NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Defense of Self and Others

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Defense of Self and Others

Postby Ossitania » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:36 am

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.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:00 pm, edited 14 times in total.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Lulzvenia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Jun 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Lulzvenia » Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:06 pm

Supported

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:19 pm

This looks excellent and I am 100% in support at this time.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Novraslavia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 916
Founded: Jul 23, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Novraslavia » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:49 pm

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

User avatar
Arivali
Envoy
 
Posts: 229
Founded: Jun 15, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Arivali » Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:08 am

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.

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:05 am

Novraslavia wrote: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.

Arivali wrote: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.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Esokland
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Jul 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Drfense of Self and Others

Postby Esokland » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:55 am

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

User avatar
Holy Chaos
Secretary
 
Posts: 35
Founded: Jan 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Holy Chaos » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:41 am

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,

User avatar
Paper Flowers
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Paper Flowers » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:08 am

Esokland wrote: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.
Liam. A. Saunders - Paper Flowers Ambassador to the World Assembly.

Factbook (under construction - last update 14th November 2012)
Current Affairs - Ambassador Walkers disappearance remains a mystery, Ambassador Saunders promoted in his place.

User avatar
Great Nepal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28677
Founded: Jan 11, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Great Nepal » Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:16 am

We fully support this bill however we would prefer legalization of deadly force in self-defence.
Last edited by Great Nepal on Sun Nov 29, 1995 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:19 am

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.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Stormray
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Jan 10, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Stormray » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:43 pm

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


Fully supported, would prefer same as aforementioned above.
The Armed Republic of Stormray

User avatar
Paper Flowers
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Paper Flowers » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:04 pm

Stormray wrote:
Great Nepal wrote: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.
Last edited by Paper Flowers on Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Liam. A. Saunders - Paper Flowers Ambassador to the World Assembly.

Factbook (under construction - last update 14th November 2012)
Current Affairs - Ambassador Walkers disappearance remains a mystery, Ambassador Saunders promoted in his place.

User avatar
Holy Chaos
Secretary
 
Posts: 35
Founded: Jan 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Holy Chaos » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:13 pm

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.

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9237
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:47 pm

Opposed. It is impossible to know what the minimal force necessary to defend oneself is, therefore to base a resolution around it is absurd.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Cenetra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 699
Founded: Jun 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Cenetra » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:44 am

Ossitania wrote: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.
The Multiversal Species Alliance wrote:What would you do if the Mane Six were suddenly teleported to your nation?
Crumlark wrote:Introduce them to the reality of mankind, their true creators. Force them to see what we had done, making thing as simple as a string of numbers like 9/11 nearly unutterable in public. Show the true horrors of man, and it's finest creation. Death. Watch with glee as they see what we have done in the past for a man we don't know even exists. Have them peer at the suffering we cause each-other to this very day, and watch them scream, scream as they run back to wherever they came from, never to return.

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Thu Jan 05, 2012 7:05 am

Holy Chaos wrote: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.

Mallorea and Riva wrote: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.

Cenetra wrote:...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.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9237
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Thu Jan 05, 2012 8:53 am

Ossitania wrote:
Holy Chaos wrote:

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.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:21 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:
Ossitania wrote: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?
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Quelesh
Minister
 
Posts: 2942
Founded: Jun 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Quelesh » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:40 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote: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.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am." - Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
Political Compass | Economic Left/Right: -7.75 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -10.00

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 9237
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:45 pm

Quelesh wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote: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.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Major and Field Marshal of The Black Hawks
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: "I don't think chatting with someone over the Internet about casual topics falls under faithful or unfaithful. :<"

User avatar
Sovreignry
Diplomat
 
Posts: 763
Founded: Sep 14, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Sovreignry » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:05 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:
Quelesh wrote:
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.
From the desk of
William Chocox Ambassador from The Unitary Kingdom of Sovreignry
Office 50, fifth floor, farthest from the elevator
You're supposed to be employing the arts of diplomacy, not the ruddy great thumping sledgehammers of diplomacy. -Ardchoille
It would be easier just to incorporate a "Grief Region" button, so you wouldn't even need to make the effort to do the actual raiding. Players could just bounce from region to region and destroy everyone else's efforts at will, without even bothering about WA status. Wouldn't that be nice. -Frisbeeteria

Why yes, we are better looking: UDL

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Moronist Decisions » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:29 pm

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
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Sat Jan 07, 2012 8:40 pm

Moronist Decisions wrote:
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.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Firestorm0901
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 125
Founded: Apr 19, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Firestorm0901 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:12 am

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.
Last edited by Firestorm0901 on Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads