Dueling, should it be legal?

E

Epyon

New member
I have thought about it, but never asked for opinions, after reading about the duel between Alexander Hamilton vs. Aaron Burr. I wonder, if two consenting adults were to sign waivers of some sort and duel to first blood or death (or whatever conditions either party agrees to.) couldn't that still be considered legal? I'm not taking sides on this issue, this is more of a social opinion thread.


Epyon
 
Probably not. I see little to be gained from it, and there's the possibility that somebody could be coerced into signing such a waiver (which is a pretty big negative). There are just too many pitfalls to actually allowing one person to murder another.

That's more of a "should" statement. As to how things are, I'm pretty sure dueling is explicitly illegal in some places, and covered by general homicide laws in others. If I can't enter into an agreement to have a doctor end my life when terminally ill, I imagine I can't legally enter into an agreement allowing somebody to kill me in a duel.
 
Ideally, it should fall under "private contracts", and therefore be as legal as buying a used car or employing someone.
Click to expand...

The problem with that, though, is that (as I mentioned) the possibility of coercion in any contract gives me pause about the idea of letting somebody forfeit their life through a contract. At least if there are shady contracts involving money or property there is always at least the possibility of recourse and compensation through the court system...they can't revive somebody from the dead.

If anybody's wondering what kind of coercion I'm talking about, here is a hypothetical that probably wouldn't be entirely absurd. Criminal organization wants to kill Joe. They approach Joe, and tell Joe he will sign this contract and duel Tom, or they'll kill his whole family. Joe ends up signing it...but of course he's lucky if the gun they provide him even has blanks in it. Legally sanctioned murder.

The levels of documentation and supervision that would be necessary for me (and I'd imagine most people) to accept that the participants are both freely and fairly laying their lives on the line is probably high enough that it's not really feasible.
 
I wonder, if two consenting adults were to sign waivers of some sort and duel to first blood or death (or whatever conditions either party agrees to.) couldn't that still be considered legal?
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the German cannibalism case of a few years ago: If a person volunteers to be killed and eaten, has the killer and eater committed a crime?

In this country, not all that long ago, Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder for assisting in a suicide. Those involved were consenting adults.

In my opinion, the signing of waivers by those involved would not, at this time, negate the laws regarding dueling.
 
Actually, having gang bangers shoot themselves instead of bystanders would a refreshing and profitable venture. Kind of like "Jackass" and "American Sportsman" all rolled up into one package.

This is one of those "what do I care moments." I can counsel folks, I can set an example, I can even contribute time and money to aid someone who wants to turn his life around.

But if two guys (or gangs) are bound and determined to go out in a blaze of glory, I say we should sell tickets.

Pass the popcorn.
 
Actually, having gang bangers shoot themselves instead of bystanders would a refreshing and profitable venture. Kind of like "Jackass" and "American Sportsman" all rolled up into one package.
Click to expand...

Until you start talking about organized crime, and the guy taking the fall isn't a fellow gangbanger but rather a local businessman that crossed them. Because common "gang bangers" probably still wouldn't bother to take the time to draw up contracts, even if it were legal.

Maybe I'm just thinking too deeply about this. Maybe I should stick to the shallow "criminals killing each other...yay!" level. But I just see very little benefit and far too much room for abuse.
 
I don't look for dueling to become legal again. It would put too many lawyers out of work, and lawyers exert significant control over the legislature.

I will agree that this could be an excellent 'selling point' toward legalizing it, though.
 
JuanCarlos said:
Maybe I'm just thinking too deeply about this.
Click to expand...

Lots of times we say, "Cut off the head and the body will die" when it comes to any organized entity that becomes a problem. It happens in business, as well.

But I have always thought that if you cut off the body, then the brain has to do its own dirty work.

Besides, the loss of a few hundred bangers presents no real cost, other than clean up.
 
I don’t see how Dueling could be defined as murder. I would say it bares a closer resemblance to self defense. After all within the scope of the duel if you don’t shoot your opponent then your opponent is going to shoot you. At this point I would say it is self defense. As to everything leading up to this point, well that’s something different. I’m not real sure what but it is something different.


Now something I really would like to see revived is joisting. Now there is a mans sport. Two guys on horseback riding full speed at each other with big long sticks with the intent of unhorsing the other guy. I think with modern materials we could make much better armor and everything else. I mean really, this would be a way cool sport.:D:D:D
 
Besides, the loss of a few hundred bangers presents no real cost, other than clean up.
Click to expand...

Again, the assumption that the only people dying in duels will be "bangers." Lots of things sound like great ideas when you make invalid assumptions.

I don’t see how Dueling could be defined as murder. I would say it bares a closer resemblance to self defense. After all within the scope of the duel if you don’t shoot your opponent then your opponent is going to shoot you. At this point I would say it is self defense. As to everything leading up to this point, well that’s something different. I’m not real sure what but it is something different.
Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely not self-defense, but maybe not necessarily clearly "murder" either (at least when the duel is freely entered and fair). You're getting into situations where you're intentionally putting yourself in a situation where you'll be required to use deadly force to defend yourself...I'm no lawyer, but I can't imagine that's not covered in most areas by some kind of criminal homicide law.

Now something I really would like to see revived is joisting. Now there is a mans sport. Two guys on horseback riding full speed at each other with big long sticks with the intent of unhorsing the other guy. I think with modern materials we could make much better armor and everything else. I mean really, this would be a way cool sport.
Click to expand...

Now you're speaking my language. And with modern materials and medical technology, I can't imagine you'd see all that many fatalities...but I could be wrong.
 
Your not allowed to end your life without the states permission! That falls under the Realm of assisted suicide! They have control, They control the Vertical, They Control the Horizontal. They Control What you see. They control what you hear.


Ha!!!!!!:barf:


People are allowed to play professional foot ball! They get killed! Maimed, and Disabled!!!!


Why NOT?????
 
I think the main concern would be the environment, a stray bullet hitting someone or something else.

Plus - the idea is just plain stupid.
 
Your not allowed to end your life without the states permission! That falls under the Realm of assisted suicide! They have control, They control the Vertical, They Control the Horizontal. They Control What you see. They control what you hear.
Click to expand...

A note: I think that assisted suicide is an entirely different animal from dueling, and should in many cases be legal.

People are allowed to play professional foot ball! They get killed! Maimed, and Disabled!!!!

Why NOT?????
Click to expand...

Professional football players train and wear equipment to minimize the risk of being maimed or killed. Maiming and/or killing players (or even injuring players) is not the intent of a football game.

Horrible, horrible comparison.

EDIT: Boxing or MMA matches would have been a better one...but would still fail.
 
I was in moto x race one time and seen a guy get his head ran over! If you subject your self to the risk, whats the differance?
 
If your intended on subjecting your self to grave injury, What is the difference? Maybe your both Sorry shots!

Sending your son into a little league ball game could be construed as child endangerment.

No one intends on getting maimed, or broken in a football game , but the possibilities are high!

Where do you draw the line?
 
Homefries, dueling was the way 'civilized' men resolved issues.
Now we have a court system, plus winning a duel doesnt prove right or wrong it just proves who was a faster draw and/or better aim.

If you are suggesting we use this for entertainment, then maybe another type of application would better suit our society, like a paintball gun duel, or airsoft.
 
If your intended on subjecting your self to grave injury, What is the difference? Maybe your both Sorry shots!

Sending your son into a little league ball game could be construed as child endangerment.

No one intends on getting maimed, or broken in a football game , but the possibilities are high!

Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Your position is flawed...big time.
The intent of little league baseball is to have fun, winning isnt even the goal.

Just like with your football comparison, the intent of football is to win via not allowing the other team to score more than you.
The intent of a duel is to SHOOT someone before they shoot you...

This has the faint smell of troll
We will see what comes of this.

There is no fun in getting shot, nor in shooting someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top