What would happen if lawyers came up with real-life defenses for made-up (and rather cartoonish) clients?
The results can be found on Reddit, where someone recently asked its online community of criminal lawyers: “What would your defense be for various Disney villains?”
The answers were no joke, as Reddit users explained various legal tactics they would have used to defend Scar, Ursula, Prince Hans and, yes, even Captain Hook. Here's a look at a few of those cases that, apparently, lacked merit:
Scar of "The Lion King"
Scar valiantly mourned the death of his brother Mufasa “before putting his personal pain aside to lead a nation that needed him," noted Reddit user DoctorFahrenheit.
"And now his nephew, who mysteriously ran off after his father's death, shows up and accuses him of foul play years later? A kid who has spent his life up until this point shirking all responsibility, living with a couple of deviants, and doing God knows what," he wrote. "This runaway, who has never held down a job mind you, suddenly can't get his fix so he comes home and starts making demands. When his loving uncle, Scar, refuses to just hand over everything and suggests that Simba enter a rehabilitation program all of a sudden he starts throwing around wild accusations. This case has no merit."
Added JudgeSterling: "Did anyone see Scar push Mufasa to his death? Did the post-mortem show any evidence that Mufasa may have been fighting with Scar or any other lion before his death? No and no (presumably...). So how can anyone say beyond reasonable doubt, that Scar was responsible for the death of the fallen leader, Mufasa."
Prince Hans of "Frozen"
“Prince Hans’ attempted assassination of Queen Elsa was carried out on behalf of the nation of Arendelle, which would almost certainly have suffered tremendous loss of life and a devastating economic downturn had the winter gone on any longer," argued Reddit user AdultSupervision.
Pondered Fexam: "Were they still engaged at that point? Could that be a privileged relationship and inadmissible?"
Ursula from "The Little Mermaid"
"Ursula made a contract with Ariel that had no clause saying that Ursula was not allowed to interfere. The contract stated that she had to get Eric to fall in love with her without her voice, she failed, and she has to pay the price for her failure. It's not Ursula's fault Ariel doesn't put things by a lawyer before she signs them." Redditor jacdeswilliams argued.
Besides, offered Woodbetween, "She made and upheld a valid contract, without violating its terms. Ariel should have read the contract better, or had a lawyer present when signing."
Check out the defense methods that could have been used on other villains — including Captain Hook (PTSD related to a hand injury suffered while in the Navy) and Cruella de Vil (lawfully acting within her role as an animal control officer) — on the full Reddit thread.