this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
705 points (98.6% liked)

JustGuysBeingDudes

832 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 105 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I feel like 2 consenting adults committing almost murder on each other should be legal as long as others weren't in danger.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 64 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Well, if they were drunk, they can't legally consent...

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

While I kind of agree, what if they consent sober and then the drunken duel begins?

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

that would be even dumber

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

They aren't having sex, a voluntarily drunk person can engage in stupid activities with another voluntarily drunk person and there isn't really an issue with either party "consenting".

Like if they were both voluntarily drunk and one shot the other and killed them during one of these exchanges, the shooter would still be responsible for a crime despite being drunk, and the other persons consent to the action isn't really applicaple to a manslaughter charge except you may get a plea deal. However I am an idiot, IANAL, so take all that with a grain of salt.

Also if I'm just taking a joke too seriously I'm sorry.

(By voluntarily drunk, I mean no one drugged them, they did this to themselves)

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Wait, are you saying inebriated people can't consent to fuck, but can consent to get killed? That sounds like an incredibly stupid (legal) take.

If people cannot consent to some overall inconsequential intercourse (any unintended consequence can be alleviated medically), why on earth should they be able to consent to get shot at, which can very possibly lead to permanent injury or death?

[–] AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah, at least according to the laws in the US! Consent while intoxicated pretty much only refers to sex, or near sexual acts. In any other case, the fact that you intoxicated yourself to the point of making bad decisions, that's on you (voluntary intoxication).

Like for instance, these gentlemen both agreed to shoot each other while drunk, that would only make either of their consequences worse if there was a death, it wouldn't absolve them of their decisions to do it. They chose to get drunk, they chose to make bad decisions with guns, there is no consent issue there.

There are a couple exceptions, like you CAN enter into a contract while drunk, but if it was proveably in bad faith for the other party, it can be voided. So you can't necessarily be taken advantage of for contract purposes, even if you are voluntarily intoxicated.

Again, IANAL. I'm just pointing out consent doesn't apply in this situation. Especially since, according to being arrested, they were agreeing to perform an illegal act, or an act in an illegal way. The illegality of the act was not based on consent at all, unlike sex.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Actually refers to all forms of legal consent. A contract can be void if the other party is too drunk (to the point of legal incapacity). You also can't gain informed consent for medical procedures if the other party is too drunk.

Civil rules about preponderance of evidence and if it's just a he said she said situation that you were obviously incapacitated usually means that you won't successfully void a contact because you were drunk though

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Lol. Yeah.

While I would prefer that "shoot this bullet at me" should have the same consent requirements as sex, I assume the redneck bro code will kick in and neither will press charges.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've been reading about that guy in german in 2001 as far as the extent of what two men can do with consent. The German government didn't agree, but at least he had a big meal before he went to prison.

[–] ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Denn das ist MEIN TEIL 🎶

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 60 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is illegal? Well there goes my weekend. Thanks OBAMA.

[–] TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago

More like OBUMMER amirite

[–] Rooki@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I guess they did that on open streets?

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lol, probably. I doubt these guys had the judgement to do it in private.

[–] W_itjust_works@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago

Instructions unclear; Shoot in privates??

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 11 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Consent makes all the difference... but yeah bullets do tend to travel.

[–] Rooki@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I would say if they didnt killed themselves in private area i would guess it would be "legal" but in the moment someone dies its murder and thats then illegal. But i am no legal expert so i could be wrong.

[–] CodexArcanum@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you suggesting the legal argument ad quod damnum: that it was, in legal fact, all fun and games until someone got hurt?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Uh .. aside from being stupid, why is this illegal?

[–] sus@programming.dev 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

well "arrested" doesn't actually mean it's illegal, it just means the cops thought they likely did something illegal

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately true.

[–] brunchyvirus@fedia.io 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Doesn't Arkansas have a mutual combat law?

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Yes, but use of deadly force is not included in mutual combat.

[–] FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Reminds me of that YouTuber that convinced his pregnant partner to shoot him with a desert eagle while holding an encyclopedia in front of his chest. He died, she was sentenced to 180 days for manslaughter

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Did the bullet penetrate the book and still have enough momentum to penetrate his sternum, or did he die from the force of impact? That's the thing about bulletproof vests too. Sure, they may stop the bullet, but it's still going to fuck you up.

[–] FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It went through the book. I don't know if a bullet proof vest can stop a 50 cal fired from a foot away either tbh, but definitely like you're saying it won't prevent injury

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

Especially in the US?? It's not like they won't be paying for their own healthcare lmao

[–] brian@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

I would imagine the blanket statute to refer to is something like reckless endangerment, or perhaps more likely would be the firearms themselves being unlicensed.

Additionally, if I shot at someone who was wearing a bulletproof vest, it still would be attempted murder. If they asked me to shoot at them, it still would continue to be attempted murder ("no judge, they asked me to shoot them and I missed").

I mean, even if someone explicitly asked for you to kill them, in writing, notarized, and all that legal jazz, then you're getting into the realm of assisted suicide and that lovely grey area of morality. Though I believe it's still illegal throughout the US.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Honestly reading the story, and I'm no lawyer ya see, but it seems like the guy first shooting the other guy to try out the vest seems... dumb but legal? But then getting mad when your friend does exactly what you asked for and firing a bunch of rounds into his back after his friend put the vest on seems... dumber but quasi-illegal?

I guess I just generally feel like if two hillbillies want to test out a bulletproof vest, and they both consent, and no one else is in danger, then why should it be illegal? Lord knows being dumb isn't illegal, otherwise half the country would be in jail.

[–] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago

There are many reasons why you shouldn't put another persons life at risk even if they ask you to. Some common examples are intoxication and simply going trough a temporary hard time.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

One of these days they will invent a bulletproof Arkansan.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I immediately thought of the jeff goldblum JP meme lol

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Life....uh.... finds a way.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

"Ah. The old bulletproof cop gag. Back in my days we used to haze the rookies the same way. But we also used blanks!"

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I wouldn't worry about that

[–] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

No shit, I knew some guys who actually did this. One of them is dead by suicide, no surprise.

[–] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're a sick mother fucker Mac.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blackout@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago

We couldn't afford the vest when we played this in my youth. #rip_bros #therecanbeonlyone

[–] Harvey656@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Honestly the most likely charges here are operating a firearm while intoxicated? Let boys be boys coppers.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

While this was a problem that might have solved itself if left alone, I think it's best that they were stopped so no nearby innocents got hit.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Odds are they werent involved in the equipment selection

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago

Let them self-select out of the gene pool.

load more comments
view more: next ›