I feel like 2 consenting adults committing almost murder on each other should be legal as long as others weren't in danger.
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)
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?
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.
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
That's fair I think, consent in context of contracts (however not appropriate for this example). To your point the law does specify a point of being too drunk (black out, incapacitated), and the definition of that point, and if you were at that point can be argued in court. Even if you are not incapacitated, a contract in bad faith when alcohol is involved can also be voided (like I mentioned).
But medically if you are unable to give consent due to intoxication, that means they can do whatever they think they need to, to keep you alive. Unless you have an advanced directive or a family member that can legally make decisions for you. So that's totally opposite.
Consent isn't an argument with regards criminal charges, except sex. It's the only case in which consent changes a legal act into an illegal act.
You can't legally consent to a crime period, you can choose not to press charges for that crime, but there's no consent for an illegal act, unless you've entered into a contract in some way.
On the medical front it's actually a big consideration for us. If we give someone benzos and then someone tries to get consent for a non-emergent endoscopy, for example, that consent may not be valid. The level of "intoxication" someone has before we don't consider informed consent valid is pretty low.
Think of it this way, someone gets drunk, drives, gets arrested for dui, then claims they couldn't consent to driving cause they were drunk.
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.
You can't even sign contracts while visibly intoxicated in most places much less consent to duels lol.
As far as I know duels aren't legal anywhere in the US and if you did consent to one, it would not protect you from the legal consequences of murder. In fact, being voluntarily intoxicated would make the crime worse.
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.
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.
Are you suggesting the legal argument ad quod damnum: that it was, in legal fact, all fun and games until someone got hurt?
I think you're right, but it's possible theres some kind of regulation against shooting another person, even voluntarily. Them both being drunk under their own volition wouldn't enter into it. It would be Mona Lisa Perez, that lady who shot her boyfriend through a book for a YouTube stunt and killed him. She got 6 months for manslaughter.
I was saying this elsewhere in the thread, but I don't even think that matters in this case, consent. Them consenting to shooting each other, drunk or not, wouldn't save either of them from a manslaughter charge. Imo, being drunk in this case would make their stupid decision worse. Doing this without consent would just be plain ol' attempted murder on one of their parts.
Like, consenting to a crime makes you culpable, and you can totally do that while drunk and get charged. Except for sex, where the rules about consent are different.
I want to know how far they travel. Like if you're out in the middle of the dessert, nothing around for hundreds of miles.......no trees, no cities, just open air seemingly forever.
How long until the bullet just runs out of momentum? And there MUST be a point where it's still technically traveling, but with so little momentum that if it hits a body it would just not even penetrate. Just kind of hits a person, and falls to the floor. It's probably several miles, but that point HAS to exist SOMEWHERE, right?
Yeah, there's math for it.
It depends on the firearm and the round itself, and there's some uncertainty based on the exact powder load, but that wouldn't change things enough to matter.
I'm not willing to spend time looking it up, but I've seen a table of comparisons between common rounds' lethality at given ranges based on set conditions. There's always a point where lethality drops to zero, and it's before the maximum flight distance.
Yeah, there’s math for it
And next to zero chance that these drink edit: drunk numbsculls would have worked it out before their stunt with one another:-).
•
well "arrested" doesn't actually mean it's illegal, it just means the cops thought they likely did something illegal
Sounds like they were arrested for aggravated assault https://wreg.com/news/arkansas-men-arrested-for-shooting-each-other-while-wearing-bulletproof-vest/
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
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.
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
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.
What do I care if a couple of idiots want to shoot each other while wearing bulletproof vests? The government would almost certainly allow it if they applied for a bunch of special permits and shit. This basically comes down to your philosophy, does the government grant rights, or do you inherently have rights, and only things that harm other people without their consent should be illegal.
What if one person was inebriated? Developmentally challenged? homicidal? Suicidal? A really bad shot?
I mean, both of these guys are probably developmentally challenged or inebriated. They were shooting each other while wearing bulletproof vests.
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.
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.
"Ah. The old bulletproof cop gag. Back in my days we used to haze the rookies the same way. But we also used blanks!"
No shit, I knew some guys who actually did this. One of them is dead by suicide, no surprise.
Honestly the most likely charges here are operating a firearm while intoxicated? Let boys be boys coppers.
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.
Hmm. Only one of the two shooting stories I read in the news today was about Americans. Something's wrong.