We all know how Disney villains meet their demise; usually through their own fault. But is this truly the case in all of them? In this little joke article I'm going to investigate each and every hero from the Disney (full length) movie database and see if they could be held responsible for the death of the villain.
As if a judge I’m going to pass judgment on each and every one of these main characters from Disney movies wherein the villain ultimately met their demise (so, since Yzma from The emperor’s new groove didn’t die but was merely turned into a cat her case won’t be on this list).
Other cases like property damage or traffic violations (I'm looking at you Wilbur) might only be mentioned in passing. The main focus here is on involuntary manslaughter, self-defense or, possibly, murder in the first decree. Attendants please rise:
Self-defense
(…) This means that the person must reasonably
believe that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful
physical harm. When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense
claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force
is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction or great bodily harm
or death.(wiki)
In short:
if the defensive actions of the defendant (wherein the choice of fleeing was
unavailable [this is a debatable issue]) resulted into the death of said
aggressor the claim of self-defense can be made if the result of non-defensive
actions would result into the defendants own death (or great bodily harm).
Mr. Basil
of Baker Street, please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found innocent of murder.
However,
the fact that you -with your superior intellect- lured professor Ratigan to the
edge of the clock tower mere moments before the bells struck do speak of a
certain amount of predetermination.
However,
since it was Ratigan's full intention to murder you first the court waves away
the charges. Moreover the fact that Ratigan posthumously has been found guilty
for the crime of high treason (punishable by death) we -the court- consider
your actions to be justified.
Prince
Phillip, please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found innocent of the murder of Maleficent.
Considering the fact that she was in dragon form at the time and trying to kill
you weigh heavily in this case in favor of self-defense. However, considering
the fact that miss. Maleficent at that time was -due to acts of war- the ruler
of the King Stefan’s kingdom, you were in fact trespassing. She had every right
to defend her home. Especially since you failed to proclaim an official
statement of war. But, then again, neither did miss. Maleficent. So technically
the kingdom was still king Stefan’s and he refused any prosecution.
The court
does wish to remind Prince Phillip that kissing sleeping strange girls is
considered quite the offence. But, again, since Miss Aurora didn’t press any
charges the court resides in letting its protests be known.
The three
fairies, however, are to be tried at a later date for illegal weapon smuggling.
Miss Fa Mulan,
please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found innocent of the murder of Shan Yu.
Regardless
of the fact that you -a woman- dressed up like a man against all forms of army
regulations the court finds you not guilty of murder. Since the situation
involved war a lot of actions are permitted. However, willfully luring you’re
the victim Shan Yu to the roof, pinning him down there and blowing him up by
fireworks rocket does imply a well thought out plan. In a non-war situation
therefore you would be tried for first degree murder.
However, as
the court stated before, it was a time of war. Moreover, Mr. Shan Yu was in
fact the chieftain of the invading Hun army and –considering his reputation-
solely interested in the bloody defeat of all those who opposed him. Since you
opposed him, a right you posses in rules of war, a murder claim cannot be made.
So, miss. Mulan you are free to go. Now please wear a dress.
Mr. Beast
please rise.
It is the
court's ruling that you are found innocent of the death of Mr. Gaston LeGume.
He attacked your home under false pretenses that -evidence shows- he himself
fabricated. And when you lay wounded on the ground he attacked in a most
cowardly fashion. The self-defense claim is therefore accurate. Moreover, you
yourself could –at the time- not imagine that Mr. LeGume would lose his balance
and fall to his death.
However,
the court does wish to emphasize its disdain for you multitude of kidnappings
and imprisonments. It is the court’s believe that this is a direct result of psychological
trauma received when you were transformed aged eleven. Therefore the court
orders a full psychological evaluation on you and your latest victim miss.
Belle.
Oh, and miss. Dressing cabinet will be charged
for murder at a later date. Crushing somebody under you weight is murder. No
question!
Mr. Fagin,
please rise.
It is the
court of New York's ruling that you are found innocent of the death of Mr. William
Sykes. The court does feel, however, that you are in need of a bath. More on
that later.
It is
obvious to the court that you thwarted a kidnapping in progress. Though there
are some sources that claim that you are responsible for a previous kidnapping
of a pussycat named Oliver, which lead to the kidnapping of Jenny Foxworth.
However, all these sources retracted their statement.
Having
received the knowledge of the kidnapping of Jenny Foxworth -instead of calling
the police you decided to help her on your own with the help of your pets. It
is this choice that the court rules as highly inadvisable. The chase that
occurred afterwards, therefore, is a direct result of this foolish action.
But, the
court reasons, the death of Mr. William Sykes could not have been foreseen at
this point since your main objective was the rescue of the girl Jenny Foxworth.
Therefore the following chase and the death of Mr. Sykes are unfortunate
consequences. The court is even willing to admit that driving a car on a subway
track was such a foolish thing to do that Mr. Sykes’s death was at his own
hands.
Therefore
you are cleared of all charges and recommended for you help. However, two
things the court does wish to make known to you. First you will receive daily
visits from a social worker. Your lack of general hygiene and the fact that you
live in terrible conditions surrounded by far too many pets’ causes the court’s
concern.
Second, the
butler of the Foxworth family wishes to stress the fact that he'd like his
olive press, radio and mixer back ASAP. If you would be so kind. And I would
like to add my wallet to this list. I think that Chihuahua with the bandana
took it.
Mr. Carl
Fredricksen please rise.
Before we
proceed; is your hearing aid on? I SAID IS YOUR HEARING AID ON?
You are
found innocent of the death of Mr. Charles F. Muntz. As the various reports
(some from talking dogs) show you were protecting the young wilderness explorer
named Russell. Though the court does feel that the boy was acting out quite
foolishly in his attempt to save the rare bird nicknamed ‘Kevin’.
To note
here: A foolishness, the court believes, is the direct result of neglect by his
parents. Luckily Mr. Fredricksen has taken the boy under his wing.
The
lawlessness of the lands where these events took place does not disallow such
actions. Mr. Muntz was free to capture the bird; Russell was free to save the
bird, as it were. However, Mr. Muntz threatening of Russell did allow and even
required Mr. Fredricksen to act. The fact that Mr. Muntz death happened due to
entanglement and the downside of gravity is a sad result of this defensive
action.
The court
does, however, have one final question for Mr. Fredricksen. Do you own that
airship outside? Do you have a flight permit?
The court
rules your claim for self-defense justified. The fact that grasshopper Mr.
Hopper tried to murder the ant Queen to sustain his oppressive position speaks
in favor of your rebellion. That Mr. Hopper then cornered you in full attempt
to kill you is the single fact that makes your following ploy one of
self-defense rather than outright murder. Namely tricking Mr. Hopper in
believing that a bird was not –in fact- real caused his ‘death by chicks’-as it
were. There is an argument to be made that: not informing Mr. Hopper of the
real danger looming is a serious case of criminal intent or willful
neglect. But considering the direness of
your situation at that time Mr. Flik the court cannot see any other outcome
wherein you both would have survived. Now please get out of my kitchen.
Mr. Milo
Thatch please rise.
The court
can (sometimes) be swift in its judgment. The Atlantean court acknowledges that
Commander Lyle Tiberius Rourke indeed died by your hands. You should have known
that cutting him with that shard would mortally change him it. However,
considering the horrendous acts he did before (which resulted in the rebellion)
and the fact that he did try to kill you at that time the court can only say
that your self-defense plea has been granted.
Reckless
endangerment and Criminal negligence
The distinction between recklessness and
criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the
prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance'
where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault
lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a
'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (…), where the fault lies in the failure to
foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest.(wiki)
In short:
In criminal negligence the actor could have seen the potential dangers on the
horizon but failed to act upon them. Whereas recklessness claims the same but
stresses the unwillingness to act upon them.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found innocent of reckless endangerment.
You -being
raised in the jungle- were far more capable of using your surroundings than Mr.
William Cecil Clayton. The court (currently disregarding the fact that he was
firing at you at the time) finds it evident that you willfully threw several
vines towards the man. You could have known that he would be incapable of
dealing with them in the -for you- 'normal'- way. And, therefore, you are
indirectly responsible for his death.
The claim
of self-defense is considered ungrounded by the court since the possibility of
fleeing was available to you at all times. You willfully sought out the
confrontation to release your friends the apes. However, since the jungle you
lived in all these years doesn’t possess any human laws -and the fact that the
claims of kidnapping do not encompass the ape-community at this time- Mr.
Clayton was free to take whatever he wished. But the duality of this case also
stipulates that you were free to prevent Mr. Clayton from taking these apes.
‘No-man’s land, no-man’s rules’- as it were.
However,
since you showed willingness to save him. And that Mr. Clayton 'till his final
fall showed a dedicated unwillingness to be helped from his mortal peril it is
the court's ruling that you are cleared of all charges. It is like buying round
to a friend in a bar. You could have known he'd get into his car afterwards and
even though you tried to talk him out of it he still went. The death of Mr. Clayton
therefore hangs around his own neck.
Mr. Peter
Pan, please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are held responsible for serious bodily harm to Captain
James Hook.
The fact
that during a duel you cut off the captain’s hand and fed it to a crocodile
speaks highly of ungentlemanly behavior. The court does acknowledge that
captain James Hook is a pirate. And that you –as a free spirited boy-are free
to protect yourself in the lawless lands of Neverland. However, the origins of
this feud between the two of you remains mysterious. Nonetheless, cutting off a
hand and setting a crocodile’s appetite dead-centre on Captain James Hook is
considered very bad sport.
But, as
stated before, since Neverland does not follow any law you are hereby free to
go.
Having said
that the court does require you to appear at a later date when we are going to
discuss the matters of multiple kidnapping charges and infidelity.
Mr.
Pinocchio, please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found guilty of reckless endangerment.
Where to
begin. Under aged smoking, drinking and vandalizing. Tsk Tsk. Moreover you left
your friends behind on an island to be sold as livestock. Mules if our papers
are correct. All very, very ungentlemanly behavior. But, since you are a young
boy the court is lenient in our judgment. And yes, your claims against Honest
John and Gideon (fraud), Stromboli (kidnapping) and the coachman (slavery) are
currently under investigation by the court.
However,
here you stand trial for the death of dear mammal Monstro the whale. After
failing to visit your first day at school and sequentially running away from
home (though the court acknowledges a possible other turn of events) your
adoptive father Geppetto went out searching for you and got swallowed by
Monstro the whale.
This is
naturally a crime committed by Monstro. And would he still be alive today the
prosecution could certainly make a kidnapping case. However, once you re-found
your father you set into motion a plan to escape the belly of the beast.
Setting a dangerous fire inside a whale’s belly is a clear example of reckless
behavior to Monstro’s health. The resulting chase, therefore, -the court
considers- is a direct result of aggravating Monstro.
However,
the court rules that, even though you set the fire. The fact that Monstro dove
head-first into a cliff wall –which killed him- was never your intention. Therefore
the prosecution, considering the age of Mr. Pinocchio, decided to drop all charges
since Monstro never should have devoured Geppetto in the first place. But the
notion of ‘reckless endangerment’ will be put on your record until you are of
age. Next time, dear Pinocchio, please listen to your conscience.
Involuntary
manslaughter
A killing that stems from a lack of intention
to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to
death.(wiki)
In short:
the actor had no intention to kill the victim. However the actor is considered
responsible for the death caused.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found innocent of involuntary manslaughter.
Seldom has
the court had to deal with such a strange case. Death by sacrificing life. The
court acknowledges that you executed your plan with the utmost predetermined
determination. However, considering the fact that the goal was to destroy a
legally previously obtained item called the Black Cauldron -which was, in turn,
stolen from your master; any claims of predetermined murder against Mr. the
horned king are considered ungrounded.
Moreover,
considering the fact that the victim -the horned king- at the time was raising
an illegal abomination of a war army it is this court's ruling that you
prevented further bloodshed. Therefore it is the court's ruling that you a
recommended and rewarded with at least twenty apples.
Mr. Eugene
Rider, please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found innocent of involuntary manslaughter.
Evidence
shows that you were tricked into the tower on that fateful night. Moreover the
deadly blow you might have committed was against Mrs. Rapunzel (your spouse)’s
hair. And she refuses to press charges because -and I quote- she: "loves
him.".
For a short
while the court's investigators suspected a conspiracy. But as evidence shows,
cutting of the hair only caused a deadly panic in mother Gothel. A panic you
could not have foreseen. It is this panic that caused mother Gothel to age back to
her true age. Therefore it is the court's ruling that her death was long
overdue.
Mr. Simba
please rise (and get that silly monkey off my back please)
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found innocent of involuntary manslaughter.
Several
eye-witnesses stated Mr. Scar was still alive after you threw him from pride
rock. And that you only threw him off after you banished him by kingly decree
–which he in turn refused to accept.
However, since
your banishment of all the hyenas from the pride lands no-one responsible for
the true death of former king Scar can be found. This case is therefore
considered closed until the true murdered is apprehended.
Mrs. Tiana
of Maldonia please rise
The court’s
judgment is cut and clear on this one: destruction of property. However,
whether you had any knowledge that destroying Dr. Facilier’s necklace would
result in his death is something the court is unclear about. Taking into
account that Dr. Facilier’s –for want of a better word- ‘friends’ are actually
responsible for his death you are cleared of all charges. The court would only
like to add that we acknowledge that: ‘it’s not easy being green’.
Mr. Baby
Jack Jack Incredible please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are innocent of the death of Buddy Pine aka Syndrome.
That fact that Mr. Syndrome was at the time attempting to kidnap you also
speaks in your favor. Though the court had to sign a secrecy-statement that
disallows to reveal the true events that lead (ha!) to your escape. It can be
noted in the minutes that Syndrome’s unwisely wearing of a cape resulted in his
death. Therefore his death is of a fault of his own. Or to quote Edna Mode’s
previous testimony:”Fashion fatality.”
Mr.
Quasimodo please rise.
After the
death of judge Claude Frollo it is tasked upon this newly formed court to pass
judgment on you Mr. Quasimodo concerning his death. And as the late Mr.
Frollo’s judgment was swift so will ours be. You are cleared of all charges.
Numerous
eye witnesses (including some very annoying gargoyles) have reported that Mr.
Frollo willfully broke the sanctuary function of the holy church and chased you
and Miss. Esmeralda across the roof of the Notre Dame with full intend to kill.
When, during your flight, he attacked you and fell. And even then you tried to save
him from mortal peril. Only to be repaid by him attempting Miss Esmeralda’s
death again. The following fall, therefore, the court believes is divine
intervention. The court will miss judge Frollo’s singing voice, but his death
is not your fault.
Murder in the
third decree
Voluntary manslaughter: (…), is any intentional
killing that involves no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under
such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become
emotionally or mentally disturbed".(wiki)
In short: a
murder committed at the opportune moment but without any previous planning.
Moreover the mental state of the aggressor here at that time is in question.
It is the Sultan's
ruling that you are found innocent of the death of former grand visor Jafar.
Taking into account the following: The fact that former grand visor Jafar was
-at that time- attempting a coup d’etat. The fact that, at multiple times, he
replied to your verbally expressed protests with aggression before ignoring
them. And the fact that you lay wounded on the ground and where therefore
incapable of ‘thinking straight’ when you performed the –as it turned out-
mortal action-as it were. These are enough reasons to clear you from any
misdoings. Moreover, the court acknowledges fact that former grand visor Jafar
at the time was a genie, he was therefore already dead.
Which
brings the court to Mr. Aladdin and his companion Mr. Genie. The Genie-contract
clearly states that a genie cannot kill somebody. Then how, the court does
wonder, can a genie turn a mortal man into a genie?
Considering
the fact that Mr. Aladdin tricked former grand Visor Jafar into wishing the
state of being a Genie upon himself does point to Mr. Aladdin as an attempted assassination.
But, being a inhabitant of Agrabah it is his duty to protect the city and his
people. And since former grand visor Jafar was -at the time- (again) involved
in a coup d’etat his trickery can be put down as defending the city.
Therefore
you are all free to go. However, the court stresses Mr. Genie to stop killing
people even if the ask it themselves.
Murder in the
second decree
Second-degree murder: any intentional murder
with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned in advance.(wiki)
In short: a
murder committed at the opportune moment but without any previous planning.
Mr. Bernard,
please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found guilty of murder in the second decree.
The
prosecution argued quite convincingly that Mr. Bernard was more than capable of
helping Mr. Percival C. McLeach out of his dire situation. In fact it could be
argued that, even, if Mr. Bernard did not help Mr. McLeach could still be alive
today.
In that
scenario -should Mr. McLeach have fallen Mr. Bernard would have been found guilty
of criminal negligence since -as the evidence shows- the little mouse has more
than enough strength to save Mr. McLeach.
It is also
questionable why Mr. Bernard pushed Mr. Mcleach over the edge. It was obvious
that Mr. McLeach was –at that time- incapable
of furthering any harm to his intended victims. So why this interest by Mr.
Bernard to further Mr. McLeach his predicament?
It is the
court's ruling that Mr. Bernard is found guilty of second degree murder but
with the notice that he receives a full psychological investigation. The
evidence clearly shows a 'childlike' wonderment of cause and effect oblivious
to the mortal situation of the victim -Mr. McLeach. The court considers this a possible
psychological trade of a true sociopath and therefore it is the court's ruling
that the honeymoon with miss Bianca should be postponed.
Mr. Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful,
Sneezy, and
Dopey please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are all responsible for the death of Mrs. Evil Queen,
thus murder in the second degree.
Regardless
of the fact that Mrs. Evil Queen –in disguise at the time- attempted the murder
or Mrs. Snow white you willfully chased the victim Mrs. Evil Queen to her death
as she fell of the cliff. At any time would you have been capable of stopping
your pursuit or even calling in the authorities –since it’s the court’s believe
that –at the time- the true identity of Mrs. Evil Queen was unknown.
Nonetheless,
you chased her until she died and therefore you are considered guilty of murder
in the second degree.
At a later
time the court also wishes to press charges of necrophilia against the prince.
It is the court’s believe that stumbling upon a coffin bound corpse in the
woods with a group of mourning dwarfs surrounding it, no less, is no reason to
kiss the dead body. A psychological evaluation might become part of our
investigation.
Mr.
Hercules please rise.
How does
one kill a God? Especially the God tasked with death on a daily basis. Technically-
Hades is not dead. But, rest assured, the court has it from reliable sources
that he’s not very happy about his current predicament. True, raising the
titans, stealing your sweetheart and defying your father: our lord Zeus –all in
one day. It is the court’s believe he got off lightly. Nonetheless after
gaining Godlike status and still hitting him into the river Styx feels a bit
like kicking somebody when he’s down.
But,
considering all this, and having consulted with our lord Zeus we-the court-
judge that you are cleared of all charges. One final parting note though:
prophesies tell of nasty events in your family in the future, so a bit of a
warning on that regard.
Murder in the
first decree
First-degree murder: any intentional murder
that is willful and premeditated with malice aforethought. Felony murder is
typically first-degree.(wiki)
In short: a
murder that has been premeditated and executed. A person planning a murder in
advance and then committing the deed.
Princess
Cinderella Charming, please rise.
It is the
court’s ruling that you are found guilty of murder in the first decree of
Lucifer the cat.
Where to
begin with this heinous of crimes you committed? The court considers you the
incapable of listening to any rules and therefore –the court wonders- if you
will follow this ruling.
Your protector
and stepmother Lady Tremaine had allowed you to go to the ball if you could
find a suitable dress. You couldn’t and therefore opted to stay at home. Still,
afterwards you went, without informing your stepmother.
Then, at a
later time, she ordered you to be locked in your room as punishment and still
you escaped against her wishes. And during this escape you committed your
crime. The cat Lucifer –following his master’s command- prevented the mice in
orchestrating your escape. In return you ordered the bird and horse to collect
the dog Bruno. Knowing full well that dogs and cats don’t mix the
court-therefore- finds you guilty in orchestrating the death of Lucifer the
cat.
However,
since you are currently the princess of the kingdom –alas- the court has been
ordered to pardon you. Cat killer!
Mrs. Ariel and
Mr. Prince Eric, please rise.
The court
wishes to judge you on grounds of a coup d’etat. Miss. Ursula the sea witch had
lawfully received the crown of the undersea empire from king Triton the day you
two rebelled against her.
When Queen
Ursula –at that time- defended her rule your, to be, husband Prince Eric,
killed her by sailing a ship into her chest cavity and mortally wounding her.
Though the
court acknowledges elements of blackmail and foul play at –for want of a better
word- play here on Queen Ursula’s behalf the law is nevertheless clear. Queen
Ursula was the rightful ruler at that time and you conspired to murder her.
However, since
you succeeded –and history tends to be written by the victors- all charges are
dropped as you and Prince Eric are fully pardoned.
The court
is currently investigating your queenly wish to have all eaters of fish to be
trialed for murder. Such an extensive case might take some time. Though the
court does –in advance- wish to highlight to Mrs. Ariel the unsavory
wardrobe-choice of wearing the remains of fish (shells) as a brassier.
The priest
who performed the wedding ceremony of Prince Eric’s first wedding, however, has
been tried and found guilty of indecent exposure.
I’ve tried
very (very) hard to keep this review as spoiler free as possible. But I might
not have succeeded. So maybe you should see the movie first. 
There are
two kinds of directors in Hollywood. The Spielberg and Christopher Nolan kind
who can pick up any project and make a successful movie out of it. And then
there are the lesser ones who just do as they are told. Now obviously this is a
lie.
If you make
success after success, sure producers are willing to take a chance with you
(e.g. Nolan’s Inception). But if you fail you are right back at the bench with
the losers. It's like the great Orson Welles once said (to paraphrase): 
But then
why do I love Dead again so much?
Then
there’s the late Robin Williams who played what he could play so well: a smart,
funny man in a serious part. There are only a few comedians who can do what he
could do. Like the world’s greatest dad, Good morning Vietnam or even Mrs.
Doubtfire -Williams had a knack for finding and playing parts that easily
shifted between the hilarious and the tragic. This is a very underestimated
skill.
The music
is amazing as well. Great to listen to on its own merrit. But even more effective when it underlines the images on screen.
