User:Phylloquinone/sandbox

Mutual Combat occurs when two partners who engage in mutual physical aggression partake in a battle for control (Miller and Meloy).

Washington and Texas are the only two states in the United States where mutual combat is legal. This means that individuals who engage in mutual combat in these states can do so without fear of being charged with assault, provided they adhere to the state’s laws (WiseVoter).

Most states leave mutual combat in a gray area. However, Oregon specifically bans it. Mutual combat is only allowed in Oregon if the participants are taking part in a licensed fight (WorldPopulationReview).

In Virginia, mutual combat needs to be both voluntary and mutually entered into. In California, mutual combat occurs when there was a mutual intention or agreement preceding the initiation of the fight. It is just like a duel, where both participants agree on terms and rules before they fight one another (Breyfogel).

Legal
Mutual combat is being examined for its use as a defense to domestic violence. Mutual combat does not occur simply because both parties are fighting. Mutual refers to an intention agreed upon by both parties, It would not apply to many domestic violence situations that begin with one party attacking the other (Breyfogel).

In a recent South Carolina Supreme Court case, mutual combat served as the basis for a murder charge in the death of a bystander (State v. Young). In this case, two men were shooting at a third man in their neighborhood. The third man had a gun and was shooting back. The shootout went on for several hours and spanned several blocks. In the end, the third man fired at the two men as they drove away; he missed the car and killed an innocent bystander. All three men were charged with murder. The two men argued whether they could be charged for murder when they did not fire the shot and were driving away. Their conviction was upheld under the mutual combat theory. Mutual combat bars persons from claiming self-defense since they agreed to the violence. Since the two men were engaged in mutual combat that resulted in the death of a bystander, they were found guilty even though they did not fire the bullet that killed the bystander (Coble).

Mutual Combat is also being explored as a gender neutral form of intimate partner violence. For two decades researchers have debated about whether there is gender symmetry in intimate partner violence. Recent studies indicate that the mutual violent combat model does not clearly measure women's use of control tactics, and limits the understanding of how and why women perform hostile bidirectional violence (Howard-Bostic).

In 2012, Gabriel Aubry and Olivier Martinez engaged in mutual combat and were not charged. In 2014, after Zac Efron had engaged in a fight in Skid Row, law enforcement officials did not make any arrests because they viewed it as mutual combat. Mutual combat has been used to deny damage claims, as a legal defense, and to drop charges against fighting students.

Washington law
It is not the entire state of Washington that allows mutual combat but only the city of Seattle, As long as the two people fighting have consented and do not threaten anyone else or damage any property. The Seattle Municipal Code regarding fighting states:

A. It is unlawful for any person to intentionally fight with another person in a public place and thereby create a substantial risk of:

1. Injury to a person who is not actively participating in the fight; or

2. Damage to the property of a person who is not actively participating in the fight (SMC 12A.06.025).

In 2012, MMA fighter Phoenix Jones hit the headlines for engaging in mutual combat. A video of the fight went viral. The Seattle Police Department later defended their officers for not intervening. Since the fight did not injure a third party or damage property nor have a substantial risk to do so, it was allowed by this law.

In Washington in 1930 a prize fighter engaging in a prohibited fight, died as a result of a blow received during the fight. The court decided that he had no right recovery of any damages as a result from combat, which he consented to and participated as a matter of sport. Even though the fight was prohibited by law it was still considered mutual combat, which is not prohibited by law (Hart v. Geysel).

Texas law
The Texas Penal Code states that a person is engaged in mutual struggle if the contact did not cause or threatens to cause serious bodily harm, or if the alleged victim participated even though he or she knew the risk because of his or her occupation (Penal 22.06).

In one case, mutual combat was not allowed as a defense even though both parties agreed to a fight. A fight was agreed upon by both parties at a specific location, but as one party approached the location he was struck from behind with an iron rod. The assaulting party had broken the agreed upon terms so the court decided to negate the theory of mutual combat in this case (H. T. C. Ry. Co. v. Batchler).

Oregon law
Mutual combat is prohibited in Oregon and engaging in such activities can result in criminal charges. The law is in place to prevent individuals from engaging in violent acts without consequence, regardless of whether the fight is consensual or not (ORS 161.215).

Work cited
Breyfogle, Kristi A. “Into the Gray Zone: Examining Mutual Combat as a Defense to Domestic Assault”, William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice, vol. 24, no. 3, article 7,  2018, pp. 620-621, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1481&context=wmjowl

Coble, Daniel. “Mutual Combat: Criminal liability, hand of one, innocent bystander, transferred intent”, Everyday/Evidence Legal Blog, 7 Feb. 2020. https://www.everydayevidence.org/post/mutual-combat-criminal-liability-hand-of-one-innocent-bystander-transferred-intent

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Houston Texas Central Railway Company v. W. W. Batchler. 73 S.W. 981 (Tex. Civ. App. 1903). 25 Mar. 1903.

Howard-Bostic, Chiquita D. ”Is mutual violent combat (mvc) a gender neutral conceptualization of intimate partner violence?”, Cumberland: International Journal of Arts & Sciences, vol. 6, no. 2, 2013, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1496695712?pq-origsite=primo&accountid=12902

Kaplan, Ben. “Mutual Combat States”, Wisevoter.com, 2023, [https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/mutual-combat-states/#:~:text=Washington%20and%20Texas%20are%20the,or%20participants%20can%20face%20charges. https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/mutual-combat-states/#:~:text=Washington%20and%20Texas%20are%20the,or%20participants%20can%20face%20charges.]

Miller, Susan L. and Meloy, Michelle L. “Women's use of force: voices of women arrested for domestic violence.”, Violence Against Women, vol. 12, no. 1, Jan 2006

South Carolina Supreme Court. The State, Respondent, v. Aaron Scott Young Jr., Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2018-001861. 20 Nov. 2019.

The Supreme Court of Washington. Hart v. Geysel. 294 P. 570. 29 Dec. 1930.