It is legal to actually challenge someone to Mortal Kombat in Washington

[Archbob]

So I like to challenge people to Mortal Kombat that I find on the street but have been prohibited from doing so by pesky laws so I have no been able to slay my foes.

However, in Washington, this is legal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_combat


So I can challenge people to Mortal Kombat in Seattle and if they so accept, I can't vanquish my foe.

What do you guys think about the merits of this law?

 

[Borachio]

Tell me which you mean: Mortal Kombat, or Mutual Combat. And I might consider the merits of the law on this issue.

But it seems to me (though I could be wrong) that you're advocating the legalisation of duelling. And honestly that's really not a good idea. There's a reason, you know, that it was outlawed in the first place.

 

[Archbob]

Well, its called Mutual combat, but basically it seems like the law says if he consenting adults decide to consent to a fair fight(or even fight to the death) and no bystanders are hurt or property damaged, they have fight all they want. So, if I challenge someone to Mortal Kombat in Washington in a State Park far away from damageable property, we can fight to the death if we so choose to.

 

[Borachio]

Far as I know duelling in Washington will be illegal. And if you kill someone during the course of a fight then you're highly liable to be prosecuted for murder and you'd have to prove that you were only acting in self-defence. Which would be a bit hard, if you'd agreed to fight to the death in the first place, I think.

Do you propose using firearms or sabres, and having seconds and all that?

Still, I'm no lawyer, so what would I know?

And do you have a list of people that you'd like to kill? Or do you just fancy killing anyone really? In which case, I'd make sure all my opponents were under 4 foot 6 inches in height, and it would help me a lot if they were kind of young and inexperienced as well. Say, 7 years old and below.

 

[Takhisis]

So I can still dust off my SEGA Genesis and use it as a weapon to defend my honour with? Cool.

 

[Tahuti]

Mortal Kombat is legal IRL, as long as you keep it to babalities.


Link to video.

 

[Archbob]

Far as I know duelling in Washington will be illegal. And if you kill someone during the course of a fight then you're highly liable to be prosecuted for murder and you'd have to prove that you were only acting in self-defence. Which would be a bit hard, if you'd agreed to fight to the death in the first place, I think.

Do you propose using firearms or sabres, and having seconds and all that?

Still, I'm no lawyer, so what would I know?

And do you have a list of people that you'd like to kill? Or do you just fancy killing anyone really? In which case, I'd make sure all my opponents were under 4 foot 6 inches in height, and it would help me a lot if they were kind of young and inexperienced as well. Say, 7 years old and below.

Nah, hand to hand combat only. And there's no challenge in defeating a 7 year old, only true warriors will be challenged(like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker) and they could always say "No", in which case I can't fight them.

 

[bhavv]

I have a list of people Id like to kill!

 

[Takhisis]

I have a list of people Id like to kill test my might on!

FTFY, dude.

 

[Kyriakos]

'Mutual combat'?! Apart from the (rather not that great) allusion to mortal combat, that phrase is really failed... Fatality

Indeed to call it 'duel' would make far more sense. Although obviously duels used to be organised with more pomp, witnesses agreed upon, choice of weapon, and not just happen at the spur of the moment.

Also, iirc, duel proposals did allow one party to just refuse, although that tended to be a disgrace to the party insulted yet choosing to not fight in the duel.

*

Obviously allowing duels again would be a very bad idea.

 

[Kyriakos]

In death, any member of operation 'mutual combat' will have 'I will do everything for love' played in his funeral

 

[Archbob]

This is actually a serious law though as per these examples:

In 2012, MMA fighter Phoenix Jones hit the headlines for engaging in mutual combat.[5] A video of the fight went viral.[6] The Seattle Police Department later defended their officers for not intervening.[7] The same year, Gabriel Aubry and Olivier Martinez engaged in mutual combat and were not charged.[8] In 2014, after Zac Efron had engaged in a fight in Skid Row, law enforcement officials did not make any arrests because they viewed it as mutual combat.[9] Mutual combat has been used to deny damage claims,[10] as a legal defense,[11] and to drop charges against fighting students.[12]

 

[Borachio]

I'm really not sure I understand.

How is "mutual combat" any different from, say, a boxing match?

And if two people have a fistfight in the privacy of their own home, and neither makes a complaint to the authorities afterwards (assuming no one is killed), how would any prosecution be successful?

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that the only difference between a random streetfight and 'mutual combat' is that the latter can more easily become a sort of event, and have people called to observe it.

Which is rather sinister..

 

[Archbob]

I'm really not sure I understand.

How is "mutual combat" any different from, say, a boxing match?

And if two people have a fistfight in the privacy of their own home, and neither makes a complaint to the authorities afterwards (assuming no one is killed), how would any prosecution be successful?

You can't win "Mutual Combat" by dancing around and tapping people on the shoulder for points. You actually have to do damage. Doing the former would just get your ass kicked.

 

[Borachio]

No. I meant from a legal point of view, how is mutual combat different from a boxing match? (Some of those guys do each other serious injury, you know. )

The legal set-up of a boxing match doesn't seem to be different: it's two people consenting to try and knock each other out or cause actual bodily harm in various ways. Without fear of prosecution, generally. Though there have been a few manslaughter cases brought, iirc.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I like the principle idea. In principle, if two people want to fight, I think they should be able to. It may be a splendid rule of thumb that violence is no solution, a highly wise principal philosophical stance, a healthy psychological attitude, but there is also an intriguing simplicity and honest passion in a fight which a man deserves the right to pursue if he wants, IMO.
However, I think I understand why it usually is outlawed. Because it may lead to social pressure to embrace violence (rather than on your own accord) as well as to an atmosphere of threat by violence (the very thing the punishment of violence is supposed to prevent, besides the violence itself, naturally). And both seem utmost undesirable to me.
And then of course there is the more mundane issue of people just claiming that it was some kind of honorable duel when it really wasn't.

Perhaps if there was a legally very formalized and ritualized process one has to go through and highly controlled conditions under which it has to take place, perhaps then it could be actually implemented. Not sure. I think it would be great if it was managed to implement such a thing. It would stand for the triumph of nuanced reasoning over narrow-minded ideological simplification.