Page 3 of 6

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:58 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Aclion wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"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.

"I believe I see what you mean now. Nations must accept the defense as plead, but they are under no obligation to find the defense effective, as it is rebuttable. That is, at least, the way I had written it. So, member states must allow the accused the opportunity to plea that their actions were in self defense, but the prosecution can rebut it with evidence that the force used by the officer was lawful and that the defense is inapplicable to the case.

"In short, I believe that, by requiring nations to allow the defense without obligating that they find it effective sufficiently, defendants retain the freedom to construct their own defense without depriving the state and it's enforcement officials of qualified immunity. I have edited the clause to clarify my meaning."

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:07 pm
by Old Hope
This resolution sounds pretty toothless right now.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:18 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Old Hope wrote:This resolution sounds pretty toothless right now.

"Good."

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:14 pm
by Xanthal
Uninspiring as always, Mister Bell.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:20 am
by Separatist Peoples
Xanthal wrote:Uninspiring as always, Mister Bell.

"Law isnt meant to be inspiring. It's meant to accomplish a goal. This goal is settling the issue of self defense by leaving it to member states."

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:40 am
by Xanthal
You know what else does that? Not passing a law. This is not an issue that was begging for a blocker. What's next? A resolution on ordinal numbers to prevent the WA from declaring that eight comes before seven? I think you've been here too long, Ambassador. Either that or your delegation is now being paid by the proposal.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:43 am
by Separatist Peoples
Xanthal wrote:You know what else does that? Not passing a law. This is not an issue that was begging for a blocker. What's next? A resolution on ordinal numbers to prevent the WA from declaring that eight comes before seven? I think you've been here too long, Ambassador. Either that or your delegation is now being paid by the proposal.

"Ambassador, I don't believe your delegation is in a position to regulate what the C.D.S.P.'s legislative agenda is or should be. Evidence shows that the issue of self defense is contentious and repetitive. A compromise between the major positions will satisfy the demand for legislation without overtly intruding upon domestic interests. I'm not sure why you are so resistant to compromise. Or, for that matter, this delegation."

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:41 am
by Xanthal
I call 'em like I see 'em, Ambassador. Lately the CDSP's legislative agenda has been more like a grab bag. Aside from some promising work on wartime provisional governing, you've either been addressing pedantic matters with little evidence of a need for WA intervention or writing proposals on legitimate issues that are so tied up in the knots of their own language as to be abominations of their expressed intent.

It's nothing personal; I don't always agree with your record, but I do admire it. I'm just saying that your recent work... maybe you could use a vacation? I do worry you know; this place does things to people. One must make time to get away. Call it a friendly suggestion.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:06 am
by Separatist Peoples
Xanthal wrote:I call 'em like I see 'em, Ambassador. Lately the CDSP's legislative agenda has been more like a grab bag. Aside from some promising work on wartime provisional governing, you've either been addressing pedantic matters with little evidence of a need for WA intervention or writing proposals on legitimate issues that are so tied up in the knots of their own language as to be abominations of their expressed intent.

It's nothing personal; I don't always agree with your record, but I do admire it. I'm just saying that your recent work... maybe you could use a vacation? I do worry you know; this place does things to people. One must make time to get away. Call it a friendly suggestion.

"Ambassador, if I leave these Halls without permission from my government, they'll probably shoot me. I don't get vacations.

"The pedantic topics, as you call them, are areas where standardization will improve commerce and reliability fornglobalized industries and individuals who's lives cross borders. An international standard for legal ambiguities resolves transactional costs and increases the ease of issue resolution.

"And, from my perspective, the language is clear. There are a number of ambassadors who insist WA law cater to the lowest common denominator of audiences, regardless of the issues that creates. I am, of course, always willing to hear suggestions. Since you perused my work, I'm sure you have plenty of ways I can unknot the various languages involved.

"In the instant case, you are correct that this will serve as a blocker. I doubt you and I will agree as to its necessity. If you have suggestions for the text, I am willing to hear them."

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:43 am
by Xanthal
I do so love the sound of my own voice; unfortunately my attention is more... divided than yours. Since you asked though, I'll try to make the time to give detailed input on your other endeavors in the near future. And possibly submit some concerns to your superiors regarding the terms of your employment.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:47 pm
by Separatist Peoples
OOC: Have I addressed all substantive concerns?

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:37 pm
by Old Hope
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Have I addressed all substantive concerns?

This is a de facto blocker with little impact.
Against.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:24 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia
"'Substantive?' Yeah, I got nothing. Piddling, though, I'm always good for. Clause 2:

2. Member states must permit the accused to plea a rebuttable affirmative defense...


"'Plea' is the noun. 'Plead' is the verb."

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:26 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Old Hope wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: Have I addressed all substantive concerns?

This is a de facto blocker with little impact.
Against.


"I generally consider your opposition to be a veritable champagne bottle smashed against the hull of my drafts, ambassador."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"'Substantive?' Yeah, I got nothing. Piddling, though, I'm always good for. Clause 2:

2. Member states must permit the accused to plea a rebuttable affirmative defense...


"'Plea' is the noun. 'Plead' is the verb."

"Another typo spellcheck does not find. Adjusted."

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:30 pm
by Doing it Rightland
Unless the goal of this resolution is to leave Self Defense up to individual nations, I don't believe this resolution does anything. If that is the end goal, I feel like passing a resolution barring the World Assembly from ever making any action regarding self defense to be pointless, especially if down the road there comes the need to enact some policy (I'm not sure what exactly).

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:47 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Doing it Rightland wrote:Unless the goal of this resolution is to leave Self Defense up to individual nations, I don't believe this resolution does anything. If that is the end goal, I feel like passing a resolution barring the World Assembly from ever making any action regarding self defense to be pointless, especially if down the road there comes the need to enact some policy (I'm not sure what exactly).

"If you can find one satisfactory reason for the World Assembly to subsume national purview on the topic, I will not submit this."

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:57 pm
by Doing it Rightland
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Doing it Rightland wrote:Unless the goal of this resolution is to leave Self Defense up to individual nations, I don't believe this resolution does anything. If that is the end goal, I feel like passing a resolution barring the World Assembly from ever making any action regarding self defense to be pointless, especially if down the road there comes the need to enact some policy (I'm not sure what exactly).

"If you can find one satisfactory reason for the World Assembly to subsume national purview on the topic, I will not submit this."

Fair point. Just wanted to hear what you had to say.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 3:58 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Doing it Rightland wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"If you can find one satisfactory reason for the World Assembly to subsume national purview on the topic, I will not submit this."

Fair point. Just wanted to hear what you had to say.

"Then your objection is moot."

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:19 pm
by Doing it Rightland
Separatist Peoples wrote:
Doing it Rightland wrote:Fair point. Just wanted to hear what you had to say.

"Then your objection is moot."

I suppose it is (Had to google what "moot" meant). Objection withdrawn.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:41 pm
by Liberimery
I would argue this is not a blocker as the burden the WA imposes on the member-state is that they must allow a self-defense plea as an affirmitive defense in a criminal case, but the WA is to allow member-states the leeway in what they constitute Self-Defense in their body of criminal law. A state that totally forbids the use of such defense would be in violation of this law, but a state that permits it more restrictively but not out of bounds of the proposal. For example, using self-defense against deputized law officers who are acting against someone in error (i.e. serving a search warrant to the wrong address and being shot by the otherwise law abiding citizen for invasion of privacy) may be permitted by some member-states as a lawful self-defense and barred by other states as not a lawful use of self-defense.


OOC: There was a local news story where the specific example did occur, and the homeowner was not charged because it was deemed that the cops served the warrant to the wrong address. The officer who was shot was mercifully not killed.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:57 pm
by Aclion
Separatist Peoples wrote:"I believe I see what you mean now. Nations must accept the defense as plead, but they are under no obligation to find the defense effective, as it is rebuttable. That is, at least, the way I had written it. So, member states must allow the accused the opportunity to plea that their actions were in self defense, but the prosecution can rebut it with evidence that the force used by the officer was lawful and that the defense is inapplicable to the case.

I'm afraid not. My concern is to do with lawful use of force by persons who are not law enforcement officers(or other state agents).
Basically it is that the resolution allows member states to limit self selfence claims in case where the victim was 1. Acting lawfully and B. Authorized to act on the state's behalf.
I would like them to have that power if the victim was acting lawfully or acting on the states behalf.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:08 pm
by Wallenburg
Liberimery wrote:I would argue this is not a blocker as the burden the WA imposes on the member-state is that they must allow a self-defense plea as an affirmitive defense in a criminal case, but the WA is to allow member-states the leeway in what they constitute Self-Defense in their body of criminal law. A state that totally forbids the use of such defense would be in violation of this law, but a state that permits it more restrictively but not out of bounds of the proposal. For example, using self-defense against deputized law officers who are acting against someone in error (i.e. serving a search warrant to the wrong address and being shot by the otherwise law abiding citizen for invasion of privacy) may be permitted by some member-states as a lawful self-defense and barred by other states as not a lawful use of self-defense.


OOC: There was a local news story where the specific example did occur, and the homeowner was not charged because it was deemed that the cops served the warrant to the wrong address. The officer who was shot was mercifully not killed.

Well, it isn't a pure blocker, nobody is questioning that. Pure blocker proposals are illegal. However, the main effect of this proposal is to block future legislation on the issue, while instituting some milquetoast requirements to keep the psychotic dictatorships at bay.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:14 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Aclion wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"I believe I see what you mean now. Nations must accept the defense as plead, but they are under no obligation to find the defense effective, as it is rebuttable. That is, at least, the way I had written it. So, member states must allow the accused the opportunity to plea that their actions were in self defense, but the prosecution can rebut it with evidence that the force used by the officer was lawful and that the defense is inapplicable to the case.

I'm afraid not. My concern is to do with lawful use of force by persons who are not law enforcement officers(or other state agents).
Basically it is that the resolution allows member states to limit self selfence claims in case where the victim was 1. Acting lawfully and B. Authorized to act on the state's behalf.
I would like them to have that power if the victim was acting lawfully or acting on the states behalf.

OOC: Sorry for the delay.

"That would immunize state actors from unlawful acts, which I am not in favor of doing."

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:43 am
by Samaster
Resolution seems good; supported.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:49 am
by Samaster
Stoskavanya wrote:Still skeptical that such a resolution is necessary in the first place, under the logic that if we begin to legislate on basic legal concepts such as this we will necessarily open the door to making further resolutions on dozens of useful yet common sense and uncreative legal concepts.


Isn't part of the WA's core idea to establish a legal baseline to ensure human rights?