Page 2 of 6

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:20 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
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.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:05 pm
by Separatist Peoples
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?"

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:45 pm
by Wallenburg
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?"

"I believe that the Anglican ambassador intends to have World Assembly oversight of everything ranging from capital cases to parking tickets by spring."

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:39 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia
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."


"Support. If cops need more funding they can hold date auctions and calendar shoots like any other department. You can shove your parking tickets right up your Bolshevik fu..."

Steph's phone rings rather shrilly. She looks embarrassed for a moment, but picks it up, listens for a moment, and glowers before saying, "Yes... sir. Understood."

She sighs.

"Please be aware that my previous statement was made with incomplete information and should be disregarded. Our government will not consent to have anything less than the most serious of cases subjected to WA or any other international review."

Steph scowls and mutters under her breath as she sits down. "Fucking bureaucrats."

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:47 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Fucking bureaucrats."

You've got me there.

But more broadly, what if a self-defence claim has to do with some serious case?

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:35 am
by Aclion
Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Fucking bureaucrats."

You've got me there.

But more broadly, what if a self-defence claim has to do with some serious case?

Surely self defence claims are always serious cases.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"Fucking bureaucrats."

Something something James Madison.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:49 am
by Wallenburg
Aclion wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You've got me there.

But more broadly, what if a self-defence claim has to do with some serious case?

Surely self defence claims are always serious cases.

Perhaps not always, but I must admit that I was under the impression that we all thought homicides were serious cases.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:52 am
by Old Hope
Separatist Peoples wrote:
  1. 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 if 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.


Bold areas denote changes of the original quote.
Trying to close a loophole.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:59 pm
by Melon feud
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.]

Thats the way I'm swinging with the dandruff of this bullshit,myself, FRIEND!



* YA KNOW IT'S MIND RIPPINGLY BIZARRE THAT A FORMERLY CONVICTED FELON IN THE "say" STATE of INDIANA ( u.s.a.) may possess a 'civil war era ' functional firearm, BUT in the STATE of ARIZONA? ,,, yer' drawer full of ginzo steak knives are cause fer' yer' LOCK DOWN.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:15 pm
by Melon feud
Wallenburg wrote:
Aclion wrote:Surely self defence claims are always serious cases.

Perhaps not always, but I must admit that I was under the impression that we all thought homicides were serious cases.
You my, FRIEND! are continually proving my initial categorization of you ,,, previously,,, as to the wrongness of my determining factors of face value judgment.

* can we be FREN'S?,,,HuH?*

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:45 pm
by Sacara
Support.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:28 am
by Imperium Anglorum
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Internstional review of self defense claims? What possible need has the World Assembly of preempting that hellish bit of law?"

I dunno, but I could imagine with the creation of an international appellate tribunal, the WA would have to re-adjudicate self-defence claims.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:04 am
by Separatist Peoples
Ooc: barring major concerns, I see no reason not to submit this soon.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:10 am
by Old Hope
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."

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:48 am
by Separatist Peoples
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."

"My intention is to permit states wide latitude to determine the extent of state authority."

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:50 am
by Bears Armed
OOC
How would clause 3 interact with 'Respondeat Superior'?

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:11 am
by Separatist Peoples
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
How would clause 3 interact with 'Respondeat Superior'?

"Self defense is a total defense to both criminal and civil charges in most jurisdictions. Clause three would allow an employee to assert the defense, and permit a court to decide whether that defense is effective."

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:10 pm
by Xanthal
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?

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:21 pm
by Arasi Luvasa
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?

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.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:10 pm
by Xanthal
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.

So we're to support this inadequate legislation... in order to prevent the future submission of other inadequate legislation on the same subject? Granted I've bought that argument before with GAR#128, but abortion was a highly contentious issue that had already consumed an absurd amount of the Assembly's time (and the UN before it) and threatened to do so interminably in the absence of an effective blocker. I see no analogous situation here.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:07 pm
by Aclion
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."

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.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:41 am
by Separatist Peoples
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.


"I trust the recent edits address your concerns, ambassador?"

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:55 am
by Aclion
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.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:03 am
by Separatist Peoples
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.

"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."

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:30 pm
by Aclion
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."

The issue is because this resolution establishes the circumstances in which a nation must accept a claim of self defence, if you don't narrow that requirement to allow nations to exclude claims of self defence against lawful force then nations will still be required to accept those claims. As written nations still must accept a claim of self defense from a criminal who kills a victim that violently resists. This is clearly not your intention, nor is it in the interest of giving member states discrepancy over the matter.