With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at common law against a charge of non-sexual assault, nor did this court find any such case. Taken to its logical conclusion, appellant’s argument that consent should be a defense to assault where there is significant bodily injury would render non-prosecutable acts that are an affront to the public peace and order, such as a loan shark lending money on the condition that non-payment authorizes a beating or gang members who agree to settle old scores by a shootout. The absurd realities of recognizing consent as a defense to assault with significant bodily injúry are not farfetched. For example, in Brown, 364 A.2d at 28, the defendant was charged with assault after “severely beating [the victim] with his hands and other objects” after the victim had “indulged in some spiri 8) (en banc) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted and

A: holding that victims consent to ritualistic beating as a part of the gang initiation is not relevant because the acts amounted to a reckless infliction of bodily injury and thus did not constitute a lawful act committed by lawful means and affirmed the conviction of manslaughter
B: recognizing that a conviction under  292133 requires that the arrest be lawful
C: holding that consent to participate in the initiation into a prison gang is not a defense to the charge of battery
D: holding that active participation in a criminal street gang means that there is a relationship between the defendant and the gang that is more than nominal passive inactive or purely technical and that defendant must devote all or a substantial part of his time and efforts to the gang
A.