Re: Rapier v. court sword

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:56:01 -0800, Jonathan Jefferies
<jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:

>
>
>Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 21:44:18 -0800, Jonathan Jefferies
>> <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Afraid so. And there are laws on most state law books forbidding
>>>dueling. As with most legal systems someone wants to control what
>>>others do.
>>>J.
>>
>>
>> That's actually something I've done a bit of research on. It's true
>> that some states[1] have anti-duelling laws[2]. However, if someone
>> was convicted of being involved in a duel, either as a principal or
>> second, the penalty was that the person could not run for public
>> office[3].
>
>My understanding, in at least one incident in the state of
>California, police were unable to make a case of
>homicide against one gang banger because the victim also had a
>weapon and was trying to do unto the party of the first part.
>So they charged said felon with dueling! So unless it was Arnie
>I doubt the penalty was anything about political office.

No offense, but that sounds pretty unlikely. This can't be the first
shootout they've had to deal with in California, after all.


>> Notes:
>> 1. This applies to states in the American Deep South--Louisiana,
>> Alabama and suchlike. I didn't check other areas, so I can't comment
>> on what their laws might say.
>> 2. Or *had* such laws, many were declared obsolete and removed in the
>> 1970s.
>> 3. Note that that's the penalty for *participating* if you injured or
>> killed someone then assault or murder charges might well apply.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>
>The old south continued to follow the romantic notions of honor and
>dueling long after it died out in the rest of the US and indeed did
>so thru the U.S. Civil war and perhaps in place such as New Orleans
>afterwards. In the rest of the US being a bit more strait laced the
>laws were interpreted or written differently.
>
>J.

All the laws I looked at dated from just after the Civil War. They
also included provisions mandating segregated schools, forbidding
interracial marriages, etc. But as I said, most of them were replaced
in the 1970s.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

I came up here for a party, and what happens? Nothing! Not even
ice cream. The gods looked down and laughed. This would be a
better world for children if the parents had to eat the spinach.

-Groucho Marx, "Animal Crackers"

In rec.sport.fencing on 14 Nov 2003 12:53:25 -0800
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Jay and Diane Rudin" <rudin@ev1.net> wrote
>
>
>> The difference is a straightforward legal one -- the difference between the
>> use of force and the use of deadly force.
>
> Yet statutes which permit the one usually permit the other, ie
> self-defense, defense of a third party against certain ennumerated
> felonies, etc.

YUp, because one rule to bind them all is a literary fiction.

If you are attacked and your attacker can use the defence of
provocation, that's different to you being attacked and having done
nothing to provoke it. Self defence is a special case, and scruitinsed
carefully.

>> If I hit you with my fist once as
>> hard as I can, you probably won't die. If I stab you once, you quite likely
>> will.
>
> Neither of these, however, is so invariable as to constitute a rule.

Nothing in law is.

FOr example, if you run a red light, you are always in the wrong, no?

No.

If you are the one with the green light, which turns green while you are
stopped, and you take off without checking, you may be deemed to have
contributed to the crash.

NOthing in law is invariable, that's why there are courts.

If you want simple inviolable laws, stick to macro level physics.

Zebee

"William Marshal" responded to me:

JR> The difference is a straightforward legal one -- the difference
JR> between the use of force and the use of deadly force.

> Yet statutes which permit the one usually permit the other, ie
> self-defense, defense of a third party against certain ennumerated
> felonies, etc.

Simply untrue. The reason the distinction is made is so that the law can
distinguish between when force is legal from when deadly force is legal. If
somebody pushes me, I can legally retaliate with force (pushing back), but
not with deadly force.

JR> If I hit you with my fist once as hard as I can, you probably won't
JR> die. If I stab you once, you quite likely will.

> Neither of these, however, is so invariable as to constitute a rule.
> People DO die from a single punch, and not just in the ring. And
> people survive some truly ghastly stab and cut wounds and survive---a
> reading of accounts from the age of duelling will confirm this all too
> well...

It is true that judgment is required to apply legal definitions, which is
why these questions are dealt with before a judge.

Question: are you disagreeing with Black's Law Dictionary, or claiming that
I have misapplied the definition? Deadly force is indeed defined as "Force
which the actor uses with the intent of causing or which he knows to create
a subtantial risk of causing death of serious bodily harm." A fistfight is
not considered to "create a substantial risk of causing death", and a sword
is.

Jay Rudin

"Chris Zakes" <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hqiarvkkpre0ahne933cn95cbinrpcqdfv@4ax.com...

> In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, duels were sometimes used as part
> of the judicial process--the King or other ruling noble would "grant a
> field" to settle an issue that couldn't be resolved by normal legal
> procedures.

Erm no, that's actually the whole point.

A duel is NOT 'trial by combat' as only gentlemen may take part and it is
only about the gentlemens' honour, no crime is ever mentioned. You fight
because you have been insulted or 'wronged'.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:24:52 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Chris Zakes" <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:hqiarvkkpre0ahne933cn95cbinrpcqdfv@4ax.com...
>
>> In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, duels were sometimes used as part
>> of the judicial process--the King or other ruling noble would "grant a
>> field" to settle an issue that couldn't be resolved by normal legal
>> procedures.
>
> Erm no, that's actually the whole point.
>
> A duel is NOT 'trial by combat' as only gentlemen may take part and it is
> only about the gentlemens' honour, no crime is ever mentioned. You fight
> because you have been insulted or 'wronged'.

There were "judicial duels" in Germany, although I am not sure of the
actual German words.

Nothing is every clear cut - there were fights over honour that looked
exactly like fights to determine ownership of property, and ones that
were both. The fight between two familes - 6 a side, only 2 of 12 lived
- mentioned by Brantome for example. That was over a loan of a small
amount of money, but also about family honour.

I think it's difficult to make hard and fast lines - especially over
single words - concerning things that occurred over several hundred
years in different countries. Once you start getting translation issues
and cultural issues (what is "honour"?) then it's way too complex to
be dogmatic.

Most people seem to see "duel" and think "very formalised, and to first
blood" which was a very small subset of duels. very small.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote


> If you are attacked and your attacker can use the defence of
> provocation, that's different to you being attacked and having done
> nothing to provoke it. Self defence is a special case, and scruitinsed
> carefully.


It seems not to be THAT special. The justification statutes in my
state also permit the use of either physical force OR deadly physical
force, which ever is necessary, in order to defend a third person, in
defense of premises, in law enforcement, and in preventing certain
ennumerated felonies, ie arson of an occupied structure, kidnapping,
rape, armed robbery---even sexual conduct with a minor...

"Jay and Diane Rudin" <rudin@ev1.net> wrote

> The reason the distinction is made is so that the law can
> distinguish between when force is legal from when deadly force is legal. If
> somebody pushes me, I can legally retaliate with force (pushing back), but
> not with deadly force.

See my answer to Zebee, above. The law seems to permit its use for in
some fairly nonexigent circumstances. The justification statutes in my
state begin, in most cases, thus:

"A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and
deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person
reasonably believes that [either one] is immediately necessary to---"

Doesn't sound "simply untrue" to me.

And---if you "retaliate with force" and the receipient falls and
cracks his skull open and dies, you HAVE in effect used deadly force.
Homicide on a sudden affray may be excused generally, but it's still
homicide, no?






> It is true that judgment is required to apply legal definitions, which is
> why these questions are dealt with before a judge.

To be sure. Howsoever, the statutes themselves are so written as to
ensure that a number of cases never get to the charging phase, much
less come before a court. If ones actions are justified by the
statutes, it is pointless to try the person anyway, is it not?



> Question: are you disagreeing with Black's Law Dictionary, or claiming that
> I have misapplied the definition?

Neither. What did I say that led you so to believe?

I will mention that no state, as far as I am aware, uses Blacks to
define its terms, but rather they go to great lengths to define them
in the statutes themselves ( though they may amount to the same thing
in different words ). I'm not really sure wherefore the reference to
Black's definition in the first place...





> A fistfight is
> not considered to "create a substantial risk of causing death", and a sword
> is.

Considered by whom? And under what circumstances? A professional
heavyweight fighter is IMO a lot more likely to kill someone in a
fistfight than an amateur with a sword, for instance. I just wonder
why the law has decided differently, and what their ruling assumptions
are. And more importantly why, for instance, actual deaths from
fistfights or boxing matches are constructively condoned, while
hypothetical deaths from duels with words are presumed to be somehow
much worse ( should one ever somehow manage to occur ).

Chris Zakes <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> wrote


> Boxing is considered a "sporting event".

Sure. But WHY, exactly, is it so considered? How did it manage to
acquire exempt status, when it is so violent? Two men trying to hurt
each other in circumstance A is mala in se, but in circumstance B it's
"a sport", "the sweet science", a big money activity and widely
considered innocuous. I just don't get it. The intent to cause harm is
certainly there.

Is it JUST the weapons? Then why aren't fencing or kendo or paintball
prohibited? And if boxing is just a sport, why are other, more extreme
forms of "sport" hand-to-hand combat are frowned upon?


> The objective isn't to prove
> a point of honor, or settle a dispute, as it would be in a duel.

No; it's to make money, or to win a trophy. Much more noble, I
daresay.



> the "victory conditions" in boxing don't require the death or injury
> of the other fighter.

Death, no. But injury? Absolutely. Even if it's only bruises and
microconcussions, no one comes out of a boxing match uninjured. A lot
of the time it's much worse, for victor as well as vanquished.



> If race car driver A is killed because driver B
> caused a wreck, do they prosecute B for manslaughter? Or even for
> reckless driving? As Zebee put it, it's "death by misadventure" or in
> American, "**** happens."

But racing does not have the specific objective of inflicting
punishment upon other contestants as THE primary motive of the sport.
I understand why the law doesn't consider every form of competition to
be a duel, just not why it distinguishes so finely between two which
involve combat...

William Marshal writes:
> But WHY, exactly, is it so considered? How did it manage to acquire
> exempt status, when it is so violent?

Because it is traditional, and because the law says so. If you are looking
for logic, give up.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin

In rec.sport.fencing on 17 Nov 2003 16:55:49 -0800
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Chris Zakes <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> wrote
>
>
>> Boxing is considered a "sporting event".
>
> Sure. But WHY, exactly, is it so considered? How did it manage to
> acquire exempt status, when it is so violent? Two men trying to hurt

Consider history. How long has boxing been legal, has it ever been
illegal, what changes have been made?

That will give you your answer.

Zebee

John Hasler wrote:
> William Marshal writes:
>
>>But WHY, exactly, is it so considered? How did it manage to acquire
>>exempt status, when it is so violent?
>
>
> Because it is traditional, and because the law says so. If you are looking
> for logic, give up.

Perhaps "historical" would be a better explanation. Fencing and boxing were
twinned in England at about the period that the american colonies were founded
and for a while after that. The US to a great extent was and still is influenced
by British legal tradition in that - my understanding - it is a shared
tradition.

I believe - from my reading of "The House of Angelo" - that some fencing salles
shared facilities with establishments teaching boxing and single stick among
the "manly activities of the time". As to why one was considered deadly and
the other not - would perhaps be addressed better by historical experts.

J.

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:26:37 -0800
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
> shared facilities with establishments teaching boxing and single stick among
> the "manly activities of the time". As to why one was considered deadly and
> the other not - would perhaps be addressed better by historical experts.

I am really unsure as to how expert you need to be to realise that a
sharp metal thing through the belly or throat is much more likely to
cause death than a fist to the head.

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbrfnm7.9sb.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...

> Nothing is every clear cut - there were fights over honour that looked
> exactly like fights to determine ownership of property, and ones that
> were both. The fight between two familes - 6 a side, only 2 of 12 lived
> - mentioned by Brantome for example. That was over a loan of a small
> amount of money, but also about family honour.

And once more we're back at 'Tallhoffer' and 'Is it a fighting system or a
book of rules for judicial combat in Germany?'

Out on the fringes what constitutes a duel and what a 'trial by combat' (to
use the English legal term) gets blurred.

However 'at the centre' a duel is between gentlemen (or ladies, there is
certainly evidence that some ladies fought over matters of honour) over a
matter of honour.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:35:12 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
> news:slrnbrfnm7.9sb.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
>
>> Nothing is every clear cut - there were fights over honour that looked
>> exactly like fights to determine ownership of property, and ones that
>> were both. The fight between two familes - 6 a side, only 2 of 12 lived
>> - mentioned by Brantome for example. That was over a loan of a small
>> amount of money, but also about family honour.
>
> And once more we're back at 'Tallhoffer' and 'Is it a fighting system or a
> book of rules for judicial combat in Germany?'
>
> Out on the fringes what constitutes a duel and what a 'trial by combat' (to
> use the English legal term) gets blurred.
>
> However 'at the centre' a duel is between gentlemen (or ladies, there is
> certainly evidence that some ladies fought over matters of honour) over a
> matter of honour.
>

That's the statement you make, yes.

And the one *I* make, is that over several hundred years and several
countries, that's too broad a brush.

Zebee

Boxing is legal, so is fencing. However duelling and street brawl are two
illegal activities. I wonder why you argue about two things completely
unrelated. Boxing is the sport of fighting with fists at a minimum risk (
not like on a street brawl ) and fencing is the same for swords. I know that
boxing cause more injuries, but both sports have deadly accidents. If we
consider fencings origin we may only be proud to be able to do it without
much risk now. Look at olympic boxing, point are counting, not the K.O.

Agleos

Agleos writes:

>I know that
>boxing cause more injuries, but both sports have deadly accidents.

Is that true? I had read in some intro-to-fencing book that there had been no
(one?) fatality in fencing as currently practiced.

In rec.sport.fencing on 18 Nov 2003 21:25:52 GMT
JDzik <jdzik@aol.com> wrote:
> Agleos writes:
>
>>I know that
>>boxing cause more injuries, but both sports have deadly accidents.
>
> Is that true? I had read in some intro-to-fencing book that there had been no
> (one?) fatality in fencing as currently practiced.

Depends on "currently".

I think the last one was in 1982, someone got killed *through* a mask,
and that's when they mandated 12kg masks instead of the previous 5kg.

I believe there have only been 3 deaths in fencing competition in the
20thC. Hard to tell what the relative risk is with boxing, because
you'd have to know the exposure - how many are boxing compared to how
many are fencing. PLus is it right to include amateur boxing - with
much stricter sfety rules - or is it only pro.

My guess is that fencing-as-sport is as safe or safer than amateur boxing,
and certainly safer than pro boxing. Remove plastrons and tough jackets
and masks, or else add in equivalent protection to boxers, plus add
electric scoring to boxing and the numbers might change

Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

"JDzik" <jdzik@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031118162552.19942.00000490@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Agleos writes:
>
> >I know that
> >boxing cause more injuries, but both sports have deadly accidents.
>
> Is that true? I had read in some intro-to-fencing book that there had
been no
> (one?) fatality in fencing as currently practiced.

There is also no professional fencing with millions of dollars at stake.

I imagine the odd person would get punctured and killed if there was loads
of cash involved, along with widespread cheating, drugs, corruption and
random violence.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbrkt3v.ann.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:35:12 +0000 (UTC)
> William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > However 'at the centre' a duel is between gentlemen (or ladies, there
is
> > certainly evidence that some ladies fought over matters of honour) over
a
> > matter of honour.
> >
>
> That's the statement you make, yes.
>
> And the one *I* make, is that over several hundred years and several
> countries, that's too broad a brush.

Almost certainly.

However the behaviour of Tarter tribesman or Borneo pirates and head-hunters
is of little interest when talking about the duel in its Western European
form and its relevance to modern life.

This conversation started when someone said that a duel could (or should?)
be fought in a fencing salon.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:26:37 -0800
> Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
>>shared facilities with establishments teaching boxing and single stick among
>>the "manly activities of the time". As to why one was considered deadly and
>>the other not - would perhaps be addressed better by historical experts.
>
>
> I am really unsure as to how expert you need to be to realise that a
> sharp metal thing through the belly or throat is much more likely to
> cause death than a fist to the head.
>
> Zebee

The descriptions I've read of boxing (aka fist fighting)
bouts of the day sound at least as bloody as the
duels in the same period with often the same
end result. Boxing as we know it today had yet to appear.
The biggest differentiation I've seen is money.
To duel meant you had money for weapons and instruction and
were a member of the class that mattered. Whereas boxing was
more readily adopted by the lower classes and no one really
was perturbed if they killed each other.

Okay a tad overstated. But class and money were as much a part of the
equation as any queasiness over spilt blood.

Just one more opinion. I wasn't there despite my advancing years.
J.