[PASSED] Repeal "Right to Self-defence"

[Caracasus]

"This repeal will not divest you of a national right to allow self defense."

It should be a universal right that all nations should guarantee their people, just like a certain degree of freedom of speech.

There really aren't that many people who disagree with the basic premise that people are entitled to use reasonable force in immediate self defence. The problem here is not the topic, but the execution of the resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This repeal will not divest you of a national right to allow self defense."

"Perhaps the repeal will not, but I believe the concerns of the Kusonian delegation may be similar to ours. A surprising number of nations do not believe the people have a right to self defense, and may seek to impose their views upon the rest of us in a so-called 're-write' of the policy."

- Ambassador Gregory Williams

"Slippery slope fallacies are bad debating tactics, ambassador. Have you any credible evidence of this effort occuring?"

"This repeal will not divest you of a national right to allow self defense."

It should be a universal right that all nations should guarantee their people, just like a certain degree of freedom of speech.

"Then it should be accomplished with a draft that doesn't legalize shooting back at police."

[LiberNovusAmericae]

"Perhaps the repeal will not, but I believe the concerns of the Kusonian delegation may be similar to ours. A surprising number of nations do not believe the people have a right to self defense, and may seek to impose their views upon the rest of us in a so-called 're-write' of the policy."

- Ambassador Gregory Williams

"Slippery slope fallacies are bad debating tactics, ambassador. Have you any credible evidence of this effort occuring?"

It should be a universal right that all nations should guarantee their people, just like a certain degree of freedom of speech.

"Then it should be accomplished with a draft that doesn't legalize shooting back at police."

It doesn't, because the original proposal specifically stated that a threat to a persons life would have to be present.

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,

4. Assures 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,

A police officer conducting a lawful arrest doesn't pose a clear or immediate danger to a person's life, unless the police conduct summary executions.

[Ru-]

Ru simply opposes poorly written resolutions, and the WA attempting to write it's members case law for them.

This is not an international matter, and therefore, none of the WA's business. Individual nations should be left to decide what self defense means on thier own, according to thier own laws and do not require this body to try and figure out how that dhould happen. (I know many nations disagree with us on this point and our somewhat narrow view of the WA's proper scope including, ironically enough, the author of this very repeal.)

It is also hardly even necessary. Name a single nation that did not have self defense as an affirmative defense. We certainly have difficulty coming up with any examples. Self defense is nearly univrrsally dupported, and this fact is how such a badly written resolution was able to pass in the first place. (and since we know it needs pointing out, we have self defense in our own law.)

Our apologies to the target's author (who clearly worked very hard) for our bluntness, but we felt the unfair mischaracterisation of the motives of the repeal's supporters by some of the nations opposed to it have forced our hand.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Slippery slope fallacies are bad debating tactics, ambassador. Have you any credible evidence of this effort occuring?"



"Then it should be accomplished with a draft that doesn't legalize shooting back at police."

It doesn't, because the original proposal specifically stated that a threat to a persons life would have to be present.

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,

4. Assures 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,

A police officer conducting a lawful arrest doesn't pose a clear or immediate danger to a persons life, unless the police conduct summary executions.

"A police officer engaged in lethal force is a threat to life, regardless of the lawfulness of that threat, ambassador. Lawful force can be clear and immediate. This is not difficult to comprehend.

"Nobody saying that any attempted arrest is ipso facto a threat. If an officer has to increase the force continuum, that creates a clear and immediate threat, to which one may lawfully respond with force. Which is patently absurd."

[Caracasus]

Under this legislation, am I correct in assuming if I heard someone break into my house and confronted them with a baseball bat, they would be able to kill me and claim self defence as I likely posed a risk to their life?

[Separatist Peoples]

Under this legislation, am I correct in assuming if I heard someone break into my house and confronted them with a baseball bat, they would be able to kill me and claim self defence as I likely posed a risk to their life?

"Under a textual interpretation, yes. Another reason to repeal this dreck."

[LiberNovusAmericae]

It doesn't, because the original proposal specifically stated that a threat to a persons life would have to be present.
A police officer conducting a lawful arrest doesn't pose a clear or immediate danger to a persons life, unless the police conduct summary executions.

"A police officer engaged in lethal force is a threat to life, regardless of the lawfulness of that threat, ambassador. Lawful force can be clear and immediate. This is not difficult to comprehend.

"Nobody saying that any attempted arrest is ipso facto a threat. If an officer has to increase the force continuum, that creates a clear and immediate threat, to which one may lawfully respond with force. Which is patently absurd."

An increase of force still doesn't qualify as a threat to a person's life. A police officer tackling someone is not going to kill them, and if the perpetrator tries to kill the police officer, the police officer is still within his or her rights to retaliate with lethal force.]

---

Under this legislation, am I correct in assuming if I heard someone break into my house and confronted them with a baseball bat, they would be able to kill me and claim self defence as I likely posed a risk to their life?

That would probably still be seen as "excessive" force.

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,

[Separatist Peoples]

"A police officer engaged in lethal force is a threat to life, regardless of the lawfulness of that threat, ambassador. Lawful force can be clear and immediate. This is not difficult to comprehend.

"Nobody saying that any attempted arrest is ipso facto a threat. If an officer has to increase the force continuum, that creates a clear and immediate threat, to which one may lawfully respond with force. Which is patently absurd."

An increase of force still doesn't qualify as a threat to a person's life. A police officer tackling someone is not going to kill them, and if the perpetrator tries to kill the police officer, the police officer is still within his or her rights to retaliate with lethal force.

"At which time, the person is legally allowed to use lethal force against the police officer. Good lord, have you even thought about your argument, ambassador? As soon as the police officer escalates to physical force that could be classified as a clear threat to life, the criminal individual is legally allowed to assert a self defense claim under this law. Regardless of whether the criminal caused the escalation. Regardless of the criminal's own crimes or actions. That is patently idiotic. And so, the repeal is justified."

[Caracasus]

"A police officer engaged in lethal force is a threat to life, regardless of the lawfulness of that threat, ambassador. Lawful force can be clear and immediate. This is not difficult to comprehend.

"Nobody saying that any attempted arrest is ipso facto a threat. If an officer has to increase the force continuum, that creates a clear and immediate threat, to which one may lawfully respond with force. Which is patently absurd."

An increase of force still doesn't qualify as a threat to a person's life. A police officer tackling someone is not going to kill them, and if the perpetrator tries to kill the police officer, the police officer is still within his or her rights to retaliate with lethal force.]

---

Under this legislation, am I correct in assuming if I heard someone break into my house and confronted them with a baseball bat, they would be able to kill me and claim self defence as I likely posed a risk to their life?

That would probably still be seen as "excessive" force.

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,

I had a weapon, they would be reasonable in assuming I intended to hurt and possibly kill them. Even if we accept your interpertation, which I don't, the burgler in this instance would certainly get away with hospitalizing me with no consequence whatsoever. I had no idea you were so pro crime.

[Halcyonis]

The Halcyonic delegation is for the repealing of this poorly worded resolution, believing it leaves far too many points ambiguous and leaves many loopholes. While supporting a repeal, the national representatives may choose to vote for an improved, more clarified version of the bill.

[Eastern Don Mard]

Eastern Don Mard support's the repeal of "Right to Self-defence." Mainly for the fact that if we were to oblige to the said proposal, we would be looking at an increase of violence in many Nation-State's. Eastern Don Mard can get behind to having self-defence a right IF there were fewer loopholes and more detailed. The fact that people can use violence against the law force if deemed a threat to safety is one thing we do not support. If in the case the law force is a threat to the safety of an innocent, it would make sense to be able to protect oneself and have said police officer punished. However, if you had a criminal being shot at, they would be able to say they felt unsafe and therefore shot back. We support the right to self-defence but if the resolution were to come back and written better, they would have our full support.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

An increase of force still doesn't qualify as a threat to a person's life. A police officer tackling someone is not going to kill them, and if the perpetrator tries to kill the police officer, the police officer is still within his or her rights to retaliate with lethal force.

"At which time, the person is legally allowed to use lethal force against the police officer. Good lord, have you even thought about your argument, ambassador? As soon as the police officer escalates to physical force that could be classified as a clear threat to life, the criminal individual is legally allowed to assert a self defense claim under this law. Regardless of whether the criminal caused the escalation. Regardless of the criminal's own crimes or actions. That is patently idiotic. And so, the repeal is justified."

"Well, no if it was the perpetrator who escalated to lethal force to begin with. In that case it would be the police officer who would have the right to claim self defense. It states very clearly in the resolution that force may not be excessive, I'm sure that escalating violence with a police officer would still fall under "excessive" force. Also, there is nothing in the resolution that states that all self defense claims are to be treated as valid by definition. Also, don't ask me stupid questions such as whether I thought about my argument, because if I didn't bother to think, then I wouldn't be bothering to respond to you!"

[Caracasus]

"At which time, the person is legally allowed to use lethal force against the police officer. Good lord, have you even thought about your argument, ambassador? As soon as the police officer escalates to physical force that could be classified as a clear threat to life, the criminal individual is legally allowed to assert a self defense claim under this law. Regardless of whether the criminal caused the escalation. Regardless of the criminal's own crimes or actions. That is patently idiotic. And so, the repeal is justified."

"Well, no if it was the perpetrator who escalated to lethal force to begin with. In that case it would be the police officer who would have the right to claim self defense. It states very clearly in the resolution that force may not be excessive, I'm sure that escalating violence with a police officer would still fall under "excessive" force. Also, there is nothing in the resolution that states that all self defense claims are to be treated as valid by definition. "

Not really, no. It is worth pointing out at this point that if the suspect's husband or wife discovered their spouse engaged in a firefight with an officer, regardless of who initiated it, they could gun down the officer without any consequence.

Again, I had no idea you were such a firm supporter of violent crime.

[Palractus]

Vehemently against. These insta-repeals from delegates with bruised feelings over losing GA votes are absurd in the extreme.

Agreed

[LiberNovusAmericae]

"Well, no if it was the perpetrator who escalated to lethal force to begin with. In that case it would be the police officer who would have the right to claim self defense. It states very clearly in the resolution that force may not be excessive, I'm sure that escalating violence with a police officer would still fall under "excessive" force. Also, there is nothing in the resolution that states that all self defense claims are to be treated as valid by definition. "

Not really, no. It is worth pointing out at this point that if the suspect's husband or wife discovered their spouse engaged in a firefight with an officer, regardless of who initiated it, they could gun down the officer without any consequence.

You admittedly have a point there.

Again, I had no idea you were such a firm supporter of violent crime.

That's an outrageous conclusion.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

While the WA is nothing more than a philosophical fiction, if you vote to repeal the "Right to Self-Defense", you would be stripping the rights of (granted, imaginary) people to defend themselves. Would you be willing to tell a child that he can not fight back against a bully? Would you be willing to arrest a child because he spun the wheel of his/her abductor's vehicle, getting them into a wreck and killing said abductor? Would you be willing to execute a woman for defend

Tenno, this right to self defense is better handled by nations themselves. If this resolution is repealed i doubt most will lose their rights, many nations probably have this codified in their laws, if someone is being threatened there won't be any consequences against them within context.

[Caracasus]

Not really, no. It is worth pointing out at this point that if the suspect's husband or wife discovered their spouse engaged in a firefight with an officer, regardless of who initiated it, they could gun down the officer without any consequence.

You admittedly have a point there.

Again, I had no idea you were such a firm supporter of violent crime.

That's an outrageous conclusion.

I am glad you concede. This law does not take into account a wide range of circumstances that it really should.

[Marcianus]

Instantly against. There is no evidence whatsoever to tell us to not defend ourselves, just because some innocent people get hurt, which again, there is no evidence to suggest that it even happens often. If it does happen, it's very rare, indeed.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

You admittedly have a point there.

That's an outrageous conclusion.

I am glad you concede. This law does not take into account a wide range of circumstances that it really should.

Please note that I support a succeeding proposal that is very similar to "Right to Self-defense" just with extra provisions to close any potential loopholes.

[Caracasus]

Instantly against. There is no evidence whatsoever to tell us to not defend ourselves, just because some innocent people get hurt, which again, there is no evidence to suggest that it even happens often. If it does happen, it's very rare, indeed.

Again, this repeal does not remove the right to self defence.

This repeal removes a flawed piece of legislation that unwittingly protects violent criminals.

[Caracasus]

I am glad you concede. This law does not take into account a wide range of circumstances that it really should.

Please note that I support a succeeding proposal that is very similar to "Right to Self-defense" just with extra provisions to close any potential loopholes.

That would broadly be my take on this too. Most people do not have an issue with the idea of reasonable self defense in the face of immediate threat, however the legislation for it here is not fit for purpose.

[Marcianus]

Instantly against. There is no evidence whatsoever to tell us to not defend ourselves, just because some innocent people get hurt, which again, there is no evidence to suggest that it even happens often. If it does happen, it's very rare, indeed.

Again, this repeal does not remove the right to self defence.

This repeal removes a flawed piece of legislation that unwittingly protects violent criminals.

And again, there is no proven evidence to support that claim.

[Caracasus]

Again, this repeal does not remove the right to self defence.

This repeal removes a flawed piece of legislation that unwittingly protects violent criminals.

And again, there is no proven evidence to support that claim.

Under this legislation the following things could be classed as self defense:

An armed robber has a police officer point a gun at them, the robber shoots the officer dead and claims self defence as they beleived their life was in danger.

A suspect's spouse finds their partner engaged in a firefight with a police officer. They shoot the police officer dead and claim self defence as they were protecting a family member from harm.

A person hears a burgler in their house and confronts them, holding a baseball bat. The burgler maims the person they were burgling and is not charged with assault as they were acting in self defense.

It is a poorly thought out piece of legislation.

[Akrenea]

I am against this repeal. The resolution that was recently passed doesn`t necessarily say it allows criminals to defend themselves against Law Enforcement. What it does say though is that citizens should be allowed to defend themselves when Law Enforcement is not there to protect them.