quote:

ORIGINAL: Madame4a

health... and life saving safety...

big difference...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Exidor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Madame4a
Really... what's below is what you need to worry about... nationwide, its not about specific activities.. NO ONE can consent to assault... and most SM amounts to assault...

A strict interpretation of that might put surgeons and dentists in an interesting legal position...

What's the difference between paying a domme for some edge play and paying a surgeon to lop out a section of ulcerous intestine? Does the written law slice that fine?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

As mentioned, it varies from state to state.

I I also wanted to know what my rights were if I took legal guardianship of my slaves, giving the girls my last name and legal dominion over them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AthenaSurrenders
Can I consent to being caned until the skin breaks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

Disclaimer: I'm no expert on BDSM and the law, and there's lots of good advice here targeted for that. But I can tell you that I do know the general law regarding assault and battery, which fall under "common law" followed by all States except Louisiana. I.e., the basic definitions are the same.

Assault is the threat of physical bodily harm, or even contact. It's incongruous and legal babble nonsense to claim "you can't consent to assault" since the act of consenting means it's not a threat anymore.

Battery is any non-consensual non-incidental contact of any kind, to a person or even what they're holding. The seminal defining US Supt court case - knocking a dish out of a man's hand at a cafe was battery.

It's also legal babble nonsense to claim one cannot consent to a battery. Again, because battery is non-consensual contact. If there's consent, there's no battery. Professional sports, including boxing and football, are great examples of that.

Watch out when someone says something is "illegal" and then goes on to give you what sounds like legal definitions. That combination probably means they don't understand the law.

quote:

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm:

(a) Assaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or means likely to produce great bodily harm or death; or

(b) Administers, exposes, or transmits to or causes to be taken by another, poison, the human immunodeficiency virus as defined in chapter 70.24 RCW, or any other destructive or noxious substance; or

(c) Assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm.

(2) Assault in the first degree is a class A felony.

quote:

(4)(a) "Bodily injury," "physical injury," or "bodily harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or an impairment of physical condition;

(b) "Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily part;

(c) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ;

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pyramus

I remember when going through orientation at Edges a long time ago a specific 'protection' procedure for police raids.

Fundamentally, we needed to know ahead of time that a police raid might entail quick customer actions because some typical D/s play activities are, we were told, illegal in California, even when consensual.

For example, it wouldn't otherwise have been obvious that any spanking that a grand jury would deem 'harmful' is actually illegal in California - but the definition of harmful could simply be leaving marks or a slight bruise.

Does anyone have more information about which consensual D/s activities are illegal?

quote:

Edges was telling you this stuff as a formality, on the rare, rare chance that the police did raid them, to help protect the club against civil suits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CastleRock32

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

Disclaimer: I'm no expert on BDSM and the law, and there's lots of good advice here targeted for that. But I can tell you that I do know the general law regarding assault and battery, which fall under "common law" followed by all States except Louisiana. I.e., the basic definitions are the same.

Assault is the threat of physical bodily harm, or even contact. It's incongruous and legal babble nonsense to claim "you can't consent to assault" since the act of consenting means it's not a threat anymore.

Battery is any non-consensual non-incidental contact of any kind, to a person or even what they're holding. The seminal defining US Supt court case - knocking a dish out of a man's hand at a cafe was battery.

It's also legal babble nonsense to claim one cannot consent to a battery. Again, because battery is non-consensual contact. If there's consent, there's no battery. Professional sports, including boxing and football, are great examples of that.

Watch out when someone says something is "illegal" and then goes on to give you what sounds like legal definitions. That combination probably means they don't understand the law.

This does not appear to be true in Washington State.

quote:

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm:

(a) Assaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or means likely to produce great bodily harm or death; or

(b) Administers, exposes, or transmits to or causes to be taken by another, poison, the human immunodeficiency virus as defined in chapter 70.24 RCW, or any other destructive or noxious substance; or

(c) Assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm.

(2) Assault in the first degree is a class A felony.

This is from WA RCW

ETA: RCW Definition of bodily harm

quote:

(4)(a) "Bodily injury," "physical injury," or "bodily harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or an impairment of physical condition;

(b) "Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily part;

(c) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ;

Note, it says nothing about consent, nor does it define assault as a threat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: CastleRock32

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

Disclaimer: I'm no expert on BDSM and the law, and there's lots of good advice here targeted for that. But I can tell you that I do know the general law regarding assault and battery, which fall under "common law" followed by all States except Louisiana. I.e., the basic definitions are the same.

Assault is the threat of physical bodily harm, or even contact. It's incongruous and legal babble nonsense to claim "you can't consent to assault" since the act of consenting means it's not a threat anymore.

Battery is any non-consensual non-incidental contact of any kind, to a person or even what they're holding. The seminal defining US Supt court case - knocking a dish out of a man's hand at a cafe was battery.

It's also legal babble nonsense to claim one cannot consent to a battery. Again, because battery is non-consensual contact. If there's consent, there's no battery. Professional sports, including boxing and football, are great examples of that.

Watch out when someone says something is "illegal" and then goes on to give you what sounds like legal definitions. That combination probably means they don't understand the law.

This does not appear to be true in Washington State.

quote:

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm:

(a) Assaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or means likely to produce great bodily harm or death; or

(b) Administers, exposes, or transmits to or causes to be taken by another, poison, the human immunodeficiency virus as defined in chapter 70.24 RCW, or any other destructive or noxious substance; or

(c) Assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm.

(2) Assault in the first degree is a class A felony.

This is from WA RCW

ETA: RCW Definition of bodily harm

quote:

(4)(a) "Bodily injury," "physical injury," or "bodily harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or an impairment of physical condition;

(b) "Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily part;

(c) "Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a probability of death, or which causes significant serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a significant permanent loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ;

Note, it says nothing about consent, nor does it define assault as a threat.

Thank you for looking this up. I always admire someone who goes right to the source and intelligently disagrees (and includes links).

I don't know why (yes, I'm ignorant of why, forgot why) - but many state criminal statutes glob the concept of battery and assault together. I can remember the lecture on why, but literally wasn't paying attention in class that day. But whenever they do this, notice how they call it assault, but they also include the element of battery, which is the actual bodily contact. It also confuses things that the criminal and civil laws can use the same terms differently. This explains why the concepts are so confused. I can assure you though, that my recollection/paraphrasing of the definition came right out of Blacks Law dictionary. The salient element of assault is the attempt or threat of attempt, not the hit. I just looked it up, and Blacks substituted the word "offer" for "threat" in one part, but included in another (see below). Same concept though - assault is a miss, battery is a hit.

Consent and intent aren't usually explicitly stated in laws/codes. Consent is usually a defense, and intent is usually required except for some crimes (such as crimes involving negligence with no mens rea, or intent required).

http://thelawdictionary.org/assault/
An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
It again, depends on the state you are in.
The definition I provided pertains to California law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
It again, depends on the state you are in.
The definition I provided pertains to California law.

Sorry - I don't know which definition you gave and you didn't reference it. I'm sure if you posted it, it was accurate and done intelligently.

And thank you for pointing out that it depends on the state (even depends on city). I left that out cus others (you?) pointed that out. I should have given an explicit disclaimer (was implicit) that I've been referring to the general concepts of assault and battery, which apply via common law to 49 of 50 states (excludes Louisiana). Common law (roughly speaking) is case law that's followed by 49 states, based on binding and non-binding precedents leading up a hierarchy with the Supreme Court at the top. Common law and precedent apply to both criminal and civil, but the general definitions lend themselves to civil because the statutes/laws/codes can vary even on the city level for criminal.

It just gets me when Bubba-types chime in like they know something, with shit like "it's illegal" for this or that, but Bubba doesn't even understand the basic concepts of the words they're using. Assault is the threat of physical contact, so if you consent, then that vitiates the threat. There's no longer a threat for something that's agreed to; the threat turns into a contractual promise.

And Battery means there's no consent, so of course you can consent to being punched, and it's not battery. That's not "illegal".

shit, this is getting too much like legalese *snorts*

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
It again, depends on the state you are in.
The definition I provided pertains to California law.

Sorry - I don't know which definition you gave and you didn't reference it. I'm sure if you posted it, it was accurate and done intelligently.

And thank you for pointing out that it depends on the state (even depends on city). I left that out cus others (you?) pointed that out. I should have given an explicit disclaimer (was implicit) that I've been referring to the general concepts of assault and battery, which apply via common law to 49 of 50 states (excludes Louisiana). Common law (roughly speaking) is case law that's followed by 49 states, based on binding and non-binding precedents leading up a hierarchy with the Supreme Court at the top. Common law and precedent apply to both criminal and civil, but the general definitions lend themselves to civil because the statutes/laws/codes can vary even on the city level for criminal.

It just gets me when Bubba-types chime in like they know something, with shit like "it's illegal" for this or that, but Bubba doesn't even understand the basic concepts of the words they're using. Assault is the threat of physical contact, so if you consent, then that vitiates the threat. There's no longer a threat for something that's agreed to; the threat turns into a contractual promise.

And Battery means there's no consent, so of course you can consent to being punched, and it's not battery. That's not "illegal".

shit, this is getting too much like legalese *snorts*

Sorry: I went to a lawyer site for layman's terms, to keep it simple.
http://www.shouselaw.com/assault.html