Mutual combat – “Let’s you and me fight!” – is generally against the law. For a very long time in American law and longer than that in the English Common Law from which our own derives, the rule in mutual combat has been the one who ends up horizontal goes in the meat wagon and the one still standing goes in the paddy wagon. Here for your amusement – PLEASE don’t consider it training or recommended procedure! – is a Black Swan exception to the rule.
Definitely not training material and also bad journalism. For starters, neither Kyle Rittenhouse nor Luigi Mangione were mutual combat situations. One was self-defense and the other was cold blooded murder.
Not recommended, but if two guys/girls have a fist fight and both tell the cops it was mutual combat, then no arrests are needed. No reason to tie up the courts time for that. It seems that way too many police interactions these days end up with arrests that serve no societal purpose.
Not exactly a ‘legal’ thought, but could Seattle’s weather have something to do with it?
The first time I visited Seattle in the early 70’s I arrived late in the day. Booked into a motel across the highway from SEA/TAC. Came down next morning and asked the desk clerk, “What’s the forecast”.
“If you can see the mountain it’s going to rain. If you can’t, it already is.”
I’m wondering if John Sholto Douglas would OK this…
I appreciate the article mentioning: Not only is Seattle’s “mutual combat” law pretty narrowly-defined — no weapons allowed, consent must be freely given from all participants (and by extension, all participants must be in a physical and mental state to give consent), no risk of damage to other persons or property, and probably other conditions, too — it ONLY protects the combatants from assault charges.
Disorderly conduct is a separate and unrelated offense, for which the combatants can still be arrested and charged.
IANAL, but it seems to me that one problem with a “mutual combat” law is that it either must be so narrowly-defined that it becomes difficult to determine if any fight falls under it, or so broad and vague as to be unenforceable … and probably unconstitutional. It sounds similar to so-called “fighting words” laws, under which one can be excused from assault charges if the “victim’s” speech immediately leading up to the “assault” was so glaringly offensive that a reasonable man would no longer be able to control his actions … but what does that mean, exactly? Who gets to decide what’s “reasonable”, and what rubric will they use to decide?
Most normal self-defense laws are about as clear as statutory law gets, but there’s still enough wiggle-room that six lawyers will give you eight different interpretations, any of which may or may not fly in a courtroom.
Thanks for brightening my day with this story, Mas. I agree it is a very limited sample size, so I don’t think I’ll be amending my legal class discussions based on it. But it does illustrate how fickle the judicial system can be – and also is a good example of why you should not base your self-defense legal strategy on a sample of n=1. Or on a macho fantasy!
First, legality aside, it sounds *really* stupid. And risky. As the victim in this instance found out in 18 seconds.
Second, in Texas Penal Code 9.31(b) “The use of force against another is not justified: (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;”
So you can’t later claim self-defense. Oops.
I have to admit I’ve never understood the “let’s get drunk and fight” mindset. Given the location, could this have started as some way of removing the law from those incidents where response to a bar fight reveals a bunch of battered folks who claim nothing (illegal-we all fell down) happened? Yet another misguided law that’s sure to spawn unintended consequences. Like the first death.
Fascinating.
I am wondering about laws concerning currently or formerly licensed boxers being under special restrictions. I am going to start researching that myself.
Unusually high skill in unarmed combat is a disparity of force element. You might want to start looking under that topic heading.
“Back to Basics:Disparity of Force,” ACLDN, interview of Massad Ayoob by Gila Hayes. Disparity of Force can be a complex issue. And the older you are, the less you want to be hit in the head.