Quote From: liatsunami I agree you can't consent to being murdered, but this is a little different. There is not garuntee by choking somone that they will die. Now I can realistically see a charge for negligence of some kind. That really surprises me that the guy in that case got convicted for murder because I was pretty sure about 3-6 years ago there was a case out west a judge threw out because of "assumption of risk" was a key factor. But you would know better than me. I'm not a lawyer, YET.
Plus in the cases you are talking about it's adults, and juries probably assume adults should know better. Can kids and teens really weight the risks of their actions?To an extent yes, but not when their making a completely uninformed decision. So to them thier assuming there is NO risk of death or injury.
It'd be interesting for me to see a case like this go to trial, and what happens. I can see a lot of opportunity to present a good and solid defense in situations like this.
I think you are confusing CRIMINAL law with CIVIL law. Not only are there hundreds of thousands of criminal cases like this that have been sucessully prosecuted, a judge CANNOT throw out a CRIMINAL case based on a CIVIL defense of "assumption of the risk." All issues of fact are decided by a jury. The role of a judge is to rule of issues of law i.e. objections, motions, admissibility of evidence, etc...
Assumption of the risk defense in a CIVIL trial is known as Blame the Victim in a CRIMINAL trial and although it's been used for centuries in all types of criminal trials from rape to murder, for the most part, juries just don't buy it
