Mutual Combat Laws in Australia, Like Street Beefs in The US?

kracken on 09/02/2021 - 22:45

In the US, there is a backyard fight organisation. They provide a setting for 2 people with a disagreement, who consent to mutual combat, to fight under MMA or boxing rules.
The laws in their state (actually stateS as there are multiple chapters/locations) allow this, and the organisation has seen rapid growth:
https://www.youtube.com/user/yungxcraven

The leader has a compelling back story, and explains the benefits, and how they have helped to reduce gun violence in their area(s).
I found the Street Beefs documentaries very very interesting, and thought of a list of questions:

1 - Can anything like this be organised in Australia? Or, if not Australia entirely, in a specific state? (Where 2 average guys who have a "beef" can consent to settle things with mutual combat?) I'm sure there is already something like this in QLD… a travelling/tent boxing competition or something… "Fred Brophy's Boxing Troupe"?
2 - Or would affray laws be applied regardless of location and consent?
3 - There are martial arts tournaments that allow non-professionals to compete in full contact fights. Could normal guys enter a tournament like that…?

Yeah I'm really wondering if there is a way for 2 guys with a "Beef" to settle things with their fists, in Australia.
Those documentaries are great.

Sports & Outdoors

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2021 - 23:13
    +3

    So a modern day bum fights, but the bums are slightly less bum-ey but still bums.

    • cynicalmike on 09/02/2021 - 23:35
      +9

      I gave you a plate of corn muffins back in 1947 to paint my chicken coop and you never did it!

      • dasher86 on 10/02/2021 - 09:58
        +1

        paint my chicken coop.
        make me.

    • AustriaBargain on 10/02/2021 - 01:11
      +1

      I'd only pay $15 a month to follow Bogan Fights on onlyfans. $20, tops.

  • Kangal on 09/02/2021 - 23:36
    +5

    It would only take one ACA mention for it to be dissolved.

  • elgrande on 09/02/2021 - 23:37
    +2

    I think the official sanctioned aussie term you are looking for is "backyard boxing"..

  • djkelly69 on 09/02/2021 - 23:40
    +6

    What exactly would you be 'settling' by punching on with someone you have a beef with?

    • [Deactivated] on 09/02/2021 - 23:57
      -1

      For some, especially those in western Sydney it could avoid a gun fight. I support it, sounds like a great idea.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 10/02/2021 - 00:05
      +15

      'What exactly would you be 'settling' by punching on with someone you have a beef with?'

      Mmyeah, this.

      Is the idea essentially that one of the two parties in a disagreement can suggest to the other:

      "How about we just forget about the actual facts behind our disagreement, and instead I just challenge you to a punch on."?

      That is the most utterly moronic thing I have ever heard of. It is devoid of any even remote semblance of logic. Not to mention the immediately obvious possibility that a (physically) weaker person could be 'peer-pressured' or 'publicly shamed' into taking part in this ludicrous BS, simply for the entertainment of others. I hope this was some sort of joke post.

        • apsilon on 10/02/2021 - 06:30
          +14

          Why would the loser of this fight be satisfied and drop it? They already feel like they've been wronged, losing a fight isn't going to change that, in fact it could easily make it worse and encourage them to take even more drastic action than they would have otherwise.

          • Crow K on 10/02/2021 - 09:19
            +4

            @apsilon: Agree, plus it 'validates' a physical confrontation being used to resolve a dispute [moronic, as other posters noted]. Why not agree the winner of a hot dog eating contest would be the one who was actually right all along?

            The only (minor) point in favour of this OP propsed sort of arrangement is in the U.S. it probably is the lesser of two evils [assuming both parties had already agreed to a fight of some sort of resolve things and they both had access to hand guns], but there's plenty of caveats and big if's in there - you're basically downgrading an agreement to a duel to an agreement to a fistfight.
            And even then it only works assuming both people were planning on fighting to the death. If one of them has his gat and he's feeling strapped and ready to bust a cap in yo' ass [as the 'hip hoppers' say, I'm told], but you actually aren't Mister Gun Blam and ready to Shoot the Pew Pews [again, thank you, rap brethren], this sort of situation would be the equivalent of "We have a disagreement, but let's try something different from you murdering me, which would otherwise be our default resolution".

            We have nothing even remotely that dangerous here [despite all the talk of 'oh, you know, guns and knives, there's a lot of that in Australia still'], so these sorts of arrangements have no place. Unless there's evidence of an epidemic of uncontrolled violence 'spilling out onto the streets', we don't need to think up plans for 'controlled violence'. And if we somehow did get that epidemic, the way to resolve uncontrolled violence isn't to hand out fight permits and wooden bats, it's law enforcement and rules. This isn't the wild west. The one thing nub got right was we've been "raised in a different culture", and thank god for that.

          • [Deactivated] on 10/02/2021 - 09:21
            -1

            @apsilon: There's no guarantees, no solution is perfect especially not this. What's the alternative, leave it until they decide to ambush one another or bump into each other in public? Have them discuss it over a tea?

            • apsilon on 10/02/2021 - 11:50

              @[Deactivated]:

              What's the alternative, leave it until they decide to ambush one another or bump into each other in public?

              If their issues are such that those are real possibilities then nothing we're going to come up with is going to change that. There's no quick and simple fix.

              • [Deactivated] on 10/02/2021 - 13:58

                @apsilon: The violence from an organised fight is isolated to the participants, so why not allow it if there's a chance, it'll reduce actual violent incidents, even if only by a small factor?

                It won't hurt everyone freaking out about the idea.

                • apsilon on 10/02/2021 - 14:43
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]: So why stop there? Let's do it in an arena with a crowd, only to the death so no worries about the loser still feeling aggrieved and stream it live. Admission and streaming rights can be an extra revenue stream for the government.

                  • [Deactivated] on 10/02/2021 - 16:10

                    @apsilon: Ok now you're beating the strawman so I'll do the same.

                    Why stop with short prison terms for minor crimes? Let's just put everyone on the chair.

                    Why does bread always land on the buttered side?

  • Hardlyworkin on 09/02/2021 - 23:56
    +1

    As long as they sign waivers that they won't use the public health system for their injuries.

    If I have beef I just turn into a chicken.

  • Shleepy on 10/02/2021 - 02:28

    Not a lawyer, but I do believe what you're really asking here is if two people can 'consent' to fight each other where there is a risk of harm. To that, I am sure the answer is "yes" but it is no doubt full of caveats.

    I'd suggest you start here which discusses common assualt and consent as a lawful excuse: https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CCB/4957.htm especially points 12-15

    Then ask a real lawyer?

    • mskeggs on 10/02/2021 - 08:05
      +2

      Also not a lawyer, but I suspect the constraint in organising this in Australia wouldn’t be laws about assault, we have boxing after all.
      Likely the blocker would be liability for injury. You can’t contract out of negligence like you can in the USA, and it would be hard to show you organised a fight in a safe way. So it would be a matter of time till somebody sued you for their injuries.

  • 2jzzzz on 10/02/2021 - 06:42
    +2

    In Aboriginal communities they have a thing called a "fair fight". One on one, no weapons and sounds just like what you describe.

    It's seen as a way to solve problems, especially inter family fights. They are very common and do work. Not sure on the exact legalities, but Police do view as a ok way of solving problems. Not sure if anyone gets locked up

    • Jugganautx on 10/02/2021 - 13:48
      +1

      Seen a few of these on the streets of Elizabeth.

    • obi1 on 11/02/2021 - 21:21

      Jeez where are all the enlighten latte sippers from above? What, you're not going to accuse this post of being moronic?.. No I didn't think so.

      Agreed combat or a fair fight is something the humans have been doing for thousands of years so there must be something to it. I can see how it may appear barbaric by the delicate sensibilities of the urban elite but I do think there is something honorable about it.

      • apsilon on 12/02/2021 - 06:43

        I actually don't have problem with the concept. I just don't believe that average Joe Citizen that would be in this situation would be honest/honorable enough that after losing would turn around, shake hands and say "Yep, looks like you were right after all. Well played." I think it far more likely that the additional loss of status, even if it's just in their own eyes, would push them to take further and possibly more drastic action.

  • onetwothreefour on 10/02/2021 - 08:50
    +2

    Or maybe they can act like adults and not have "beef" with someone where the only way to solve it is to have a fight?

  • perhaps on 10/02/2021 - 08:55
    +1

    yeah the maccas car park

  • Spic3y on 10/02/2021 - 09:12

    This is actually a thing here already: https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-cultu…

  • pharkurnell on 10/02/2021 - 09:39

    Its called driving I mean Road Rage.

  • GG57 on 10/02/2021 - 09:41

    Bring back duelling.

  • pegaxs on 10/02/2021 - 10:46
    +4

    Good idea, because violence has always solved problems.

    I am totally sure that the guy who feels wronged and gets their arse handed to them by who they perceive is wrong will just cause the loser to say "I guess you were right…"

    Why don't they have a debate. They put their cases forward to an independent adjudicator who then judges their cases on their merits and awards a winner based in facts and evidence… If only there was something like that where aggrieved parties could go and have it sorted by a referee…

  • dscott85 on 10/02/2021 - 17:46

    A horrible idea.

    You get hit in the head & your brain is thrown against the solid wall of your skull. Your brain may start to swell due to this trauma. As your skull is a fixed size, if your brain swells too much this constricts blood flow leading to cellular damage, potential brain damage & possibly death.

    People die as a result of one punch thugs & coward punches.

    If your unlucky, get hit the wrong way, land the wrong way, that’s it. Death or permanent disability.

  • iratepirate on 10/02/2021 - 18:51
    +1

    I don't know about other states but in NSW when bodily harm occurs you can no longer use as a defense in court that there was an agreement to fight. You will then have to prove that you have a acted in self defense or be convicted of aggravated assault with actual bodily harm. So should your opponent not like losing the fight, and they then make a criminal complaint, you might end up in some legal trouble.

    • papachris on 10/02/2021 - 19:37

      I like that.

      I can imagine two idiots dancing around each other with fists raised, hurling trash talk at each other, trying to get the other one to punch first so they can claim self defence later.

      Two hours later, it's getting dark, they're hardly moving, the trash talk is looking at 'embarrassing' in the mirror. The umpire calls stumps and they all head home for tea, telling tall tales of whomping the other guy's arse without even getting a scratch. Everyone's a winner…

  • vikvance on 10/02/2021 - 20:30
    -2

    The leader has a compelling back story, and explains the benefits, and how they have helped to reduce gun violence in their area(s).

    The whole point of keeping a gun is that it's an "Equalizer".

    Even if you're 50kg and you are menaced by a 150kg thug, then you can face the thug on equal terms.

    Take away the gun, and the 50kg guy stands no chance at all.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 11/02/2021 - 02:27
      +1

      Sweet Jesus Vicar … re:

      'The whole point of keeping a gun is that it's an "Equalizer".

      I certainly hope this severely misguided view never takes hold in Australia. What you are suggesting there has a very real capacity to escalate routine violence in the general community in the extreme (doUS that sound familiar?). In civilised countries the law and qualified law enforcers are the crux of the maintenance of general peace/lack of violence in public. The USA has shown us that if you outsource that to 'any member of the public that chooses to carry a gun', the results are totally disastrous.

  • ihbh on 10/02/2021 - 20:45

    Maybe after this we consider reintroducing duels?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join