28

This question is of course entirely hypothetical, but I am curious as to what crimes would be applicable in this situation. Alternatively, you could interpret the question as: If someone pretending to be a vampire broke into someone's home, drained at least one person's blood nonconsensually, and escaped undetected, what could the perpetrator's charges be if caught?

For clarity's sake, I can mention that this particular question came about in reference to the villains from the videogame Gabriel Knight 3, who are nominally vampires but turn out to be pretty different from the 'traditional' definition and so lack pretty much any of the mythical weaknesses or restrictions associated to them (they also lack any kind of communicable 'vampiric condition', but are merely humans who have greatly extended their lifespans by stealing and drinking magical blood).

One additional detail it didn't occur to me to mention earlier is that to escape detection, they use magic to put everyone in the vicinity into a deep sleep, which in a more realistic frame I suppose could be equated to something like nonconsensual administration of hypnotic psychoactive drugs. Based on what's been said I'd think something like that would also fall under assault, but I'm not sure.

V2Blast
  • 114
  • 11
SpotXSpot
  • 407
  • 3
  • 7
  • 4
    I guess that depends on how much blood he took. If the victim becomes a vampire himself, then it's probably murder (assuming a vampire isn't "alive"). Otherwise, it would "just" be bodily harm. – PMF Aug 23 '22 at 11:25
  • 1
    This doesn't actually need a vampire. The issue is comparable with forcing someone to a blood donation (unlikely this works without waking up that guy). – PMF Aug 23 '22 at 11:26
  • 45
    So we're ignoring the obvious solution? Vampires cannot enter the homes of the living without an invitation. Also Jurisdiction? – hszmv Aug 23 '22 at 15:32
  • 4
    @PMF If you drained a person's blood, and they didn't become a vampire, it would still most likely end up being murder. Heck, even if they somehow survived you're looking at attempted murder. Far more than just bodily harm. – Darrel Hoffman Aug 23 '22 at 20:26
  • OP, was the victim another vampire before the attack? That might be the least dangerous charge... – Trish Aug 23 '22 at 22:22
  • 2
    Possibly more obvious: are we still holding to 'must consume daily|weekly|whatever to survive' plus 'victims become vampires' rules? If so, we're all vampires (or dead) within a very short time-span. – mcalex Aug 24 '22 at 09:30
  • @DarrelHoffman I think PMF meant "otherwise" as an, if the victim did not become a vampire himself and did not die a human death (e.g. because only a small enough amount of blood was taken). – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 07:52
  • 1
    @mcalex In Bram Stoker's Dracula, the victim also had to drink some vampiric blood, too, to become a vampire, called the "Vampire baptism" in that story. If the administration of the vampiric blood was done against the human's will, one could imagine possible legal charges for that act, too. – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 08:08
  • @Brandin, true, but may depend on any 'good samaritan' legislation in effect. Arguably, force-fed blood would prevent a vampire victim from dying ... – mcalex Aug 25 '22 at 08:20
  • @mcalex I think the aid you administer in that case must be in the "best interest" of the victim. If you know the victim does not want to become a vampire, but you make her one anyway by feeding her your blood, then that does not seem to apply. – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 08:40
  • @Brandin hmmm, 'her'? OK, so good samaritan plus right-to-die legislation. And if you don't know, what should be the default position? Could a vampire be prosecuted for NOT feeding a victim that didn't want to die? I still maintain that we're all dead or vampires too soon for it to matter. :-D – mcalex Aug 25 '22 at 08:46
  • @mcalex I doubt he (the vampire) could be prosecuted for refusing, just like a human (she) could not be prosecuted for refusing someone a blood transfusion of her own blood, even if needed to save a life. – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 09:19
  • @mcalex Also we'd probably really need to clarify some of the definitions like death, human death, dead/undead and so on, in court. In most fiction that I'm familiar with, the victim does still in fact "die" in her human self. That is, if she does indeed become a vampire, then afterwards, a typical vampiress would typically describe that what occurred before her becoming a vampire was "her human death" or words to that effect. A vampire is considered 'undead', as opposed to 'alive', in most fiction. – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 09:32
  • If they were undetected then how did they get caught??? Side-note; mosquitos are gonna have a tough time defending against the legal war I'm gonna wage on them from this post! – MonkeyZeus Aug 25 '22 at 19:15
  • Wordbuilding.SE is leaking... – Alexander Nied Aug 25 '22 at 20:12
  • If we learned that supernatural forces were real and deadly then I think it would upend all of our society and culture. Who knows what the law would look like after that. – Mark Rogers Aug 26 '22 at 00:55

11 Answers11

53
  • Breaking and entering, just by entering a private premise without permission.
  • Causing bodily harm, possibly grievous harm, depending on what consequences it has for the victim and how the jurisdiction defines grievous harm.
  • A prosecutor might also insinuate that the defendant had a sexual motive, so they might also add some sexual assault charges

In addition to criminal charges, the victim could also press civil claims as compensation for the physical injury and the psychological trauma they experienced from a stranger entering their home at night and drinking their blood.

A possible defense which the vampire could use is to claim that they are no longer a human, so human laws do not apply to them. But this would be a rather dangerous strategy, because if human laws don't apply to them, then by the same argumentation human rights might not apply to them either. If they insisted on being tried as an animal, then the court could very well reason that the best way to deal with a dangerous animal that can not be controlled and can not be kept away from humans is to euthanize it.

Philipp
  • 7,346
  • 23
  • 42
  • 11
    Causing bodily harm is usually called "Battery" in a legal language. Assault usually refers the the threat of bodily harm OR unwanted but unharmful body contact. I also fail to see how the prosecutor would prove the act was sexual in nature. The fact that I eat a sandwich means I'm hungry... not a food fetishist. – hszmv Aug 23 '22 at 14:05
  • 4
    Breaking and entering with intent to commit the second bullet point would often constitute the crime of burglary. – ohwilleke Aug 23 '22 at 17:58
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – feetwet Aug 26 '22 at 13:56
22

Cannibalism, at least in Idaho:

Any person who wilfully ingests the flesh or blood of a human being is guilty of cannibalism.

— https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch50/sect18-5003/

user24582
  • 331
  • 1
  • 4
  • 3
    Good to know people never break their noses or bite their tongues in Idaho. – Andris Birkmanis Aug 24 '22 at 14:47
  • 3
    @AndrisBirkmanis Given that it's also not a crime to punch yourself or destroy your own property I think it's safe to assume that this means "another human" – Kevin Aug 24 '22 at 21:35
  • What about maternal kissing of her child's minor wound? I guess it'd be technically cannibalism if she ingests blood in the process. – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 07:43
  • @Brandin Does she wilfully ingest it? As in, suck at the wound? Or is it incidental to the treatment of the wound? The process of sucking at a wound and spitting it out is not ingesting - it is not swallowed. The act of accidentally getting blood into the mouth is not willful. – Trish Aug 25 '22 at 09:45
  • Well, yes, if she spits it out, then that's clearly not wilfully ingesting, even if some blood remains in the mouth and she later ingests it by accident. If she doesn't spit it out for some reason (e.g. because spitting blood on the street is not proper), then the ingestion seems not to be accidental, so I would say 'wilfull'. However, wilfull in this context might mean "with the specific intention to ingest human blood" so in that sense, it's not wilfully ingesting blood (for the purpose of ingesting blood), but more like wilfully ingesting it for the purpose of avoiding spitting it out. – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 10:01
  • I would downvote if I had enough reputation points: "It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of the provisions of this section that the action was taken under extreme life-threatening conditions as the only apparent means of survival." clearly a vampire would not be violating this cannibalism statute in Idaho. – CodeCamper Oct 21 '22 at 19:22
  • @CodeCamper "Alternatively, you could interpret the question as: If someone pretending to be a vampire..." – user24582 Oct 21 '22 at 23:15
14

In legend, vampires are animated corpses. So it is not a criminal matter, it is a matter of disposing of a corpse. For example the relevant Vermont laws call for the person who is concerned about the corpse to obtain a burial-transit permit from a municipal clerk, funeral director, or certain other public officials or licensed professionals. If the state health commissioner deems vampirism to be a communicable disease, he/she could issue special instructions.

Presumably the preferred means of disposal would be cremation.

Gerard Ashton
  • 4,704
  • 14
  • 29
11

In some states this would be a special charge of breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony during night time which, even if unsuccessful, would threaten Vlad with up to 20 years in certain states. If the felonious battery succeeds, that probably adds an additional charge.

kisspuska
  • 3,924
  • 8
  • 43
  • Does it need to be breaking and entering during the nighttime for the special charge to apply? – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 07:44
  • 1
    Yes, specifically during the night time. In fact, for e.g., a European jurisdiction, Hungary also has similar factual requisites to certain mandatory factual findings to be read into judicial decisions in the weighing of such breaking and entering: The owner of the enclosed premises does not have to have any regard to the safety of the invader, and must be acquitted in case of murder even with an illegally held weapon, although may be charged for the fact of such holding. The law mandates the factual finding that the victim be deemed as if being actively imposing an imminent threat to life. – kisspuska Aug 25 '22 at 08:39
  • 1
    The whole "upto 20 years" kicks in with the night time factual finding. It is still a crime in day time, a special one, relative to merely breaking and entering, but it won't mandate the night-time imposed penalty. – kisspuska Aug 25 '22 at 08:41
10

The answer assumes that either the lore of Vampires not being capable of entering the dwelling of another without invitation is in effect (Most fiction that has this limitation will portray this as being almost an invisible forcefield like effect) OR that it is in effect and the vampire has been previously invited (unlike actual trespass law, once the vampire ceases to be a guest, they may still break into the home without the owner's invitation. The first one breaks the spell). The answer also assumes this is a U.S. Jurisdiction but with no specific state laws.

  • Trespassing or similarly named laws. In law, even if the Vampire has to be invited, any indication that the invitation is no longer offered or the visitor has been informed that they are Trespassing. This would only apply if a reasonable person would assume that the vampire's invitation was legally no longer valid. If the vampire is still on the property under the last legal invitation, trespass would not be a crime to be charged.

  • Battery: As I noted in other comments, Battery usually refers to an act that causes physical injury or bodily harm to another person. Although the scenario does not indicate if the victim is awake or asleep, in many jurisdictions Battery can occur as a separate crime from Assault.

  • Assault. Legally, one need not touch a person to commit assault but merely threaten them with physical harm which may or may not be followed up on at a later time. Assault often covers other unwelcomed behaviors so it can be quite broad. Behaviors can include "threats or intimidations, unwelcomed physical contact that is not physically harmful and even behavior such as stalking or harassment. Because of this, assault' can usually exist as either a misdemeanor or felony depending on the severity. Some jurisdictions will have this law separated to indicate circumstances that warrant the severity difference (with the misdemeanor charge often called Simple Assault) while others will have one law that will have aggravating circumstances that will change it (the law is a misdemeanor, but can be charged as a felony if a weapon is involved "Assault with a Deadly Weapon"). Suffice to say, Assault as a crime is very broad and has a number of ways it can be committed. For example, in the state of Florida, throwing a baby alligator at someone is Assault (with a deadly weapon no less. Unsurprisingly Florida Law doesn't mention Alligator anywhere in the statute, but the Judge in the case ruled that "Baby Alligator" constitutes a "deadly weapon" by rules as written. Common Law is fun!). Assault also seems to get confused with Battery (to the point that some jurisdictions have a second greater Assault charge that covers pretty much what we discussed in Battery, while others can pair it with Assault to form Assault and Battery. This leads to the confusion of the definitions as "Assault" and "Battery" could be charged as two separate crimes or one crime "Assault and Battery" depending on the jurisdiction and the former often occurs prior to latter (you can menacingly intimidation someone by implying you will beat them to within an inch of their lives (assault) leading into a prolong physical fight that can put them in the the hospital with serious injuries (Battery).) At the same time, you can with no prior indication start beating someone to within an inch of their lives, which is Battery but lacks assault.). And because it is mentioned elsewhere, Sexual Assault usually involves groping or inappropriate touching and occasionally unwanted communication of desire for sexual activity. Sexual Battery is usually another legal term for rape, or a way to cover unwanted sexual activites that the legal defintion of rape might not cover (say, if the legal definition requires penetration but the actual incident did not have any penetration... I'll let your mind stay there.). As I said in comments in an answer that used that possibility, a vampire sees humans as food. When someone eats a sandwich, I assume it's because they are hungry... not that they are a food-fetishist.

  • Possible Attempted Murder/Murder depending on where the bite happens. Vampires are commonly portrayed as going for arterial areas, usually the neck because it can be done to poor blonde teens who clearly are not virgins, jerk-jock white dudes, black men or woman, and comic relief characters (that some how have the dignity of getting a sex is bad horror death instead of the black comedy death) while dancing with them in the middle of a packed dance floor with the strobing lights and pounding techno-rave-club-edm party music where the killing blow looks sexy as hell up until the moment exsanguinated body drops to the floor limp and the vampire slips it the throngs of dancers just before the first horrifying shriek of a terrified patron with a voice that can somehow overpower the DJ's way too loud club music ends the fun. It's also useful for a hero who is still a virgin, but is not innocent enough to not get hit by sex-kills to and in denial victims or those who want revenge can pass it off as a hickey rather fang marks. Wrists are a favored second... for the vampire who wants to charm their victim. Oddly vamps never go for the arteries running down your legs or the ones near your crotch for some reason... even if they don't want the arteries but instead just want enough blood to leave you alive... drinking blood runs a risk of the victim losing too much blood, which could kill them and make the vampire who doesn't want to kill disappoint his sponsor at their next support group. And he was this close to going a full year without killing a college co-ed too! And that's to say nothing about the possibility that what the vamp is safe for his victim could be dangerous if the victim is on blood thinners or has a condition that would thin the blood. The one question in this crime is do the charges count if the victim was turned into a vampire, since the process typically involves a death followed by the new vamp rising from the dead after that. Legally speaking, death occurs at cessation of brain activity. Normally, this activity would not resume, but with vampires, it's presumed brain activity resumes after the revival... if that is the case, did the vamp in fact kill the victim (new vamp)?

hszmv
  • 22,994
  • 3
  • 41
  • 65
  • "if the victim was turned into a vampire, ... since the process typically involves a death followed by the new vamp rising from the dead after that." - In most mythologies it is still considered a death. The vampires that I'm familiar with in fiction typically describe the process in their own words that their human body "died" and that they were born again as a vampire. The fact that the vampiric birth process takes place against one's will, and completely in one's own body, might be grounds to consider it as a case of forced pregnancy. – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 07:35
  • 1
    Should your first part rather say "The answer assumes that either the lore of Vampires not being capable of entering the dwelling of another without invitation is not in effect ... OR that it is in effect and the vampire has been previously invited." – Brandin Aug 25 '22 at 08:44
7

in a practical matter, the case resolves itself

Let's assume the vampire is arrested for trespassing, burglary, and assault. They are incarcerated overnight in a cell.

The next morning, they are dragged in front of a judge and start to combust on the way into the transporter. As a result, all further proceedings are irrelevant: the vampire was ashed by the sun.

Trish
  • 39,097
  • 2
  • 79
  • 156
  • 1
    I would assume a duty of care of the jail officers and judge to prevent that from happenning. – SJuan76 Aug 25 '22 at 06:54
  • @SJuan76 under current law and court rules, there are no hearings about incarceration at night. – Trish Aug 25 '22 at 09:40
  • @SJuan76: If the existence (and sunlight sensitivity) of vampires was known to the mundane authorities, then yes this would violate their duty of care. But if they don't know, this is what would happen. (If they're physically able to drag a vampire somewhere it doesn't want to go.) – Peter Cordes Aug 25 '22 at 15:09
  • @Trish AFAIK in almost no mythological tradition vampires/revenants/undeads get ashed by the sun. It is an characteristic of vampires in popular culture since the Nospheratu movie came out though. – Féileacán Aug 25 '22 at 20:25
5

Looking at this more seriously: There are two possibilities. There are vampires, but society doesn't know about them. Or there are vampires, and society knows about them.

In the first case, it wouldn't occur to anyone that the criminal was a vampire, but just someone who watched too many bad movies, has severe health problems and so on. This would be burglary, together with assault. Depending on the severity of the attack it might be attempted or actual murder. In addition to the criminal conviction I would expect that this persons mental health would be examined; they might use "insanity" as a defence, but they might get judged as insane and dangerous and locked into some institution. With a real vampire however there would be the risk that they can flee from situations where a human wouldn't. If they used "I'm a vampire" as a defence nobody would believe them, but they would also get judged as insane and dangerous.

Now if society knows about vampires: There are different scenarios. They might be considered like grizzly bears; usually harmless if you keep your distance, but can become dangerous. There would be no court case, but a grizzly bear breaking into people's houses would be shot, and so would this vampire.

They might be considered human-like but dangerous enemies: He will be shot if caught, no matter what.

They might hold the power: Tough luck for the poor human. The vampire might get a fine for illegal blood sucking without paying; there would probably be a tax on human blood.

Or they might be part of society. With laws taking their situation into consideration. In this case, it would be likely burglary plus "taking blood without consent" or something similar; like sex which is legal between consenting adults, but illegal if one party doesn't consent, and has its own laws instead of just calling it "assault". Taking blood would probably happen legally for generous payment.

gnasher729
  • 34,028
  • 2
  • 46
  • 88
  • 4
    in the first case, they actually might be dragged into court in daytime and combust in sunlight... because court dates are generally not at night. – Trish Aug 24 '22 at 16:39
  • If the vampire fled from a situation that is harmless to me but lethal for a vampire, possibly harming people, would that be self defense? Would it be a defense against “resisting arrest”? – gnasher729 Aug 30 '22 at 10:56
3

Aside from the other good answers, the question arises whether or not the vampire can be charged in a court at all. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may very well not be able to charge what is legally a dead person. In fact, the vampires lawyer would probably scour the law text for words such as "person" and then claim that they don't apply to his client who is not a person. All of this will depend on the jurisdiction, case law and exact wording.

Tom
  • 675
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
    Can a non-person hire a lawyer? – Someone Aug 24 '22 at 15:18
  • 5
    @Someone that's actually a good question. Hire certainly, I don't think the lawyer would care much as long as he gets paid. But could a non-person be represented in court by a lawyer? – Tom Aug 24 '22 at 15:24
  • Is the vampire bound to a contract with the lawyer? – Someone Aug 24 '22 at 15:25
  • 3
    I figure the lawyer will ask for upfront payment, just to be sure. – Tom Aug 24 '22 at 15:26
  • 2
    @Tom "Naruto was just an anonymous macaque in the jungles of Indonesia... On Monday, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals announced a settlement with photographer David Slater, ending a lawsuit it filed on Naruto's behalf. " - https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/12/550417823/-animal-rights-advocates-photographer-compromise-over-ownership-of-monkey-selfie – Chaim Aug 24 '22 at 16:56
  • I want to believe that PETA would not intervene on behalf of a vampire. – Tom Aug 24 '22 at 22:26
  • 2
    I thought vampires are un-dead? Obviously in the USA alone 25 states would require “living” and 25 would require “not dead”. God knows what other countries would say. – gnasher729 Aug 30 '22 at 11:00
2

Assume that a vampire was considered close enough to a human to have the normal rights and duties of humans beings. If it was a bat drinking people's blood, it would just be killed.

Looks like assault to me. If a vampire only had the choice to consume human blood or die, I suppose laws covering the situation would be created. It would probably the vampire's fault for getting themselves into a dangerous situation. Now the severeness of "taking someone's blood" grows immensely with the amount, so that would be taken very much into account.

If the vampire got into the situation without any fault of their own, and took only a small enough amount, that would likely be considered by the law. If the same vampire got into the situation by recklessness and took four litres of blood, that would be life threatening or close and could be attempted murder. Or even murder.

gnasher729
  • 34,028
  • 2
  • 46
  • 88
1

In Scots Law there is (or at least used to be) a specific crime of attacking someone in their own home. It's called "hame sucking". Seems appropriate!

Bob
  • 11
  • 1
0

Well @ohwilleke gave the correct answer in the comments, but y'all didn't pay him no mind, so I repeat it here, quoting the attached image of the definition of "burglary" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Burglary is the crime of entering a structure (such as a house or commercial building) with the intent to commit a felony (such as theft). A vampire's attack would be the felony, which might be criminal battery or attempted murder or the other charges discussed by hszmvin in his answer.

ON SECOND THOUGHT: I was gazing admiringly at my score as it dropped to -1 and then soared back to 0, and I chanced to re-read the question. I initially understood the question to ask what charge resulted from the break-in (as distinct from the bodily contact). And my answer relates to that idea, of charging the vampire for the break-in.

Dale M
  • 208,266
  • 17
  • 237
  • 460
Chaim
  • 237
  • 1
  • 8
  • @Rick I included the image to show that the dictionary definition was a perfect fit. I don't really get the purpose of deleting that image and replacing it with the same text that I had already typed below the image. It seems to remove the distinction between my writing and the text of the dictionary. – Chaim Aug 24 '22 at 16:31
  • @Rick But no explanation from you about it? – Chaim Aug 24 '22 at 16:47
  • The explanation is in the edit summary –  Aug 24 '22 at 17:10
  • 5
    -1: images are not screan-reader compatible. – Trish Aug 24 '22 at 17:24
  • 1
    As a side note: Burglary is defined in law texts – Trish Aug 24 '22 at 17:30
  • 4
    Related: Should we have an explicit policy against images of text?. I've rolled it back to remove the image, which will still be available in the edit history for prosperity. (But I have no inclination to get in to an edit war.) –  Aug 24 '22 at 17:31
  • @Rick Okay. I have no inclination to get into an edit war either, but I don't really agree with your edits. I don't think that someone unable to see the image is helped because you delete the image. And I'm increasingly skeptical of the rise of censors in American culture insisting that that only their opinions may be heard. I would encourage you to write and submit a better answer than mine, though, and downvote or penalize me in whatever way your conscience requires. – Chaim Aug 29 '22 at 17:12
  • 1
    Whatever (oh, and I'm neither American nor cultured) –  Aug 29 '22 at 17:29
  • @Chaim A screen reader will read your image as "Image not described" - this is not helpful to the person that relies on it. If you want to leave it in, please add a description so that person does not miss out. – Dale M Aug 29 '22 at 22:39
  • @Dale M Have I already added a description? I say (just before the image) that I'm quoting the image, and (just after the image) quote the definition of burglary. I'm of course not responsible for the fact that all of us sometimes miss out on various good things in life, but what good will it do this imaginary blind reader of my post if I delete the image? Or is there something that I can do to make the "screen reader" say something more helpful than "image not described"? – Chaim Aug 30 '22 at 12:19
  • 1
    @Chaim yes. You can type out the relevant text instead. For images that aren’t of text, you can type a brief description in the mark up. We have a policy of not allowing pictures of text. – Dale M Aug 30 '22 at 21:09
  • @Dale M Where is this policy (of not allowing pictures of text) promulgated? – Chaim Aug 31 '22 at 21:55
  • @Chaim If you want to show that some of the text, e.g. "Burglary is the crime of entering a structure ..." is a quotation from somewhere else, I'd recommend the block quote formatting mechanism instead. – Brandin Sep 02 '22 at 13:28
  • @Chaim There are also lots of other reasons not to have text as images. Another obvious reason is that many visitors here may know English as a second language, and they may wish to highlight a portion of the text for dictionary lookup, for automatic translation, etc. And when that text is trapped behind an image, that becomes very annoying to do (maybe I have to type it all out by hand). For non-technical people it may not even be obvious what's going wrong. Normally, for example, I can double a click a word to highlight it, for example, but if your text is an image, that won't work. – Brandin Sep 02 '22 at 13:37
  • @Brandin I initially showed an image of the text from the Merriam Webster web page. Someone deleted the image, I restored it, someone deleted it, and the discussion is under way at the Meta site about the propriety of these moves. – Chaim Sep 02 '22 at 13:37
  • @Brandin I think this conversation would be clearer if the pauses were longer, because I think we're starting to talk past one another. But I think that there are two questions now. (1) Should I include the image in my writing? (2) Should I be able to do so, despite the objections that seem important to other people? At the Meta site, this second question has the floor, I think. – Chaim Sep 02 '22 at 13:40
  • Frankly, I don't think that the objections are strong at all in this case, although there must be the different cases that recommended the image-ban to at least some people. – Chaim Sep 02 '22 at 13:42
  • @Chaim You can't ban it outright, because there may be some case where an image of text is best. But in 99% of cases, it's just the wrong choice. As a non-blind person, I especially don't like seeing an image of text, especially where it's not obvious that it's an image, because as I mentioned, sometimes I like to click or highlight some words for some reason (e.g. to quote part of the text in a comment), and if it's an image, that just won't work, and it's pretty annoying when things don't work how they should. – Brandin Sep 02 '22 at 14:02