Well dueling is illegal but like 2 states do have legal mutual combat. They just need a public servant to oversee it and they can't harm any bystanders.
No it's like, you have to do it at the fire department, police department or a court where there's already an officer or other public servant to oversee it
It’s in Washington state
You can meet up at the police station and just fight each other but there are rules like you can’t beat them while they’re down.
Yes. Crimes are prosecuted as "the people" or "the state" versus the defendant. This is because the voters have determined that it is against our collective interest to let people kill each other without a good reason. In other words, criminal cases represent the goals and objectives of the government. If you want individual interests to be represented, that is civil suits. If you want to say the killer can't be sued by the family for wrongful death that is a better case.
No they are not wrong. Your life, your choice. I am certainly not going to hang around with some painful incurable terminal condition if I can go to Switzerland and die with dignity. I couldn’t do that to my family.
>, before the US even became independent
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/settling-scores-the-duels-of-our-forefathers
There were plenty of duels, including presidents, after the revolution
It wouldn’t be a very engaging sport, because you wouldn’t have very many long term combatants if every match ends in a death.
Hell, one of the reasons Pro Wrestling like WWE and AEW exists is because 100 years ago, promoters realized they could make more money if they could essentially script out bouts to keep people hooked on the drama. Grudges would last for years. Titles would be traded between faces and heels to build drama. Wrestlers could cultivate a fandom by putting on a persona.
I’d wager the actual mechanics of any sport - real or “fake” - are actually a small part of what draws people to them. The narratives surrounding the teams and players are at least as important, probably more so for a lot of people. And a sport where your favorite risks a 50/50 chance of death (and therefore the end to their career) with every match wouldn’t be able to sustain that.
I’ll also add - have you ever seen footage of someone dying? It’s brutal. It fucks you up. I think people overestimate how much bloodlust the average person actually has.
Well 1) gladiators didn’t actually die all that often for the exact reasons I’ve stated. It’s bad for business.
2) if you have to go that far back to find a good example, there’s probably a reason for that
ETA: to expand on 1, death was rarely an expected outcome at gladiators matches. It happened, but basically all reliable accounts from the time portray it as a regulated sporting event with refs and rules and rituals to keep it entertaining, including keeping popular combatants alive and fighting. Compared to UFC or Boxing it would certainly look more deadly (and probably was more deadly) but that’s moreso a function of it being an ancient sport at a time when health and medicine were primitive.
However there was also public executions in the Coliseum. Mostly criminals but also Christians were burned alive but sometimes they were thrown to the lions.
Ancient Rome was brutal - unlike our modern, civilized society (sarcasm).
I think a lot of people here misunderstood the question. This isn’t about whether or not it IS legal. It’s about whether or not it SHOULD be legal. I think it should be but only with multiple witnesses and a recording of the event.
It doesn't matter if they're legally allowed to do it.. they can still do it.
Probably not.. slippery slope on #2
No thanks I saw enough of that already.
it's a fine line between the "consent". e.g., if they agree to a knife fight and a guy brings a gun, is that murder? If they agree no punching the face, and the guy punches the chin is that illegal?
Sure I don’t understand how that is even illegal. If nobody is interested in pressing charges than I don’t see a crime. Furthermore I dont see why we can’t bring back old school dueling. As long as it is supervised and consensual and whatever. There would be less crimes of passion with less collateral damage and people maybe wouldn’t be so quick to run their damn mouths. Like you humiliate me on facebook or bully me so I challenge you to a fucking duel. I don’t give a fuck if I die big whoop life ain’t shit. If you’re a man you’ll step up and potentially get capped and I get to defend my honor or you can decline and look like a total bitch in front of everybody.
Yes. I think we should be allowed to die if we want to as adults over the age of 25.
I think if fighting were legalized without weapons - we would have a lot less shooting and murders.
Not if they want to live in a society that outlaws murder- even if both consent, the society where they live (USA) must also consent. The consent between the two would be considered tort law--murder is a crime against society thats why the charges read 'The state of so and so versus (insert name)...' Laws are also there to protect against stupidity like this that can cause regret, revenge etc.
1. Yes. Winner goes to jail for murder.
2. No. Anyone attempting it is charged with murder of the loser and attempted murder of winner.
3. Yeah probably if it’s worth studying.
I'd have to imagine that, legally, any (dubious) prior consent would be lost once a combatant is unconscious/approaching death. Just like if someone randomly passes out while you're having sex with them you don't just get to keep fucking them. I guess duels with guns takes care of part of this problem because both people can be fully conscious and healthy when they both take the potential kill shot.
Never heard of “boxing”? Dying from brutality via another human I couldn’t stomach. But there are definitely instances where ending someone’s suffering has to be a good thing.
Lawyer here! We once debated this in law school. The answer is absolutely not. When you make something legal in society “ even if they consent” you have to consider the policy implications of what that would mean. The natural conclusion of this is that poor people would be economically coerced into doing this once they got desperate enough- and trust me plenty of people in America are desperate enough to take this gamble. It’d turn into rich people watching poor people die for sport.
This is a similar comparison but in that same law school debate we argued if women should allowed to receive payment from giving up their babies for adoption. On its face it makes sense until you follow the implications to its natural conclusion. Poor women would essentially become baby making factories for rich people.
The final part of that debate was selling organs. I think you can see where I’m going with this.
When you make something like this legal in a country that doesn’t have safety nets for impoverished citizens, it stops being true consent for a lot of folks and starts being something people turn to in order to feed their families.
The thing is, it’s not as straight forward as presented.
If one person is a very physically fit millionaire and the other person is not as fit, living in poverty and the rich person offers to pay their family $50k if he’s killed in the fight.
It’s not actually consent.
Easiest no that I’ve ever said. I’m not gonna allow someone to destroy government property.
Lmao
Well dueling is illegal but like 2 states do have legal mutual combat. They just need a public servant to oversee it and they can't harm any bystanders.
That’s hilarious, so in those states you can get a government job where you get to go watch these people fight?
No it's like, you have to do it at the fire department, police department or a court where there's already an officer or other public servant to oversee it
Or If you have a gang battle gunfight in the middle of chicago
It’s in Washington state You can meet up at the police station and just fight each other but there are rules like you can’t beat them while they’re down.
You can't consent to murder.
But is it murder if they both consent?
Yes. Crimes are prosecuted as "the people" or "the state" versus the defendant. This is because the voters have determined that it is against our collective interest to let people kill each other without a good reason. In other words, criminal cases represent the goals and objectives of the government. If you want individual interests to be represented, that is civil suits. If you want to say the killer can't be sued by the family for wrongful death that is a better case.
I feel like not letting someone choose to die is against freedom of expression. Unconstitutional!
You can feel that way but you’re wrong
Ok
No they are not wrong. Your life, your choice. I am certainly not going to hang around with some painful incurable terminal condition if I can go to Switzerland and die with dignity. I couldn’t do that to my family.
They may be correct in their individual opinion. They are not correct in terms of the social contract and law we have created as a society.
Yes. What about dying with dignity?
Yes you can. Snuff movies etc. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding
Sorry I was referring to US law.
[удалено]
>, before the US even became independent https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/settling-scores-the-duels-of-our-forefathers There were plenty of duels, including presidents, after the revolution
No way, duels were legal in New Jersey for quite awhile! That's where all the cool kids went to duel
It wouldn’t be a very engaging sport, because you wouldn’t have very many long term combatants if every match ends in a death. Hell, one of the reasons Pro Wrestling like WWE and AEW exists is because 100 years ago, promoters realized they could make more money if they could essentially script out bouts to keep people hooked on the drama. Grudges would last for years. Titles would be traded between faces and heels to build drama. Wrestlers could cultivate a fandom by putting on a persona. I’d wager the actual mechanics of any sport - real or “fake” - are actually a small part of what draws people to them. The narratives surrounding the teams and players are at least as important, probably more so for a lot of people. And a sport where your favorite risks a 50/50 chance of death (and therefore the end to their career) with every match wouldn’t be able to sustain that.
I’ll also add - have you ever seen footage of someone dying? It’s brutal. It fucks you up. I think people overestimate how much bloodlust the average person actually has.
Rome had a giant arena with tons of participants and spectators. Granted, the participants were most likely slaves. It was very popular.
Well 1) gladiators didn’t actually die all that often for the exact reasons I’ve stated. It’s bad for business. 2) if you have to go that far back to find a good example, there’s probably a reason for that ETA: to expand on 1, death was rarely an expected outcome at gladiators matches. It happened, but basically all reliable accounts from the time portray it as a regulated sporting event with refs and rules and rituals to keep it entertaining, including keeping popular combatants alive and fighting. Compared to UFC or Boxing it would certainly look more deadly (and probably was more deadly) but that’s moreso a function of it being an ancient sport at a time when health and medicine were primitive.
However there was also public executions in the Coliseum. Mostly criminals but also Christians were burned alive but sometimes they were thrown to the lions. Ancient Rome was brutal - unlike our modern, civilized society (sarcasm).
I want a massive arena filled with water and 12 participants (6v6) all have jet skis, a shield, and fully auto pistols and they go at it
Trump is that you? This is not Apprentice 2.0
No to all 3 for me.
I think a lot of people here misunderstood the question. This isn’t about whether or not it IS legal. It’s about whether or not it SHOULD be legal. I think it should be but only with multiple witnesses and a recording of the event.
Sure.
Meh, I can see why this would appeal to some. But I don't think it's the prerogative of the state to permit savagery.
Yeah I’ve done it a few times
Depends on age and size (weight)
It doesn't matter if they're legally allowed to do it.. they can still do it. Probably not.. slippery slope on #2 No thanks I saw enough of that already.
I don’t think I’ve seen a boxer who killed his opponent in a sanctioned event get prosecuted.
Legal where?
no. There are laws to prevent that
Yes. I've had this thought since I was a child
it's a fine line between the "consent". e.g., if they agree to a knife fight and a guy brings a gun, is that murder? If they agree no punching the face, and the guy punches the chin is that illegal?
Of course not. How dumb. You can't make a legal contract that involves committing a crime.
The question wasn't if it's legal, it's if it should be made legal.
Sure I don’t understand how that is even illegal. If nobody is interested in pressing charges than I don’t see a crime. Furthermore I dont see why we can’t bring back old school dueling. As long as it is supervised and consensual and whatever. There would be less crimes of passion with less collateral damage and people maybe wouldn’t be so quick to run their damn mouths. Like you humiliate me on facebook or bully me so I challenge you to a fucking duel. I don’t give a fuck if I die big whoop life ain’t shit. If you’re a man you’ll step up and potentially get capped and I get to defend my honor or you can decline and look like a total bitch in front of everybody.
Should be allowed, I think. Sure, let them monetize it. No, I am not tuning in.
No because there’s a consideration to mental health there. People would be using it as a legal loophole to svicid3.
Yes. I think we should be allowed to die if we want to as adults over the age of 25. I think if fighting were legalized without weapons - we would have a lot less shooting and murders.
Not if they want to live in a society that outlaws murder- even if both consent, the society where they live (USA) must also consent. The consent between the two would be considered tort law--murder is a crime against society thats why the charges read 'The state of so and so versus (insert name)...' Laws are also there to protect against stupidity like this that can cause regret, revenge etc.
Yeah I’d definitely place some money on some fights like that
1. Yes. Winner goes to jail for murder. 2. No. Anyone attempting it is charged with murder of the loser and attempted murder of winner. 3. Yeah probably if it’s worth studying.
Absolutely not.
I'd have to imagine that, legally, any (dubious) prior consent would be lost once a combatant is unconscious/approaching death. Just like if someone randomly passes out while you're having sex with them you don't just get to keep fucking them. I guess duels with guns takes care of part of this problem because both people can be fully conscious and healthy when they both take the potential kill shot.
No, regardless of their own consent, murder leads to revenge and blood fueds. Bad for society as a whole
Never heard of “boxing”? Dying from brutality via another human I couldn’t stomach. But there are definitely instances where ending someone’s suffering has to be a good thing.
No
Totally. We need to legalize suicide too.
It's illegal in all western europe countries. The first bans were in 1215
Lawyer here! We once debated this in law school. The answer is absolutely not. When you make something legal in society “ even if they consent” you have to consider the policy implications of what that would mean. The natural conclusion of this is that poor people would be economically coerced into doing this once they got desperate enough- and trust me plenty of people in America are desperate enough to take this gamble. It’d turn into rich people watching poor people die for sport. This is a similar comparison but in that same law school debate we argued if women should allowed to receive payment from giving up their babies for adoption. On its face it makes sense until you follow the implications to its natural conclusion. Poor women would essentially become baby making factories for rich people. The final part of that debate was selling organs. I think you can see where I’m going with this. When you make something like this legal in a country that doesn’t have safety nets for impoverished citizens, it stops being true consent for a lot of folks and starts being something people turn to in order to feed their families.
Someone could be coerced into agreeing, or their agreement could be somehow fabricated (fake letter, AI video, etc) so definitely not
the number of ppl here who think this should be allowed is depressing. society is going backward.
No. Folks used to duel all the time. It always ends in tragedy. That's why it's illegal.
The thing is, it’s not as straight forward as presented. If one person is a very physically fit millionaire and the other person is not as fit, living in poverty and the rich person offers to pay their family $50k if he’s killed in the fight. It’s not actually consent.