Are first blood duels illegal?

Are first blood duels illegal?
If someone was killed would it be considered murder or just an accident?

Other urls found in this thread:

unc.edu/news/archives/jul01/muel073001.htm
nydailynews.com/news/national/13-year-old-leaguer-hayden-walton-dies-hit-chest-ball-article-1.125112
youtube.com/watch?v=G-GpnAul5RU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Not just murder, conspiracy to commit premeditated first degree murder. They'd put you away for life.

First blood duels are not intended to end in death though

Depends on the country and what kind of duel you have.

For instance in germany, fraternities still have duels which end with injury, but not death. The police knows about it, but don't actually do anything. If someone did die it would probably lead to a crackdown on the practice though.

So if you were planning to have a duel, doing it in a way which won't end up with anyone dead is the way to go. If someone died it would almost certainly be prosecuted as murder as you were planning the duel, and did actively try to kill the other person by attacking them (even if it was only supposed to be to first blood)

>If someone died it would almost certainly be prosecuted as murder as you were planning the duel,
But we were not planning on having a duel to the death
If someone is killed doing any other sport nobody is ever prosecuted because people understand it is an accident

You are referring to sanctioned sporting events, which go through all sorts of legal processes. If you are boxing your friend in your backyard and you accidentally kill him you will absolutely go to prison.

>If you are boxing your friend in your backyard and you accidentally kill him you will absolutely go to prison.
People die in football and baseball accidents all of the time

>If you are boxing your friend in your backyard and you accidentally kill him you will absolutely go to prison.

I seriously doubt this.

Depends. If you were let's say playing incehockey, and hit someone in the head with their helmet off, that may count as murder.

For a duel: at least in germany they use mail vests as well as eye and nose protection. Nobody has ever died in a duel (or at least not for decades) whilst wearing these, so it is a sport and not attempted murder.

If instead you duelled without protection an using fully sharpened swords, using trusts, then you would either be planning to kill the other person or you would at least be knowingly risking that

Specific examples?

Basically you can't consent to being assaulted, so just because your buddy told you it was okay to hit him in that context doesn't make it legal. Thatnis why organizations like UFC have to go through so much to get sanctioned.

unc.edu/news/archives/jul01/muel073001.htm

Your laws are fucked then. In our country it would be manslaughter. They may not even send you to jail for it.

To clarify, the reason I ask for specific examples is that football/baseball/whatever accidents are different because you typically do not intentionally injure your opponent in these sports, unlike boxing/mma/whatever.

see
Also, just saying that 13 kids died playing baseball over 10 years is the exact opposite of a specific example.

That doesn't matter.
People who compete in competitive Martial Arts don't step into the ring with the intent to kill their opponent, even though there is a rare chance of it happening, but we don't illegalize these sports.

A first blood duel is kind of the same, sure, but it is not so much about sport and competition and more about defending one mans honour and so on.
Since honour hasn't such importancy in society anymore, defending it with a duel is considered more as "barbaric" thing and is at best to be defenden in a court.

in football you definitely attempt to injure

>boxing/mma/whatever.
This is because there are specific laws regulating them
There are no laws regulating dueling

>Also, just saying that 13 kids died playing baseball over 10 years is the exact opposite of a specific example.
those are 13 examples of people accidentally dying playing a sport

>in football you definitely attempt to injure
Intentionally injuring an opponent is absolutely illegal in football, and even in the NFL can lead to criminal charges.

>There are no laws regulating dueling
Exactly, so it defaults to the standard, which is that it is illegal to assault someone, regardless of whether they "consent" or not.

13 non-specific examples. I didn't ask you to prove that it has ever happened, I asked for a specific example of it happening so that I could explain to you the difference between that example and your "dueling."

Depends on state law. The term is "mutual combat." In some states two people are allowed to agree to a fight. If the police show up you'll both be detained but if neither party wants the other prosecuted there's no crime. Doesn't require a contract or anything, but you're fucked if the other person changes their mind and wants you prosecuted for assault. It changes if you put the person in a coma or kill them, then it's assumed that they're the victim unless you can prove self defense.

you intend to do actions that you know will end in injury
>Also, just saying that 13 kids died playing baseball over 10 years is the exact opposite of a specific example.
show me two people engaging in a consensual act that was prosecuted for assault

nydailynews.com/news/national/13-year-old-leaguer-hayden-walton-dies-hit-chest-ball-article-1.125112

>you intend to do actions that you know will end in injury
You literally do not. You've never actually played football have you?

He accidentally got hit with a baseball, which is hardly comparable to trying to draw blood from your opponent.

>You literally do not. You've never actually played football have you?
By tackling someone you will produce minor injuries like bruises
Something that if you did to a random person you would be charged with assault
>He accidentally got hit with a baseball
It is still highly reckless to throw a ball that fast and that close to another person

>By tackling someone you will produce minor injuries like bruises
Producing minor injuries is not your intent though, it is to stop the tackler. If you tackle someone for no reason other than to harm them you are penalized.
>Something that if you did to a random person you would be charged with assault
Again, this is a sanctioned sporting event we're talking about.
>It is still highly reckless to throw a ball that fast and that close to another person
Same as before, if he had intentionally thrown the baseball at the kids chest and killed him, it'd be an entirely different story.

If you don't believe me feel free to duel people until you accidentally kill one and see if you get charged or not.

>stop the tackler
Meant "stop the ball."

>Producing minor injuries is not your intent though
but you know it will happen
>Again, this is a sanctioned sporting event we're talking about.
Football is not sanctioned by the government like boxing
>Same as before, if he had intentionally thrown the baseball at the kids chest and killed him, it'd be an entirely different story.
That does still not make it reckless

>but you know it will happen
>That does still not make it reckless
Assault requires intent.

Your "argument" is becoming absurd and irrelevant, so I'll break it down for you. If you and someone else agree to a "blood duel" on private property and nothing goes horribly wrong you'll be fine, assuming that neither of you decide to press charges. If you do this and "accidentally" kill your opponent you will go to prison.

>If you and someone else agree to a "blood duel" on private property and nothing goes horribly wrong you'll be fine, assuming that neither of you decide to press charges. If you do this and "accidentally" kill your opponent you will go to prison.
OK what if my friend accidentally dies when I tackle him playing football

first blood duels are cuck shit anyway. to the death or dont bother 2bh

How many duels to the death have you been in?

>OK what if my friend accidentally dies when I tackle him playing football
If you intended to harm him you will go to prison. If you didn't, you could still be held liable, but it would really depend.

The point is though, that in your "blood duel" scenario you are clearly trying to harm your opponent, so the football scenario is irrelevant. It'd be like saying, I shot a guy and he died, but I just wanted to injure him so I shouldn't be charged with murder.

all of them

>I shot a guy and he died, but I just wanted to injure him so I shouldn't be charged with murder.

>I slammed him to the ground but I didn't intend to kill him

>I slammed a guy to the ground with the intent of doing him harm
>I slammed a guy to the ground with no intent of doing him harm

That's the difference. You can not remove the intent of harm in a "blood duel."

>>I slammed a guy to the ground with no intent of doing him harm
what were you doing slamming him to the ground then?

Playing football. You can consent to actions that may result in unintentional injury. You can not consent to assault, which would be required in a blood duel. I'm not sure what you are struggling to understand about this. Do you know what the word "intent" means?

Sex can be painful, if both people consent what's the issue to an outside party? Same with duelling

You were trying to remove the flies from this underprivileged child, without killing the flies.

Duels have been illegal since the 1600 in most Western countries. But they were contests of honor, if you went to the cops and said "guy stabbed me", it would defeat the whole purpose of accepting a duel. That was half the point of seconds, so if one person pussied out, the other three men would testify that it was a mutual agreement and the snitch should serve just as much time.

But it was always a standing thing that you would perform the duel on neutral ground. Just look at the Three Musketeers, they were always ditching their swords at the last minute or telling the town guard that they were just having a chat or what have you.

>You can not consent to assault
How is tackling someone not assault then?
Can I tackle random people as long as I am not intentionally injuring them

>which would be required in a blood duel
How is the act of drawing blood automatically assault?

I've already explained this to you. If neither of you press charges then it doesn't matter, because the police aren't going to be involved anyway. If you kill someone while assaulting them it doesn't matter whether they told you it was okay or not.

>I challenge you to a duel sir!
youtube.com/watch?v=G-GpnAul5RU

Says the guy who is the better shooter/swashbuckler to someone else who knows shit about weapons. We already have that though. Its called murder and its done when the foe is not looking.

>How is tackling someone not assault then?
Because in the context of a football game it is apparent that your intent is not to injure your opponent.
>Can I tackle random people as long as I am not intentionally injuring them
You can't even tackle "random" people in a football game, so the answer should be obvious.

>How is the act of drawing blood automatically assault?
Intentionally causing harm to someone is assault.

>because the police aren't going to be involved anyway.
they got involved in Lawrence v Texas but the Supreme Court threw it out

Interestingly duels were NOT illegal in Canada until the 70's due to an oversight in Canada's criminal code. Unfortunately the last known duel to take place was in 1914, so no one took advantage of the loophole.

>Because in the context of a football game it is apparent that your intent is not to injure your opponent.
>You can't even tackle "random" people in a football game, so the answer should be obvious.
what do the rules of football have to do with the legal definition of assault
>Intentionally causing harm to someone is assault.
how is drawing blood intentionally causing harm but not tackling

>sodomy is legal so I should be able to murder my friend in a duel
I fail to see how this is relevant.

>sodomy is legal
why is one covered by the "right to privacy" but not the other?
>murder my friend in a duel
We are not talking about death only first blood

>what do the rules of football have to do with the legal definition of assault
You already have the answer in your post:
>>Because in the context of a football game it is apparent that your intent is not to injure your opponent.

>how is drawing blood intentionally causing harm but not tackling
It's not necessarily. If you can draw blood without causing physical injury I guess you'd be good.

>It's not necessarily. If you can draw blood without causing physical injury
show me a tackle football game where nobody was even bruised

>We are not talking about death only first blood
You literally ask about death in your first post.

>why is one covered by the "right to privacy" but not the other?
Because one is assault and the other isn't.

>show me a tackle football game where nobody was even bruised
Again:
>Because in the context of a football game it is apparent that your intent is not to injure your opponent.

But you did intend to do an act where you 100% knew somebody was going to get injured
>You literally ask about death in your first post.
we are talking about accidental death
>Because one is assault and the other isn't.
The constitution doesnt say anything about assault
State assault laws should have to conform to it

>But you did intend to do an act where you 100% knew somebody was going to get injured
Context matters here, and in the context of a football game it is obvious that your goal was to stop the ball, not to injure your opponent. If it becomes apparent that you are intentionally trying to injure someone than you are subject to charges.

>The constitution doesnt say anything about assault
>State assault laws should have to conform to it
I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say here, but I have a feeling you should read the Tenth Amendment.

In a first blood duel my intent is not to injure them it is just to get the first clean hit
>but I have a feeling you should read the Tenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court should read it

How do you intend to draw blood without injuring him?

>The Supreme Court should read it
If you don't think it is within the states' rights to determine what assault is then perhaps you should skim over it once more.

How do you intend to tackle someone without even creating a minor injury?
>If you don't think it is within the states' rights to determine what assault is then perhaps you should skim over it once more.
I think it is within a state's right to ban sodomy

lols J.D. here.

you might get voluntary manslaughter if the duel constituted "mutual combat" (a duel is a classic example). Depends on the state, generally speaking you will be looking at hard time regardless though. 1/10 dont recommend

Duels resulting in death rarely happened. Learn some history fucktard

Duels here were legal until late 1800s. Basically, if someone shag'd your wife, the code of honor allowed you to duel him and kill him.

>How do you intend to tackle someone without even creating a minor injury?
You've missed my point. Drawing blood is by definition injuring someone. You stated that your intent is to draw blood, so your intent is clearly to injure. In the context of a football tackle I don't care if the person gets injured or not, I care about whether the ball is downed or not, thus injury is clearly not my intent.

Do you need me to define "intent" for you?

>Drawing blood is by definition injuring someone
but its not assault

Lol, yes, intentionally injuring someone in a manner that causes them to bleed is assault.

This has gotten retarded, but feel free to try it out for yourself and see if you get arrested or not.

Not conspiracy but agreement you fucking idiot

Show me one person charged with assault for doing a piecing