Dueling in America

[Dr Mordrid]

Students in the US have long been taught about former Vice President Aaron Burr killing then Vice President Alexander Hamilton during an 1804 duel in New Jersey. Nothing illegal about it; dueling was legal and neither second could tell who fired first anyhow. Hamilton died the next day and was buried on the grounds of the Trinity Church in NYC (on Broadway)

What most people don't know is that today 30 states, including New Jersey, still have no statutes prohibiting dueling among civilians, though they do outlaw it for members of the state National Guard (?!?) Here's the list;

Alaska
Arizona
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington (state)
Wisconsin
Wyoming

[Wulfman]

but wouldn´t you be charged for murder/manslaughter?

mfg
wulfman

[Dr Mordrid]

Not necessarily. Depending on the presence of "castle doctrine" and 'stand your ground' (aka: "Make My Day Law") statutes in those states it could well be considered self defense.

Michigan has a dueling law, but recently there was a case in Detroit that might be illustrative of how things would actually work; that being where an armed 17 year old tried to mug a citizen who had his CCW and pistol at hand. No witnesses. Remember that.

They had a 'duel', read firefight, the kid was shot and is in critical condition. The citizen was slightly wounded in the hand. The citizen is covered by Michigan law that downright encourages self defense. In fact the law affords the presumption of self defense absent contrary evidence. There were no witnesses and the forensics supported the citizens story.

The citizen will have no charges at all. The kid, if he survives, gets charged with armed robbery and attempted murder.

[cjolley]

That example has nothing to do with dueling.
99.44% of DAs in the US would be all over both duelers.
From murder or conspiracy to commit murder to disturbing the peace.
They'd get the book thrown at them as an example.

And alcohol would almost surely have been involved.


@wulfman OK, poor syntax

[Wulfman]

And alcohol would almost surely be involved.

for the DAs, after an easy conviction?

mfg
wulfman

[Dr Mordrid]

My example covers a situation that could easily present itself in a duel - no witnesses and combatants in a stand your ground or castle doctrine state.

The legal presumption as a matter of statute is that it was self defense - so the DA has no say in the matter absent evidence to the contrary. The finding would be 'justifiable homicide'. Also common in these laws is immunity from civil prosecution, so the perp or his estate can't come back at the defender in civil court.

[Brian Ellis]

- I challenge you to a duel. Mysecond is X. Have your second arrange with him place and time. Choose your weapons.

- I choose submarines!

Seriously, I can hardly believe that your 30 states would not prosecute in some way or another if it ended in a death, especially the more "civilised" ones, as opposed to Alaska or Texas and similar where less value is placed on human life (unless it's unborn). Don't tell me that a body transpierced by a sword and found in Central Park just after dawn is not going to put the NYPD into a tizzy.

[cjolley]

Doc, isn't a "duel" without seconds (read witnesses) just a gunfight?
I mean, after all, if one of the participants claims afterward that he was being mugged, it would hardly be thought of as a real duel by people in the eighteenth century.

[Dr Mordrid]

Brian: the choice of weapons available under a CCW is not restricted to just firearms. Example; I can carry a larger knife than otherwise legal (over 3") too. Taser? Yup. That's why they say 'weapon' and not 'firearm'.

If one has a CCW and weapon, an incident occurs in a 'stand your ground' state and a death results an investigation is of course done. If the claim is self defense by law the presumption is that they acted in self defense (in other states it is the opposite). In other words the burden of proof is on the police and prosecutors. If after investigation the evidence is consistent with their story no charge will be issued on the 'defender'.

CJ: do you really think in these days that the conventions of the 17th century are going to be followed? Nope...c'ya at the basketball court at midnight sucka'. That doesn't qualify as a duel? Beg to differ.

Will/does this happen? You damned skippy.

Old story posted here before but bears repeating. Was at a local hypermarket checking out. The 20-something gal in front of me was well worth looking at, so I did. Very foxy, long legs and a short skirt. Nice

Anyhow, she bends over to unload stuff off the bottom rack of the cart and what do I see, other than the 'fur trees' of Maine? A thigh holster with a Beretta neatly tucked in it. Not an uncommon sight at all - the fastest growing group of CCW applicants are women. Actually; for the last several quarters they've made up the majority of applicants.

[cjolley]

...In other words the burden of proof is on the police and prosecutors...

Isn't that ALWAYS the case under the US Constitution?

It just seems to me that you are stripping the word "duel" of any distinction from any other form of prearranged fight.


PS Got distracted by the wikipedia entry on duels. It's pretty interesting

[Dr Mordrid]

...In other words the burden of proof is on the police and prosecutors...

Isn't that ALWAYS the case under the US Constitution?

Actually, no.

In many states there was, and still is in some, a "duty to retreat'** before you retaliate.

In such states you could face charges, and many have, even if you are cornered or pinned down when you counterattack. In those states you have to prove that you tried to retreat or you could be charged with some level of homicide even if you were totally a victim. Essentially, you are presumed guilty and have to prove your actions were permissible under the statute.

Big difference between "duty to retreat" and "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" states, my friend. It was such travesties that started the "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" movements. They are now being supported by legislators and signed by governors on both sides of the political aisle.

Some would counter that prosecutors are good public servants who would see the reality of the situation and elect not to prosecute in such examples. The answer to such an assertion is just two words: Mike Nifong (article...)

Yes, there are a lot of DA's who would indict a ham sandwich if it meant padding their conviction rate so they could run for Congress, the state legislature or governor.

Duty to Retreat @ Wikipedia....

**In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defence of self-defence, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defence to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.

[KRSESQ]

One would think that if you are inside your home then you have retreated from the outside world as far as you can reasonably be expected to, barring barracading yourself in the basement.

If you feel compelled to flee your home in order to escape with your hide, can it not be said you have abandoned your redoubt to the marauder(s) and given them license until the authorities arrive (IF they arrive)?

Kevin

[cjolley]

I would be interested in reading about a single case of an actual duel, not an attempted mugging, that has been either prosecuted, or not, in the last 50 years in the US.
Any duel at all.
Anyone...?


PS 50 years means 1959, not 1859.
PPS. Heck with prosecuted, any duel at all...

[Dr Mordrid]

You think that the numerous gun battles between gangs across the nation are not duels? That's what many local gang bangers call them. The rules may change, but not the motives - honor and territory. Burr shot Hamilton over both.

WTF....

[Brian Ellis]

You think that the numerous gun battles between gangs across the nation are not duels?

Of course, they are not. The very word duel etymologically means between two persons, not two gangs.

If what you say were true, the police cannot treat all the resultant corpses as murder victims in your 30 states and would therefore be powerless to arrest the participants (if they caught them).

Where is a latterday Elliot Ness?