September 25, 2002

1:26 PM

Bumfights.com producers arrested and charged with "conspiracy, solicitation of a felony crime and illegally paying people to fight". The site itself was discussed here a few months ago. At that time, there was disagreement as to the legality of the tapes. The producer defended his legal footing saying that the participants signed releases. Looks like that wasn't enough, hearing to start Oct 10th.
posted by jonah (60 comments total)

Good. I hope these little exploitive shits get everything the law can throw at them. They deserve each and every little bit of it.
posted by Ufez Jones at 1:30 PM on September 25, 2002

I don't know whether to cheer the arrests (bumfights is in bad taste and seems a bit exploitive) or boo them (bumfights looks like it's all legal, if he got releases then he got releases).
posted by PenDevil at 1:31 PM on September 25, 2002

Releases schmleases. Would it hold up in court if I got a signed release from a prostitute?
posted by 4easypayments at 1:35 PM on September 25, 2002

I won't pretend I know the legality of either the web site or the arrest, but I am glad this may be the beginning of the end for this dehumanizing spectacle. We are all free to pursue our own happiness, but these guys actually used and hurt others. All in my opinion, of course.
posted by Triplanetary at 1:35 PM on September 25, 2002

"illegally paying people to fight"?

So, uh, it's only legal if they get in a ring, and fight over a purse?
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:37 PM on September 25, 2002

I'm with you 4easy, it seems like a reach to think that you can do whatever you want just because someone signs a piece of paper. I can't imagine that they were all signed in a coherent state of mind either.
posted by jonah at 1:40 PM on September 25, 2002

4easypayments: congratulations you just invented pornography.
posted by PenDevil at 1:41 PM on September 25, 2002

This is eerie. I just mentioned that site yesterday, to a friend, out of the blue. Now I read about this... Odd.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:46 PM on September 25, 2002

This is hardly a First Amendment issue. The producers are being charged for conspiracy to commit these felonies. If I signed a release to kill five of my friends while a director followed me with a camera, would that make me any less responsible for my actions? Or would you support my murderous behavior because it was just a swell piece of entertainment that you and Joe Sixpack can pop down a few brewskies over? Alternatively, if I was of unsound mind and I was coaxed to sign a release to beat the shit out of another man, then it's almost certain that the producer, who is of "sound" mind, would be responsible for taking advantage of my blitzed out gourd. We'll see what the courts have to say.
posted by ed at 1:50 PM on September 25, 2002

Dark Messiah - so did I! eerie, indeed...
posted by Fstop at 1:51 PM on September 25, 2002

Are they actually going to track down these bums and find out if they signed releases? I'm sure a few of them are dead by now.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:59 PM on September 25, 2002

Good. They represent the worst in humanity: making money and making fun of the poor, homeless, (and many times) mentally ill.
posted by gramcracker at 2:01 PM on September 25, 2002

Again, ed, how is paying people to fight for a website broadcast any different than paying people to fight for a pay-per-view TV broadcast?

Is it just the scale of the exploitation of people of probably-unsound mind that makes this a crime? If these people were given millions instead of a $20, would that make it okay to continue to exploit them?

Wouldn't Mike Tyson be poor and homeless (we already know he's mentally ill) if he hadn't been exploited by others on a much larger scale?

Sheesh.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:02 PM on September 25, 2002

Yeah I agree, if they got them drunk as skunks first and then said "Hey just put the ol' John Hancock on this here paper then there's some kind of crime being committed.
posted by PenDevil at 2:03 PM on September 25, 2002

Yeah I agree, if they got them drunk as skunks first and then said "Hey just put the ol' John Hancock on this here paper" then there's some kind of crime being committed.
posted by PenDevil at 2:03 PM on September 25, 2002

So, uh, it's only legal if they get in a ring, and fight over a purse?

Most states have licensing requirements for boxing matches; these requirements establish the difference between boxing and assault. The state of California has strict requirements as to what constitutes a legal boxing match. It'll be pretty hard to convince a jury that what was recorded on these tapes was boxing.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:04 PM on September 25, 2002

If I signed a release to kill five of my friends while a director followed me with a camera, would that make me any less responsible for my actions?

That's not the salient question. People are being paid to fight in amateur boxing matches all over the country -- a bar in Jacksonville got in trouble last year because a participant was killed. If this is illegal, it's not as cut-and-dried as people are making it sound.
posted by rcade at 2:05 PM on September 25, 2002

It's all about informed consent.
posted by tommasz at 2:05 PM on September 25, 2002

I signed a release to kill five of my friends

I think there is a difference between two consenting partners signing releases before fighting... and homocide.
posted by reverendX at 2:11 PM on September 25, 2002

WolfDaddy, i agree with what you are saying, but i suspect that the reason that it's "ok" in the ring is that it is implied that the participants are trained and aware of the potential outcomes and have chosen to participate while in a sober state of mind.

i'm not saying that makes it right, it's just another justification, but one that seems to adequately salve people's consciences with regards to the potential exploitation the the participants.
posted by quin at 2:12 PM on September 25, 2002

mr_roboto: It's not so much that bum fights should be considered low-rent boxing as that boxing is itself just a tidied-up bum fight. (I don't think Wolfdaddy was saying that, but I am.) The whole concept of a crime called "illegally paying people to fight" is far and away the most delicious absurdity about this, and hopefully it'll bring still more shame on the moronic anachronism that is professional boxing.
posted by soyjoy at 2:14 PM on September 25, 2002

I'm just wondering how many people here have seen the video?
posted by Dark Messiah at 2:20 PM on September 25, 2002

I saw news of the arrests today and wondered what they could possibly be charged with. Hearing the La Mesa police have been tailing these guys for months, I think they really wanted to arrest them for something, I just wonder if it'll stand up in court.
posted by mathowie at 2:24 PM on September 25, 2002

People are being paid to fight in amateur boxing matches all over the country...

If the participants are being paid, it's professional... Once again, I think the difference here is that the Bumfight people ignored state (and Federal--there's the Boxing Act of 1996) law, whereas both professional and amateur boxers submit to regulation.

It's not so much that bum fights should be considered low-rent boxing as that boxing is itself just a tidied-up bum fight.

Boxing is a noble and ancient sport that requires of it's participants the utmost in endurance, coordination, and skill. It is possibly the most athletic and physically strenuous of all modern sports. Boxing has rules and governing bodies and it is strictly regulated. Sure, the heavyweight division has gotten pretty ugly in recent years, but there remain thousands of amateur and professional boxers in the U.S. and abroad who are thoroughly respectable paragons of sportsmanship. Comparing boxing to "bumfights" betrays a lack of knowledge and appreciation. It's not even close.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:24 PM on September 25, 2002

The sample video (by clicking on the inset picture of the main picture) is pretty darned violent. But I don't see many bums involved... mostly punks.
posted by Witty at 2:26 PM on September 25, 2002

The preview video was pretty amusing. I know, it's not the 'right' thing to say. I'm probably going to have the whole MeFi "crew" on my ass now, but I didn't see it as being all that bad. No one got killed, little blood was shown. And yeah, I saw mostly punks and women fighting. None of whom looked homeless.

This isn't the first time human depravity has been filmed for amusement and / or profit.

One of the bums was quoted as saying "we love it".

I'm up-in-the-air on this one... It feels wrong, but the depraved side of me wants to see it more.

I have an eerie feeling this whole video is a hoax.
posted by Dark Messiah at 2:33 PM on September 25, 2002

Time out, Mr_Roboto.

What is the object of boxing?

To render the other person incapable of fighting back by hitting them.

Sure, there is strategy and there are regulations and rules, but it's still the same thing. You are trying to render the other person incapable/unconcious/on the ground. I fail to see the difference between Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis stepping in the ring and two bums going at in in the back alley, except Lewis and Tyson get paid an insane amount more.
posted by bryanzera at 2:38 PM on September 25, 2002

Additionally, I think that there is a primal urge satisfied by watching people fight each other. Cathartic, if you will.
posted by bryanzera at 2:43 PM on September 25, 2002

I'll admit that I can't get enough of MTV's Jackass and am getting hooked on Comedy Central's airing of Trigger Happy TV. I'm sure that if I watched the whole bumfights video I would at least chuckle, probably more, but that doesn't make it an ethical video.
posted by jonah at 2:43 PM on September 25, 2002

bryanzera - What is the object of boxing? To render the other person incapable of fighting back by hitting them.

That is factually incorrect. The object of boxing is to win the match. Knockouts are but one means of doing so.

Your statement is wrong.
posted by NortonDC at 2:47 PM on September 25, 2002

soyjoy, I'm on exactly the same page as you ... I'd be thrilled to see any sort of precedent set here make professional boxing go down in flames. Ditto professional wrestling. mr_roboto, I know both are sports with ancient and noble traditions, but they've been perverted beyond belief for quite some time now, and the only way to make an honorable career out of either is practically non-existent.

Unfortunately, neither "sport" will go down, just a couple of dumb kids.

Hopefully, though, sites like bumbang.com (see bums have sex with crack-addled women!), bangbus.com (see women tricked into having sex on camera!), and baitbus.com (see men tricked into having gay sex on camera!) will go down as a result.

If it's not all 'performance art' that is. *rolls eyes*

NortonDC, you're splitting hairs and you know it. You win the match by physically beating your opponent. You don't win it because your satin shorts are prettier than your opponent's.

and before you decry my depraved website viewing habits, I'll only defend myself with the fact that I work for an ISP, and am expected to diagnose problems when my filthy twisted perverted and deranged customers can't see these sites
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:57 PM on September 25, 2002

Boxing has rules and governing bodies and it is strictly regulated.

You gotta be kidding me. Most boxing in the U.S. is regulated by political hacks who don't care about the safety or legality of matches, much less "nobility."

Jack Newfield, a boxing writer for 38 years, wrote a blistering expose of boxing for The Nation last year. One galling quote among many:

This past June I saw boxer Beethoven Scottland get killed during a fight in New York City because of medical and regulatory negligence. I've seen other fighters crumble into a fatal coma, most famously Benny "Kid" Paret in 1962. But this one got to me because I felt it was especially preventable. The political hacks who rule the New York boxing commission failed to perform their job. The doctors present failed to intervene when it was obvious that a one-sided beating was going on. Brooding about this needless death, I reached the internal tipping point, where my guilt started to outweigh my pleasure. I now feel that boxing must be cleaned up, or I don't want to watch it anymore.

I have known a lot of fighters and liked almost all of them. They have no pension, no union, no health insurance, no voice. For every George Foreman who gets rich, there are 1,000 you never hear of who end up with slurred speech, failing memory and an empty bank account.

posted by rcade at 2:57 PM on September 25, 2002

4easypayments: congratulations you just invented pornography.

Oh man, I am going to be sooo rich! (mental note... must go register pornography.com this afternoon) Anyone want in on this?

I really don't know why prostitution is illegal when 'acting' in a porn is not, or when being paid to take part in medical expiriments is not, or when selling your plasma is not. People rent out their bodies in many legal ways all the time.

But, the fact remains that my example, prostitution, along
unsanctioned boxing/fighting, are illegal... ostensibly to protect people in desperate situations from being exploited in harmful ways. These videos seem to fit well into that purpose. And while signing a release may protect the producers from a civil suit brought by the video participants. There is nothing stopping the gov't from charging them with a crime.
posted by 4easypayments at 3:16 PM on September 25, 2002

This isn't the first time human depravity has been filmed for amusement and / or profit.

It's not the filming of the depravity, but the incitement of it that is at issue here.
posted by originalname37 at 3:21 PM on September 25, 2002

Well at least the Bums are earning money instead of just standing in the middle of the sidewalk demanding money, and then cursing and yelling at those individuals who choose to say "sorry, I can't help." What caught my eye is that these guys sold 300,000 videos at $19.99 a piece. They must have cleaned up on this adventure. It would be more interesting if the actors (read bums) filed a lawsuit against the producers demanding a better cut of the profits. But until a savvy (read scumbag) lawyer organizes these bumfighters, don't spill any tears for them. Bums aren't noble flowers of humanity, they are bums.
posted by Mushkelley at 3:47 PM on September 25, 2002

Haha! You better run MK.
posted by Witty at 3:49 PM on September 25, 2002

I just dread leaving the office in 5 minutes and running the bum gauntlet on the way to the metro. You'd think after 2 years of politely declining to give out free money to the same group of bums, they'd recognize me, and realize that I don't have any spare change, or a dollar, or a little something. I recognize them, there is the guy in the purple top hat with huge sunglasses, there is the guy with the misspelled "god bless" sign, and there is the woman who spits on her feet , and my favorite is the angry far eastern homeless man who curses all the women who go by (as a side is there anything sadder than an immigrant bum? Travelling great distances to a foreign country to sit on the sidewalk and beg change) Anyways, I've always felt bums should earn their beggings, whether it be through bad jokes, bad musicianship, bad window washing, or unwanted city assistance (broad category) So I see "Bumfights", and that is sad, but at least those bums got jobs for a few hours.
posted by Mushkelley at 4:00 PM on September 25, 2002

I imagine that most of the content of the release they signed released the producers from ever having to give the bums a cut of the cash.
posted by jonah at 4:12 PM on September 25, 2002

I imagine that there's a truck full of icecream waiting outside for me. Toot toot!
posted by holloway at 4:16 PM on September 25, 2002

Now, I'm not calling these homeless people animals, so don't email me angry, spitting letters.

But... Is this any different than cockfighting, dogfighting, and the like? It's basically a bunch of people sitting around watching innocent, albeit vicious, creatures fighting until one can't fight any more.

These fights have been illegal for years. I would hope the use of humans instead of animals would make the offense that much worse.
posted by mychai at 4:47 PM on September 25, 2002

Great analogy, mychai.

Nice trolling, Mushkelley. Before you judge (or troll or post) again, try educating yourself on the topic at hand. Really. It's fun.
posted by gramcracker at 4:56 PM on September 25, 2002

Um, I don't imagine the cocks or dogs a) signed a release and b) went out and bought things, most likely bad-for-them things, with the money they won in a fight.

Of course, this analogy would explain certain paintings on velvet of dogs playing poker ...
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:04 PM on September 25, 2002

Mushkelley said 'bums' not 'homeless', gramcracker. Most bums in my town make over 100 bucks a week and aren't actually homeless.
posted by titanshiny at 5:15 PM on September 25, 2002

Aside from all the moral questions and suffering elaborated on above, I am sick of people making money in a way that assumes we taxpayers always clean up after them. For example, in the preview video an ambulance was called to the scene after these twits had incited a fight in which one of the bums had his leg broken.

If I were the judge, I would take all of the film producers' ill-gotten gains, give 20% of it to the local hospitals who cared for the injured fighters, and give 80% of it as food stamps or shelter credits to the participating bums.
posted by Triplanetary at 5:28 PM on September 25, 2002

IANAL, but for what it's worth, you can't make a contract that violates the law. (This is less obvious in practical application than it sounds.) So I imagine that if this sort of uregulated boxing is illegal, the willingness of the participants would be irrelevant, and the "releases" probably would be as well.
posted by tirade at 5:45 PM on September 25, 2002

titanshiny: You can make just $100/week in your town and not be homeless? Where the heck do you live?

By the way: La Mesa? Lived there for seven years. Don't worry, it's not all bumfights (there are antique stores, too. ;-)
posted by quarantine at 5:48 PM on September 25, 2002

WolfDaddy - You win the match by physically beating your opponent.

That is correct. But that is not the same as injuring or incapacitating your opponent, the essential charge made by bryanzera against boxing. Pointing out the fallacy of someone's core argument is not my idea of splitting hairs.

4easypayments - I really don't know why prostitution is illegal when 'acting' in a porn is not

The difference is that in prostitution the professional has sex with the customer, while in porn the professionals have sex with each other, not the customer.
posted by NortonDC at 5:55 PM on September 25, 2002

Don't worry, it's not all bumfights (there are antique stores, too. ;-)

Ahh, quarantine. You're sitting on a goldmine! I can see it now...

AntiqueFights.com: Watch as vicious old ladies beat eachother senseless with their purses as they battle to see who was going to buy that milkglass vase or lace doily first! No-holds-barred granny-brawl action!

You get the camera, I'll start printing out the release forms.
posted by Danelope at 5:58 PM on September 25, 2002

funny, i thought soliciting without a license was a crime too.

i can't believe the hypocracsy here. someone figures out a way to turn homeless vagrants into productive members of society, by giving them earned wages, and it's a crime? wtf is wrong with this country?

would you rather they starved to death? that's fucking heartless.
posted by jcterminal at 6:03 PM on September 25, 2002

quarantine: Philly

There's an older Daily News article which estimated some bums' earnings at $300-400 a week. Some of the non-homeless bums I've met still end up sleeping on the street occasionally. Kind of like sleeping at the office, I guess.
posted by titanshiny at 6:26 PM on September 25, 2002

NortonDC - While you're right technically that a boxing match can be won without injuring or incapacitating your opponent, you're wrong to say that this distinction is "the fallacy of [bryanzera's] core argument." The point that was being made is that the essence of the sport is to beat someone down so they can't beat you down; it's not showing off your graceful technique and flawless mastery of the right uppercut. While some fights have doubtlessly been won on the basis of this kind of "skill" factor, those are the fights the audience hates, 'cause they paid good money for the catharsis, not the art.

And the cockfighting analogy is a good one, too: Another blood-lust spectacle with a noble and ancient tradition (which is now coming to an end), only in this case practiced by men who are such gutless wusses they won't even get in the ring and take the pounding themselves. It's hideous and indefensible, but it's just another subgenre of this primitive form of entertainment that includes dogfights, bumfights, and Tysonfights.
posted by soyjoy at 7:01 PM on September 25, 2002

as a side is there anything sadder than an immigrant bum? Travelling great distances to a foreign country to sit on the sidewalk and beg change

Sidhartha?
posted by HTuttle at 7:57 PM on September 25, 2002

The fact that boxing's regulatory and sanctioning systems are flawed only serves to illustrate the need to fix those systems, It is not an argument in favour of outlawing boxing.

Neither is the risk of injury or death, which is a reality in almost any sport, even non-contact ones. The fatality rate per capita has been repeatedly shown to be substantially lower for boxing than for many other sports such as American college football, rugby, mountaineering and horse-riding.

Approximately 100,000 athletes in America alone die each year from cardiovascular problems as a result of sports activity.

Certainly the injury and death rate in boxing is too high (let's face it, a single death is one death too many). This is largely due to poor training conditions, bad refereeing or subpar availability of medical attention. Again, this indicates a need to tighten supervision and regulation of the sport - it is not a valid argument for banning the sport outright.

Neither does the "intentional injury" argument hold water; no-one sets out in boxing to injure their opponent; in boxing, as with other sports, injuries are an occasional and unfortunate by-product of a contest of skill.

The term "hypocrisy of selective concern" was coined in the '80s when the American Medical Association, followed by counterparts overseas, decided to throw its weight against boxing. Interestingly, this was around the same time as steroid use and the culture of indestructibility began to become pervasive in the NFL. How many times have gridiron players been cheered on as they played through injury, pumped up by cortisone injections and who knows what other cocktail of chemicals? Hear the crowd roar as the defensive end sacks the hapless, concussed quarterback!

Those who object against boxing do so not for any greater utilitarian good, but because they cannot accept the idea of two people fighting each other until one wins. While they have a right to feel this way, they do not have the right to curtail the activities of those who would participate in and enjoy such competition in a safe and controlled way.
posted by plenty at 12:05 AM on September 26, 2002

They should have paid them to have sex with each other - do you think there is a market for bumsex ?
posted by dprs75 at 5:02 AM on September 26, 2002

Gramcracker, I was not trolling at all. Thank you Titanshiny for pointing out that bums are not necessarily homeless, neither are homeless people necessarily bums. I despise bums. They are rude, they offer nothing to society, and they demand free money for it. Unfortunately they can successfully guilt people into giving them change so they have little reason to stop being bums. Anyway, deplore "Bumfights" for being violent, for causing taxpayer dollars for ambulances, and for allowing two jerks to make a pantload of money, but please don't deplore it for the mistreatment of the bums.
posted by Mushkelley at 5:21 AM on September 26, 2002

NortonDC - Can you show some stats that point out how many fights have been won other than by KO or TKO?
posted by bryanzera at 7:17 AM on September 26, 2002

bryanzera - Can you show some stats that point out how many fights have been won other than by KO or TKO?

Yes, I can. What impact will the ratio have on the veracity of my statements? None, because the mere existence of the ratio validates my statement:

bryanzera: What is the object of boxing? To render the other person incapable of fighting back by hitting them.

NortonDC: That is factually incorrect. The object of boxing is to win the match. Knockouts are but one means of doing so.

posted by NortonDC at 8:34 AM on September 26, 2002

Well said plenty!
posted by Witty at 9:22 AM on September 26, 2002

NortonDC - I see two problems here.

First, The object of any one-on-one competitive sport could be simplified to 'to win the match'. In a game of golf/tennis/chinese checkers, one's goal is 'to win the match'. Does that mean that, factually, boxing and golf are the same? No.

Second, just because the ratio of KO/TKO victories to non-KO victories exists does not validate your previous statement. Were you to present me with a ratio that for every KO victory in a boxing match, there are 4 matches won by (insert your own non-violent reason), then I might change my opinion about boxing being a time-honored tradition, and not a reason to beat someone up.

I also want to point out that I don't discredit the notion that 'there remain thousands of amateur and professional boxers in the U.S. and abroad who are thoroughly respectable paragons of sportsmanship'. I just disagree about the core values of the sport. Don't fart in my face and tell me it's roses. In fact, don't fart in my face at all, please.
posted by bryanzera at 9:27 PM on September 26, 2002

They are rude, they offer nothing to society, and they demand free money for it. Unfortunately they can successfully guilt people into giving them change so they have little reason to stop being bums. Anyway, deplore "Bumfights" for being violent, for causing taxpayer dollars for ambulances, and for allowing two jerks to make a pantload of money, but please don't deplore it for the mistreatment of the bums.

Let us know when you're going to be filming Enronfights.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:42 AM on October 3, 2002