[Bruiser 10]

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.

H. L. Mencken

[Sapwolf]

REAL MEN don’t duel women!

I’d hold him in contempt just for that unchivalrous move.

[DoodleDawg]

Kansas. Figures.

[Vigilanteman]

I like this idea. It could mean fewer attorneys.

[Responsibility2nd]

Many a man in his situation has considered just killing his soon to be ex.

He’ll be out of jail much sooner than the years he’ll spending in court fighting her, and paying alimony and child support.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Something tells me the judge won’t rule in his favor.

[Wilum]

MAN! That headline almost cost me a company keyboard replacement from my Diet Pepsi :D

[Billthedrill]

A Kansas man has asked an Iowa judge to let him engage in a sword fight with his ex-wife and her attorney so that he can “rend their souls” from their bodies.

Am I going too far out on a limb to conclude that it isn't an amicable divorce?

[Red Badger]

Klingon?...................

[ClearCase_guy]

I think the Challenger declares the desire for the duel, the person who is challenged gets to pick the weapon. This guy seems to want to control everything!

[Vendome]

Put it on Pay Per View...

[Wiser now]

This request should immediately cost him both custody of the children plus visitation rights.
No wonder they have been “embroiled” in a battle! The wife has been telling everyone who will listen that this guy is mentally ill, and he just proved it!
He is clearly a threat to others.

[Rurudyne]

He should be aware that classical combat rules for spouses (at least in Christian lands) had the man standing in a hole with one arm tied behind his back....

[real saxophonist]

In college, I actually did challenge a guy to a duel. Smacked him in the face with a glove, threw the glove on the ground in front of him.

For some reason, I never saw him after that.

[AbolishCSEU]

what some of these women put these men through is outrageous so I’m not surprised.

here is just a sampling of what one man in the military went through: (BM = biomom/ex-wife)

•BM has parentally alienated son age 15 to the extreme
•BM has refused to send him per the court orders to our state for over 17 months
•Son currently believes that father never wanted him or fought for him, that it just stepmom pulling the strings because stepmom wanted to take him away from mom. (Stepmom has 3 teen children of her own so, no)due to BM’s brainwashing
•Son has publicly rejected his father every time he sees him around the BM
•HOWEVER- Son also hugged and cried and told his dad he loved him the last time that they saw each other when BM wasn’t in the room.
•BM was the one that moved away when she left husband while he was on a deployment 6.5 years ago.
•Dad and Stepmom have spent over 60K in the last 3 years in court battles.
•Dad going there is not an option. BM and son live in a No-Stoplight town. Dad either has to get a hotel about an hour from son or stay with MIL which is over 1.5 hrs from son.

PLUS there is 0 guarantee that son will even be there when Dad gets there. BM likes to send him away during Dad’s parenting time so that no one can reach him.

Courts do NOT hold the BM accountable.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

There’s an obscure, but noteworthy, case where a guy demanded trial by combat in England, when he was accused of a neighbor of raping the neighbor’s daughter. He used the same argument as the Kentucky guy is using here — it was a remedy available in the past and still on the books.

But the English guy tried it in 1819. At that time it had not been used for about 300 years. They allowed him to use it, at which point the neighbor dropped the lawsuit. Parliament then immediately banned the procedure, IIRC.

We in the US are inheritors of English common law as it existed in 1789, so what Parliament did in 1819 has direct application here, even aside from the fact that acts of Parliament are not common law.

[rdcbn]

Call me crazy, but I get a distinct feeling a restraining order is in this guys future

[Skooz]

bfl

[Telepathic Intruder]

Even in the old days a person could decline a duel, making it murder for the challenger to kill you. But you’d also have to face the humility of declining the duel.

[Larry Lucido]

Not Seinfeld but still a great scene in Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Charlie: I am challenging you, sir, to a duel.
Lawyer: I accept.
Charlie: I– Heh. Are you serious?
Lawyer: Yeah, I accept your challenge.
Charlie: … Do you want time to think it over?
Lawyer: No! No, no, no, not at all. Um, what time were you thinking of dueling?
Charlie: *sigh* Any time is– is good, really. I don’t hav– you don’t have time. Because you would have to go out and get a proper gun.
Lawyer: Mmmm, no. I have a gun. I actually keep one right here in the drawer.
Charlie: You got one right ther– I don’t need to see it.
Lawyer: I like to keep it loaded because you never know who’s gonna walk into a law office these days. *laughing*
Charlie: *nervous laughter* Saaaftey first. So. Let’s re-think some things. Let’s say that now you’ve learned your lesson. And I’ve learned a little lesson. And we’ll call it even and I will respectfully decline the duel.
Lawyer: Heh, well you can’t decline.
Charlie: Eh?
Lawyer: As you know, once the duel’s been accepted… you know, there’s no backing out. I mean that’s the law.
Charlie: …Yep.
Lawyer: Anyway! Great! This is settled. And I was looking for something to do tomorrow afternoon anyway. So I’m gonna pencil you in–
Charlie: Don’t do it.
Lawyer: –for high noon tomorrow.
Charlie: Don’t do it.
Lawyer: And uh. Don’t worry. ‘Cause, um. Wherever you are… I’ll find ya.
Charlie: Yeahhhh.
Lawyer: I’m gonna put one right between your teeth, and it’s just gonna pop out the back of your neck.

[Boogieman]