Advertisement
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:20 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:05 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:If by 'complete jurisdiction', you mean to prohibit international review, I am against ever precluding the possibility of Assembly review of member state judicial decisions.
by Wallenburg » Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:45 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:If by 'complete jurisdiction', you mean to prohibit international review, I am against ever precluding the possibility of Assembly review of member state judicial decisions.
"Internstional review of self defense claims? What possible need has the World Assembly of preempting that hellish bit of law?"
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:39 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Internstional review of self defense claims? What possible need has the World Assembly of preempting that hellish bit of law?"
"I believe that the Anglican ambassador intends to have World Assembly oversight of everything ranging from capital cases to parking tickets by spring."
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:47 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Fucking bureaucrats."
by Aclion » Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:35 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Fucking bureaucrats."
by Wallenburg » Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:49 am
by Old Hope » Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:52 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:
- Member states may further limit the aforementioned affirmative defense
if the victim of the accused had the authorization to act on the state's behalfif the behaviour of the victim resulting in self-defense was a legal act on the state's behalf within their authorization to act on the state's behalf.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Melon feud » Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:59 pm
Jebslund wrote:Liberimery wrote:Could you give a scenario for article 3? I'm finding the situation vague and would like to clarify what it is intended to allow.
[OOC: If I read it correctly, it means self defense isn't valid against law enforcement doing their job. Be easier to just say anyone in the act of committing a crime can't claim self-defense and/or say self defense doesn't apply against law enforcement officials who have identified themselves as such and are carrying out their duties. Brevity is not always a good thing.]
by Melon feud » Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:15 pm
You my, FRIEND! are continually proving my initial categorization of you ,,, previously,,, as to the wrongness of my determining factors of face value judgment.
by Sacara » Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:45 pm
The Spacefaring Federation of Sacara"Our Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
I spend most of my time in the Got Issues? sub-forum.
Issues That I've Authored (15)
Commended by SC #382
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:28 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Internstional review of self defense claims? What possible need has the World Assembly of preempting that hellish bit of law?"
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:04 am
by Old Hope » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:10 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: barring major concerns, I see no reason not to submit this soon.
Member states may further limit the aforementioned affirmative defense if the victim of the accused had the authorization to act on the state's behalf.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:48 am
Old Hope wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: barring major concerns, I see no reason not to submit this soon.Member states may further limit the aforementioned affirmative defense if the victim of the accused had the authorization to act on the state's behalf.
"Well, if you intended that part to apply to all public servants, regardless of the actual situation... as such if the act resulting in self-defense was within their authorization or not...
then it is ready for submission."
by Bears Armed » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:50 am
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:11 am
by Xanthal » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:10 pm
by Arasi Luvasa » Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:21 pm
Xanthal wrote:I have no objection to the content per se, but this seems to me a solution in search of a problem. Is there a record which indicates WA intervention is necessary on this issue, or is this merely part of the ongoing efforts by the delegation from Separatist Peoples to become recognized as the most prolific authors of this body?
by Xanthal » Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:10 pm
Arasi Luvasa wrote:It is probably a response to the problematic resolution which was just repealed. It will prevent another attempt to get inadequate legislation on the topic passed.
by Aclion » Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:07 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Old Hope wrote:
"Well, if you intended that part to apply to all public servants, regardless of the actual situation... as such if the act resulting in self-defense was within their authorization or not...
then it is ready for submission."
"My intention is to permit states wide latitude to determine the extent of state authority."
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:41 am
Aclion wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"My intention is to permit states wide latitude to determine the extent of state authority."
I don't think you need to get into the details of which state agents are authorised to use force but I do think you need to make the distinction between whether the use of force being defended against is lawful. Home invaders should convicted of murder if they kill a resident, that the resident was pointing a gun at them at the time is immaterial.
I would replace it with something like "Member states may further limit the aforementioned affirmative defense if the the act being defended against was a lawful use of force."
I'm pretty sure that would cover anything under the existing clause, except for cases that involve WA noncompliance. That's not a major issue for me though. I expect a nation that will violate international law in a way that requires citizens to defend themselves from police officers is unlikely to refrain from punishing them for it simply because the WA says not to.
I also think you need to define what it means for the uses of force to be reasonable under the circumstances. Otherwise you are guaranteed to have asshat rulings that the use of force is not reasonable under any circumstances, and we have enough of that in real life.
Other then that I'm willing to support this.
by Aclion » Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:55 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"I trust the recent edits address your concerns, ambassador?"
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:03 am
Aclion wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"I trust the recent edits address your concerns, ambassador?"
I feel my concern regarding the meaning of reasonable force is addressed. (though I would recommend the use of reasonable person, since that terms already has a well established meaning, including in the realm of self defense.)
On the issue of lawfulness The issue of criminals claiming self defence when defending themselves from lawful force still remains. Unfortunately only the less pressing issue of state abuse of force was addressed.
by Aclion » Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:30 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Aclion wrote:I feel my concern regarding the meaning of reasonable force is addressed. (though I would recommend the use of reasonable person, since that terms already has a well established meaning, including in the realm of self defense.)
On the issue of lawfulness The issue of criminals claiming self defence when defending themselves from lawful force still remains. Unfortunately only the less pressing issue of state abuse of force was addressed.
"I did not address that directly to allow member states the nuance of determining at what point defense to lawful force may be asserted. I maintain that this is an issue best decided by a legislature below that of the World Assembly."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bisofeyr, Eco-Paris Reformation, The Ice States
Advertisement