https://kdvr.com/2019/04/03/arkansas-men-arrested-for-shooting-each-other-while-wearing-bulletproof-vest/

Well, I would say discharging a firearm wherever they live is probably against the law however I'm assuming you are asking about the aggravated assault charges.

Obviously had they not given each other permission there would be no question as to the charges, so I'm assuming the DA is going with they don't care if they gave each other permission or not just as you can't give permission to someone to kill you. It sounded like the second guy fired out of anger as he did not just fire once and instead emptied his clip.

Obviously they might be able to plead down, but I would guess law enforcement would rather make a statement with at least the initial charges to try and discourage other people from trying the same thing.

Yeah, I hope it ends up being a crime. Those vests are not 100perent anyway.

But I can see the libertarian "live and let live" point of view and can say that as the judge; I would find this a hard case. Could both be valid reasons.

Reckless endangerment... maybe?

Seems like harmless fun to me. What could go wrong?

They took precautions.

This was really interesting to me when I saw it. Im not sure an actual crime was committed except for discharging the firearm. Being stupid isnt a crime.

If you robbed a bank with a pellet gun that's the same as robbing it with a real gun...therefore shooting each other with real guns is the same as shooting each other with pellet guns. If they both shot each other with pellet guns no one would care.

Or something like that.

As noted earlier, you can't consent to assault. It isn't in the statute. Assault with a deadly weapon, deadly conduct, reckless endangerment - whatever the local code is, there's something to charge the guys with.

Obviously, we can't be having this stuff. You have to face some sort of repercussion. However, a savvy prosecutor probably wouldn't throw the book at them. Most of those would have maximum imprisonment in the tens of years which wouldn't be appropriate. You could always suspend the sentence pending acceptable behavior for 10 years or so.

As a side note, ballistic vests aren't guaranteed. You can easily die while wearing one. Once they're hit, they become practically useless at that impact point. Passing the vest around at close range is asking for it.

God protects fools and babies. Come to think of it, most babies I've met have been pretty foolish. Perhaps that's redundant.

Boxing and, more recently, MMA would say that you can, in fact, agree to an assault. If an MMA fighter beat the tar out of someone on the street that would be an assault. If they beat another MMA fighter who has agreed to the fight it's not an assault.

Good law school debate fodder for our future magistrates and ambulance chasers.

My fault for stating it as a bright line rule. As I've been reminded frequently, "Bright line rules are for idiots".

"Consent" is a valid defense, but has its limits. You can't give someone else permission to break the law. Boxing and MMA are regulated sports with licensing commissions and rules. When the fighters abide by the rules, it's not assault. If the meth were particularly strong that day, and one fighter pulled brass knuckles out of his bike shorts, it could be criminal. Hockey players have been charged for using their sticks to bludgeon an opponent.

Sadomasochistic play is likewise tricky. Usually, there's a consent defense. When body parts start being removed, consent won't be a valid defense.

I feel pretty confident in saying that no judge is going to recognize consent as a defense to shooting each other with handguns. Now, no one was hurt, and the crime against society was pretty minimal (they're not likely to shoot at strangers who AREN'T wearing body armor). No one really needs to go to jail for 5 years.

Texas would allow something like a 5 year sentence suspended (you wouldn't go to jail at all), with a period of probation (2-10 years or something) where you'd have to surrender your weapons, meet with probation officers, and obviously not get in trouble for that period. Once complete, the crime would basically go away.

NBD. What two consenting adults do choose to do without harming anyone other than themselves is find. Let people like this pursue happiness as they define it. Why do we try to stand in the way of nature and preserve idiots like this?

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

NBD. What two consenting adults do choose to do without harming anyone other than themselves is find. Let people like this pursue happiness as they define it. Why do we try to stand in the way of nature and preserve idiots like this?

---

Can't go around charging everyone for whatever happens after "hold my beer" if it's victimless.

.22

Puss1es

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

NBD. What two consenting adults do choose to do without harming anyone other than themselves is find. Let people like this pursue happiness as they define it. Why do we try to stand in the way of nature and preserve idiots like this?

---

If this had been accompanied by gay sex or cross dressing, no charges would have been filed. Consent as a defense only applies to deviant sex. Didn't you know?