[PASSED] Right to Self-defense

[Nueva Rico]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Ashamed that this Assembly does not already guarantee or recognize the right of an individual to defend themselves and family from an imminent threat,

Cognizant that some governments deliberately oppose affording the right of self-protection in order to suppress the freedoms and liberties of the individuals and maintain a controlling presence on the populace,

Acknowledging that government services put in place to protect the lives of public and safety from harm - such as a police force - are not always readily available in a dire situation that may endanger the life of an individual and/or the lives of their family,

Hereby,

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

2. Further defines “arms” as any weapons, munitions, or equipment designed to inflict bodily harm or physical damage, including, but not limited to, firearms, knives, explosives, etc.

3. Affirms the right to self-defense, of oneself and/or his or her family, and declares that nations are to permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases, so long as:

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

b) The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented,

c) The force used was not agin law enforcement or any other lawful force that does not infringe upon the rights established by this Assembly,

4. Affirms member states the right to attest the legality of the claim that a use of force was in self-defense, as according to the conditions established in Clause 3, in the court of law of the respective nation,

5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to void, infringe, or adversely impact any other right to or regulation of arms affirmed by this Assembly, but prohibits any extant criminalization of an exercise of defensive force either with any common object or unarmed, in self-protection,

6. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to infringe upon the efficacy of law enforcement or to promote violence,

Co-authored with Dirito-Opolis.

[Grays Harbor]

Category? Strength?

[Nueva Rico]

Category? Strength?

Added.

[Araraukar]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

"The saying "your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins" comes to mind. How is this a human rights issue?"

[Nueva Rico]

"The saying "your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins" comes to mind. How is this a human rights issue?"

Good question. Thank you for the feedback. I would never try to equivocate for violence, or the right to it. However, if pressed with a danger to one’s life or the life of their family, I believe undoubtedly that a person has the unalienable right to defend themselves from a threat, as stated, with no excess of force in regards to the danger of the threat at hand. The essence of the proposal is aimed at assuring individuals of that right, which is why this is categorized under “Human Rights”.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I won’t raise anything about the category. Mostly because this stuff about category is both a distraction and an irrelevant one at that. This is where it fits. Civil rights talks about government interference or control over people’s lives. Whether the label Human Rights is apt is irrelevant. The statistical effects speak for themselves.

Your proposal defines family as friends. And there should be an obligation on people not to stand their ground unless they lack alternative options. Immunising people from prosecution for killing people requires a higher standard. Against.

EDIT: Oh, and this gobbledygook significant? Who cares. What metrics or rules does anyone have to back it up? However it is, the consensus on this seemingly is basically that all resolutions talking about a single topic are mild, unless that topic is really really big. Which this isn’t.

[Grays Harbor]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

"The saying "your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins" comes to mind. How is this a human rights issue?"

If somebody is threatening you with bodily harm, attacking you, robbing you, trying to rape you, well, they have forfeited the “right” to not stop your fist with their face. 999 out of 1000, inviting them to sit down and discuss the social and cultural impact of their actions ain’t gonna work. Begging them “please don’t do this” NEVER works.

But, I don’t see this as Human Rights, nor significant, either.

[Grays Harbor]

And there should be an obligation on people not to stand their ground unless they lack alternative options. Immunising people from prosecution for killing people requires a higher standard.

You prefer people be victims instead. Great plan. What “alternative options” do you propose? Running from an armed person so they can shoot you and steal your stuff anyhow? Hiding in a room with a locked door, one that can be broken through easily as most interior doors are not that sturdy? Begging and pleading? How about telling them you have called the police, and if they can just hold off on raping you they should be along any time now. Maybe give them a hand loading out all your stuff and then ask for a receipt for your insurance company.
Any of these sound effective.

[Araraukar]

You prefer people be victims instead.

"Police forces exist for a reason. Keep crime low, lock up violent criminals, raise children to view violence as distasteful and shameful behaviour, restrict the access to lethal weapons, and you're unlikely to ever end up in a situation where you needed to resort to lethal force to protect yourself or your nearest and dearest. 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."

[Aclion]

And there should be an obligation on people not to stand their ground unless they lack alternative options.

So called "Duty to Retreat" laws create a huge legal problem for victims of crime, they allow those who were not the victim of the assault to second guess the reaction of the victim of an assault should react, all from the comfort of the courtroom. Victims are thus put in a position where they are held to a standard set by people who have the time to observe every possible response to the assault and deliberate which one was most appropriate, after the fact, and ignoring the that when a person is assaulted they do not generally have this luxury. And if they do not meet that standard, which they have no way of knowing in advance, they are made a criminal. It is the same issue you see with sexual assault cases where the victim is later asked "Why didn't you fight back?". The reason is that this is not how people's fight/flight/freeze response works.

[Nueva Rico]

”Police forces exist for a reason.

Defer to the section about how police forces are not always readily available in every country.

"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."

It’s more as a clarification for the second part of the clause, prohibiting any classification of a use of a common object, i.e. a chair, or fists to be classified as weapons, and thus, not a charge against using defensive force, but an attempted claim that the individual assaulted with a weapon.

[Christian Democrats]

We support this proposal. The international community ought to protect, by resolution, the inherent and fundamental right of individuals to defend their persons, liberties, properties, families, and reputations by means of reasonable force.

[Frankrussenstein]

I believe that this bill is a good piece of legislation. It is necessary to ensure that the right to protect one’s self is intact. This bill would not infringe on the right of a nation’s legal system to rule on what cases qualify as self defense, so I see no reason not to support it. I am not the delegate for my region. However, if I were, I would support this bill.

[Araraukar]

Defer to the section about how police forces are not always readily available in every country.

"Then that is those nations' problem, not that of civilized nations."

(OOC: I know you can't put in a "only applies to nations without police forces" but maybe you should put in something like "unless no other course of action, including calling for help from the law enforcement or other professional security forces, is possible" into clause 3. Because if someone's trying to break into your house with a lethal weapon on them, your first course of action should be to call the police, not sneak to the window they're climbing in through, wielding a chair.)

It’s more as a clarification for the second part of the clause, prohibiting any classification of a use of a common object, i.e. a chair, or fists to be classified as weapons, and thus, not a charge against using defensive force, but an attempted claim that the individual assaulted with a weapon.

"If a chair is used as a weapon, it should certainly count as a weapon for prosecuting the use of "unnecessary force". Also, you should specify if you are trying to mandate that people be allowed to use arms for this kind of self-defence. And if so, please be aware of the existing resolutions that limit people's access to or use of lethal weaponry."

(OOC: Especially as you include explosives into your "arms" list. They aren't normally used for self-defence outside of action movies.)

[Nueva Rico]

"If a chair is used as a weapon, it should certainly count as a weapon for prosecuting the use of "unnecessary force". Also, you should specify if you are trying to mandate that people be allowed to use arms for this kind of self-defence. And if so, please be aware of the existing resolutions that limit people's access to or use of lethal weaponry."

(OOC: Especially as you include explosives into your "arms" list. They aren't normally used for self-defence outside of action movies.)

The last clause is explicitly denying any mandate or allowance of arms in self-defense, and not saying that chairs should not be considered in the prosecution of the use of unnecessary force; it is to separate the inherent right to self-defense from any preconceived notion that I am trying to allow people to have weapons, or anything of that sort.

But, that common objects should not be considered in the same capacity as arms, as a loophole of assuring the right to self-defense, when it is ruled that the force was not excessive. Say, for example, a man is charged for knocking out an armed intruder in his home with a chair, and it is ruled that, under this statute, the intruder was an imminent threat and that the incapacitation of the individual was proper and necessary, but the nation prosecuting the case has a strict prohibition on the use or posession of arms, and attemps to frame the chair in the light of assault with a weapon, which would most likely be a separate charge from the original case.

[Aclion]

You should probably avoid reference to excessive force. That is a concept for law enforcement, that an officer must match the level of resistance with a appropriate amount of force to effect an arrest. In self-defence the standard is reasonable force, with the understanding that by the time self-defence is necessary (as in clause a.) you're already at the point where lethal force, the highest level of force, is a reasonable response, so there can be no such thing as excessive, only unreasonable.

[Aclion]

We support this proposal. The international community ought to protect, by resolution, the inherent and fundamental right of individuals to defend their persons, liberties, properties, families, and reputations by means of reasonable force.

No the international community should not. This is not an international matter at all, this is a sovereign matter which national governments should legislate upon. Mentoka stands opposed wholeheartedly.

Larry Chaffee
World Assembly Representative

Of course. What business do we have establishing protections for human rights? We've never done that before.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

We support this proposal. The international community ought to protect, by resolution, the inherent and fundamental right of individuals to defend their persons, liberties, properties, families, and reputations by means of reasonable force.

[Aclion]

*slaps CD with a glove*

You are a coward and ruffian and I challenge you to a duel!

[Christian Democrats]

We support this proposal. The international community ought to protect, by resolution, the inherent and fundamental right of individuals to defend their persons, liberties, properties, families, and reputations by means of reasonable force.

It's perfectly reasonable to use persuasive force and the force of the law to defend one's reputation against an unjust attack. If someone is attempting to kill you, on the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to use deadly force in self-defense. The kind and amount of force that is reasonable to defend oneself obviously varies depending on the circumstances.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

It's perfectly reasonable to use persuasive force and the force of the law to defend one's reputation against an unjust attack. If someone is attempting to kill you, on the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable to use deadly force in self-defense. The kind and amount of force that is reasonable to defend oneself obviously varies depending on the circumstances.

Of course. It's just that including "reputation" in a list of important things worthy of being defended with physical force, in a discussion about a resolution mandating the legality of deadly force in defense of same, might give someone the wrong idea. Context is everything.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Of course. It's just that including "reputation" in a list of important things worthy of being defended with physical force, in a discussion about a resolution mandating the legality of deadly force in defense of same, might give someone the wrong idea. Context is everything.

How dare you insult me in such a fashion! My honour demands that we might with swords, tomorrow at dawn!

[Grays Harbor]

Of course. It's just that including "reputation" in a list of important things worthy of being defended with physical force, in a discussion about a resolution mandating the legality of deadly force in defense of same, might give someone the wrong idea. Context is everything.

How dare you insult me in such a fashion! My honour demands that we might with swords, tomorrow at dawn!

Crossbows at 100 yards is more civilized

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan could support this. The qualifier in clause 3a is quite a high bar in that it only applies where there is a danger to the life of the individual or their family etc. We support this. The old legislation on the topic went too far. This goes just far enough. We will be pleased to vote in favour should we have the opportunity to do so if this remains.

"However, I would recommend that you tighten up the definition of family. I think another delegate has already pointed out that it is quite broad. If you want to allow for defence of non-related individuals, I'd recommend a second definition to cover this. Or perhaps something to make it clear that anyone could use force to defend someone in shared accommodation, or even in a work place or a public place (although I'd understand if you wished to leave this for separate legislation).

"I also recommend that you would delete the "assured absolution" part from clause 3. This contradicts the right to member states to use a court of law to assess the legality of claims in clause 4."

- Ted

[Nueva Rico]

"I also recommend that you would delete the "assured absolution" part from clause 3. This contradicts the right to member states to use a court of law to assess the legality of claims in clause 4."

“... [guarantees] assured absolution ... so long as,

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

b) The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented,”

Nations are not given the right to assess legality in any regards, as someone pointed out on the WA discord, they could simply determine a push is excessive force if they wished. Thus, they are given the ability to conduct investigation into the claim under the conditions of a) and b) which could not be logically misconstrued (i.e. you could simply not make a logical argument that a push is more dangerous and bodily harmful than a shotgun, a knife, or a rape). While I understand where you are coming from, it seems to hold water as it is.

I’m working on tighter specifications for Clause 1 but haven’t come around to anything that I like better just yet. It’s tough because you could argue that it’s not specific enough but also too specific that it doesn’t assure good samaritan law if you were to save a stranger from a threat.

I may settle on a slightly reworked version of the current Clause, for middleground.