s zombie uprising does not start with a single infection but is a truly spiritual pandemic, he lets this color his view of whether humanity would, or indeed could, survive a zombie apocalypse. “If the dead came back all at once,” he observes, “if everybody that died came back in minutes, yeah, we’d be hosed. The world’s military and police forces are designed around the idea of suppressing outbreaks of violence in small areas over relatively short durations. We’re not ready for that kind of threat. Small groups of survivors might hang on for a few months but slowly they would starve to death—or die of various diseases once they lost the ability to control their water supply. Meanwhile the zombies would be closing in on them, every day, overwhelming them with vastly superior numbers…Yeah, it would be the end.”

Whether an author or filmmaker takes a scientific or spiritual stance on zombies, the genre still lends itself to social commentary. As Wellington views it, “Zombies are just like us, but with any individual qualities and personality removed. They can’t be reasoned with, nor can they be satisfied. They have no inner lives, nor any free will, and with just a bite they can make you just like they are. They don’t even have to be violent to be frightening—it’s their sheer anonymity that bugs us, I think.”
¹¹

We’ve been primarily discussing one of two kinds of zombies: the Hollywood kind as opposed to the Haitian kind. But in truth there is a third kind, according to David Chalmers, professor of philosophy at the Australian National University and director of the Centre for Consciousness. Chalmers is one of a number of world-class philosophers who have written about “philosophic zombies,” or P-zombies for short. “A philosophical zombie,” he explains, “is physically identical to a normal human being, but completely lacks conscious experience. Zombies look and behave like the conscious beings that we know and love, but ‘all is dark inside.’ There is nothing going on inside…it’s like being a zombie.”

Professor Richard V. Greene, co-editor (with Kasey Silem Mohammad) of
The Undead and Philosophy: Chicken Soup for the Soulless
(Open Court Publishing Company 2006), a book on the philosophy of zombies and vampires, adds: “Philosophical zombies are molecule for molecule identical with normal humans, but have no consciousness (i.e., no experience). They are different from movie zombies, which appear to have a variety of inner experiences. If zombies are actually animated dead what does this do for the definition of ‘alive’? It’s not clear. It seems like the definition (animated and dead) is merely stipulative. One pretty much has to grant that such a category exists (because if one thinks about it too much one would have to conclude that things that are animated ARE alive).”

T
HE
F
INAL
V
ERDICT
: M
USING ON
Z
OMBIES

It comes as no real surprise that there isn’t a clear-cut and definitive set of philosophic answers to whether zombies are human or not. There are too many ways to spin it, and exploring the philosophic riddles inherent in this monster archetype has been part of the fun and fascination of the genre. Even Romero seems to have a flexible view of things, shifting from the stance that they are merely mindless corpses in the first films to the far more chilling thought that they are somehow evolving in the more recent entries.

This evolution of the physical nature and of the spiritual self is in keeping with most people’s view of how all beings exist: they learn, they adapt, they change. On one hand there is some hope peppered in with the dread because it suggests at least the
possibility
that communication and understanding might one day happen. Who knows, perhaps Big Daddy might have come to some agreement to live and let live (rephrase that however you like for zombies) with the humans fleeing the ruins of Fiddler’s Green in
Land of the Dead
. Maybe Bub led the zombies of
Dawn of the Dead
into the beginnings of zombie civilization and Big Daddy was a step or two further along in that process.

That’s the one really comforting thing in philosophy: anything’s possible.

Zombie Mugshots
by Alan F Beck

“Do we all hope for immortal life? Death is bad. How about a second chance. Also most zombies become one not of their own doing. They are usually victims of a curse, environmental disaster or science gone bad. They are sympathetic in a way and if it could happen to them, then it could happen to you and me. We’ve all been a victim of something sometime.”

T
here are always legal issues, no matter what the situation. Unless the world is actually totally overrum by the dead and humanity is wiped out, lawyers are going to get involved. Judges and lawmakers will get involved. Laws will be changed, charges will be filed, and somebody somewhere will get sued. After all, we are talking about
people
—even if they became zombies. We’re also dealing with infection, death, suicide, euthanasia, murder, self-defense, and a host of other legal issues, none of which will have been clearly defined in terms of zombies prior to the event—thus, afterward these laws will have to be interpreted.

Let’s take a look at how that plays out in the legal arena.

J
UST THE
F
ACTS

Zombie Murder?

Is killing a zombie murder? Let’s open a law book and see:

This definition is too vague to fit the wide variety of crimes that may be associated with a zombie uprising. Certainly there will be killings in self-defense and legal execution (something that would be government sanctioned once zombies start roaming the streets). But in a one-to-one confrontation, we need something more specific.

This immediately gets complicated because there is some debate as to whether a zombie can be classified as a human being. Authority could hardly be given in the earliest stages of the crisis; and prior intent is not always there, especially if a zombie comes lumbering out of the dark.

It’s doubtful anyone would be charged with first-degree murder in a zombie situation…unless the victim was, in fact, a child, police officer, prison guard, or fellow prisoner. And all of those are likely if the infection spreads.

Well, an attack by a zombie would certainly fit with the concept of a sudden quarrel or fight and in the heat of passion. One tends to get quite passionate about surviving a zombie massacre. But is killing a zombie a reckless act? It doesn’t seem so.

This one’s tricky since flight to safety from zombies certainly carries with it the possibility that zombie killing may be a factor, though it can be argued that very few people actually planned to have those deadly encounters while making a run for it. Again a clever lawyer (who, for whatever reason, wants to defend zombie rights in the post-zombie world), could argue that since zombies are slow and awkward that a reasonably healthy adult should be able to evade them or at most knock them aside or down rather than outright killing them during the escape. In cases where the zombies are thin on the ground, this is certainly true, though an opposing view would state that as long as zombies exist they are a constant threat to human life, and, therefore, violent and/or lethal attacks at any time are justified.

It’s about at this point that the trial would settle down to months upon months of expert witness arguments and legal wrangling. Somebody someday will do a book or movie on The Great Zombie Trial.

This obviously doesn’t apply in most zombie cases, but in films like the original
Dawn of the Dead
, outlaw bikers attack zombies while looting a mall. Technically so do our four heroes in that story. In the aftermath of a zombie crisis, a crafty lawyer could build a case that killing a zombie in order to commit a crime (looting, robbery, etc.) is itself a crime. Whether that case would be successful is a hard call, especially when we recall cases where burglars successfully sued homeowners for being shot while in the commission of a home invasion.

Voluntary manslaughter certainly seems to apply, since killing in the heat of passion (providing one is passionate about surviving a zombie attack) is pretty much the standard operating procedure in these cases. And there are lots of involuntary manslaughter cases where zombies were hit by the cars of people fleeing the crisis. Although in
Shaun of the Dead
, Ed (played by Nick Frost) seems to definitely be going out of his way to smash into as many zombies as possible on the way to the Winchester Pub. But in most cases the killing of a zombie by car would likely be viewed as involuntary manslaughter or, possibly, self-defense.

Now we seem to be getting closer. By any rational viewpoint killing a zombie would be classified as self-defense. But what does the law have to say?

The law makes clear provisions for self-defense. According to attorney and forensic expert Andrea Campbell,
²
“The first requirement for self-defense is that the defendant must believe that force was necessary for his own protection. This belief must be qualified as a ‘reasonable belief,’ such that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would have formed the same strategy.”

One can reasonably assume that anyone facing a hungry zombie would have the same reaction. However the law is often a little trickier than it first appears, Campbell warns: “One other requirement as established by some states are the elements of retreat and deadly force. For example, Oklahoma law says that, ‘There is no duty to retreat if one is threatened with bodily harm.’ Although the Tennessee court, on the other hand, says that, ‘A person who can safely retreat must do so before using deadly force.’ Now most courts do make the allotment that a person does not have to retreat in his own home.”

Which also brings us to justifiable homicide.

Is killing a zombie evil intent? Not for most people. Is it criminal intent? In some cases, sure, especially during breaking and entering (almost all zombie stories involve survivors barricading themselves in a house, building, etc., that doesn’t belong to them) or looting (whether for survival basics like food, or for less noble and excusable reasons).

In many of the zombie films, starting with
Night
, retreating from the ghouls is the basic plan everyone seems to be following, hence the holing up in a deserted farmhouse and the subsequent nailing of boards crookedly across the windows. It’s really only after the zombies attack en masse that the humans retaliate with lethal force. In the opening scene, when the character Barbara and her brother Johnny are attacked in the cemetery, Barbara wants nothing more than to retreat. The zombie chases her, attacking her again and again. If there was ever a case of justifiable homicide that would be it.

Ben, the hero of the piece, is in the process of fleeing when his truck runs out of gas. The cellar of the farmhouse is filled with folks who have fled from the ghouls.

By any legal standard the requirements for retreating are certainly fulfilled. The zombies, however, are persistent, and the trapped humans have no choice but to use deadly force in order to survive.

“In all such cases the question of the amount of force is always looked at as well,” Campbell says, “and you won’t be surprised to know that there are different schools of thought here too. How much force is
reasonable
depends on the circumstances of each situation and there are two tests: the subjective standard of reasonableness, which is another way of saying, the jury places itself in the defendant’s own shoes. The objective test, embraces the idea that the jury is supposed to place itself in the shoes of a hypothetical ‘reasonable and prudent person.’ In general though, the battered woman syndrome of self-defense is an example and has held up where women have had to use deadly force against the assaultive or homicidal offenses of men, in order to protect their own lives.”