NationStates

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.

The horror.

OOC: Would prolly make this more useful if this dug further into the right of member *nations* to defend themselves, as well as consider cases of *collective* self defense more clearly, what with clause 2's "to *another* individual, especially since the UNnameable organization's main article on self-defense is more concerned with *those*, by my lay interpretation.

Mundiferrum wrote:OOC: Would prolly make this more useful if this dug further into the right of member *nations* to defend themselves, as well as consider cases of *collective* self defense more clearly, what with clause 2's "to *another* individual, especially since the UNnameable organization's main article on self-defense is more concerned with *those*, by my lay interpretation.

(OOC: I would say that this proposal shouldn’t deal with the issue of national self-defence along with personal self-defence, since the two concepts are so different. Whilst that is a good topic, it belongs elsewhere.)

Mundiferrum wrote:OOC: Would prolly make this more useful if this dug further into the right of member *nations* to defend themselves, as well as consider cases of *collective* self defense more clearly, what with clause 2's "to *another* individual, especially since the UNnameable organization's main article on self-defense is more concerned with *those*, by my lay interpretation.

OOC: Covered by GAR#2.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Mundiferrum wrote:OOC: Would prolly make this more useful if this dug further into the right of member *nations* to defend themselves, as well as consider cases of *collective* self defense more clearly, what with clause 2's "to *another* individual, especially since the UNnameable organization's main article on self-defense is more concerned with *those*, by my lay interpretation.

OOC: Covered by GAR#2.

OOC: What about the defense of collectives by collectives? I don't think the resolution is as clear on that.

Support

"A shame. I was hoping to read a proposal affirming the right to keep and bear arms, which is, it seems, respected by a dwindling number of nations."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"A shame. I was hoping to read a proposal affirming the right to keep and bear arms, which is, it seems, respected by a dwindling number of nations."

"That, ambassador, is a right exclusively under the ambit of national governments. The World Assembly has no need to wade into that particular policy."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"A shame. I was hoping to read a proposal affirming the right to keep and bear arms, which is, it seems, respected by a dwindling number of nations."

"That, ambassador, is a right exclusively under the ambit of national governments. The World Assembly has no need to wade into that particular policy."

"I was under the impression that the prevention of tyranny was the world assembly's area of operation?"

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"That, ambassador, is a right exclusively under the ambit of national governments. The World Assembly has no need to wade into that particular policy."

"I was under the impression that the prevention of tyranny was the world assembly's area of operation?"

"This delegation believes firmly that firearm policy is an inherently domestic one that does not cross transnational boundaries. If you want to try to pass a WA protection on the right to bear arms, I invite you to do so. It will go over like a lead balloon. Because I want this to actually pass, I have no interest in including such a right."

"Last call."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Last call."

OOC: Asking OOCly because operating on about 4 hours of sleep in the last 48 and IC doesn't flow easily on something that the nation would be against as allowing too many freedoms for violence - am I reading it correctly that nations can rule that killing the other person is never acceptable (given the "minimal amount of force") as self defence? I mean, it's one thing to break a knifeman's arm, and quite another to break both their arms, legs and skull.

Araraukar wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Last call."

OOC: Asking OOCly because operating on about 4 hours of sleep in the last 48 and IC doesn't flow easily on something that the nation would be against as allowing too many freedoms for violence - am I reading it correctly that nations can rule that killing the other person is never acceptable (given the "minimal amount of force") as self defence? I mean, it's one thing to break a knifeman's arm, and quite another to break both their arms, legs and skull.

OOC: You have to let them assert the self-defense argument, but you are permitted to find that a certain amount of force, such as lethal force, is unwarranted given the circumstances. There is nothing that prevents you from finding that no use of lethal force is reasonable. As much as I think a world where you can respond to a drink thrown in your face with a good bayoneting is an ideal world, I recognize that this is an area of law that is best left to member states.

I think you would be hard pressed to make it de jure illegal to use lethal force, since that may be, theoretically, the minimal amount of force to defend oneself in a given circumstance, but I don't see how you would be barred from making it de facto the case.

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I think you would be hard pressed to make it de jure illegal to use lethal force, since that may be, theoretically, the minimal amount of force to defend oneself in a given circumstance, but I don't see how you would be barred from making it de facto the case.

OOC: Okay, thank you.

Get some good expees in RS this weekend, as I'm going to miss most of the double exp weekend...

"Full support from us. We understand the necessity of self-defense in other nations, even if we do not have that issue here, for the most part."

Ooc: bump

Ooc: since the most recent criticisms have been thinly veiled and poorly executed personal attacks or genuine misunderstandings of policy, I intend to submit this baring further productive criticism. Ideally that which is not merely an excuse to disparage my legislative agenda.

OOC:Looks like a blocker to me(not illegal, because it does something, albeit very lightly...).
IC:
The requirements, namely:

Satisfy a factual burden of proof not greater than that of the charge for which they are accused; or

Prove that they used reasonable force based on the circumstances.

are terrible, in most situations involving self-defense a factual burden of proof equal to the charge of murder is pretty high, and proving that you used reasonable force is nearly exclusively avaliable if you have witnesses. Most self-defense situations do not occur in a crowded space...

The definitions are a little... odd, but overall, I support.

Old Hope wrote:OOC:Looks like a blocker to me(not illegal, because it does something, albeit very lightly...).
IC:
The requirements, namely:

Satisfy a factual burden of proof not greater than that of the charge for which they are accused; or

Prove that they used reasonable force based on the circumstances.

are terrible, in most situations involving self-defense a factual burden of proof equal to the charge of murder is pretty high, and proving that you used reasonable force is nearly exclusively avaliable if you have witnesses. Most self-defense situations do not occur in a crowded space...

Ooc: they are hardly terrible. They do exactly what they are designed to do. The question of burden of proof is extremely jurisdiction specific so as to reflect local values and mores surrounding self defense. Where one lowers the burden of proof for a defense, one argues, in effect, that the presumption of defense is stronger than the presumption of innocence. Not all nations accept this. Not all states and territories accept this. Thus, as the question of what is fair and useful self defense is a question particularized to a locale, so too should the decision of burdens be localized.

I'm not sure why you have so little regard for foreign social structures and values. I suspect this is your usual inexperience with law at play.

Jedinsto wrote:The definitions are a little... odd, but overall, I support.

"How so, ambassador?"

"I'm not saying they don't work, in fact they do, they are just wordy and a little difficult to read, but I'm not sure how you could change them. Again, I support."

Separatist Peoples wrote:2. Member states must permit the accused to plead a rebuttable affirmative defense of self-defense to any charge of which an element is causing willful physical harm to another individual

3. Member states may establish domestic policies requiring that the claimant...

In section 3, I would use the same word as in section 2, which talks about the defendant pleading something. Rather than claimant (which I believe could be confusing in judiciaries without a strict separation between criminal and civil functions), I would use something perhaps like pleadant or 'the accused so pleading'. (Edited for clarity.)

OOC: Updated the preamble. Since it's just fluff, I hope to submit this soon and not open the floor to lengthy debate on the new preamble. Does anybody actually care about preambles? Absurd.

"Ambassador, never have I seen a proposal promise so much and deliver so little. The people of the multiverse could, I am sure, do without the World Assembly giving its support to those nations which treat attacks by so-called 'police officers' as different to attacks by any other person. In many of these nations we must remember, it is these so-called officers who serve as the greatest threat to the population."