[PASSED] Defense of Self and Others

[Geilinor]

It looks good, we support this proposal. It protects victims of crime by allowing them to defend themselves.

[Opaloka]

Whilst 'Int-fed' by inclination this does seem to be something that should be left to nations to decide for themselves. There is a hell of a lot of determination for national juristrictions to do for instance in 'opaloka' it would never be acceptable to attack a representative of the workers' & soldiers' government that would be a sign of mental illness and be dealt with accordingly, no WA law can change that.

[Parti Ouvrier]

What about cases where individuals need to defend themselves against an oppressive state using unjustified force?

CJ

[Ossitania]

What about cases where individuals need to defend themselves against an oppressive state using unjustified force?

CJ

This kind of scenario is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Revolting against an oppressive regime has nothing to do with protecting yourself from assault or attempted murder.

[Connopolis]

Whilst 'Int-fed' by inclination this does seem to be something that should be left to nations to decide for themselves. There is a hell of a lot of determination for national juristrictions to do for instance in 'opaloka' it would never be acceptable to attack a representative of the workers' & soldiers' government that would be a sign of mental illness and be dealt with accordingly, no WA law can change that.

How is it not the duty of the World Assembly to ensure that individuals can protect themselves? National Sovereignty isn't, nor has it ever been, an appropriate argument, however, notwithstanding that, it is even less of an argument here, considering the nature of the topic at hand.

Yours,

[Parti Ouvrier]

What about cases where individuals need to defend themselves against an oppressive state using unjustified force?

CJ

This kind of scenario is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Revolting against an oppressive regime has nothing to do with protecting yourself from assault or attempted murder.

Unless you have a contempt for democracy, I hardly see suggestions as irrelevant. You seem to be implying that murder or assault by an opressive state apparatus, be it the intelligence services, or police does not exist. Why wouldn't anyone want to defend themselves against such murder, or assault?

[Ossitania]

This kind of scenario is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Revolting against an oppressive regime has nothing to do with protecting yourself from assault or attempted murder.

Unless you have a contempt for democracy, I hardly see suggestions as irrelevant. You seem to be implying that murder or assault by an opressive state apparatus, be it the intelligence services, or police does not exist. Why wouldn't anyone want to defend themselves against such murder, or assault?

If they are attacked and defend themselves from their attackers using a reasonable amount of force, they cannot be prosecuted or persecuted for doing so, no matter who their attacker is. Making specific reference to whether the actors were part of the state or not serves no purpose - it is therefore completely irrelevant, ambassador. Or would you prefer that we make distinctions between the law as it applies to state actors and non-state actors?

[Parti Ouvrier]

Unless you have a contempt for democracy, I hardly see suggestions as irrelevant. You seem to be implying that murder or assault by an opressive state apparatus, be it the intelligence services, or police does not exist. Why wouldn't anyone want to defend themselves against such murder, or assault?

If they are attacked and defend themselves from their attackers using a reasonable amount of force, they cannot be prosecuted or persecuted for doing so, no matter who their attacker is. Making specific reference to whether the actors were part of the state or not serves no purpose - it is therefore completely irrelevant, ambassador. Or would you prefer that we make distinctions between the law as it applies to state actors and non-state actors?

Yes, that would be preferable, Thanks

CJ

[Dukopolious]

Dukopolious would like to state, despite previous opposition, we are willing to support this draft, and will be voting in favour of it. We'd also like to commend the author from Ossitania for advocating human rights.

We would like to acknowledge that there are many circumstances where this would be less than beneficial to the state, but the solutions to these problems can easily be solved by the state without defying the legislation. Therefore we have no reason to oppose this resolution, and support human rights, so on Behalf of the Stratocratic Monarchy of Dukopolious, we hereby Support this proposal.

Edit: We would also like to apologize to the delegation representing Ossitania, we were wrong to speak so rudely, and should've realized this much earlier.

[Ossitania]

Dukopolious would like to state, despite previous opposition, we are willing to support this draft, and will be voting in favour of it. We'd also like to commend the author from Ossitania for advocating human rights.

We would like to acknowledge that there are many circumstances where this would be less than beneficial to the state, but the solutions to these problems can easily be solved by the state without defying the legislation. Therefore we have no reason to oppose this resolution, and support human rights, so on Behalf of the Stratocratic Monarchy of Dukopolious, we hereby Support this proposal.

Edit: We would also like to apologize to the delegation representing Ossitania, we were wrong to speak so rudely, and should've realized this much earlier.

We are happy to accept the apologies of the delegation from Dukopolious and apologise in kind for our own harsh language. We are glad to have their support.

[Knootoss]

If current law allows you to machine-gun trespassers, this proposal would not require that law to change. If current law prohibits you from fighting back against someone who's assaulting you, this proposal would require that law to change.

As I understand it, the WA territories are internationally administered.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Astro-Malsitari WA Seat]

Hmm...
Seems more or less harmless, certainly well-intentioned.
And I'll be interested to see what the ACME Weapons Neutralizers would do to Aram Koopman with a machine gun, so...
The Joint Sovereign World Assembly Seat votes FOR.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Morbidly we wonder whether the ACME Weapon Neutralizers would even detect Aram's kerosene lighter as a weapon; if it started zapping those, we'd never be able to light up in here. (I'd rather the WAHQ not morph into another United States when it comes to its attitude toward smoking.)

[Astro-Malsitari WA Seat]

Well, I think, since the Neutralizers appear to have some level of sapience, they can probably determine difference in intent.

[Subgeniustan]

The sovereign nation of Subgeniustan must unfortunately oppose this well-intentioned proposal because it fails to take into account the right of a nation's police, military, etc. to use force against criminals, terrorists, and other undesirable elements of society without the criminals and terrorists using "self-defense" as a justification to attack our brave men and women in uniform. This resolution would harm the national sovereignty and national security of ALL nations except for those that are in a state of complete anarchy. While the author seems to have laudable goals, think of the unintended consequences to national security and the War on Terror. Passing a resolution like this is exactly what the terrorists would WANT us to do, because then the next time they carry out a terrorist attack, they can say that it was in "self-defense" and if the judiciary is full of misguided judges who have an overly broad definition of "human rights", the terrorists can be acquitted after attacking our police and military personnel. The nation of Subgeniustan would be willing to support a similar resolution if it explicitly exempted people from a right to self-defense against the forces of national governments operating on their own sovereign territory (of course, people would still be allowed self-defense against foreign governments invading their territory, in accordance with long-established international law, just not self-defense against their own government). Unfortunately, sometimes when fighting the scourges of organized crime, terrorism, rebel groups, and in some cases, peaceful protesters, it is necessary for the government to use violence without provocation, in order to establish rule of law and the supremacy of the government as the institution that has a monopoly on legitimately initiating the use of force. This resolution would especially damage the abilities of dictatorships to keep their people in line, and while Subgeniustan itself is a freedom-loving democracy, we maintain peaceful diplomatic relations with all nations that are willing to be at peace with us, including dictatorships, and we must take their needs into account. If the dictatorships of this world are all destabilized, who knows what could happen? Their people might rise up and overthrow them in revolutions, but there could be long, drawn-out civil wars with a lot of bloodshed, and the regimes that replace them could be even worse. In the interests of international stability, it is best to vote "no" on this resolution, even if you do not feel your national sovereignty threatened at all by it.

[Ossitania]

The sovereign nation of Subgeniustan must unfortunately oppose this well-intentioned proposal because it fails to take into account the right of a nation's police, military, etc. to use force against criminals, terrorists, and other undesirable elements of society without the criminals and terrorists using "self-defense" as a justification to attack our brave men and women in uniform. This resolution would harm the national sovereignty and national security of ALL nations except for those that are in a state of complete anarchy. While the author seems to have laudable goals, think of the unintended consequences to national security and the War on Terror. Passing a resolution like this is exactly what the terrorists would WANT us to do, because then the next time they carry out a terrorist attack, they can say that it was in "self-defense" and if the judiciary is full of misguided judges who have an overly broad definition of "human rights", the terrorists can be acquitted after attacking our police and military personnel. The nation of Subgeniustan would be willing to support a similar resolution if it explicitly exempted people from a right to self-defense against the forces of national governments operating on their own sovereign territory (of course, people would still be allowed self-defense against foreign governments invading their territory, in accordance with long-established international law, just not self-defense against their own government). Unfortunately, sometimes when fighting the scourges of organized crime, terrorism, rebel groups, and in some cases, peaceful protesters, it is necessary for the government to use violence without provocation, in order to establish rule of law and the supremacy of the government as the institution that has a monopoly on legitimately initiating the use of force. This resolution would especially damage the abilities of dictatorships to keep their people in line, and while Subgeniustan itself is a freedom-loving democracy, we maintain peaceful diplomatic relations with all nations that are willing to be at peace with us, including dictatorships, and we must take their needs into account. If the dictatorships of this world are all destabilized, who knows what could happen? Their people might rise up and overthrow them in revolutions, but there could be long, drawn-out civil wars with a lot of bloodshed, and the regimes that replace them could be even worse. In the interests of international stability, it is best to vote "no" on this resolution, even if you do not feel your national sovereignty threatened at all by it.

Ambassador, with respect, I have already explained this point. This law only applies when the reasonable force is used to protect from an imminent threat - it does not apply to the first actor, the person who creates the threat, it applies to the reactor, the person who attempts to neutralise the threat. This resolution does not prevent the police and military using reasonable force against criminals, in fact this law guarantees that all people, police, military, civilian, have the right to use reasonable force to protect themselves from criminals without fear of prosecution or persecution.

At any rate, we would never grant a general exemption to state actors. Government officials are just as capable of committing crimes as anybody else.

[Subgeniustan]

That sounds reassuring, but still not convincing. I am still worried about unintended consequences of this resolution. Often we enact laws with the best of intentions, only to be faced with negative, unforeseen, unintended consequences.

[Krevantas]

How do you prove that a person was defending themself when the only ones around were the victim and the supposed attacker?

What is to keep a group of people from attacking a singular person that they view to be different or odd and using the excuse that he was Stalking and assaulting their families and friends?

What's to really keep people from twisting this law into getting off free for murder, using carefully constructed alibis and character witnesses?

what of the person that gets attacked, recovers from it either mentally or physically, and decides to go back for vengeance, claiming defense? What are the statutes on how long a person has to defend themself? I mean, if a person is attacked and the assailant runs off, yet you know who they are; odds are they'll either come back or find another victim.

What of the man who does all of that in the sake of defence, yet takes it one step further and eradicates the entire family of the person they're defending themselves from because his family was slaughtered. Do you have anything to ensure that he gets the correct psychological treatment he needs or does he go free or does he go to jail?

It's hardly ideal as it is; but we don't need a law that condones murder or killing in any form.

[Tibberiria]

Seems reasonable to us. Voted for.

[Subgeniustan]

How do you prove that a person was defending themself when the only ones around were the victim and the supposed attacker?

What is to keep a group of people from attacking a singular person that they view to be different or odd and using the excuse that he was Stalking and assaulting their families and friends?

What's to really keep people from twisting this law into getting off free for murder, using carefully constructed alibis and character witnesses?

what of the person that gets attacked, recovers from it either mentally or physically, and decides to go back for vengeance, claiming defense? What are the statutes on how long a person has to defend themself? I mean, if a person is attacked and the assailant runs off, yet you know who they are; odds are they'll either come back or find another victim.

What of the man who does all of that in the sake of defence, yet takes it one step further and eradicates the entire family of the person they're defending themselves from because his family was slaughtered. Do you have anything to ensure that he gets the correct psychological treatment he needs or does he go free or does he go to jail?

It's hardly ideal as it is; but we don't need a law that condones murder or killing in any form.

Those are VERY good points, Ambassador. I wish I had thought of those myself! I mean, think of the story of Romeo and Juliet, with the Montagues and Capulets killing each other all the time, and each of the killings could be described as "self-defense" since each family was trying to kill the other family. Or suppose a criminal has committed some misdemeanor, such as robbing a bank or committing grand theft auto, and the police, in hot pursuit, yell at the suspect "Stop or I'll shoot!" The suspect then turns around and shoots and kills the police officer, and uses self-defense to get off on the murder charge, and is only found guilty of the lesser crime such as bank robbery or grand theft auto. There are too many problems with this whole "self-defense" idea... it is defined too broadly, there aren't exceptions, and while the principle of self-defense is certainly a good one, it needs to have more limits than this resolution provides.

[Krevantas]

What's going to keep the police in line? You know that research has shown about a 50/50 split between those that were bullies int heir youth to those that were bullied. Then factor in human error and human nature. They'll have too much power because they'll back each other up out of some sort of fraternal instinct, if nothing else.

[Opaloka]

Whilst 'Int-fed' by inclination this does seem to be something that should be left to nations to decide for themselves. There is a hell of a lot of determination for national juristrictions to do for instance in 'opaloka' it would never be acceptable to attack a representative of the workers' & soldiers' government that would be a sign of mental illness and be dealt with accordingly, no WA law can change that.

How is it not the duty of the World Assembly to ensure that individuals can protect themselves? National Sovereignty isn't, nor has it ever been, an appropriate argument, however, notwithstanding that, it is even less of an argument here, considering the nature of the topic at hand.

Yours,

Er, because it is an assembly of 'nations'. Sorry I just don't see how a 'pooling of sovreignty' is appropriate here. If citizens feel the need to use violence against a gov't or it's reps then that is revolution and certainly can't be legislated. Although there was an attempt to do so by a 'nat-sov' (contra tyrannus' or summat like that.

[Damanucus]

There are two clauses in this resolution which are concerning me enough to abstain from the vote:

DEFINES "reasonable force" as an amount of force within a reasonable degree of the smallest amount of force necessary to protect one's self or others from an imminent threat to safety and/or health by another person or group of persons,

DECLARES that no person who uses reasonable force to defend themselves or others from another person or group of persons shall face persecution or prosecution for the use of this force,

While I understand that it is at the discretion of the courts to decide whether the person in question was defending themselves, that in itself is not enough to determine intent to protect, and becomes a dangerous loophole if allowed to exist, as murderers can apply this amount of force and still commit the act of murder, then turn around and claim they were protecting themselves because they had applied this amount of force.

While I commend the intention, this simple loophole raises enough concern in me to have me abstain.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Ossitania]

How do you prove that a person was defending themself when the only ones around were the victim and the supposed attacker?

What is to keep a group of people from attacking a singular person that they view to be different or odd and using the excuse that he was Stalking and assaulting their families and friends?

What's to really keep people from twisting this law into getting off free for murder, using carefully constructed alibis and character witnesses?

If your police force are so incompetent that they wouldn't be able to ascertain the answers to these questions through investigation, then that's a problem with your police force. I can say with some certainty that in the first case, the police would search for evidence to determine who attacked first (video cameras in the area, who had more defensive wounds, consider who would have more motivation to be the first attacker) and in the second case, the police would quite simply ask people who weren't part of the conspiracy in your scenario (which is utterly ridiculous, might I add, but I'll humour you for now) and search for physical evidence (phone records, video footage, etc.) that backed up their story. In your third example, anyone who had those kind of resources wouldn't need this resolution to accomplish something like that.

what of the person that gets attacked, recovers from it either mentally or physically, and decides to go back for vengeance, claiming defense? What are the statutes on how long a person has to defend themself? I mean, if a person is attacked and the assailant runs off, yet you know who they are; odds are they'll either come back or find another victim.

If the ambassador from Krevantas would take a moment to read the resolution more than superficially, they might notice that the resolution specifies the threat must be imminent. I have already explained this point many times and it is frustrating that so many people are evidently unable or unwilling to actually read the text of the proposal.

What of the man who does all of that in the sake of defence, yet takes it one step further and eradicates the entire family of the person they're defending themselves from because his family was slaughtered. Do you have anything to ensure that he gets the correct psychological treatment he needs or does he go free or does he go to jail?

This is just sheer stupidity. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. We advise the ambassador to go and actually read the resolution properly.

Those are VERY good points, Ambassador. I wish I had thought of those myself! I mean, think of the story of Romeo and Juliet, with the Montagues and Capulets killing each other all the time, and each of the killings could be described as "self-defense" since each family was trying to kill the other family. Or suppose a criminal has committed some misdemeanor, such as robbing a bank or committing grand theft auto, and the police, in hot pursuit, yell at the suspect "Stop or I'll shoot!" The suspect then turns around and shoots and kills the police officer, and uses self-defense to get off on the murder charge, and is only found guilty of the lesser crime such as bank robbery or grand theft auto. There are too many problems with this whole "self-defense" idea... it is defined too broadly, there aren't exceptions, and while the principle of self-defense is certainly a good one, it needs to have more limits than this resolution provides.

No, I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be dismissive, but not a single thing you've said here is in any way accurate. We advise the ambassador for Subgeniustan to read the resolution properly, because then he might understand why he is currently talking out of his arse.

Er, because it is an assembly of 'nations'. Sorry I just don't see how a 'pooling of sovreignty' is appropriate here. If citizens feel the need to use violence against a gov't or it's reps then that is revolution and certainly can't be legislated. Although there was an attempt to do so by a 'nat-sov' (contra tyrannus' or summat like that.

This has nothing to do with revolutions, sir, we have already explained this point previously, if you are not willing to listen, then you shouldn't be speaking, you just end up looking like a fool.

There are two clauses in this resolution which are concerning me enough to abstain from the vote:

While I understand that it is at the discretion of the courts to decide whether the person in question was defending themselves, that in itself is not enough to determine intent to protect, and becomes a dangerous loophole if allowed to exist, as murderers can apply this amount of force and still commit the act of murder, then turn around and claim they were protecting themselves because they had applied this amount of force.

While I commend the intention, this simple loophole raises enough concern in me to have me abstain.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Madam, I must protest. When someone claims to have attacked or killed in self-defense, the burden of proof is on them to prove their claim, otherwise they are punished for the crime they committed. There is no loophole - if someone murders someone, then turns around and says "self-defense", that doesn't just get them off the hook, if it cannot be shown that the act was committed in self-defense and your judiciary decides to leave them off anyway, that's a problem with your judiciary, not my resolution. My resolution says nothing about the procedure that the judiciary should use to determine whether reasonable force was used or not, largely because I had assumed that most nations would have the common sense to implement a system whereby the burden of proof rests on the claimant to prove his claim. If, upon the passing of this resolution, you choose to implement an alternative system and destroy your own legal system, that's your business, but it's nothing to do with this resolution.

[Damanucus]

There are two clauses in this resolution which are concerning me enough to abstain from the vote:

While I understand that it is at the discretion of the courts to decide whether the person in question was defending themselves, that in itself is not enough to determine intent to protect, and becomes a dangerous loophole if allowed to exist, as murderers can apply this amount of force and still commit the act of murder, then turn around and claim they were protecting themselves because they had applied this amount of force.

While I commend the intention, this simple loophole raises enough concern in me to have me abstain.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Madam, I must protest. When someone claims to have attacked or killed in self-defense, the burden of proof is on them to prove their claim, otherwise they are punished for the crime they committed. There is no loophole - if someone murders someone, then turns around and says "self-defense", that doesn't just get them off the hook, if it cannot be shown that the act was committed in self-defense and your judiciary decides to leave them off anyway, that's a problem with your judiciary, not my resolution. My resolution says nothing about the procedure that the judiciary should use to determine whether reasonable force was used or not, largely because I had assumed that most nations would have the common sense to implement a system whereby the burden of proof rests on the claimant to prove his claim. If, upon the passing of this resolution, you choose to implement an alternative system and destroy your own legal system, that's your business, but it's nothing to do with this resolution.

I'm not criticizing your addition of the criteria of reasonable force; I'm criticising that it is the only stated criteria, especially given that self-defence requires more than this criteria alone.

By the way, the investigative forces of Damanucus, both police and the Embassy Guard, are extremely thorough in their job; however, I cannot vouch for other nations, especially our less established members.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus