I could be wrong, but I don't believe OSHA covers zombies. At least zombies in Canada don't have to worry about whether their medical insurance will cover them. Sure, it may take a while for them to get treated, but hey, they are zombies, the walking dead. It's not like a delay in treatment is going to kill them.

Sorry about the length, but I thought it would be helpful to include answers on both the civil and criminal issues, in case you or anyone else had a question about one or the other. Also, the terminology is different. The GS law relates to civil matters--namely, potential lawsuits, whereas the criminal law gives an idea of what you can do if you are witnessing someone committing a crime against another person. There are a number of caveats, too numerous to mention in already lengthy posting, but just a couple examples--you can't provoke the person into committing a crime and then defend yourself or others, you can't be a part of the crime(s) being committed, you can't use unreasonable force, and so on. I would need at least an entire page in the comments section to attempt to cover all of the relevant law.

Because I haven't included all of the relevant law, and this sort of thing involves actual possible danger to anyone relying upon it, I better include a caution that this area of the law can get pretty sticky some times, so of course I'm not intending to endorse or encourage anyone to take the law into their own hands, but rather they should call 911 and leave it to the professionals (no snickering, Seattlies, please). There, now if my insurance carrier or rep are reading, hopefully I'm covered.

On the other hand, you can defend other persons from someone that is committing a crime against that other person. This is just a portion of the relevant statute:

RCW 9A.16.020 Use of force — When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary.

There are a number of qualifications, legal issues, etc. that can complicate the questions involved here, and not all of them appear in the relevant statutes. Some appear in appellate court decisions. However, this is the core of THIS law. Interestingly, if he goes to trial and is acquitted by reason of defending himself or another person, he MAY be awarded costs for lost wages, expense out of pocket related to the trial, and cost of defense counsel. And guess who pays that? Taxpayers. That is assuming he is charged with violating state crimes. I don't have the time to research relevant Seattle ordinances on non-felonious crimes, but he may still have a claim for compensation either way (I've tried self-defense and defense of another cases, but only under state laws, so I've never had to litigate the crossover issue).

OK, I couldn't let it sit...darned OCD. Time to put the law degree to use. I did a quick search, and it appears there are different laws relating to professionals who provide aid in their work, but the relevant one is true Good Samaritan law, where someone is helping a fellow human out in a time of need. The first portion of the rather lengthy statute, RCW 4.24.300 reads:

(1) Any person, including but not limited to a volunteer provider of emergency or medical services, who without compensation or the expectation of compensation renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency or who participates in transporting, not for compensation, therefrom an injured person or persons for emergency medical treatment shall not be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in the rendering of such emergency care or in transporting such persons, other than acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

There are exceptions, other provisions, etc., but that is the heart of the GS law in this state. [Sorry..won't let me put it all in one comment, even editing, so I'll have to continue in another post, which is the law I think you were asking for].

The only Samaritan law I can recall off the top of my head was civil--i.e., insulated people trying to help someone in need. For example, someone could pull a person out of burning car, not realize he/she had a fractured spine or something, aggravate that, and then get sued for it. Sad commentary we would need such a law, but unless it's been changed (and we are talking many years since I last saw anything on it), but we apparently do. Go figure.

I realize not everyone may agree, but you see and read about so many former pro football players having all kinds of ailments, dying at young ages, not having decent medical care, etc. And many of those played in an era before players were as big, strong and fast as they are now. It's just sad to me to see the price some of these guys pay for 2-3 years of glory on the field.

They do look a bit like prison tats. Not a lot of color as far as I can see. A bit fancy on some of them for prison tats, however. I suppose if you're a starving tattoo artist and don't have money to pay the bills, you'd tattoo just about anything. Or, he could have simply found a kindred spirit, which is scary, too. Sadly, there is no law against incredibly poor taste.

Interesting. Sadly, Hollywood has reminded us too many times of the notion that the movie doesn't always follow the book.

I didn't watch the entire tape, and I suppose I haven't seen this happen before, but the woman who has her shoes off, chasing someone? Seems to me you have to do something pretty bad to get a woman to run around barefoot or with just nylons on (couldn't tell which) on city streets, yelling at you and chasing you with her shoes waving around like weapons. Good way to get your feet cut up on debris or step in who knows what. Not saying PJ did, whoever pi--er, angered her to begin with before he got there. I wonder what got her so riled up in the first place..anyone know? Not suggesting it excuses anything anyone did...I'm just wondering. Might be of help to PJ in his defense.

Zing!