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?

Question

I've seen several videos about pranks when someone dresses up as a zombie or other kind of monster, to scare people. I would assume that if such an actor dressed up as a monster suddenly attacks someone who out of sheer reflex harms the actor, then the victim of the prank is not culpable if a reasonable person would likely have reacted the same way (please correct me if I'm wrong). But if an actor dressed like a monster just wanders around the street, especially around Halloween, and is attacked by someone, then the attacker is culpable, as no reasonable person would have thought the actor was a threat. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

But let's consider the following scenario:

• Alice has a close relative, or boyfriend, or someone she cares deeply about, let's call him Bob.
• Alice thinks Bob is too lazy, too comfortable, and wants to enact a scenario to thrill Bob up a little, and make him more self-confident and courageous.
• So Alice hires Darren who is a well known stage illusionist / prankster / movie director, to put Bob through a scenario which seems dangerous (but is actually harmless), in order to instill some courage in him.
• Darren creates an elaborate setup, for example fake news broadcasts made specifically for Bob, movie props, a big cast of actors, stage illusion tricks etc. to make it seem like there is an apocalyptic scenario, or that mythical monsters are real, or something similar, and the scenario is so professionally done that most reasonable people would be convinced it is real.
• Charlie is one of the actors hired for the show, and is dressed up as a mythical monster (zombie, vampire, lich, whatever) which reasonable people in real life know not to exist, but due to the elaborate setup mentioned above, Bob is gradually convinced is real.
• Bob attacks and kills Charlie, sincerely believing Charlie to be the aforementioned mythical monster. During this, Charlie wasn't actively attacking Bob, it's Bob who sought out and hunted down Charlie.
• Neither Darren, nor Charlie, nor Alice intended this to happen. In fact Darren made all reasonable precautions to prevent such accidents, but despite all these precautions the tragedy still happened. Darren is a professional who organized similar events previously, without a single previous incident.

Who is culpable for Charlie's death? What will the three of them be finally charged with?

Addendum : would it be different if Charlie hadn't played the role of a non-human, but a human instead (like an evil necromancer who is responsible for the apocalyptic scenario), so Bob killed him knowing he was a human but believing to be a threat to the whole world, and believing the scenario to be truly apocalyptic?

Answer 1

Laws on self-defense vary greatly from nation to nation. Generally, one cannot hunt down a hypothetical threat but one can defend against an actual threat or even a mistakenly assumed actual threat where no actual threat exists. Alice set it up so that Bob would feel threatened.

In many jurisdictions, the self-defense defense for homicide rests on the state of the mind of the suspect, insofar as it can be determined, and failing that on a "reasonable person" standard.

• Presumably Bob genuinely felt threatened by Charlie and says so afterwards. "I thought he/it/whatever was trying to harm me. I didn't know it was a harmless actor." Just how much harm Bob needs to make self-defense stick varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It could be fear of imminent, serious bodily harm, or fear of being victimized in any sort of crime (stand your ground laws).
  As the comment by user6726 points out, just protraying a zombie or whatever isn't enough, there has to be threat to Bob.
• Bob cannot hunt Charlie down because Charlie "is" an evil lich or whatever. Bob can defend himself against attacks by Charlie and (in some jurisdictions) against intrusions by Charlie in his property. So it makes a difference if Bob hunts in his own backyard or further afield.
• The well-documented and extensive efforts by Alice and Darren to fool Bob should support Bob's statement. Say the court/jury believes that it was reasonable (or at least "not entirely unreasonable") for Bob to be afraid.
• Since the perceived self-defense would apply even if Bob thought the attacker was human, thinking that it was non-human should make little difference. Except that it would further showcase the degree to which Bob was fooled to see a threat.
• If the whole endeavor by Alice and Darren broke laws, the death might fall into felony homicide in some jurisdictions. This one could come to technicalities because Bob wasn't their accomplice. Otherwise, Darren's track record might prevent the two from being charged for negligent homicide.

Consider the well-publicized cases where either the police or civilians shot unarmed people, and say that they thought the victim was armed and a threat to them. If doesn't matter if the victim drew a gun or a wallet, it matters if the shooter can make his or her fears plausible enough.

Answer 2

Something like this?

Darren organised a situation where he knew a fight or flight situation was likely - it is his responsibility to ensure the safety of all involved. This would also include a debrief afterwards to ensure no lasting mental damage to Bob.

The setting would need to be safe.

• If Darren had left a dangerous weapon for Bob to get hold of then it is their fault.
• If Darren didn't have security ready to step in at a moment's notice it would be his fault.

Answer 3

Defense against a monster or mythical creature based upon the good faith belief that someone really is a monster or mythical creature, would fail as a matter of law. The same analysis would apply where the human threat that someone believed that they were defending themselves against was purely supernatural.

The case would be evaluated under the standards applicable to self-defense against humans who cannot use supernatural powers, because no reasonable person could believe (as a definitional matter of law) that these were really monsters or mythical creatures or supernatural powers exist (unless an ordinary insanity defense could be proven which would have to show the existence of a pre-existing mental illness, typically schizophrenia, that made someone hallucinate about what was true or made them unable to distinguish between right and wrong). Self-defense is evaluated from an objective reasonableness standard, not a purely subjective one.

On the other hand, if the defense was against an ordinary dangerous animal, the person who used force could argue successfully to a jury (and leave the jury to decide) that they reasonably believed that it was a dangerous animal and that if it was, that their use of force was justified.

Also, even if their use of force against an apparent actual ordinary dangerous animal was not justified under that standard, they could argue that they lacked the requisite intent for a crime such as assault or homicide against a person, and might be guilty instead of the crime of attempted illegal hunting, or unjustified discharge of a firearm in public.

Answer 4

This answer is based on my recollection of a book I once read. I no longer have access to the book, and I don't remember clearly which jurisdiction it applied to, but I believe it is the United States.

In general you are legally allowed to respond with deadly force if:

• You are in a place where you do not have to flee. Called the castle doctrine, it usually applies to your house. If someone intrudes into your house, you are allowed to respond with force, including with deadly force, as opposed to flee.
• If the castle doctrine does not apply, then you are still allowed to respond with deadly force if you genuinely believe your life is in danger. For example, if someone attacks you with a gun or knife, you are allowed to kill them. Note the limitations: as the gun is being drawn you are allowed to kill them; if they shoot, miss, drop the gun and run, you are NOT allowed to kill them.

Note one thing about these laws: they don't apply to only humans. You are also allowed to kill e.g. a dog if it attacks you in your house.

The upshot is, Bob is allowed to kill Charlie if 1) Charlie is unlawfully in his abode, or 2) Bob legitimately believes his life is in danger. Therefore the key part of your question is this one:

During this, Charlie wasn't actively attacking Bob, it's Bob who sought out and hunted down Charlie.

If Bob is doing this then neither 1) nor 2) apply. What he did is illegal, and he is culpable.