[PASSED] Right to Self-defense

[Christian Democrats]

Would the Nueva Ricoan delegation be willing to rephrase the third section of its proposal? Perhaps, it could say:

Declares that all member states and their subdivisions shall uphold an individual right to self-defense and shall permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases where an individual:

&c. &c. &c.

[Nueva Rico]

Declares that all member states and their subdivisions shall uphold an individual right to self-defense and shall permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases where an individual:

I thank you for your contribution and feedback. I have rephrased that line to make it more clear.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I would still suggest that you put in a restriction about allowing the self defence clause only if getting help from law enforcement or other professional security personnell was impossible. Like, it's one thing if you'd need the help right now and it would take the police 15 minutes to get there, but calling them should still be your first priority.

[Aclion]

OOC: I would still suggest that you put in a restriction about allowing the self defence clause only if getting help from law enforcement or other professional security personnell was impossible. Like, it's one thing if you'd need the help right now and it would take the police 15 minutes to get there, but calling them should still be your first priority.

a) The threat poses a clear and immediate danger to the life of the individual or his or her family,

If you have time to wait for police then how is the danger immediate?

[Araraukar]

a) The threat poses a clear and immediate danger to the life of the individual or his or her family,

If you have time to wait for police then how is the danger immediate?

OOC: Oh, if you can read it that way, then no objections as it's loopholeable to death, and the self-defence legal defence can be ignored in favour of prosecuting it as an assault anyway...

EDIT: A random thought; capital punishment probably should be excluded from this. As in, not letting family members of the person-to-be-executed to try to interfere with a legal execution procedure...

[Kenmoria]

"The definition of family is extremely vague and should be tightened. Furthermore, could you explain 3a as to what 'immediate' means. If, for example, a person entered the home of another, it is ambiguos whether the danger is immediate, since there is no instantaneous threat but an immediate likelihood the criminal is violent. Also, maybe the authoring delagation could add something about defence of property."

[Nueva Rico]

"The definition of family is extremely vague and should be tightened. Furthermore, could you explain 3a as to what 'immediate' means. If, for example, a person entered the home of another, it is ambiguos whether the danger is immediate, since there is no instantaneous threat but an immediate likelihood the criminal is violent. Also, maybe the authoring delagation could add something about defence of property."

1. How is an armed invader in your home not an immediate threat to your danger? In that case, nothing is a threat until you are harmed. A threat is a potential injury, and you can be sure that that is a high possibility when someone is armed and in your home.

2. Castle laws are another thing entirely, I leave enough wiggle room already.

[Araraukar]

1. How is an armed invader in your home not an immediate threat to your danger?

OOC: Because. You. Should. Call. The. Police. First.

In that case, nothing is a threat until you are harmed.

Exactly why anything else is just assault, not self-defence.

[Bananaaaaa]

Greetings, your draft proposal, is basically in a nutshell, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."?

-The Principality

[United Capitalist Federations]

[/quote]
"Furthermore, someone stumbling and colliding with you on the subway platform - where such accident had the distinct possibility of putting both your life in danger - should not give you the right to punch them in the face.

"Though that reminds me that defining "arms" seems unnecessary if the word is only used to say that this proposal has nothing to do with regulating them."[/quote]


That makes no sense. There is a distinct difference between an accident for which your shooting someone and for someone actively trying to harm you or your family.

[Bananaistan]

1. How is an armed invader in your home not an immediate threat to your danger?

OOC: Because. You. Should. Call. The. Police. First.

In that case, nothing is a threat until you are harmed.

Exactly why anything else is just assault, not self-defence.

OOC: I think I'm missing something here. Clause 3a states the threat must be "a clear and immediate danger to the life ...". If there's a clear and immediate danger to my life, I'm not going to be fluting around with my phone. It's either run like **** or fight back. Not pause to make a phone call while getting murdered.

[The United Orthodox States]

Ambassador Justin rises to speak. "The wording of section 3.b is extremely vague, and excessive force could be argued to mean almost anything, and should be altered to be more specific as to what excessive means. Nevertheless, The United Orthodox States will support this proposal."

[Excidium Planetis]

Ambassador Blackbourne enters the room, having heard that the matter of self defensive use of force was up for debate. After looking over the draft before him and then rereading it, he remarks "The definition of arms is quite unnecessary. It is only used in the final clause, which, quite frankly, does nothing. The final clause is fine, of course, it prevents confusion of the scope of this proposal, but the definition of arms is not really needed for comprehension of that clause. You would be best served simply leaving it off altogether, or it may invite debate among other ambassadors despite its irrelevance."

He pauses. "Also, I advise changing 'his or her family' to 'their family', as not all species have binary gender. But that's a minor grievance."

[Araraukar]

OOC: I think I'm missing something here.

OOC: Yes. This:

1. How is an armed invader in your home not an immediate threat to your danger?

If someone breaks into your house, you call the police. Even if you then ended up having to defend yourself, if you hear someone breaking into your house, you first call the police.

That makes no sense.

OOC: The draft was changed since I posted that, so it doesn't make sense now.

[Kenmoria]

"On a minor note, clause five should end with a full stop and not a comma as it is the end of the proposal."

(OOC: There are currently multiple different interpretations of "immediate" in 3a, I recommend clarifying.)

[The United Orthodox States]

Hereby,

1. Defines “family” as someone related to an individual by blood, in marriage, in law, or of some substantial and tangible relationship,

"Another minor detail I would edit is Clause 1. The definition of Family is very broad, and doesn't really define a 'Family' in the traditional sense. Therefore, I propose to change the entirety of this Clause to 'People in the vicinity' instead of family, because this new definition includes strangers in danger, as their lives are as important as everyone you know. Therefore, Clause 1. should become 'People in the vicinity i.e. 50 yards, are counted as in danger form the specified threat, and are subject to this law, and are hereby refered to as People in the Vicinity'. After this edit, the rest of the references tofamily should be changed to people in the vicinity.''

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I believe that clause 5 is unnecessary, as there is no reasonable interpretation of the above 4 clauses that would do the things you clarify against.)

[Slavonia and Srijem]

This can be easly solved by investing funds into Law and Order, but yeah, ofcourse individuals should have rights to defend themself, sorry i didn't read whole proposal either........

[Aclion]

OOC: I think I'm missing something here.

OOC: Yes. This:

1. How is an armed invader in your home not an immediate threat to your danger?

If someone breaks into your house, you call the police. Even if you then ended up having to defend yourself, if you hear someone breaking into your house, you first call the police.

Whether or not the person called the police is immaterial to whether they needed to defend themselves. If you want to create a law mandating that people inform the police of crimes they witness you can do so. But creating a gotcha clause to be abused by activist judges isn't the way to do it.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

This is now in queue.

[Araraukar]

But creating a gotcha clause to be abused by activist judges isn't the way to do it.

OOC: Clause 3 is that kind of gotcha all on its own, so it can be freely abused by the judges of a super-pacifist nation like Araraukar.

I still object to defining something that is used only to say the proposal has nothing to do with it (clause 2 in other words).

[Kenmoria]

“The immediate issue I can see with this is capital punishment. If capital punishment is going to be committed on someone’s family, defence of them from the government shouldn’t be legalised. Of course I would prefer if the death penalty would be banned anyway, but forcing member nations to legalise someone killing the person administering death is ludicrous. Thus, I am firmly AGAINST this proposal.”

[New Waldensia]

1. How is an armed invader in your home not an immediate threat to your danger?

OOC: Because. You. Should. Call. The. Police. First.

If someone breaks into your house, you call the police. Even if you then ended up having to defend yourself, if you hear someone breaking into your house, you first call the police.

Assuming you have time to. Victims of such situations don't always have the luxury of time to do so.

New Waldensia, and the Federation of Conservative Nations, fully support this measure.

[Fardhin]

The Legacy Council of Fardhin has shown support for this; however, we feel that it inadequately defines the conditions for the justification of right to self-defense. It must be included, and defined; that the person causing harm is doing so with intention, otherwise, any accident such as an accidental bump could be easily misinterpreted as an attack. While some misinterpretations may seem ridiculous, these do indeed happen, sometimes with simple bumps being interpreted as rape.

[New Bremerton]

FOR. In New Bremerton, the right to self-defense, not to be confused with a right to bear arms, is enshrined in our constitution, although we would like the proposal to have gone a little further by incorporating a Castle doctrine with respect to home invasions, which would permit homeowners to use whatever force they deem necessary to defend themselves, their property and their loved ones from home invaders, up to and including deadly force, with no obligation to retreat and complete immunity from prosecution. No homeowner should ever have to fear not only for their lives but also their freedom should they choose to defend themselves.

This proposal also seeks to uphold the inalienable right of citizens to defend themselves in the event that their own government turns on them by killing them, or in the event that the government is either unable or unwilling to defend its citizens i.e. there is a complete breakdown of law and order, and terrorists and radical extremists have overrun part of a nation in a bloody civil war.

While this proposal doesn't go as far as we would like, it nevertheless represents a significant step forward for the protection of human rights.

We would like to clarify, however, that we do not believe in an inherent "right to bear arms". In New Bremerton, gun ownership is strictly prohibited except in circumstances where there is a complete breakdown of law and order and the government is unable to defend its citizens, although the use of a firearm in a defensive situation is not. Being an island continent, even the most hardened criminals would be hard-pressed to acquire a firearm, whether legally or illegally.