Re: Rapier v. court sword

[Amy & Joseph Kormann]

Jonathan Jefferies 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.


If I'm not going off to a duel, I don't see how they can claim dueling.
Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> nattered on
thusnews:bopeeu$n18$1@news.monmouth.com:

> Jonathan Jefferies 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.
>
>
> If I'm not going off to a duel, I don't see how they can claim dueling.
> Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.
>

You know of salles that permit dueling on premises? That could get the
whole place shut down, owners charged, etc. Of course, by "duel" you mean
an actual duel--sharp weapons, intent to do great harm or kill, not a
fencing bout that is cheaply masquerading as a duel, right?

[William Black]

"Amy & Joseph Kormann" <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:bopeeu$n18$1@news.monmouth.com...

> Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.

And go straight to jail...

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

[Mark Thompson]

> > Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.
>
> And go straight to jail...

Hmm, I'm not sure a simple flick to the wrist will resolve the disagreement,
so jail would be likely result. I suppose we could snap off the tips of the
epee's before the fight to make it look like a tragic accident. Just
replace the losers sword with a new one and no-one will suspect. Bwa Ha Ha

[William Black]

"Mark Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bored0$3pc$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.
> >
> > And go straight to jail...
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure a simple flick to the wrist will resolve the
disagreement,
> so jail would be likely result. I suppose we could snap off the tips of
the
> epee's before the fight to make it look like a tragic accident. Just
> replace the losers sword with a new one and no-one will suspect. Bwa Ha Ha
>

Many years ago I was at a re-enactment when a 'sharp' used for a
demonstration went into a participants lower leg, the injured party needed
a couple of stitches at the local hospital.

It was an accident, both people involved agreed this and both went to the
hospital, mainly because someone had to drive the victim and we were all
going to the pub.

And both ended up giving statements to the police...

Wounds from edged weapons attract attention. I don't know how they arrange
things in the US but in the UK it is not uncommon for a policeman to be on
duty at the local Accident & Emergency unit.

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

[Amy & Joseph Kormann]

William Black wrote:

>And go straight to jail...
>
>
Hmm. Maybe I should have clarified the 'duel' as being a single-touch
combat with non-sharpened weapons. Nothing in
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=duel about it being to the
death, just about honor. I'll settle for cash or attractive prizes..

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:19:42 -0500
Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
>>And go straight to jail...
>>
>>
> Hmm. Maybe I should have clarified the 'duel' as being a single-touch
> combat with non-sharpened weapons. Nothing in
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=duel about it being to the
> death, just about honor. I'll settle for cash or attractive prizes..


If there is no risk, there is no question of honour.

All a single touch tells you is that you both had a bog-standard
practice bout.

Now, if you each put up say $1000, winner take all, then that has enough
risk that it might be in the same ballpark as a duel with sharps.

Try it one day, Seeif it changes how you fence and how important the
outcome is to you.

Oh, and the "first blood" thing wasn't the only way or even the most
common way to end a duel. The majority were "till satisfaction".
Sometimes the single simple touch was enough, but most times it needed
to be more than that. Indeed, it was common to wear gloves and to bind
a kerchief around the wrist so there was less chance of a simple nick,
to make sure "satisfaction" wasn't so easily called.


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?"

[Chris Zakes]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:42 -0000, "Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> > Now if someone wanted to duel, we could take it to a salle.
>>
>> And go straight to jail...
>
>Hmm, I'm not sure a simple flick to the wrist will resolve the disagreement,
>so jail would be likely result. I suppose we could snap off the tips of the
>epee's before the fight to make it look like a tragic accident. Just
>replace the losers sword with a new one and no-one will suspect. Bwa Ha Ha

Ever read the Nero Wolfe story "Over My Dead Body" by Rex Stout?

-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"

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> nattered on
thusnews:borqrs$2tg$1@news.monmouth.com:

> William Black wrote:
>
>>And go straight to jail...
>>
>>
> Hmm. Maybe I should have clarified the 'duel' as being a single-touch
> combat with non-sharpened weapons.

Such a play at a "duel" imposes no danger to life and is no test of
courage at all. Do not rely upon a mere dictionary to dictate what is and
is not honor. All authorities on honor make it quite plain that it is
willingly facing death over honor that determines what is a duel and what
is a fencing bout. Check out Billacois's work on the subject.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> nattered on
thusnews:slrnbr2s8d.k0m.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au :

> Now, if you each put up say $1000, winner take all, then that has enough
> risk that it might be in the same ballpark as a duel with sharps.

Or at least it would in English tradition countries, where our culture
essentially equates money and blood.

[Chris Zakes]

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 21:44:18 -0800, Jonathan Jefferies
<jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:

>Amy & Joseph Kormann wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> I do wonder if there's laws on the books to prohibit people from
>> carrying about sharpened bladed objects (swords obviously). I recall one
>> story (urban legand?) about Congress trying to prohibit the sale of any
>> blade greater than 10 inches. Then they realized every household in
>> American with a butcher's knife would be in violation and that ended that.
>>
>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].

It's clear from the wording of the laws that they were talking about
real, life-and-death encounters, not mock combat with fencing blades.

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

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"

[William Marshal]

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


> 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


Yes, the practice would most likely be addressed through existing laws
not specific to the practice of duelling, homicide in the event of a
death, attempted murder or aggravated assault otherwise, and perhaps
throwing in various ancillary felonies such as conspiracy and
facilitation. My state's statutes do not even define the term "duel"
as such any more...

It makes for anomalous situations. For instance, I have always
wondered why deaths in boxing are not prosecuted as duels---indeed,
why matches are allowed at all. Is it only the minimal safety
precautions of gloves, cups and mouthpieces which makes the law treat
deaths as excusable? The lack of weapons?

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on 12 Nov 2003 16:30:48 -0800
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It makes for anomalous situations. For instance, I have always
> wondered why deaths in boxing are not prosecuted as duels---indeed,
> why matches are allowed at all. Is it only the minimal safety
> precautions of gloves, cups and mouthpieces which makes the law treat
> deaths as excusable? The lack of weapons?

Dunno about the US, but in Oz, boxing matches are deemed sporting events
where there are rules designed to minimise serious injury, and as long
as those rules are followed, a death is considered death by misadventure.

There are coronial enquiries, and if the opponent was found to have
broken the rules, with such conduct contributing to the death, the
opponent would be charged.

The same applies to fencing, if a weapon breaks and someone dies of it,
then as long as the rules were followed - proper kit, in good nick,
inspected, and so on - then the verdict would be death by muisadventure.
If the dead person had not followed the rules, ditto. If the opponent
had been breaking the rules, excessive force, bodycontact, etc, then
if the coroner considered that might have contributed to the death,
the opponent would be charged.

If two guys went into a boxing ring without gloves, with no rules,
no rounds, and someone died, then I expect the survivor would get
charged with at least manslaughter. I expect the various Ultimate
Fighting Competitions have rules to try and at least give the illusion
of minimising the chance of serious injury.

Two bods fronting up in their shirtsleeves with sharps swords, it's a
lot harder to claim "we had precautions to avoid serious injury, it was
an accident".

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?"

[John Hasler]

William Marshal writes:
> Is it only the minimal safety precautions of gloves, cups and mouthpieces
> which makes the law treat deaths as excusable?

Most states have specific laws regulating boxing.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

[Jonathan Jefferies]

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.


> 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.

[William Marshal]

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


>
> Two bods fronting up in their shirtsleeves with sharps swords, it's a
> lot harder to claim "we had precautions to avoid serious injury, it was
> an accident".
>
> Zebee

I don't see why. Duels traditionally had a doctor in attendance, the
various codes duello were heavy on rules, and if the object is only to
first blood or the like---but no, this would get all parties thrown in
jail, doctor included. So is the difference between this and boxing
that the latter is organized and large-scale, as opposed to singular
and ad hoc?

I believe there's a specific legal provision generally applied to
boxing deaths in the US, it isn't considered accidental but something
like excuseable manslaughter, a justifiable killing rather like
self-defense. It's almost never prosecuted.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on 13 Nov 2003 15:46:54 -0800
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote
>
>
>>
>> Two bods fronting up in their shirtsleeves with sharps swords, it's a
>> lot harder to claim "we had precautions to avoid serious injury, it was
>> an accident".
>>
>> Zebee
>
> I don't see why. Duels traditionally had a doctor in attendance, the
> various codes duello were heavy on rules, and if the object is only to
> first blood or the like---but no, this would get all parties thrown in
> jail, doctor included. So is the difference between this and boxing
> that the latter is organized and large-scale, as opposed to singular
> and ad hoc?

In attendance is meaningless, the injury is the key.

"first blood" is apparently a myth, don't put a lot of reliance on it.

Plus, if you are doing a thing where the outcomes are very clearly going
to be fatal unless lucky, because of the gear used, you can claim first
blood, it's not likely to be believed.

Compare the Mensur, where there's a lot of precautions taken to prevent
death.


Boxing is fists, deaths are *rare*. It is clear that death would be
very unusual, whereas sharp swords would be the opposite.

Zebee

[Jay and Diane Rudin]

Zebee wrote:

> > Two bods fronting up in their shirtsleeves with sharps swords, it's a
> > lot harder to claim "we had precautions to avoid serious injury, it was
> > an accident".

"William Marshal" responded with:

> I don't see why. Duels traditionally had a doctor in attendance, the
> various codes duello were heavy on rules, and if the object is only to
> first blood or the like---but no, this would get all parties thrown in
> jail, doctor included. So is the difference between this and boxing
> that the latter is organized and large-scale, as opposed to singular
> and ad hoc?

The difference is a straightforward legal one -- the difference between the
use of force and the use of deadly force. 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. Therefore attempting to stab you *at all* is defined by law as using
deadly force.

From Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 645: Deadly force: Force
which the actor uses with the intent of causing or which he knows to create
a sustantial risk of causing death of serious bodily harm.

Jay Rudin

[William Marshal]

"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.



> 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.
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...

[Chris Zakes]

On 12 Nov 2003 16:30:48 -0800, trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William
Marshal) wrote:

>Chris Zakes <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> wrote
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>Yes, the practice would most likely be addressed through existing laws
>not specific to the practice of duelling, homicide in the event of a
>death, attempted murder or aggravated assault otherwise, and perhaps
>throwing in various ancillary felonies such as conspiracy and
>facilitation. My state's statutes do not even define the term "duel"
>as such any more...
>
>It makes for anomalous situations. For instance, I have always
>wondered why deaths in boxing are not prosecuted as duels---indeed,
>why matches are allowed at all. Is it only the minimal safety
>precautions of gloves, cups and mouthpieces which makes the law treat
>deaths as excusable? The lack of weapons?

Pure speculation here, becauseboxing laws aren't an area I've studied,
but...

Boxing is considered a "sporting event". The objective isn't to prove
a point of honor, or settle a dispute, as it would be in a duel. Also,
the "victory conditions" in boxing don't require the death or injury
of the other fighter. 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."

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. These duels were done in public under the eye of the
King/ruling noble. In the mid-to-late 1500s "granting the field"
became less common and eventually stopped altogether; that's when you
started seeing the informal "meet me behind the Luxembourg at 1:00"
duels which persisted into the early part of the last century.

-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"