Uh oh! McKamey's Manor again! (Haunted House)

a reply to: recrisp

It shouldn't have resulted in arguing, but clearly some people will argue over whether or not the sun rises in the east...

All I said was that the claims of "waterboarding" and "pulling of fingernails" were hyperbole and don't happen. Seeing as those things would be considered torture, which is still illegal in the US. (unless you are doing it for military training purposes as an active military person).

originally posted by: toolgal462
The law does not say that, you did.

It most certainly does, you're being purposefully obtuse.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

my issue is that :

i view this a " predatory sadism " they are offering the " lure " of a substantial cash " prize "

the " prize " is a farce - hidden behind a insane 40 page legalease caveat - that allows them to be sadists and never pay out

Yes, when you put it that way I see your point.
I had no idea there was the chance for a cash prize. The thing that I find interesting is the lure of see just how far your body and mind can go. I know a lot of people have a problem with this place. I am not saying I'm into it, I'm not. At the same time if they are clear, which I believe they are, in their intent and if people are signing a waiver releasing them of liability... I say go for it. Everyone else can go about their day.

We were talking about McKamey Manor and whether or not it would be legal for them to waterboard a person who gives consent in writing or if pulling out their fingernails would be legal if they sign a waiver.

Laws are open to 'interpretation'. I maintain that if a person had this happen to them at McKamey Manor (even when giving prior consent) it would indeed be found to be ILLEGAL.

Argue all you want that I'm wrong, I don't care.

Because the law is open to interpretation and I'm pretty confident that you would be hard pressed to find this to be okay in any state in the US.

a reply to: toolgal462

The onus is on you to prove your point, not us.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

NO it isn't. You can choose to disagree if you like.

It's about "interpretation" of the actual law.

Since you interpret it differently than I, you be my guest and find the legal precedent and cite the actual case file for when these things (waterboarding and pulling out fingernails) have been ruled to be legal, under consent.

You are the one who gets a thrill arguing over semantics and interpretations, not me.

originally posted by: toolgal462
NO it isn't.

Yeah, it is. You're interpretation or your sentiment about interpretation is not relevant. Try posting something other than a law clearly laid out for military and intelligence personnel conduct in regards prisoners or enemy combatants.

I can waste my entire night with this nonsense. This is from a legal site, JUSTIA:


Consent
The Criminal Defense of Consent

In certain criminal circumstances, an apparent criminal act may have been committed, but an essential requirement of the crime is that the victim was opposed to the crime occurring. When this happens, one defense available to the defendant is that the victim actually consented to the act, and thus the act was not a crime.
Consent and Bodily Harm

Some crimes for which consent may be a defense include those that result in bodily harm, including assault and battery. In very limited circumstances, victims can be held to consent to these crimes. One common example is in physical contact sports. Participants in a sports game are deemed to have consented to the physical contact and possible bodily harm that is an essential element of their sport.

In order to establish consent in these circumstances, three requirements must be present. First, an individual cannot consent to circumstances that involve the possibility of serious bodily injury. Second, the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable aspect of the conduct and a risk that would reasonably be accepted. Third, the individual must receive some sort of benefit from the conduct such that the consent was justified.

Since these requirements are highly specific, they apply only in very limited circumstances, and typically some sort of athletic event. For instance, boxers or rugby players can be held to consent to battery that results from their participation.
Consent and Rape or Sexual Assault

The defense of consent also applies to crimes for which lack of consent is an essential element of the crime. Thus, since the crimes of rape and sexual assault both require that the victim did not consent to the sexual conduct occurring, the defense of consent may be available. Similarly, consent may also negate certain property crimes, such as trespassing. This consent can be express or implied, but implied consent will often be much more difficult to establish.
Establishing Consent

In addition to showing that consent occurred, a criminal defendant will also have to prove that that the person who gave consent was legally able to do so. Merely stating that an individual consented to certain actions or conduct is not enough to establish a defense of consent in criminal court. Only certain individuals have been deemed legally capable of giving consent. Under our current legal system, consent will be considered inapplicable if:

The consent is given by a person who does not have authorization to provide consent. Thus, an individual cannot consent to the taking of his neighbor’s property because he does not have authorization to dictate what happens to the property.
The consent is given by a person who is held unable to consent by virtue of being underage, having a mental disorder, or being intoxicated and therefore unable to make a reasonable judgment about the conduct.
The law does not allow the victim to consent, such as in the case of statutory rape.
The consent was not voluntarily given, but was obtained by force or duress.

In all of these circumstances, even if the criminal defendant argues that consent was obtained, courts will likely determine that the consent is legally invalid, and the defense will not apply.

Last updated April 2018

for precedent search for:

The case of People v. Jovanovic

a reply to: toolgal462

(2) Consent to Bodily Injury. When conduct is charged to constitute an offense because it causes or threatens bodily injury, consent to such conduct or to the infliction of such injury is a defense if:

(a) the bodily injury consented to or threatened by the conduct consented to is not serious; or

(b) the conduct and the injury are reasonably foreseeable hazards of joint participation in a lawful athletic contest or competitive sport or other concerted activity not forbidden by law; or

(c) the consent establishes a justification for the conduct under Article 3 of the Code.

originally posted by: toolgal462
for precedent search for:

The case of People v. Jovanovic

Great example since the case was dropped during retrial after it was found out the prosecution left out exculpatory emails during the initial trial.

Consent is not a viable defence when there is serious bodily harm caused to an individual. Funny how you only cut and pasted the parts that seem to agree with you.

and you are supposed to cite your source on ATS, aren't you? Where is yours?

I'm sure we could all see that your source goes on to say exactly what I say above.

more to read here:

www.decisis.ie...

As I have repeatedly stated, it's about "interpretation" of the law and when it comes to inflicting bodily harm on another - with or without consent - the legal precedent tends to side with me on this one.

Again, we were specifically talking about McKamey Manor being able to legally waterboard or pull out fingernails of people who have signed a 'waiver'.

It's BS and always has been and you know it. Talk about being obtuse.

I was obsessed with the manor back in 2013 when it was in San Diego, and just recently discovered it’s back and now in tn. So, here’s what I surmise is going on:

Almost everything in the wavier is fake. It’s theatrical. There are no needles or teeth pulling or anything like that. No caymen alligators in a pond or anything. Contestants have to sign a non disclosure agreement, meaning they can’t legally discuss what occurred during their ”tour”

So, he takes them in and makes them do a bunch of physical activity like running them around the yard carrying the 50lb of dogfood to tire them out. Then he blind folds them. Then he beats them up a bit and tases them and feeds them worms and bugs and crap, while recording it just to get sensational clips for his YouTube channel and marketing and what not. Then when he has enough footage and they are mentally and physically exhausted, not even scared mind u, just tired and beat up; he takes them out back and puts them in a vat of freezing cold water so that they go into hypothermic shock and have to quit. That’s why all the recent contestants said they only lasted minutes or even seconds. No one can withstand freezing cold water. They just instantly have to give and no one gets the $. It’s literally impossible to win.

The body can’t physically handle the cold water.
So it’s all basically a sham. He also live streams the torture on Facebook to a private fb group who probably finances the entire thing just to get off to torture porn. There is no haunted house and no one can endure it. But it’s not really torture. It’s just getting a work out, then getting beat up, then getting dunked in ice cold water till u surrender. That’s it.

a reply to: toolgal462

That's from the NCFS which I gave you earlier and also codified as part of Tennessee law. Your fingernails being removed or being waterboarded is not serious bodily harm.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: toolgal462

That's from the NCFS which I gave you earlier and also codified as part of Tennessee law. Your fingernails being removed or being waterboarded is not serious bodily harm.

Again - open to interpretation. In court one would argue that water boarding is considered torture and illegal under international law and pulling out your fingernails is also considered torture so yah, you are wrong again

If I ever post another thread here on ATS, just kick me in the nuts, please.

originally posted by: toolgal462
Again - open to interpretation. In court one would argue that water boarding is considered torture and illegal under international law...

It's considered illegal when used to extract confessions from prisoners.

originally posted by: recrisp
If I ever post another thread here on ATS, just kick me in the nuts, please.

Not your fault that your thread was derailed by people who like to pretend they are great legal scholars and will argue to a ridiculous point to try and prove they are right when they are not.

To your original point, I don't think that any real physical harm comes to anyone who dares enter McKamey Manor, I think it's just a lot of hype and willing participants who go along with the hype.

Again, there is no way that place would be allowed to "pull out fingernails" or "waterboard" willing participants and stay open. Seriously, I feel dumber having had to defend such nonsense.

THE END