Can I crawl in your jeep with you? A little conversation, music, one last laugh. I wanted to find a partner. I didn't want to have to do alone. Seriously that sounds amazing. I have absolutely no reservations.
Seriously - i think it would be good to have someone else, or even a few of us. To feel peace at last.
Possibly. I've never thought of partnering before. Would have to research legal and criminal exposure issues and find a state with the least restrictive to absence of suicide assistance laws. Maybe it could be structured as a scientific experiment not a pact, with each one signing a waiver, understanding of the risks of death, that none was unduly influenced or materially assisted in causation (causation is a term in law, applied here - the act of causing the death of another) ... provided it's not a suicide pact and voluntary campout high-adrenaline high-risk sportslike science experiment / activity with no enticement and the provision of material support is perfectly equal (so no one person can be technically culpable if material support was divided equally) then it's not outside of the realm of possibility.
In other words, if A rents an SUV B buys some beer and cocoon Arctic sleeping bags (to insulate from cold) for a campout and C buys liquid nitrogen for making ice cream and accidentally spills it while all occupants are in the vehicle, and all are aware of the risks of imminent death but none vacates, then the equal provision of contributory elements make all culpable of conspiracy to commit suicide but since it's not a crime and intent to harm one or other can't be established the case law and legal premises would be moot. The only possible way one could be charged is if the anticipatorily planned to bail leaving the other two to die for some benefit or in a sudden change of heart without attempting rescue. From another perspective, is playing Russian roulette with a group of peers all licensed to carry a revolver firearm a crime? As long as no one actor benefited from the outcome and all died or misfired and survived but had no interest (benefit) to gain from the outcome, then it would be rather difficult to prosecute anyone involved anticipatorily for conspiracy to engage in a mutually equally substantially high-risk game with informed consent signed by each member as mutual participants, and
no member was ever at any time prior during the prime organizer, a moderator, or assumed a leading role with intent to influence, entice or encourage harm then it would not be considered a pact, since a pact in all prevailing case law involved a prime first mover who substantially influenced by means of enticement or provision of material support to a group as the prime benefactor, and participants were required to perform whereas in this alternate - participants are free to withdraw at any time for any reason without consequence (also subject to the non-beneficiary exclusion, if you benefit or gain something by withdrawing then culpability exists, but bailing out of fear or change of heart with any conceivable gain from the outcome rescinded an affirmative defense. There was something to gain by bailing, but personally forfeited, surrendered, or auto-restituted, such as property or valuables).
The legal parallel test arises now: if Russian Roulete is not illegal to play outright and no participant can be charged absent posession of criminal intent (e.g. provided entry to the game with informed consent, all participants are free to terminate their participation and forefeit/walk away and discharge their participation at any time without consequence, in the absence of any prior or active undue influence or coercion between participants, and in accord with fair dealing of the rules (e.g. fair-coin assumption), and suicide is not a crime, then the question and onus of criminal culpability shifts to the last surviving participant.
The last surviving participant must not benefit from the outcome, and if s/he continues playing Russian Roulette solo until the fatal spin ... I cannot find any precedent for such an scenario to be categorically a pact within law as there is/was no prime actor, no surviving benefactor and no duress, coersion, or ex parte causation (another causing the shot no by your own hand). The onus therefore, if such a tragic game were to reach it's last man/gal standing, the onus would be on him/her to either: (1) withdraw/terminate and immediately call 911 under common law duty to mitigate and demonstrate to the extent possible that a change of heart in withdrawing from a hazardous activity as a participant who was not a beneficiary from the outcome, not its orchestrator or orgiginal inventor and played no leading role as a prime actor could raise an immunity defense for lack of intent to cause harm and to have mitigated the collateral harms when the participant suddently becaume unwilling to participate (weak case) or (2) continue with the rounds until their own death (no case).
Take a scenario where say three buddies Adam, Ben and Clark decided to get drunk and play Russian Roulette until all members of the trio engaged in the game until each of their lives succumbed to injury or death with no benefit from the deaths of the other(s) of any member surviving. the sole survivor would either have to keep spinning the revolver and play against him/her self until death or abort by rendering aid to the injured, the latter would still result in exposure to culpability. But prosecuting such a case would be uncharted territory with no known precedent.
I'm not an attorney, but from law classes, I think collective immunity could be achieved provided there is no enticement, undue influence, or survivor in a fair-game of high-stakes high-risk science experiment of nitrogen roulette. Also can't be charged with conspiracy if the conspiring party was not in possession of criminal intent to harm, but mutual assent in obtaining informed consent from all participants on the risks of participation, and with a waiver to freely withdraw or abandon their participation or role at any time for any reason without consequence in a highly experimental scientific or other high-stakes risky sports or fool's errand activity or experiment who would be subject to the same risks and outcomes in equal proportion with the rest and hence could not benefit from the outcome.
An area of law I have to explore so as to make it legally moot, demonstrate none acted in bad faith, and establish informed consent agreements with clear and plain English explanations of risks of engagement in scientific activity would establish the accord and satisfaction of all parties making foul play unchallenged with mutual immunity all from any risk of prosecution in the event of survivability, in the 0.01% chance it arises. I'll have to research this.
PM me for further discussion.
www.exitinternational.net
im at a point where i would pay any amount to get this ,service' …
…and some doctors were of the opinion that theres no guarantee that nitrogen will produce a peacefull euphoric death even though they are accounts that prove its peacefulness.
