Deadly consent: Bondage death raises legal issues

[Gregovic]

There was a plan for him to breath that wasn't successful. It was a risk for enjoyment that didn't fall his way that time.

Yeah, that's fine. If that's your thing, go for it. Where I have a problem with that story is that the person mummified this way was left alone without supervision and left to suffocate.. He could easily have still been alive had there been a good and reliable way for him to alert the person who tied him up or if that person had bothered keeping tabs on him. I don't judge the activity, I judge the apparent lack of precautions and the apparent lack of understanding just how dangerous what they were doing was until it was far far too late.

"Yeah that's fine" HOWEVER insert criteria here...

I am frequently chained in a building left alone where my partner is at times over 500 miles away (far more negligent in appearance). I could get strangled in chains, building could catch fire, tornado, etc and I am aware of the risks in fact it is the risk that makes it exciting (much like hundreds of other activities people do). How do you know the sub didnt want to be neglected? Maybe the dom being free to do something else while the sub was restrained was agreed upon before hand and unconditional for the scenario to commence?

My point was that Lisa felt guilty and decided to call it quits on self bondage, people rushed in to say never feel guilty, and this whole thread proves the contrary. I sure feel guilty as the sub in this situation for how you all will condemn and judge my Dom (for my selfish pleasure) if I make the news.

The following is my opinion, take it for what you want or ignore it.

It all falls back to the rules of "safe, sane, concensual" and where exactly you draw the line of safe and sane. Personally when it comes to (potential) breath play of the type discussed in this topic my opinion is that doing it without supervision and leaving the bound person alone was neither safe nor sane, no matter the wishes of the sub. If he wants to feel unsupervised there's certainly ways to achieve that without actually leaving him unsupervised. For me, personally, chaining someone inside a building unsupervised with no way to escape if things go wrong and then leaving for an extended time does not meet my personal definition of "safe". It's fine that YOU want to do these things, but you seem to be under the impression that that wish completely indemnifies your Dom, even going so far as to have a letter stating "I wanted this, I don't blame him" and your stated opinion that the sub has ultimate control, but IF something does indeed go wrong and your Dom has to answer questions from police and prosecutors the argument against him will be "he should have said No." And ultimately, that is the power he has. He can say No, I will not do that. By the very act of being to one to (agree to) leave you in that state he becomes involved and at least partially if not wholly responsible. I don't have any judgement on the desires, I don't judge the activity of being tied up or restrained (even for longer periods), I have similar wants and fantasies myself. But I have an opinion on the way it was executed and I just cannot say that either the sub or Dom where free of blame in the case in this topics subject. And IF god forbid something bad happens to you while left alone, I cannot help but judge your Dom based on this same principle. There comes a point where he should have said No. And I fully agree that it's very easy to judge from a distance and in hindsight, but there must be a limit.

What Lisa did was by no means extreme or different or dangerous and didn't break any SSC limits, that's why everybody said not to feel guilty.

[Shannon SteelSlave]

I think that no anesthesiologist in their right mind would play this game, but that is an opinion I am keeping out of my judgement.
I'll try something. Let's say you invite your friend over to have a boxing sparring session. There is risk, no one is trying to kill anyone. Now, in the fight, your friend is hit and falls limp. You would have a responsibility to get them to a hospital. If the police are called in, it could be explained, and charges are unlikely, civil law suits after the fact are unlikely. It was an accident.
But, if after knocking your opponent out cold and you do not immediately bring him to the hospital or summon professional help, you are now liable. Imagine if you decided to go to bed and sleep with your friend lying on the floor, thinking "He'll be fine in the morning". You would certainly be be held criminally and/or civilly responsible for any complications or death that could have been avoided by getting immediate help.
Again, no judgement on the activity chosen for their game. No judgement on their ability to recognize a problem that was happening. But hours pass by without even a look? This is no accident. It's negligence.

[Lotharjulz]

Gregovic/Shannon first I just wanted to say thank you for thoughtfully elaborating your opinion on this more! This is a topic of some passion to me for the started reasons and love getting to understand a different perspective!

Over the past centuries, assignment of risk/negligence has been debated and morally elaborated into various legal frameworks. The system broadly accepted in my jurisdiction has various general tests as follows. 1) did the person know their risks are being modified (communicated and signed, consent) 2) did the communication clearly articulate the risks associated with the activity and even including negligence (scope), 3) is the modification of risk unconscionable.

#3 is the most vague and what I believe you are addressing. However, there has been case law that generally states that if the person in engaged in an activity where a community generally understands there are inherent risks to the activity, it is not unconscionable. Further, the defendant would have to be proven to show they didn't willfully increase those inherent risks. This is were it gets a little difficult to process in this case and the definition of #1 #2 would have to be very specific (if breathplay was a part of the objective). So criminally it is possible the Dom is not liable.

In the good ol litigious USA, that framework can be defeated regardless with a civil suit, which has led to statutory laws explicitly protecting certain activities like ski resorts, horse tracks, etc (obviously breathplay or chaining someone in a house is not one of them).

Now I have no idea what the contract was in the OP, oral or even written, but I cannot assume I do, not knowing all the facts. Therefore I cannot agree to a judgement of the Dom.

[BoundInKasugai]

If someone asks you for a revolver with one bullet loaded, because they want to play russian roulette, would you give it to them knowingly? Morally clearly the provider has a large responsibility.

Legally, I guess what the difference on opinion is, whether there is a limit to the amount a risk for which responsibility can be waived. My guess would be that in Europe the opinion is that at some point people have to be protected from themselves and the responsibility for certain high risk activities cannot be waived. In the USA the opnion might be that the responsibility for any risk can be waived, because FREEDOM! (sorry, I couldn't help myself )

[Lotharjulz]

If someone asks you for a revolver with one bullet loaded, because they want to play russian roulette, would you give it to them knowingly? Morally clearly the provider has a large responsibility.

Legally, I guess what the difference on opinion is, whether there is a limit to the amount a risk for which responsibility can be waived. My guess would be that in Europe the opinion is that at some point people have to be protected from themselves and the responsibility for certain high risk activities cannot be waived. In the USA the opnion might be that the responsibility for any risk can be waived, because FREEDOM! (sorry, I couldn't help myself )

It's interesting the only counter points tend to be using the "Appeal to extremes" fallacy. Assisting someone to be restrained alone (1in ~10,00 chance of fatality) is an exponentially lower risk then "skydiving without a parachute" (1 in 1) and "playing Russian roulette"(1/6). Following your example though if the provider was the gun store, they are ethically responsible?

And yes FREEDOM! LOL. Actually most statutes that forcibly remove liability are done so in order to facilitate business revenue (aka ski resorts, gun stores, sky diving pilots). Without legal protection they would go out of business. It's all about $$$

[BoundInKasugai]

Following your example though if the provider was the gun store, they are ethically responsible?

Of course, if someone walks into a gun store and and says that they want to play Russian roulette and they sell them a gun knowingly then yeah I would hold them responsible. I would go even a step further, if the store wasn't told but should have reasonably known they are responsible.

I agree with your other points though, although the examples are meant as an example. It's not meant to see they are equal.

[bound_jenny]

Hi, guys!

Just a reminder that this conversation is going dangerously off course and soon to run aground on the reefs of politics.

Please take heed of this and steer this boat back on the course to bondage, before this becomes another White Star Line ship.

Thanks!

Jenny.

[Lotharjulz]

Following your example though if the provider was the gun store, they are ethically responsible?

Of course, if someone walks into a gun store and and says that they want to play Russian roulette and they sell them a gun knowingly then yeah I would hold them responsible. I would go even a step further, if the store wasn't told but should have reasonably known they are responsible.

Let's follow the chain little more. You could fault the law for allowing gun stores to sell to mentally ill people. You could then fault the politicians for allowing the law to do this. Then you could fault the people who elected them and then your are right back to another person taking responsibility for someone else indeed. Most people in the US are driven by money so it is safe to say if trying to determine if someone is mentally ill costs too much money, or revenue for gun manufacturers would drop to bankruptcy, or put local gun shops out of business, then it will likely be deemed not a law.

However, let's say a the sub in this topic was mentally ill (I would assume most here believe that) and commissioned the Dom to leave them alone with one breathing tube (most here likely doubt it, but it is possible), you could argue that the Dom should have known this was a mentally ill person. This starts another slippery slope on what is the definition of mentally ill. In psychology behaviors are defined by statistics, and bdsm is only practiced regularly by 17% (last study I have seen) of population. You could argue that all of us are damaged and some of us are likely not to perceive the activities as being that dangerous. Is that then the fault of either the Dom or Sub if they are both mentally ill?

I commission my Dom to do some very risky things, far riskier than this OP. Am I mentally ill?

[Lotharjulz]

Hi, guys!

Just a reminder that this conversation is going dangerously off course and soon to run aground on the reefs of politics.

Please take heed of this and steer this boat back on the course to bondage, before this becomes another White Star Line ship.

Thanks!

Jenny.

As you can tell I like to take the risk of bringing my schooner close to the edge of disaster

I will enter this into evidence though:
Politics - the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

Technically this whole topic fit that definition

Thank you for the warning though. We love you Jenny!

[BoundInKasugai]

My apologies, I'm afraid I steered the barge into perilous waters. My point was that different countries/cultures have a different take on resposibility.

I can't judge anyone's mental illness, but aren't we all here a little crazy? Thank god!

[bound_jenny]

but aren't we all here a little crazy?

It would be boring if we weren't (this coming from the one of the head crazies... ).

Jenny.

[ponylady]

Well, according to the latest happenings inside the british
Parliament, enjoying a pint & toasting ones birthday is now a political act.

That doesn‘t leave many innocent topics for our board to be discussed without
Invoking the wrath of jenny.

[BoundInKasugai]

Maybe that's what we were after all along =P

[bounddosster]

Well, according to the latest happenings inside the british
Parliament, enjoying a pint & toasting ones birthday is now a political act.

Proud to be British? not now just .

We had a Canadian running the bank of England so I suggest sending Jenny into parliament to sort them out.

[bounddosster]

My apologies, I'm afraid I steered the barge into perilous waters. My point was that different countries/cultures have a different take on resposibility.

I can't judge anyone's mental illness, but aren't we all here a little crazy? Thank god!

I'm not crazy, just ask my invisible friends over there they will tell you I'm not.