On a sadder note...

[joreth]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/11/bondage.death.ap/index.html

LYNN, Massachusetts (AP) -- Adrian Exley was wrapped tightly in heavy plastic, then bound with duct tape. A leather hood was put over his head with a thin plastic straw inserted so that he could breathe, and he was shut up in a closet.

That, apparently, was the way Exley liked it. But the way it ended -- with Exley suffocating -- was not what he had in mind when he traveled from Britain for a bondage session with a man he had met through a sadomasochism Web site.

Exley's body was discovered in the woods last year, two months after he was bound up in the bondage "playroom" Gary LeBlanc had built in the basement of his suburban Boston home.

LeBlanc, a 48-year-old Gulf Oil sales executive, detailed his responsibility in the fatal bondage session in a five-page suicide note, just before he put a gun to his head and killed himself.

Now the question is: Since Exley consented to the sex play, can LeBlanc be held responsible for his death?

Exley's family is suing LeBlanc's estate for unspecified damages, claiming wrongful death. Many bondage enthusiasts are watching the case closely, seeing it as a lesson in where to draw the line of responsibility on consensual but dangerous sex.

"There's definitely the whole spectrum of thought on what really happened -- whether it was a consent issue, or negligence or misunderstanding," said Vivienne Kramer, a board member of the New England Leather Alliance. "Everybody has their own ideas on what should have happened."

Exley and LeBlanc met through an online forum for gay men into rubber, leather and bondage. Exley, a 32-year-old stripper, used the screen name "Studpup," while LeBlanc called himself "Rubrman" and built a chamber with rubber mats on the floors and walls, chains, leather restraints, rubber suits and a hospital gurney.

Exley arrived at LeBlanc's house in Lynn in April 2006 after the pair had exchanged e-mails in which they discussed plans for LeBlanc to play the "master" and Exley his "slave," according to the lawsuit.

John Andrews, a lawyer for LeBlanc's estate, said Exley knew the risks going in. "What occurred was an act or actions between two consenting adults, both of whom knew what they were doing, and it had a tragic end," he said.

The lawsuit describes a three-day bondage and discipline session that ended when a third man, Scott Vincent, discovered Exley was not breathing. Exley had been put in a closet while bound in plastic up to his neck and left alone for several hours, according to the lawsuit.

In his suicide note, LeBlanc admitted that Exley at one point had trouble breathing. But he said that after "cooling him down," Exley improved. LeBlanc said that he went to sleep about 3 a.m. but was woken up a few hours later by Vincent, who told him Exley was not breathing and was turning blue and cold.

LeBlanc said he panicked, and he and Vincent drove to Rhode Island, where they buried the body and threw away Exley's clothing and identification.

The Rhode Island medical examiner determined that Exley suffocated. Vincent said in a sworn statement that the straw had fallen out of his mouth in the closet.

Vincent, a flight attendant who is also being sued, is charged with failure to report a death in Rhode Island. But he has not been charged in Massachusetts.

In his note, LeBlanc said he was "responsible for a horrible tragedy," adding: "Had I dealt with the first crisis responsibly, he would likely have returned home safely."

Lawyers for Exley's estate acknowledge that Exley wanted to participate in a bondage session, but say he did not know about LeBlanc's reputation as an "extreme edge player" in the world of bondage and sadomasochism.

"Just because you are agreeing that you will allow someone to tie you up temporarily as part of role-playing doesn't mean that you are consenting to be killed or to be left alone or to be abused," attorney Randy Chapman said.

Several people who came forward after Exley's death told police that LeBlanc had restrained them and left them alone for long periods, or ignored their requests that he curtail a bondage session.

Both actions go against the bondage protocols, which say participants must stop if their partner uses a prearranged "safe word" or "safe signal" and must not leave anyone who is bound alone, said Susan Wright, a spokeswoman for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.

Brian Plant, a bondage and sadomasochism practitioner from Kansas, said: "Nobody goes into these things saying, `Oh, well, I'm going to die because of it.' You reach a point when the line is crossed, and it is no longer consensual."

Kathy Jo Cook, a lawyer who specializes in wrongful death cases, said that when you take away the sensational details of the Exley case, the claim being made by Exley's estate is the same made in many other wrongful death cases.

"The law says if a person causes the death of another person by an act which is either negligent or reckless, that person is liable," Cook said. "You have a duty to behave reasonably. I think it's the same thing here, albeit a very strange set of facts."

It was Exley's mother, Maggie Horner, who decided to sue LeBlanc's estate.

"We decided that we didn't want Gary's last wishes being granted when Adrian's couldn't be," she said. "Why should Gary be able to kill my son, bury my son, shoot himself and still get his own way?"

Comments

[omnifarious.livejournal.com]

I find myself siding with Maggie Horner in this case, even though her statement leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. She wants 'revenge' and feels that killing himself was not suffering enough for the man who let her son die through negligence. She doesn't want just compensation for her pain, but to somehow hurt someone else.

But I feel that Gary LeBlanc was negligent in several respects, and that he fully realized it, which is why he committed suicide. And I think Vincent deserves a conviction for failing to report a death, but a fairly light sentence.

But it is worrisome that the suit might set a bad precedent.

[joreth]

yes, one concern I have, in general not just with this case, is that we are a society of victims who no longer take responsibility for our actions. We enter into high-risk activities voluntarily, then when the outcome results in injury or death, we seek to blame someone else.

Now, I'm not saying this is how I feel with this particular story, but it is a concern that this case could set a precedent in which consenting adults with buyer's remorse or true accidents related to high-risk activities can then profit or benefit by refusing to share blame and placing all the consequence on the other party.

Another concern is that those who are unfamiliar with BDSM and fetish communities will naturally grasp this case as an example of how dangerous and "wrong" these actions are. Compared to the number of people who practice some form of non-vanilla sex, deaths related to fetish-play are relatively rare. Certainly more people die in car accidents, yet no one has suggested that driving is "too dangerous" and "immoral" (aside from the Amish). Possible death or injury is a risk we take in exchange for the convenience of getting from Point A to Point B in a significantly shorter time. Possible death or injury from a little slap and tickle with very clearly negotiated boundaries is a much lesser concern.

Part of what makes this case so tricky is that the defendent has an alleged history of not respecting the safe word and going above and beyond BDSM-society's "acceptable limits". So that makes the idea of "consenting adults" and "accepting responsibility for high-risk activity" questionable here. But, at the same time, he clearly felt remorse for his actions by taking his own life. I have mixed feelings about this.

[mosthings1z.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about people accepting responsibility for their actions. I think they crossed the line when they "buried the body". WTH? So you look like a freak. Get a lawyer and call the cops. "Um, we were playing and he died." It was an accident IF they observed the safe words. That is where proof becomes sketchy and he said, she said. In this case, no one could say, because he was dead. Another good reason to have a signed and notarized contract outlining expectations and responsibilities. Do people have to add a blurb about the possibility of accidental death to stifle pissed off family members? People need to be more careful who they play with and that the trust is in place. Duh.

I think we are pretty vanilla. We are, however, alternative friendly and most of the stuff is common sense.

[joreth]

I also agree about crossing the line when they buried the body. But, not having ever been in the position to discover a dead body in my closet that could result in my jail-time, I can't say that panic and unclear thinking isn't a natural response. I would like to think that I've seen enough movies and yelled "hey stupid, don't go down into the basement!" enough times that I wouldn't have done that. But clearly people do all kinds of dumb things when they panic and I may not be exempt.

People not accepting responsibility is *why* we have all those disclaimers and everything has to be put down on paper for so many things. I mean, do we really need a notice on our coffee cups that the contents may be hot? Apparently we do.

There's the McDonald's case going on where some asshole called a McD's pretending to be a cop and got the asst. mgr and her fiance to forcibly hold some poor girl in the back room, strip her and perform all sorts of demeaning and sexual behaviours for about 3 hours before someone figured out it wasn't really a cop on the phone. Clearly, the people who fell for the scam are first class idiots and should be punished for putting that poor girl through that. But what pisses me off is that she successfully sued McDonalds for not doing enough to prevent its assistant managers from recognizing that cops don't call on the phone and ask civilians to perform interrogations scenes for them in the back room. EVEN THOUGH McD's DOES have a blurb in its employee handbook that legitimate police enforcement will not ask civilians to do their job! Should McD's also have in their handbook what to do if a meteor strikes the building? They can't possibly cover every scenario, particularly the statistically unlikely ones. The responsible parties were punished and that should be that. But no, we have to sue anyone we can to get money to profit off of misfortune.

Again, I'm not saying I think this particular case is an example of not taking responsibility. I don't know for sure and there are a lot of details that bother me going both directions. It's just a particular pet peeve of mine to see people buck their share in the events. And to avoid becoming a victim of this phenomenon, we have to consider legalizing and contractualizing all sexual arrangements, particularly "alternative" practices. Kinda takes the romance and spontaneity out of sex. Reminds me of the movie Cherry 2000, actually.

[mosthings1z.livejournal.com]

Yes! I think it all boils down to frivilous lawsuits and lawyers and judges allowing them to continue.

It is tricky

[(Anonymous)]

It is one of those horror scenarios ... but I think I have to side with Kathy Jo Cook here. In fact, I think driving a car is a good analogy. We drive cars on the road every day to get from point A to point B and we do that knowing there is a set of protcols called the road rules, which in fact are largely common sense as well.
This is not intended to be judgemental because it is clearly an accident. But Le Blanc drove recklessly, or drove through a red light, (insert your own metaphor here if you wish) and his actions caused the death of his passenger who also clearly had no wish to die even despite consensually agreeing to "ride in that particular car".
I have actually known of a person who was charged with culpable driving and it is a tragedy. But the point Kathy Jo Cook is making is that an individual is liable for what they do or don't do that results in a wrongful death. You just can't kill people! This applies in any human pursuit (at least in any country I would want to live).
Anyway, hope I don't sound too intense. It was an unfortunate accident but I think Le Blanc must have understood his culpability. It is just as unfortunate that he and his friend went about covering it up the worng way. Thanks foe the opportunity to post. mindgame101@hotmail.com.

Re: It is tricky

[joreth]

I'm not removing responsibility from LeBlanc for his "wrongful death". I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be held responsible for that. But I do think that the mother is not looking for justice, she's looking for revenge. LeBlanc has already admitted his responsibility in the act and was so remorseful about it that he took his own life, which is possibly more harsh than the sentence he would have received had he lived through the trial.

When the race car driver died during a race, everyone rose up in anger, trying to blame anything and anyone, wanting his wife to sue ever manufacturer of every piece of his car to demand "justice" for his death.

His wife said (paraphrasing) "He died doing what he loved. He knew the risks when he raced, this was a possible consequence of choosing this activity" and refused to sue anyone. I think this is much more reasonable. Excley's mother wants to continue punishing LeBlanc even though he's dead and can't possibly be affected by her punishment.

Again, I am hesitant to really pick sides in this particular case because there are a lot of things we don't know. So I'm speaking in general when I say that we all take risks.

I am not in favor of most of the "wrongful death" suits that take place. Sometimes shit just happens. When a guy gets into a car accident because he is driving fairly reasonably but the ice on the road just causes the car to go over the cliff, killing them both, I don't think the passenger's family has the right to sue the driver's estate. When the driver intentionally jumps the divide and starts playing chicken with an oncoming semi-truck, that's clearly reckless driving.

In this case, we do not know for sure if LeBlanc jumped the divide and was reckless or if this was an honest accident that happens during consensual high-risk behaviour. We especially don't know because of the nature of sensationalist reporting and the probability of the reporter not understanding BDSM and therefore not getting some of the details or imbuing personal bias into the reporting.

There was also the case of the teenager who died by getting hit with a baseball during a game or practice, I forget which. He had an unknown medical condition that getting hit with the baseball triggered and caused his death. The pitcher of that ball should not be sued because getting hit with a baseball is a possible consequence of playing the game. It's tragic the kid died, but it's not "wrongful death" or "reckless driving" of the pitcher and I'm pretty sure that pitcher is capable of punishing himself emotionally far better than any lawsuit could.