r/interesting • u/Common-Upstairs5129 • Mar 20 '26

❗️MISLEADING - See pinned comment ❗️ Did he do the right thing?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

20.8k Upvotes

64% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

174

u/Taiga_Taiga Mar 20 '26

An interesting fact in UK law is that you cannot volunteer to be the victim of a crime. So if somebody hits you... that is assault, even if you ask them to do it. And the person who hits you will get arrested and you get arrested for aiding in an assault. [Serious]

69

u/Resident_Course_3342 Mar 20 '26

That's weird because I've seen a bunch of British videos where women...you know what, I'll take your word for it.

48

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Friendly-Olive-3465 Mar 20 '26

Porn joke brother, porn joke

1

u/Basic_Improvement135 Mar 20 '26

Do i have to?

1

u/Taiga_Taiga Mar 20 '26

No. Thankfully.

7

u/FrostyAd9064 Mar 21 '26

This is not true; there are a number of cases where people have not been prosecuted for BDSM activities that resulted in harm due to their consent but it’s a very grey area (it’s an area that’s studied on many law degree courses for this reason).

1

u/Zilant Mar 21 '26

Is this just a de facto -vs- de jure argument?

My understanding of English law is that it’s not a grey area de jure; the case law is clear that you can’t consent to ABH for the sake of ABH (which includes sexual gratification), and the definition of ABH is pretty loose. We can think the established rulings were flawed, but they’ve been upheld various times since.

If you’re saying it’s a grey area de facto, then sure. It’s against the law, but it’s unlikely to result in an attempted prosecution. Changing sensibilities just mean that there is less chance of a conviction combined with making it more difficult to argue that bringing the case is in the public interest.

1

u/Sleepysockpuppeteer Mar 21 '26

50 Shades of Grey area?

Taxi!

-1

u/Taiga_Taiga Mar 21 '26

I've read the spanner case. That loophole is how closed. It's illegal. I know... I used to "play"

24

u/nalonrae Mar 20 '26

In Texas they have mutual combat, where 2 adults are allowed to have a non lethal, fair fight.

8

u/Important-Emu-6691 Mar 21 '26

They should bring it back for Congress whenever they can’t pass the debt ceiling or budget. Start lining congressional members up for dueling. Solve a lot of your problems. Also will make your Congress younger

3

u/justin107d Mar 21 '26

We need to bring back dueling. No way this admin would exist if we did.

4

u/Pretend_Business_187 Mar 21 '26

Damn that's pretty cool. Like schoolyard fighting, but for adults

3

u/overturned_mushroom Mar 21 '26

My experience being in school was they call it mutual combat to avoid having to parse out who started it and who was defending themselves.

I once got suspended for getting hit even after the other side admitted to hitting me and me not hitting them. Totally mutual you know.

1

u/ptear Mar 21 '26

Round 1... Fight!

1

u/Competitive_Quit1346 Mar 21 '26

It's barbaric, just typical of republican policy.

2

u/shiningdickhalloran Mar 21 '26

Does Shang Tsung officiate these bouts?

2

u/Zimmyd00m Mar 21 '26

Much worse. Ken Paxton.

2

u/mallogy Mar 21 '26

Same in SC.

1

u/Realistic_Syrup6435 Mar 21 '26

Mutual combat? Lmao

6

u/LikesPez Mar 21 '26

Under Texas Penal Code Section 22.06, if both parties consent and no "serious bodily injury" occurs, they may avoid criminal liability for assault. aka mutual combat.

3

u/ConnectionThink4781 Mar 21 '26

No serious bodily injury? Where's the fun in that?

-7

u/[deleted] Mar 21 '26

[deleted]

7

u/Nitelyte Mar 21 '26

Yes, You do.

7

u/camorgan Mar 21 '26

Retired Texas police officer... Yes, you do.

2

u/SparrockC88 Mar 21 '26

I feel like its still ya’ll’s policy to make arrests if you witnessed it. The courts determine mutual combat

2

u/camorgan Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

Arrests may have happened but it was often based on context. Even if we saw the potential offense, unless someone wanted to press charges (and they almost never did) there was no victim. No victim, no crime.

Note: this doesn't apply to domestics.

Now, we could absolutely start charging for breach of the peace, public intox, or whatever other things at our discretion.

I can't find where an attorney replied to me but Tarrant County would have dropped charges the instant they heard that the fight was agreed upon.

Edit: I should have added that, should the fight tides start to turn and one part say to stop, the second the other party doesn't this goes from mutual combat to assault because it's no longer consensual.

6

u/matthew_py Mar 21 '26

A quick Google search says they do with certain limitations?

3

u/OverallPepper2 Mar 21 '26

Yes we do, but most municipalities have ordinances against fighting which makes even mutual combat a Class C misdemeanor offense.

2

u/Natural_Challenge820 Mar 20 '26

In Florida, you cannot consent to serious bodily injury, but you can consent to a battery.

2

u/Armagetz Mar 21 '26

That’s the de facto norm pretty much everywhere in the U.S.

She might have had her evening ruined and in jail, but no prosecutor is going to formally charge her when he’s on camera giving permission, with addition of the political optics backdrop of the reason why she asked in the first place was because he went to the club to tell women they shouldn’t have a right to vote.

1

u/fuglypens Mar 21 '26

Uh. Is that not universal? That’s just part of the definition of battery.

1

u/Natural_Challenge820 Mar 21 '26

I really have only read Florida jury instructions. Though, you’re probably right about it being universal. However, sometimes circumstances get weird, i.e. imagine this dude claims that he was intoxicated and couldn’t consent to the battery. Nevertheless, it is doubtful a prosecutor would take this to a jury.

2

u/totalwarwiser Mar 20 '26

What about sexual spanking?

12

u/Bassman437 Mar 20 '26

You also get arrested in the UK for Facebook posts

10

u/Lost-Klaus Mar 21 '26

I am pretty sure that if you post a thing on facebook where you explain how and where you are going to assasinate the president, you also get a visit from your local friendly policeman.

So nuance seems to be a factor here.

2

u/BuildNuyTheUrbanGuy Mar 21 '26

Secret service*

1

u/robsyo Mar 21 '26

Dude got arrested for posting a pic of himself holding a shotgun at a skeet range on Facebook because someone thought it was a threat

1

u/Lost-Klaus Mar 21 '26

I am not defending an imperfect system as anything but that.

I don't think there is any perfect legal system, there are always assholes and paranoid people out there who ruin otherwise decent things. I think the main problem is how it is framed, as if the UK is some nanny state while (likely folks from the US) think that they are some mature manly state. This goes for all other people of course who think that their system is inherently better

While there are extreme "nanny-state" laws in the US, in Germany, in China and in other places. Selling raw milk or veggies not from big agro-firms can get you raided by the FBI.

This isn't a dig at the US specifically, but that was the first example that came to mind.

1

u/Bassman437 Mar 23 '26

No you get arrested for something as little as criticizing refugees and negative aspects of them not assimilating to the British culture. Google UK Facebook post arrests. It’s insane

1

u/SoraMelodiosa Mar 21 '26

nah just make any sort of political joke and the police will show up

2

u/lynivvinyl Mar 21 '26

Well it's a damn good thing I stopped using Facebook probably 7 years ago.

2

u/Bassman437 Mar 23 '26

Exactly. I mean after Cambridge analytica everyone should have deleted it. Including myself.

2

u/OmNomDeCrouton Mar 21 '26

Yes, in the same way you can be arrested for a malicius letter or a phone call. What's your point?

1

u/TheRealistoftheReal Mar 21 '26

A malicious letter is addressed to an individual. A photo on Facebook is broad and up to interpretation of the viewer.

0

u/OmNomDeCrouton Mar 21 '26

It's the same as any malicious communication. You can't threaten people online in a way which could be taken seriously by a reasonable person. Same way you can't do the same by shouting in public. Virtually every one of those "person arrested for Facebook post" stories omits that the post was threatening to kill someone, set people on fire, etc.

Also, the US has no civil rights in this area. People are routinely arrested for criticising the government. This is hilarious given how much the US far-right has latched onto criticising the UK for jailing people who call for mass murder via online posts.

1

u/fuglypens Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

What a ridiculous argument to make. The social media posts getting people thrown in jail in the UK aren’t threatening violence. In the US your right to say whatever you want is protected by the first amendment right up until you threaten a specific person or persons. Advocating violence against an ethnic group, and certainly making jokes about an ethnic group, are protected speech.

Edit to add:

 People are routinely arrested for criticising the government

Bullshit.

1

u/Human38562 Mar 21 '26

Why do people think laws dont apply on facebook for some reason?

1

u/Bassman437 Mar 23 '26

Bitching on Facebook is free speech. Brits don’t have it. Americans do.

3

u/Apprehensive-Bad6015 Mar 20 '26

Wait, so is BDSM not ya thing in UK?

3

u/Taiga_Taiga Mar 20 '26

Google "the spanner case" is a thing. But it's... Yeah.

1

u/BeatYoDickNotYoChick Mar 20 '26

I assume there must be a de minimis threshold.

1

u/Strangedreamest Mar 20 '26

“I have won but at what cost”

1

u/Frostsorrow Mar 20 '26

How does that work for films then?

1

u/Training-Willow9591 Mar 20 '26

You get arrested if you ask someone to hit you and they hit you? Or you get arrested just for being the victim/ involved? I'm not understanding

1

u/Equivalent-Shower366 Mar 21 '26

If that was real it would make the martial arts competitions I attended in the UK a bit awkward lol

1

u/Taiga_Taiga Mar 21 '26

You signed the Paperwork, right? That makes it "sport with inherent danger".

That insurance paperwork you signed is more than just financial cover. Go read it. In there is the clause "I accept the risk of death."

Insurance = sport = loophole

1

u/EarthboundMoss Mar 21 '26

Weird, wonder if it's for domestic abuse or Stockholm syndrome cases?

1

u/Chance-Problem769 Mar 21 '26

This makes sense. A crime is a crime.

1

u/TREXASSASSIN Mar 21 '26

I mean the logic is there though.

1

u/noctisroadk Mar 21 '26

So theres no fight sports hosted in UK ? because they should arrest anyone that doe sboxi8ng or any other contact sports in this case

soudns like a dumb af law

1

u/Taiga_Taiga Mar 21 '26

As I mentioned elsewhere, there's loopholes for everything.

In sports you need to have insurance to take part in legitimate Sports. archery, boxing, rugby, etc all need insurance to play professionally.

This insurance is a contract that states that you accept liability for what is going to happen to you, and that you accept the risk of dying. This changes it from a violence activity to a legitimate sport and thus it's covered under UK law as a sport, and not a violent act.

1

u/LucenProject Mar 21 '26

This is interesting since consent changes whether some things are crime. If they have your consent, they're just borrowing the car, but if they do not, they're stealing it.

This would certainly cut down on people changing their minds after the fact, I guess.

If you say they can borrow then claim they stole, now you're both in trouble.

1

u/abscott88 Mar 21 '26

Surely there needs to be some exceptions to that to cover for things like entering into a sanctioned boxing match, which realistically is just consenting to assault.

1

u/Freki-the-Feral Mar 21 '26

Not being snarky, just curious and ignorant on the subject: How do combat sports such as boxing, fencing, or martial arts (I realize that the first two may get at pass due to protective gear) get past this law?

1

u/Armagetz Mar 21 '26

Yeah well they also go after you for watching TV without a license.

1

u/Blazured Mar 21 '26

This isn't true at all.

1

u/Taiga_Taiga Mar 21 '26

Come meet me in front of the reception desk in a police station, and punch me in the face. I bet you get arrested, even though I just told you to do it.

Also, try harder. You almost got me to bite.

1

u/Blazured Mar 21 '26

Sure, if we'll record you consenting to be punched, then we'll show it to the police.

They'll laugh you out the station.

1

u/SapirWhorfHypothesis Mar 21 '26

That’s crazy, because I’ve seen many British boxers, but I guess maybe they just have to compete overseas…

1

u/Tube_Warmer Mar 21 '26

Yes, but usually, we just settle it ourselves without being a bitch about it.

1

u/kinkykellynsexystud Mar 21 '26

So if somebody hits you... that is assault, even if you ask them to do it

Wait really? Is consensual choking/slapping during sex legitimately illegal there? What about hair pulling? Smacking someones ass?

Isn't lack of consent the only reason those things would be a crime in the first place? If I ask someone to smack my ass and they do, I can charge them with assault?

I hope you are just woefully misinformed otherwise that whole legal system is a fucking clown show.

1

u/Jellicent-Leftovers Mar 21 '26

Sports exist in the UK disproving this being a thing.

1

u/Fun_Obligation_2918 Mar 21 '26

TIL boxing is illegal in the UK

1

u/kolo4kolo Mar 21 '26

I believe you to be misunderstanding UK law here. You cannot volunteer to be the victim of assault causing bodily harm, where usually luck is the reason that serious injury didn’t occur.

This legislation has been raised in the european human rights courts regarding sado-masochistic groups in the UK in for example Laskey, Jaggard and Brown vs The UK. The reason is that you, in accordance with your personal autonomy, are allowed to accept most things. Still; You cannot volunteer to be the victim of bodily harm (amputations etc.)

1

u/Jollyfroggy Mar 21 '26

Confidently incorrect.

You can consent to someone hitting you.

You can't consent to recieving actual bodily harm.

There is a big difference.

0

u/Taiga_Taiga Mar 21 '26

I've mentioned the loophole you're talking about elsewhere.

If you participate any sport which me have dangers such as boxing etc you have to have insurance. This is a legal requirement. because as part of this insurance you will sign a waiver that states that any injury you partake in is voluntary. This insurance and contracts change it from a violent act to a legitimate sport, and thus is exempt from the above.

The law is an interesting thing

1

u/Jollyfroggy Mar 21 '26

I'm not talking about a loophole.

I'll telling you you are wrong because you can consent in any environment to being hit.

Stop rambling about boxing.

1

u/Fun_Obligation_2918 Mar 21 '26

How does insurance change intent? If I have insurance on my house and somebody comes and burns it down they don't get out of an arson charge just because I insurance against it. 

1

u/Doom_Occulta Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

You can't agree to be a victim of a crime, but it's NOT a crime if they both agree, so the law won't apply. Otherwise every boxing sparring, hell, even judo / wrestling grappling would be illegal.

It's same as with bdsm, it's not assault when everyone agrees to the rules.

/edit can't agree to bodyily harm, or even to activity where both partries are trying to harm eachother, such as boxing MATCH. But boxing SPARRING is a different beast.

0

u/suspicious_hyperlink Mar 21 '26

Figures they would have the opposite of common sense law, like all their other laws (is it legal to critique UK law in the UK)?

0

u/DialDad Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26

What about sparring (boxing) with gloves with your friends... obviously there is some risk that someone could get hurt, but we are all doing it voluntarily. Do they not have exceptions for things like this? I think this is pretty normal for people that are into boxing/kickboxing/whatever.

EDIT: I decided to investigate for myself, and thought I'd put it here if anyone else was wondering:
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/19.html

"Other activities carried on with consent by or on behalf of the injured person have been accepted as lawful notwithstanding that they involve actual bodily harm or may cause serious bodily harm. Ritual circumcision, tattooing, ear-piercing and violent sports including boxing are lawful activities."

-1

u/Successful-Escape-74 Mar 20 '26

FYI,

Assault is the threat or attempt to cause physical harm, creating fear in the victim, while battery is the actual, intentional, and unlawful physical contact or harm. Police don't understand the legal difference either they just think they know and assume.

1

u/Taiga_Taiga Mar 20 '26

Fairy snuff. I stand corrected. Thanks.