Death Match

[nclib]

From OKCupid...

I vote no, since there are too many risks involved.

[Jake]

I vote no because it's pretty damn stupid. Other than that, there aren't any problems with it.

[TheWildCard]

I vote no. Mainly because you open up a can of worms. That will become the new thing murderers  use to get themselves off the hook. Plus, it'd be harder to maintain social order if this was legal.

[Alcon]

This is one of those issues that almost amuses me with its idiocy, until I realize I fall on the sides of idiots.

If two people want to sign documentation to say the other one has permission to take the other one's life and vice-versa, what should I do about it? If someone who is mentally stable (perhaps a stretch under the circumstances, but go with me here) would not mind losing their life in the pursuit of fighting someone else, why should I care?

This is, I would hope, not an issue that comes up very often. And if legal, it should at least require a legal agreement beforehand. If someone just says "he challenged me to a death match on the spot, I swear!", I do not think that constitutes sufficient reasonable doubt.
This is one of the issues that I do not care about, in all honesty, but if it came down to it, I'd have to vote to legalize them.

[Jake]

What was it, Germany where the guy allowed the other guy to kill him and eat him?

[Rob]

I voted yes. It should be none of the state's business if two idiots want to tear each other apart.

[PBrunsel]

Most 19th Century Presidents fought duels.

I went to the Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfeild today and learned that even he fought a duel:

Lincoln had a beef with an owner of an inn while serveying in 1830. The owner challenged him to a duel, but Lincoln got to choose what to fight with. Abe chose two short swaorda and said that beither could pass a two whit lines. These lines were ar enough apart so the two could not touch each other, and the two walked away as friends.

[Gabu]

I used to be in favor of this, but the "no" side has won me over.  If a person decides that he doesn't want to at the last second, there would not be much he could do.  There are also the many legal issues surrounding it as well as the thought of one guy not playing fair and shooting the other in the back of the head or something.  I just really don't think it's worth it.

[David S]

Ok I'm the Libertarian and I believe in freedom but I don't support dueling. Let's say you have one guy who is like a class bully except instead of his fists he is good with a gun. He challenges you to a duel because he doesn't like you. You may not be at all experienced with a gun. Your options are; walk away and be called a coward or accept the challenge and probably get shot to death. This is a foolish waste of life.

Someone once made a remark about Andrew Jackson's wife. Possibly he didn't mean anything by it but Jackson took it seriously and Jackson was not a man to be trifled with. He challenged the man to a duel and killed him. Seems like a severe punishment.

Dueling is better left illegal.

[Ebowed]

Hell no.

If someone is badly beaten but doesn't end up dead, is it okay to kill him anyway, later?  If not, who pays for the medical bills?  If he is fully recovered and later the other dueler unexpectedly murders him, is that considered a finish to the duel, or a new murder case?  This doesn't even include all of the ethical issues involved.

[MaC]

I used to be in favor of this, but the "no" side has won me over. 

Faceist
Look, two people are that stupid I say we let them and when one dies, the world will have one less stupid person.

[Gabu]

Faceist

Even David S is on my side this time.

[Middle-aged Europe]

What was it, Germany where the guy allowed the other guy to kill him and eat him?

Yes, it was.

Last year the guy was convicted of manslaughter. The prosecutors then successfully filed an appeal to the Federal Court, which ordered a retrial (on the basis that he had commited murder and not manslaughter).

[muon2]

If you sign a waiver taking all responsibility, and the method is intended to be non-fatal, you can do it. Take boxing, where a death in the ring would not necessarily result in a murder charge to the other party. Two fighters could make it hard to distinguish the intent to go beyond the bounds of mere injury.

[TheWildCard]

This is one of those issues that almost amuses me with its idiocy, until I realize I fall on the sides of idiots.

If two people want to sign documentation to say the other one has permission to take the other one's life and vice-versa, what should I do about it? If someone who is mentally stable (perhaps a stretch under the circumstances, but go with me here) would not mind losing their life in the pursuit of fighting someone else, why should I care?

This is, I would hope, not an issue that comes up very often. And if legal, it should at least require a legal agreement beforehand. If someone just says "he challenged me to a death match on the spot, I swear!", I do not think that constitutes sufficient reasonable doubt.
This is one of the issues that I do not care about, in all honesty, but if it came down to it, I'd have to vote to legalize them.

I could see a defense attorney saying something like: My client did not know that you had to sign this documentation for a death match to be legal! He is clearly the victim of our bureaucracy. The specifcations for duels should be made clearer or abolished.

Then if the dfendant is declared guilty it will open up another "serious" like ones about the death penalty. Many will argue that he was just an innocent man who was challenged to a duel.

[David S]

If you sign a waiver taking all responsibility, and the method is intended to be non-fatal, you can do it. Take boxing, where a death in the ring would not necessarily result in a murder charge to the other party. Two fighters could make it hard to distinguish the intent to go beyond the bounds of mere injury.

OK then someone challenges you to a boxing match. His name is Mike Tyson. You have two choices. If you wall away how does that make you look to your kids? Or you accept and he kills you with one punch leaving your wife alone to raise your kids and your kids are left without a dad. How is that good?

[muon2]

If you sign a waiver taking all responsibility, and the method is intended to be non-fatal, you can do it. Take boxing, where a death in the ring would not necessarily result in a murder charge to the other party. Two fighters could make it hard to distinguish the intent to go beyond the bounds of mere injury.

OK then someone challenges you to a boxing match. His name is Mike Tyson. You have two choices. If you wall away how does that make you look to your kids? Or you accept and he kills you with one punch leaving your wife alone to raise your kids and your kids are left without a dad. How is that good?

I didn't say it was good. I said that under certain current circumstances it was legal. The point is that to some people it would be accepted, and they would only blame my foolishness, not Tyson's intent if I accepted.

If Tyson were to challenge me, I have no problem declining, and I have no problem discussing it with my kids. OTOH, would he take me up on a challenge to take the physics GRE?

[TheWildCard]

If you sign a waiver taking all responsibility, and the method is intended to be non-fatal, you can do it. Take boxing, where a death in the ring would not necessarily result in a murder charge to the other party. Two fighters could make it hard to distinguish the intent to go beyond the bounds of mere injury.

OK then someone challenges you to a boxing match. His name is Mike Tyson. You have two choices. If you wall away how does that make you look to your kids? Or you accept and he kills you with one punch leaving your wife alone to raise your kids and your kids are left without a dad. How is that good?

I didn't say it was good. I said that under certain current circumstances it was legal. The point is that to some people it would be accepted, and they would only blame my foolishness, not Tyson's intent if I accepted.

If Tyson were to challenge me, I have no problem declining, and I have no problem discussing it with my kids. OTOH, would he take me up on a challenge to take the physics GRE?

Tyson: Hey you not tell me this Gre guy had no ears! He ain't a person? Wha?

[muon2]

If you sign a waiver taking all responsibility, and the method is intended to be non-fatal, you can do it. Take boxing, where a death in the ring would not necessarily result in a murder charge to the other party. Two fighters could make it hard to distinguish the intent to go beyond the bounds of mere injury.

OK then someone challenges you to a boxing match. His name is Mike Tyson. You have two choices. If you wall away how does that make you look to your kids? Or you accept and he kills you with one punch leaving your wife alone to raise your kids and your kids are left without a dad. How is that good?

I didn't say it was good. I said that under certain current circumstances it was legal. The point is that to some people it would be accepted, and they would only blame my foolishness, not Tyson's intent if I accepted.

If Tyson were to challenge me, I have no problem declining, and I have no problem discussing it with my kids. OTOH, would he take me up on a challenge to take the physics GRE?

Tyson: Hey you not tell me this Gre guy had no ears! He ain't a person? Wha?

LMAO

[David S]

If you sign a waiver taking all responsibility, and the method is intended to be non-fatal, you can do it. Take boxing, where a death in the ring would not necessarily result in a murder charge to the other party. Two fighters could make it hard to distinguish the intent to go beyond the bounds of mere injury.

OK then someone challenges you to a boxing match. His name is Mike Tyson. You have two choices. If you wall away how does that make you look to your kids? Or you accept and he kills you with one punch leaving your wife alone to raise your kids and your kids are left without a dad. How is that good?

I didn't say it was good. I said that under certain current circumstances it was legal. The point is that to some people it would be accepted, and they would only blame my foolishness, not Tyson's intent if I accepted.

If Tyson were to challenge me, I have no problem declining, and I have no problem discussing it with my kids. OTOH, would he take me up on a challenge to take the physics GRE?

Of course you would win hands down in a physics match, but I don't think I've ever heard of a physics duel. LOL

You spent your life learning about science. He spent his learning how to fight. Both of you learned your lessons well. Undoubtedly E=MC^2 can unleash far more destructive power than any fighters fists, but I don't know how you would use that in a duel.

[David S]

If you sign a waiver taking all responsibility, and the method is intended to be non-fatal, you can do it. Take boxing, where a death in the ring would not necessarily result in a murder charge to the other party. Two fighters could make it hard to distinguish the intent to go beyond the bounds of mere injury.

OK then someone challenges you to a boxing match. His name is Mike Tyson. You have two choices. If you wall away how does that make you look to your kids? Or you accept and he kills you with one punch leaving your wife alone to raise your kids and your kids are left without a dad. How is that good?

I didn't say it was good. I said that under certain current circumstances it was legal. The point is that to some people it would be accepted, and they would only blame my foolishness, not Tyson's intent if I accepted.

If Tyson were to challenge me, I have no problem declining, and I have no problem discussing it with my kids. OTOH, would he take me up on a challenge to take the physics GRE?

Tyson: Hey you not tell me this Gre guy had no ears! He ain't a person? Wha?

hahahaha smarty pants.   OK Tyson is no longer a match for a top heavy weight contender, but against the average man in the street he would be deadly.

[TheWildCard]

If you sign a waiver taking all responsibility, and the method is intended to be non-fatal, you can do it. Take boxing, where a death in the ring would not necessarily result in a murder charge to the other party. Two fighters could make it hard to distinguish the intent to go beyond the bounds of mere injury.

OK then someone challenges you to a boxing match. His name is Mike Tyson. You have two choices. If you wall away how does that make you look to your kids? Or you accept and he kills you with one punch leaving your wife alone to raise your kids and your kids are left without a dad. How is that good?

I didn't say it was good. I said that under certain current circumstances it was legal. The point is that to some people it would be accepted, and they would only blame my foolishness, not Tyson's intent if I accepted.

If Tyson were to challenge me, I have no problem declining, and I have no problem discussing it with my kids. OTOH, would he take me up on a challenge to take the physics GRE?

Tyson: Hey you not tell me this Gre guy had no ears! He ain't a person? Wha?

hahahaha smarty pants.   OK Tyson is no longer a match for a top heavy weight contender, but against the average man in the street he would be deadly.

Never said he wasn't He simply would get KO'd by the GRE thats all.