[PASSED] Defense of Self and Others

[Goobergunchia]

Something we had during the Bureaucracy That Must Not Be Named but not since, as far as I know.

Defense of Self and Others

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Ossitania

The World Assembly,

NOTING the existence of persons who threaten the safety and/or life of other persons,

RECOGNISING that such threats may require those threatened or others to respond with force in order to protect themselves or others,

BELIEVING that those who use such force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

ACKNOWLEDGING the possibility that forceful responses in the defense of self or others may be excessive,

Hereby

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,

PLACES the duty of ascertaining whether the force used in such situations was reasonable or not in the hands of the judiciary.

Now at vote!

MODEDIT: The At Vote debate begins somewhere in the general vicinity of this.

[Lulzvenia]

Supported

[Quelesh]

This looks excellent and I am 100% in support at this time.

[Novraslavia]

Perhaps you should expand on the definition of reasonable force by adding a new section to the resolution defining unreasonable force.

[Arivali]

And you should put something in there about whether or not deadly force is warranted if the situation calls for it. Personally, I think it should be.

[Ossitania]

Perhaps you should expand on the definition of reasonable force by adding a new section to the resolution defining unreasonable force.

I was intending on simply having "that which is not reasonable force" stand by implication as the definition of "unreasonable force", unless the ambassador for Novraslavia sees a compelling reason to add a separate definition.

And you should put something in there about whether or not deadly force is warranted if the situation calls for it. Personally, I think it should be.

The necessary use of deadly force is protected under the definition of "reasonable force"; if deadly force is what is needed, then no one shall face any persecution or prosecution for it.

[Esokland]

The right to defend with Lethal Force by any means necessary ? define, must not allow weapons
that are in-decrement (explosives,chemical) collateral injuries is not good

Supported by Esokland

[Holy Chaos]

I fully support this, but believe that you should explicity state that deadly force can be used to defend oneself against someone who is also using deadly force. The following addition under the definition of reasonable force would work.

CONFIRMS that deadly force is considered a reasonable force against a person using deadly force,

[Paper Flowers]

The right to defend with Lethal Force by any means necessary ? define, must not allow weapons
that are in-decrement (explosives,chemical) collateral injuries is not good

Supported by Esokland

While I'd agree that collateral injuries should be avoided where possible, I would disagree with explicitly outlawing any method of defense, if the use of chemicals or explosives is 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," then they should be allowed to do so.

[Great Nepal]

We fully support this bill however we would prefer legalization of deadly force in self-defence.

[Ossitania]

While I appreciate the support and comments, I really don't think I need to add lines specifically legalising the use of deadly force when, under the definition of reasonable here presented, deadly force is justified if it is necessary to protect life. The definition says nothing of any consequences of the use of that force other than it's protection of safety or life, so any other consequences are irrelevant unless the force was excessive. The judgement of whether the force was excessive or not is best left in the hands of the judiciary, unless anyone is suggesting we legislate for every conceivable situation in which someone could use force to protect themselves or others from imminent harm.

[Stormray]

We fully support this bill however we would prefer legalization of deadly force in self-defence.

Fully supported, would prefer same as aforementioned above.

[Paper Flowers]

We fully support this bill however we would prefer legalization of deadly force in self-defence.

Fully supported, would prefer same as aforementioned above.

As has been pointed out already, deadly force is already being legalized in self-defence, provided it was the minimal necessary force to protect one self. I'm curious what alternative people are proposing short of "you have the right to use deadly force, even if you didn't need to" which would just be legalizing murder.

[Holy Chaos]

I don't trust the judiciary in every single member-state to decide that deadly force is ever the least possible force to eliminate a threat. A liberal judiciary could easily argue that any possible victim that performed self-defense could have used a lesser amount of force by wounding but not killing their attackers. I think it should be specifically approved since it is such a sensitive topic in some member-states.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Opposed. It is impossible to know what the minimal force necessary to defend oneself is, therefore to base a resolution around it is absurd.

[Cenetra]

Something we had during the Bureaucracy That Must Not Be Named but not since, as far as I know.

Defense of Self and Others

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Ossitania

The World Assembly,

NOTING the existence of persons who threaten the safety and/or life of other persons,

RECOGNISING that such threats to safety and/or life may require those threatened or others to respond to such threats with force in order to protect the safety and/or life of those threatened,

BELIEVING that those who use force to protect others under imminent threat to their safety and/or life should not be punished for the using such force,

ACKNOWLEDGING that different situations require different levels of force and not all forceful responses to such threats are always justified,

Hereby

DEFINES "reasonable force" as 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,

PLACES the duty of ascertaining whether the force used in such situations was reasonable or not in the hands of the judiciary.

This is a rough draft. Comments?

...unless, of course, the "imminent threat" is a police officer, tax collector, insurance salesman, or is otherwise above the law.
[/Sarcasm].

Seriously, I find it difficult to believe that there isn't already a resolution on this. However, if you double-check the archive's, I'll support this.

[Ossitania]

I don't trust the judiciary in every single member-state to decide that deadly force is ever the least possible force to eliminate a threat. A liberal judiciary could easily argue that any possible victim that performed self-defense could have used a lesser amount of force by wounding but not killing their attackers. I think it should be specifically approved since it is such a sensitive topic in some member-states.

Well, first of all, by their very nature, a liberal judiciary would be more inclined to rule that a given instance of deadly force was reasonable; the word you're looking for is conservative. A "liberal interpretation" is a broad one, a "conservative interpretation" is a narrow one. Second of all, unless you can think of a better alternative, all we can rely on is the judiciary in these cases. Even if I included a specific provision for deadly force, which I'm not going to, because it would be unnecessary, that wouldn't stop the kind of people you're worried about from ruling that a given instance of deadly force or, depending on the nation in question, every single instance of deadly force was unreasonable. Unless there is some deceptively simple solution I've looked over, I can't think of any way around this problem, but I see absolutely no reason to deny the right to use reasonable force in the protection of one's self and others to citizens of the World Assembly, simply because there are some nations out there who will try to find ways around it. There's always those nations, but no one has tried to repeal "Prevention of Torture" because there's inevitably some smarmy little gits of nations who are disobeying its provisions with some convoluted redefinition. That's for the compliance gnomes to worry about, not us.

Opposed. It is impossible to know what the minimal force necessary to defend oneself is, therefore to base a resolution around it is absurd.

Impossible to know, quite possible to reasonably estimate given the facts about a situation. If we could only base resolutions on that which we know to be fact, we would be here a long time, since it is impossible to know anything beyond one's own cognitive existence, however we can reasonably assume the existence of the rest of reality based on sensory evidence.

...unless, of course, the "imminent threat" is a police officer, tax collector, insurance salesman, or is otherwise above the law.
[/Sarcasm].

Seriously, I find it difficult to believe that there isn't already a resolution on this. However, if you double-check the archive's, I'll support this.

I had the archives checked by one of the most brilliant minds in the World Assembly, if he couldn't find it, it doesn't exist.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Impossible to know, quite possible to reasonably estimate given the facts about a situation. If we could only base resolutions on that which we know to be fact, we would be here a long time, since it is impossible to know anything beyond one's own cognitive existence, however we can reasonably assume the existence of the rest of reality based on sensory evidence.

What is a reasonable estimate to you my not be reasonable to others. In every district within Mallorea the Castle law is in effect, but that is not true for every district of Riva. It is an issue of some contention amongst Rivan politicians since they consider it to give too much liberty to those who are defending themselves and their homes. This legislation sets a maximum of the amount of force one can use to defend oneself, we will never support such legislation.

[Ossitania]

Impossible to know, quite possible to reasonably estimate given the facts about a situation. If we could only base resolutions on that which we know to be fact, we would be here a long time, since it is impossible to know anything beyond one's own cognitive existence, however we can reasonably assume the existence of the rest of reality based on sensory evidence.

What is a reasonable estimate to you my not be reasonable to others. In every district within Mallorea the Castle law is in effect, but that is not true for every district of Riva. It is an issue of some contention amongst Rivan politicians since they consider it to give too much liberty to those who are defending themselves and their homes. This legislation sets a maximum of the amount of force one can use to defend oneself, we will never support such legislation.

I agree wholeheartedly that what is a reasonable estimate to me may not be a reasonable estimate to others. That's why it's in the hands of the judiciary, not me. Also, unless your justice system is based entirely around parliamentary tribunals (and I don't for a minute doubt that such a ridiculous system exists somewhere), your politicians have nothing to do with your judiciary. So they can contend the issue amongst themselves all they like, it's ultimately up to the judges. However, I see that you are a moral absolutist, so there's clearly no point in debating this topic with you. If all you have to say is that you'll never support this legislation and why, could you please save it for a later stage, say when I'm trying to get it to quorum or when it's up for vote, rather than the drafting stage, when I need constructive criticism?

[Quelesh]

This legislation sets a maximum of the amount of force one can use to defend oneself

How do you figure?

This proposal says that, at minimum, it must be legal for people to use the lowest level of force necessary to defend themselves or others. It does not say that levels of force beyond the lowest level necessary must be criminalized by member states. This proposal does nothing to prevent member states from making (or continuing to make) legal deadly force even in cases in which deadly force was not necessary.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This legislation sets a maximum of the amount of force one can use to defend oneself

How do you figure?

This proposal says that, at minimum, it must be legal for people to use the lowest level of force necessary to defend themselves or others. It does not say that levels of force beyond the lowest level necessary must be criminalized by member states. This proposal does nothing to prevent member states from making (or continuing to make) legal deadly force even in cases in which deadly force was not necessary.

This piece of legislation is a classic case of "of course it's a good idea, that's why member states have already dealt with it." Nations which would oppose this legislation would have an easy time of working around it. Point to an example where nations have restricted this right, then we'll talk.

[Sovreignry]

How do you figure?

This proposal says that, at minimum, it must be legal for people to use the lowest level of force necessary to defend themselves or others. It does not say that levels of force beyond the lowest level necessary must be criminalized by member states. This proposal does nothing to prevent member states from making (or continuing to make) legal deadly force even in cases in which deadly force was not necessary.

This piece of legislation is a classic case of "of course it's a good idea, that's why member states have already dealt with it." Nations which would oppose this legislation would have an easy time of working around it. Point to an example where nations have restricted this right, then we'll talk.

I believe the last time something like this was broached Dukopolious was vehemently opposed because the police are allegedly able to do a better job than a civilian.

OOC: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=127612&hilit=self+defense&start=75 Middle of the page is where they get started.

[Moronist Decisions]

DEFINES "reasonable force" as the smallest amount of force necessary ...

What if there are one of two comparable courses possible, and at the spur of the moment the one requiring slightly more force was used? We would suggest extending this to

DEFINES "reasonable force" as an amount of force comparable to the the smallest amount of force necessary

or some such

[Ossitania]

DEFINES "reasonable force" as the smallest amount of force necessary ...

What if there are one of two comparable courses possible, and at the spur of the moment the one requiring slightly more force was used? We would suggest extending this to

DEFINES "reasonable force" as an amount of force comparable to the the smallest amount of force necessary

or some such

Makes sense. The edit has been made.

[Firestorm0901]

If I may I think 2 things should be included into the bill to make it more iron clad.

First the use of Totality of the Circumstances: which is given all of the facts at the time of the incident occurring which could include:
• Alcohol and Drugs
• Mental and Psychiatric history
• Innocent Bystanders
• Availability of weapons
• Size, Age, and Condition of the parties involved
• Duration of Action

And also to clarify reasonable would be Perspective of Another Individual, means that if another individual of sound mind and judgement knowing the (wait for it) Totality of the Circumstances at that exact moment when the action occurred, no hindsight, would have acted in the same manner.

Some food for thought if you wish to add.