劉龍珠律師法律評論：徐曉東，武功再高、也怕菜刀，約架後果很嚴重

劉龍珠律師法律評論：徐曉東，武功再高、也怕菜刀，約架後果很嚴重

（附：英文法律評論）

文 / 劉龍珠律師

近日，自稱「太極拳宗師」的雷雷果然很雷，約架5個月，但卻在5秒之內被人KO，讓人大跌眼鏡。外行看熱鬧，內行看門道，而作為律師，當然看到的是擂台這種「約架」形式背後的法律問題。

一、為什麼要「約架」

99%都是爭風吃醋，約架是手段、約炮是目的。而剩下的1%雷大師這種，想忽悠別人，沒想到把自己忽悠進去了。

二、中國法律，「約架」是否算作「競技」？失手打死了人算誰的？

1、中國這方面的法律極其缺乏，除了有一部老掉牙的《體育法》（1995年頒發），就幾乎沒有對體育競技過程中，如果發生傷亡事件怎麼處理的法規了。

2、如果是正規的體育競技（比如拳擊比賽、散打比賽、武術對抗），假如在沒有過錯的情況下，是失手打死了人，那麼一般而言，勝方不需要承擔刑事責任，因為畢竟他既沒有過錯，也不是主觀惡意的去傷人。但是，民事責任是必須承擔的，比如死者老婆孩子的贍養費等等。

3、在正規的體育競技中（比如拳擊比賽、散打比賽、武術對抗），如果一方因為一定的過錯，失手打死了人，雖然他沒有主觀惡意去傷人，但因為自己行為不當，恐怕要承擔一部份的刑事責任。

比如，拳擊比賽中，一方已經倒地了，另一方還收不住架勢，衝上去補一拳頭，把人打傷、或打死，恐怕就要承擔「過失致人重傷罪」或「過失致人死亡罪」的刑事後果。

《中國刑法》

第二百三十三條　【過失致人死亡罪】過失致人死亡的，處三年以上七年以下有期徒刑；情節較輕的，處三年以下有期徒刑。本法另有規定的，依照規定。

第二百三十五條　【過失致人重傷罪】過失傷害他人致人重傷的，處三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役。本法另有規定的，依照規定。

三、中國「約架」合法嗎？

1、看情況。如果目的單純是為了體育切磋，且有合法、規範的競賽規則，不違反社會公序良俗，那麼應該不違法。所以，日前的所謂「太極宗師」雷大師5秒被KO一事，應該說來在中國是合法的。

2、黑社會約架是違法行為

如果兩個黑社會老大，打著「體育競技」的旗號，實際上是單挑、報仇、爭鬥地盤，那麼就觸犯了中國刑法第292和293條，即使沒有打出人命，也要承擔刑事責任。打出人命了刑事責任就更重。

第二百九十二條　【聚眾鬥毆罪；故意傷害罪；故意殺人罪】聚眾鬥毆的，對首要分子和其他積極參加的，處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制；有下列情形之一的，對首要分子和其他積極參加的，處三年以上十年以下有期徒刑：
　　（一）多次聚眾鬥毆的；
　　（二）聚眾鬥毆人數多，規模大，社會影響惡劣的；
　　（三）在公共場所或者交通要道聚眾鬥毆，造成社會秩序嚴重混亂的；
　　（四）持械聚眾鬥毆的。
　　聚眾鬥毆，致人重傷、死亡的，依照本法第二百三十四條、第二百三十二條的規定定罪處罰。

第二百九十三條　【尋釁滋事罪】有下列尋釁滋事行為之一，破壞社會秩序的，處五年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制：
　　（一）隨意毆打他人，情節惡劣的；
　　（二）追逐、攔截、辱罵、恐嚇他人，情節惡劣的；
　　（三）強拿硬要或者任意損毀、佔用公私財物，情節嚴重的；
　　（四）在公共場所起鬨鬧事，造成公共場所秩序嚴重混亂的。
　　糾集他人多次實施前款行為，嚴重破壞社會秩序的，處五年以上十年以下有期徒刑，可以並處罰金。

四、在美國「約架」合法嗎？

美國的情況稍微複雜一些。一般說來，每個州有不同的法律，每個行業也有行業規則。如果是正式的拳擊協會、散打協會，按照嚴格的競技規則，組織拳擊比賽、散打比賽，那麼在美國是合法的，因為有競技規則對參賽者的人身安全予以保護。

如果沒有合法註冊的協會規則，比如「太極」對陣「散打」，美國人從來沒聽說過這種跨行業的撕逼，那麼肯定就會被警察認定為「Fight Club Participation」，成為非法活動了。檢察官檢控的罪名可以是：Assault（攻擊）, Battery（鬥毆）, Attractive Nuisance（引誘妨害，也就是導致兒童跟著學壞）, Endangerment（施加危害）, Unlicensed Business Enterprise（非法經營）等等。

所以在美國一定要注意，千萬不要發生「關公戰秦瓊」這樣的事情，因為沒有行業競技規則來保證「關公」和「秦瓊」的人身安全，所以檢察官會向關公和秦瓊提出刑事檢控，控告他們實施危險行為、聚眾鬥毆，且教壞小孩子。

五、加州怎麼定義約架的？

通常來說，約架要承擔刑事責任，但是如果在滿足特殊的情況下，約架從某種程度上可以免除刑事責任，只承擔打傷打殘的民事責任。

案例法People vs. Ross, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438中，加州上訴法庭明確表示，「相互約架」（mutual combat）是雙方有意圖、且相互同意、有明確意思表示的鬥毆行為（mutual combat consists of fighting by mutual intention or consent, as most clearly reflected in an express or implied agreement to fight）。在這種情況下，約架不涉及刑事範疇。

FIGHTING IN DIFFERENT LEGAL CONTEXTS

By: Long Z. Liu, Esq.

COMBATIVE FIGHTING CIVIL LIABILITY

     For the purposes of this article, let us take fighting to be in context of civil battery. Under California Civil Jury Instructions (「CACI」) 1300, Battery is defined as: (1) touching, (2) of another person, (3) without consent, (4) that has caused harm or has offended the other person.  

     Moreover, for the purposes of this article let us take consent to be defined under California Civil Code 3515 that: 「He who consents to an act is not wronged by it.」 The California Supreme Court in Churchill v. Baumann, 95 Cal. 541, 545 has stood for the maxim that: 「One who is not wronged has no cause of action and is not entitled to sue.」

     However, consent may be invalid under a number of grounds which will create a cause of action that entitles a person to sue. First, if the defendant has fraudulently obtained the plaintiff』s consent the consent may be invalidated. See Rains v. Superior Court, 150 Cal. App. 3d 933. Second, if the consent is conditional where the condition on which the consent is based does not occur, consent will be held invalid. Grieves v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. App. 3d 159. Third, consent cannot be obtained under duress, in such context, consent will be held invalid. Restatement of Torts section 892B. Fourth, consent may be invalidated if the battery exceeds the scope of the consent. Barbara A. v. Johnson G. 145 Cal.App. 3d 369, 375.

Therefore, in summary, whether a person has a cause of action for battery in the context of a mutually agreed challenge to fight will depend on the issue of 「consent[1].」

FIGHTING IN CRIMINAL CONTEXT

     Whether a defendant will be liable for criminal battery in the context of a mutual physical combat will depend on whether there are facts supporting the doctrine of 「mutual combat.」

     In People v. Ross, 66 Cal. Rptr.3d 438, the California Court of Appeal for the sixth district was satisfied with the definition that: 「 「mutual combat」 consists of fighting by mutual intention or consent, as most clearly reflected in an express or implied agreement to fight.」 The court continued that, the agreement need not have all the legal characteristics of a binding contract. But there must be evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that both combatants actually consented or intended to fight.

     Therefore, in summary, whether a person can be charged and convicted for criminal battery in the context of a mutually agreed upon combat will depend on whether there are facts to support the doctrine of 「mutual combat.」 And as discussed in the Ross case, mutual combat is like the civil defense of consent but may also include the element of intention.  

FIGHTING IN CONTEXT OF UFC

     Combatants who agree to fight in UFC promoted matches are required to sign a waiver of liability before fighting. This waiver, simply put, is an agreement. And the purpose of this agreement is to protect the UFC from any liability arising from the combat. The agreement will usually put forth facts related to the consequences of the sport MMA promoted by UFC.  In part, it usually states that: (1) MMA could get you hurt or killed, (2) you agree to engage into consensual combat with the opponent which you agree not to sue, and (3) you may not sue the UFC for harm caused during combat.

     The issue then becomes whether this agreement will be enforceable in court.

     In Cohen v. Five Brooks Stable, 159 Cal.App. 4th 1476, the court held that 「a written release may exculpate a tortfeasor from future negligence or misconduct [but] to be effective, such a release 『must be clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the subscribing parties.」 In the context of UFC, based on Cohen the court will engage into contractual interpretation where the decision on liability would depend on whether the contract is ambiguous in laying down the terms of consent. It would be an issue of fact.

     Therefore, in summary, whether a person and/or organization can be found liable in context of MMA fighting promoted by the UFC would depend on whether the written release is clear and unambiguous as far as the intent of the parties to engage in combat and consent to not sue.

• [03/23]劉龍珠律師反駁吳華楊（Frank Wu）教授種族言論（中英對照版）
• [04/15]劉龍珠律師法律評論：白百合「出軌」加說謊對爭取財產和小孩撫養權的影響
• [04/22]劉龍珠律師法律評論：紅色通緝令解密？
• [04/28]劉龍珠律師法律評論：PAX公司狀告郭文貴欠債8800萬美元不還（附訴狀）
• [04/29]劉龍珠律師法律評論：郭文貴的房產照片
• [05/02] 劉龍珠律師法律評論：徐曉東，武功再高、也怕菜刀，約架後果很嚴重
• [05/24]劉龍珠律師法律評論：會叫的狗不咬人，潘石屹不會告郭文貴的
• [05/25]劉龍珠律師法律評論：咬人的狗不叫，郭文貴應該去告潘石屹
• [06/03]劉龍珠律師法律評論：新版I-130親屬移民表格的特徵
• [06/24]劉龍珠律師法律評論：年度大戲，郭文貴 Vs. 胡舒立
• [06/28]劉龍珠律師法律評論：億萬富文郭文貴欠員工加班費，結局很蹊蹺(附：法庭文件)
• [07/03]大家來簽名：必須檢控謀殺罪！劉龍珠律師就章瑩穎案致美國司法部的請願書
• [07/07]章瑩穎案7月5號開庭紀實：不準保釋！延庭至7月14號

• 查看：[劉龍珠律師的.最新博文]
• 查看：[大家的.最新博文]
• 查看：[大家的.熱點雜談]