• AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They aren’t having sex, a voluntarily drunk person can engage in stupid activities with another voluntarily drunk person and there isn’t really an issue with either party “consenting”.

        Like if they were both voluntarily drunk and one shot the other and killed them during one of these exchanges, the shooter would still be responsible for a crime despite being drunk, and the other persons consent to the action isn’t really applicaple to a manslaughter charge except you may get a plea deal. However I am an idiot, IANAL, so take all that with a grain of salt.

        Also if I’m just taking a joke too seriously I’m sorry.

        (By voluntarily drunk, I mean no one drugged them, they did this to themselves)

        • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You can’t even sign contracts while visibly intoxicated in most places much less consent to duels lol.

    • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve been reading about that guy in german in 2001 as far as the extent of what two men can do with consent. The German government didn’t agree, but at least he had a big meal before he went to prison.

  • Harvey656@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Honestly the most likely charges here are operating a firearm while intoxicated? Let boys be boys coppers.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    While this was a problem that might have solved itself if left alone, I think it’s best that they were stopped so no nearby innocents got hit.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Honestly reading the story, and I’m no lawyer ya see, but it seems like the guy first shooting the other guy to try out the vest seems… dumb but legal? But then getting mad when your friend does exactly what you asked for and firing a bunch of rounds into his back after his friend put the vest on seems… dumber but quasi-illegal?

    I guess I just generally feel like if two hillbillies want to test out a bulletproof vest, and they both consent, and no one else is in danger, then why should it be illegal? Lord knows being dumb isn’t illegal, otherwise half the country would be in jail.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        What do I care if a couple of idiots want to shoot each other while wearing bulletproof vests? The government would almost certainly allow it if they applied for a bunch of special permits and shit. This basically comes down to your philosophy, does the government grant rights, or do you inherently have rights, and only things that harm other people without their consent should be illegal.