[PASSED] Defense of Self and Others

[Dukopolious]

I have one concern. If my police force were to beat a man trying to kill my leader, and he fought back punching the guards in the face, breaking the nose of 2, and chipping another's tooth, he couldn't be prosecuted for assaulting them?

No, that's just silly. In that situation, the police are the ones using reasonable force to protect your leader.

Yes, but not in self defence. This resolution protects self defence against state officials. Until this is amended, Against. This would mean, technically a prison riot is legal if the guards hit them first, or a revolution if one man is hurt by a state official.

[United Celts]

Dr. Mac Carthaigh rises from her seat...

No, that's just silly. In that situation, the police are the ones using reasonable force to protect your leader.

Yes, but not in self defence. This resolution protects self defence against state officials. Until this is amended, Against. This would mean, technically a prison riot is legal if the guards hit them first, or a revolution if one man is hurt by a state official.

This does seem to be a problem...

[Paper Flowers]

Yes, but not in self defence.

To quote the resolution:

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,

In the example you gave, the police are still covered as they are defending others (specifically your leader) from attack.

This would mean, technically a prison riot is legal if the guards hit them first,

If one can prove, to the satisfaction of the judiciary, that the riot was a "reasonable" degree of force to respond to the guards attack.

or a revolution if one man is hurt by a state official.

If your country has a judicial system that would consider a revolution in response to one individual being injured as "reasonable" then I would suggest the flaw is with your country, not with the resolution.

[Ossitania]

No, that's just silly. In that situation, the police are the ones using reasonable force to protect your leader.

Yes, but not in self defence. This resolution protects self defence against state officials. Until this is amended, Against. This would mean, technically a prison riot is legal if the guards hit them first, or a revolution if one man is hurt by a state official.

Dr. Mac Carthaigh rises from her seat...

Yes, but not in self defence. This resolution protects self defence against state officials. Until this is amended, Against. This would mean, technically a prison riot is legal if the guards hit them first, or a revolution if one man is hurt by a state official.

This does seem to be a problem. I'm afraid my government will also be forced to oppose this resolution unless and until it's amended to adequately protect state officials.

You two must be joking. Read the definition of "reasonable force" again. It is force used to protect from an imminent threat. The first actor, the person who threatens, is clearly not covered by this definition. As to these ideas of prison riots or revolutions being exempt, these are patently ridiculous situations. As the good ambassador from Paper Flowers pointed out, there is a principle of reason applied here and such responses are obviously not reasonable.

However, even if your claims were legitimate (and they are certainly not), you must be ten kinds of crazy to think I would let state officials be exempt from this law. Not in a million years.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Yes, but not in self defence. This resolution protects self defence against state officials. Until this is amended, Against. This would mean, technically a prison riot is legal if the guards hit them first, or a revolution if one man is hurt by a state official.

This does seem to be a problem...

You two again!

You'll be happy to know that the way the resolution is written, your national judiciary gets to decide what force is reasonable. Now, it may be that if a guard hit a prisoner first, the prisoner would be entitled to defend himself in certain ways. But it is up to your nation's judicial system to flesh that out.

So, to take your example, a prisoner would probably be permitted to punch the guard or shove him if the guard attacked him first. But a riot would definitely be an unreasonable response to being struck by a guard. Unless, of course, your courts decide otherwise. And all the shades of gray between shoving and rioting would be for your courts to evaluate as well, on a case-by-case basis.

In my opinion, a nation should only object to this resolution for two reasons:

(1) They are inherently pacifist - and do not believe force is ever appropriate, even in cases of self-defense or defense of others. Gandhi ("an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind") and Jesus ("Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.") would fall under this category. Or,

(2) They don't trust their own judiciary to do a good job fleshing out what "defense of self and others" looks like in practice.

So which is it?

[Dukopolious]

Well, now that it's submitted, I'll point out a major loophole I will exploit.

I could simply state "A reasonable show of force" would be to cower up into a ball, cover your face, and beg for mercy. Should it be to a state official.

A reasonable amount of force, can involve beating a man into submission, should it be to a terrorist whom aims to kill my leader.


Also, with this, it allows criminals to fight back against state officials. Something I do not endorse.

[Ossitania]

Well, now that it's submitted, I'll point out a major loophole I will exploit.

I could simply state "A reasonable show of force" would be to cower up into a ball, cover your face, and beg for mercy. Should it be to a state official.

A reasonable amount of force, can involve beating a man into submission, should it be to a terrorist whom aims to kill my leader.


Also, with this, it allows criminals to fight back against state officials. Something I do not endorse.

I'm not even going to waste my breath explaining why you can't do anything you're planning on doing. I've spoken to you maybe three times and that's more than enough times to realise there's no point in talking to you.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I could simply state "A reasonable show of force" would be to cower up into a ball, cover your face, and beg for mercy. Should it be to a state official.

A reasonable amount of force, can involve beating a man into submission, should it be to a terrorist whom aims to kill my leader.

That's fair. This resolution reserved the call on what constitutes "reasonable force" to your judiciary. It's your judiciary, let it look partial to the government if that's a priority for your nation.

Also, with this, it allows criminals to fight back against state officials. Something I do not endorse.

I think most nations would agree with you that criminals are subject to much closer scrutiny when they claim they used force against guards "in self defense." And I'm sure your nation would agree that a jaywalker should not be required to cower up into a ball and await death when a sadistic cop is bludgeoning him with a nightstick. There's all kinds of situations to cover. I'm sure even the Dukopion can imagine a couple situations where it might be appropriate to fight back against a state official. State officials are people too, subject to the same rages and abuses that the rest of us experience from time to time.

[United Celts]

Dr. Mac Carthaigh rises from her seat. "Given the explanations and defenses offered by Ambassador Burke and the ambassador from Paper Flowers, I'm confident that this proposal won't cause the problems mentioned by the ambassador from Dukopolious. My government continues to support this proposal and we will vote in favor of it should it make it to a vote."

[Goobergunchia]

We gave the prior body's "Right to Self-Protection" a weakly favorable vote due to optionality concerns (see 2d Forum 398982 et seq.). While we have some similar concerns with regards to this proposal due to the vagueness of the term "reasonable", we will still vote in its favor should it become a resolution.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Citizen of the Rejected Realms

[Dukopolious]

Also, with this, it allows criminals to fight back against state officials. Something I do not endorse.

I think most nations would agree with you that criminals are subject to much closer scrutiny when they claim they used force against guards "in self defense." And I'm sure your nation would agree that a jaywalker should not be required to cower up into a ball and await death when a sadistic cop is bludgeoning him with a nightstick. There's all kinds of situations to cover. I'm sure even the Dukopion can imagine a couple situations where it might be appropriate to fight back against a state official. State officials are people too, subject to the same rages and abuses that the rest of us experience from time to time.

Jay Walking is legal in my nation, as long as no automobiles are awaiting to pass, if so, the last thing the state officials would do would be to run into the busy intersection and beat the man, but rather properly walk up to him, and give him a warning ticket, this lasts for a week before being removed.

And with Dukopolious being a Stratocracy, 95% of our nation is made up of State Officials. Our police force are military police, our laws easy to follow, and our people well educated to consequences.

I'm not sure if the police in Cowardly Pacifists would beat a jay walker into submission, but here in Dukopolious, it's barely considered to be rude to jay walk for the simply convenience of getting from point-a to point-b faster.

Now what you are suggesting about beating a Jay Walker is absolutely ridiculous. We ask that the delegate look again at the definition (How ever loose), of reasonable force.

We are willing to support this if the author can prove this does not give criminals the right to harm state officials.

[Ossitania]

I think most nations would agree with you that criminals are subject to much closer scrutiny when they claim they used force against guards "in self defense." And I'm sure your nation would agree that a jaywalker should not be required to cower up into a ball and await death when a sadistic cop is bludgeoning him with a nightstick. There's all kinds of situations to cover. I'm sure even the Dukopion can imagine a couple situations where it might be appropriate to fight back against a state official. State officials are people too, subject to the same rages and abuses that the rest of us experience from time to time.

Jay Walking is legal in my nation, as long as no automobiles are awaiting to pass, if so, the last thing the state officials would do would be to run into the busy intersection and beat the man, but rather properly walk up to him, and give him a warning ticket, this lasts for a week before being removed.

And with Dukopolious being a Stratocracy, 95% of our nation is made up of State Officials. Our police force are military police, our laws easy to follow, and our people well educated to consequences.

I'm not sure if the police in Cowardly Pacifists would beat a jay walker into submission, but here in Dukopolious, it's barely considered to be rude to jay walk for the simply convenience of getting from point-a to point-b faster.

Now what you are suggesting about beating a Jay Walker is absolutely ridiculous. We ask that the delegate look again at the definition (How ever loose), of reasonable force.

We are willing to support this if the author can prove this does not give criminals the right to harm state officials.

We already did. If the ambassador from Dukopolious is not willing to read, that is not the fault of the Ossitania delegation. We will explain it one more time.

The definition of reasonable force describes it as force that is used to protect from an imminent threat. Therefore, the first actor, the person who creates the threat, the person who is attacking, from whom people are being protected, is obviously exempt from this definition. It only describes the force that is used to defend the self or others from the threat. The force must be the minimum or near the minimum amount of force necessary to protect, it cannot be excessive. If none of these qualifiers are sufficient to assuage the fears of the delegation from Dukopolious, then I'm afraid there is no more that I can do, I am not qualified in the treatment of hysteria.

[Ossitania]

And we're in the queue. Beautiful.

[Knootoss]

Does this mean I will be able to machine gun trespassers in my WA office?


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

[Dukopolious]

Does this mean I will be able to machine gun trespassers in my WA office?

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

If that's what you consider Reasonable force, yes.

Also, not all attacks by state actors are on those whom commit assault. If a criminal were to say Hold a gun up and tell everyone to give him their wallets, and a police officer were to tackle the man from behind, the man shouldn't be allowed to fight back. Do you agree?

[Paper Flowers]

Also, not all attacks by state actors are on those whom commit assault. If a criminal were to say Hold a gun up and tell everyone to give him their wallets, and a police officer were to tackle the man from behind, the man shouldn't be allowed to fight back. Do you agree?

Again, the criminal would pose "an imminent threat to safety and/or health", so the police would be able to use reasonable force on him. Nothing in this proposal would then give the criminal the right to attack the police officer(s).

[Dukopolious]

Also, not all attacks by state actors are on those whom commit assault. If a criminal were to say Hold a gun up and tell everyone to give him their wallets, and a police officer were to tackle the man from behind, the man shouldn't be allowed to fight back. Do you agree?

Again, the criminal would pose "an imminent threat to safety and/or health", so the police would be able to use reasonable force on him. Nothing in this proposal would then give the criminal the right to attack the police officer(s).

Thank you, yet this brings another concern.

There's no definition of what constitutes a Health and Safety risk. It may seem unimportant, but I can assure you this causes many loopholes.

[Ossitania]

Again, the criminal would pose "an imminent threat to safety and/or health", so the police would be able to use reasonable force on him. Nothing in this proposal would then give the criminal the right to attack the police officer(s).

Thank you, yet this brings another concern.

There's no definition of what constitutes a Health and Safety risk. It may seem unimportant, but I can assure you this causes many loopholes.

No, it bloody won't. If something that someone is doing will cause you harm if it is not stopped, you can use a reasonable amount of force to stop them. There's a certain point where the necessity for definitions end - it's called common sense. I apologise if English is not the ambassador's first language, but "I don't understand it" is not a valid argument against this proposal. It is written in perfectly normal English, there are no overly complex or technical terms used in it. If, despite all this, your judicial system is unable to understand what "imminent threat to safety and/or health", then I suggest you may need to invest more money in your education system. I am done talking to you, ambassador.

[Quelesh]

The force must be the minimum or near the minimum amount of force necessary to protect, it cannot be excessive.

The proposal doesn't actually require states to criminalize the use of excessive force; it simply prohibits them from criminalizing the use of reasonable force. I know you didn't mean to say here that excessive force must be criminalized, but that's one way your statement could be interpreted. I just don't want nations to get the wrong impression of what the proposal does.

Does this mean I will be able to machine gun trespassers in my WA office?

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.

[Ossitania]

The force must be the minimum or near the minimum amount of force necessary to protect, it cannot be excessive.

The proposal doesn't actually require states to criminalize the use of excessive force; it simply prohibits them from criminalizing the use of reasonable force. I know you didn't mean to say here that excessive force must be criminalized, but that's one way your statement could be interpreted. I just don't want nations to get the wrong impression of what the proposal does.

"To be considered reasonable" should be tacked on at the beginning there. I thought that was clear from the context, perhaps not.

[Quelesh]

The proposal doesn't actually require states to criminalize the use of excessive force; it simply prohibits them from criminalizing the use of reasonable force. I know you didn't mean to say here that excessive force must be criminalized, but that's one way your statement could be interpreted. I just don't want nations to get the wrong impression of what the proposal does.

"To be considered reasonable" should be tacked on at the beginning there. I thought that was clear from the context, perhaps not.

Ah, okay. Yeah, I probably just didn't pay enough attention to the context of the quote.

[Dukopolious]

Thank you, yet this brings another concern.

There's no definition of what constitutes a Health and Safety risk. It may seem unimportant, but I can assure you this causes many loopholes.

No, it bloody won't. If something that someone is doing will cause you harm if it is not stopped, you can use a reasonable amount of force to stop them. There's a certain point where the necessity for definitions end - it's called common sense. I apologise if English is not the ambassador's first language, but "I don't understand it" is not a valid argument against this proposal.

First of all I never said "I don't understand". I understand perfectly what is a "Health and safety risk" as do many others.

Now if the ambassador would simply look up the word "Constitutes" and understand that I am asking for them to provide an explicit definition so nation states can't simply claim what does and doesn't belong under "Health and Safety risk[s]" in order to use their resolution to their own advantage, despite the aggressor, or aggress[ed] being innocent, depending on the situation.

For example, if I were to slap you with a glove, would that give you permission to punch me in the face? Or if a child wee to shoot a spit-wad at a teacher, would that give the teacher the right to march through the class and hit the boy until the pain reaches that of "reasonable force"?

Now I ambassador, am done speaking at you, because obviously you can not comprehend what I am saying.

[Ossitania]

:palm:

First of all I never said "I don't understand". I understand perfectly what is a "Health and safety risk" as do many others.

Now if the ambassador would simply look up the word "Constitutes" and understand that I am asking for them to provide an explicit definition so nation states can't simply claim what does and doesn't belong under "Health and Safety risk[s]" in order to use their resolution to their own advantage, despite the aggressor, or aggress[ed] being innocent, depending on the situation.

For example, if I were to slap you with a glove, would that give you permission to punch me in the face? Or if a child wee to shoot a spit-wad at a teacher, would that give the teacher the right to march through the class and hit the boy until the pain reaches that of "reasonable force"?

Now I ambassador, am done speaking at you, because obviously you can not comprehend what I am saying.

I know you never said you don't understand, you didn't have to say it. The point that I'm making is that I don't need to define everything - at a certain point, the onus is on your nation to have a bit of goddamn sense.

The examples you are using are ridiculous to the point of irrelevance. I don't even understand how you can think the second one even applies - reasonable force is a minimum as defined in this resolution, so you don't start at a low level of force and work your way up. These basic misunderstandings of how the English language works are becoming increasingly irksome.

However, it now seems I will no longer have to deal with you. Good riddance.

[Connopolis]

Connopolis wholeheartedly supports this piece of legislation, and His Excellency Eli Burke can be confident that he has our unwavering support.

Yours in joy,

[United Celts]

Dr. Mac Carthaigh rises from her seat. "While my government continues to support this proposal, I should add that given our new role as the WA Regional Delegate for Exshaw we will now have to take the results of a referendum in Exshaw into account before casting a vote in favor or against."