[Abandoned] Reasonable Self-Defence Act

[Araraukar]

1. Defines:
   
   1. an "aggressor" as a person who attempts to do physical harm to another person,
   2. the "act of reasonable defence" to be the use of force to protect any person from an act of unlawful violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of unlawful violence,

OOC: So how is a person walking into a situation where someone is threatening another or even hitting another, supposed to know that the person being threatened is the original aggressor? Can they act to defend that person, even if the person they see as an aggressor, is acting according to this proposal? Can they both claim the defence - one of them of themself, the other of another person - as a legal defence and not be charged for battery/assault?

[The Yellow Monkey]

OOC: So how is a person walking into a situation where someone is threatening another or even hitting another, supposed to know that the person being threatened is the original aggressor? Can they act to defend that person, even if the person they see as an aggressor, is acting according to this proposal? Can they both claim the defence - one of them of themself, the other of another person - as a legal defence and not be charged for battery/assault?

I think the OP should also respond to this with their interpretation of the resolution.

However, based on the plain language of the proposal I would imagine (like in real life self-defence cases) it all comes down to what is reasonable to believe at the time you act to defend yourself or others. Your belief may be reasonable at the time you act even if you later get additional information revealing that your initial belief was mistaken.

For example, if you walked in to see Adam pummeling Zeke, who is on the ground cowering in fear, you might reasonably believe that Adam is using unlawful force on Zeke and try to stop it. Lets say you later learn that Zeke was threatening to shoot Adam while pulling a gun from his coat moments before you entered the room. Your belief at the time you acted - based on what you knew at the time - could still be considered reasonable.

[The Yellow Monkey]

Can they both claim the defence - one of them of themself, the other of another person - as a legal defence and not be charged for battery/assault?

Following up on my post above (which did not really address this bit).

The beauty of the right to self-defense is that anyone can claim it, as everyone has a right to it, but not everyone's belief will be reasonable. If a person claims they were legitimately defending themselves, but their belief that they were authorized to use force in self-defence unreasonable, they are not entitled to the protection of the right.

Going back to the previous example, Zeke may try to argue that he was planning to kill Adam with his gun in defence of others, because he heard Adam say that he would punch President Rump in the face first chance he gets. Up to society to decide whether that's a "reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of unlawful violence" (to use the language of the proposal).

But Ara does make a good point that the need for reasonable conduct is perhaps less clear in the proposal than it could be. I might suggest this addition:

the "act of reasonable defence" to be the use of force reasonably believed to be necessary to protect any person from an act of unlawful violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of unlawful violence

[Denathor]

OOC: I concur with both of YM's posts. There’s nothing stopping anyone from stepping in to break up a confrontation if they feel that it is reasonable to do so. However, remember that if someone files a criminal complaint, pending the result of an investigation, the use of force could be considered unreasonable. I believe that this would stop most people from getting involved in a "defence of others" situation if they don’t know the context of it, thus preventing a chain reaction of assaults.

I will also redo the suggested wording.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I believe that this would stop most people from getting involved in a "defence of others" situation if they don’t know the context of it, thus preventing a chain reaction of assaults.

OOC: So why not just ban it then? Or exclude it. Because if you're giving a free bill to do violence if you think you're being reasonable doing so, there's a problem of easily escalating situations. Imagine some of the racial tensions you get in places like USA (and SP, I'm just using USA as an example, not trying to say it's the only place in the world with racial violence) - if violence broke out between a gang of whites and a gang of Latinos or blacks or something, you would easily have a case of a gangfight/riot at your hands based n people reacting, in their minds, reasonably to defend others.

Could you at least consider some restriction, such as the person defended needing to be unable to defend theirself?

[Denathor]

Could you at least consider some restriction, such as the person defended needing to be unable to defend theirself?

I’d be happy to implement a restriction, especially that specific one, but I’m not sure where to put it. I don’t know if it can stand as it’s own clause, and I don’t think I can toss it on any of the existing clauses.

[The New Nordic Union]

Could you at least consider some restriction, such as the person defended needing to be unable to defend theirself?

I’d be happy to implement a restriction, especially that specific one, but I’m not sure where to put it. I don’t know if it can stand as it’s own clause, and I don’t think I can toss it on any of the existing clauses.

OOC: Or just lose the 'reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of unlawful violence'. As you said, one cannot stop people from being involved in such situations, but without this, it will only allow acts against aggressors as defined by the proposal to be considered 'defense'.

[Araraukar]

I’d be happy to implement a restriction, especially that specific one, but I’m not sure where to put it. I don’t know if it can stand as it’s own clause, and I don’t think I can toss it on any of the existing clauses.

OOC: Or just lose the 'reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of unlawful violence'. As you said, one cannot stop people from being involved in such situations, but without this, it will only allow acts against aggressors as defined by the proposal to be considered 'defense'.

OOC: ^This, and then use the definition to restrict the "defence" to self and persons unable to defend themselves.

[Denathor]

OOC: Changes were made for Draft 14:

1. Defines:
   
   1. an "aggressor" as a person who attempts to do physical harm to another person,
   2. the "act of reasonable defence" to be the use of force reasonably believed to be necessary to protect any person from an act of unlawful violence,
2. Mandates that the act of reasonable defence of oneself or persons unable to defend themselves shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens than other affirmative defences, unless the aggressor is severely or critically injured or killed,

[Araraukar]

OOC: Thank you.

[Denathor]

OOC: Bump. If there’s still no complaints after a few days, I’ll move it onto last call.

[Maowi]

"As written, clause 2 could be interpreted so that defence of others is only permitted where they are unable to defend themselves to any degree - such as in the case of a small child. I would suggest rewording it to avoid inadvertently allowing that, perhaps with something like 'Mandates that the act of reasonable defence of oneself or persons unable to protect themselves from an act of unlawful violence shall not be criminalized ...' etc. That is a little wordy, so you can probably think of a better way of phrasing it."

[Denathor]

"As written, clause 2 could be interpreted so that defence of others is only permitted where they are unable to defend themselves to any degree - such as in the case of a small child. I would suggest rewording it to avoid inadvertently allowing that, perhaps with something like 'Mandates that the act of reasonable defence of oneself or persons unable to protect themselves from an act of unlawful violence shall not be criminalized ...' etc. That is a little wordy, so you can probably think of a better way of phrasing it."

"Fixed. Thank you."

[The New Nordic Union]

"As written, clause 2 could be interpreted so that defence of others is only permitted where they are unable to defend themselves to any degree - such as in the case of a small child. I would suggest rewording it to avoid inadvertently allowing that, perhaps with something like 'Mandates that the act of reasonable defence of oneself or persons unable to protect themselves from an act of unlawful violence shall not be criminalized ...' etc. That is a little wordy, so you can probably think of a better way of phrasing it."

"Fixed. Thank you."

OOC: I have some issues regarding this requirement. Their might be other instances in which a person being attacked might not defend themselves, even if they are able to do so; what comes first to mind is a person being unwilling to defend themselves - be it because they eschew violence in general, or be it that they think holding still and getting over with the attack might be preferable to try out a defense and maybe anger the aggressor in the act.

[Denathor]

OOC: I have some issues regarding this requirement. Their might be other instances in which a person being attacked might not defend themselves, even if they are able to do so; what comes first to mind is a person being unwilling to defend themselves - be it because they eschew violence in general, or be it that they think holding still and getting over with the attack might be preferable to try out a defense and maybe anger the aggressor in the act.

OOC: At first I thought that it didn’t really matter, because when you enter a room and see a person being beaten up and not resisting, it looks the same to you, whether they’re unwilling or unable to defend themselves. But after thinking about, there does exist the possibility that a prosecutor could try to argue that because someone was unwilling to defend themselves doesn’t mean they were unable to, and thus the use of force couldn’t be considered reasonable.

This is an incredibly roundabout way of saying that I agree with you, and that I’ll add that to close the loophole.

[The Yellow Monkey]

snip

Honestly, you've considered Ara's suggestion about an "unable to defend themselves" restriction. You tried to implement it, and others immediately pointed out problems with doing so. This would be a good time to abandon it.

You should not restrict the right to defend others to situations where individuals cannot defend themselves. Ara's concern over self defense rights somehow spawning justifiable mob riots is a fantastic exaggeration at best; frankly, it's probably an imaginary "problem".

Coming to the aid of another who appears to be in need is a good natural inclination - perhaps one of the few of our species. I don't care if it's Muhammad Ali being assaulted, it should not matter that he's "able to defend himself" when it comes to the issue of whether you are justified in defending him against what reasonably appears to be unlawful violence. There is absolutely no reason to disincentive a good inclination by making people think twice about whether that person really needs the help out of fear that assisting someone who doesn't need it might mean criminal charges.

[Maowi]

OOC: Yes, I agree that you can do without that additional requirement. You already define "the "act of reasonable defence" to be the use of force reasonably believed to be necessary to protect a person from an act of unlawful violence," so any use of force beyond that absolutely necessary to remove the attacked person from danger would not be protected by this proposal. For me, that's sufficient.

[Denathor]

"I hope you’re both correct. I have changed the wording."

[Araraukar]

"Against as written, since it justifies rioting mobs using this as a legal defence."

OOC: Anyone saying that's not true, point out the bit that makes it not true as long as the word "any" is included. Also, understand that in IC Araraukar is a police state and will oppose anything that gives the population any right to act violently. Even as restricted as currently.

I get that you're editing reactively, but what was the actual reasoning for removing the restriction? Your own words, not copypasting.

[Denathor]

"I am afraid I must disagree with you on this point. The way the bill is written does not justify any sort of activity you seem to be worried about."

OOC: I get that the WA is just massive bureaucracy in terms of trying to get nations of all different types to agree on a single piece of legislation, but I personally want this to be as simple as possible. If that means I can remove parts that don’t serve any use beyond what I already have written.

You’re worried (at least IC) about the possibility of a chain reaction event. However, I refer you to Clause 1(ii) and Clause 3:

the "act of reasonable defence" to be the use of force reasonably believed to be necessary to protect any person from an act of unlawful violence,

Further mandates that... charges may... be laid after an investigation... determines that the use of force went beyond what is considered reasonable by the laws of the nation,

I emphasize the underlined portions because I believe they already address your concern. If the judiciary or legislature decides that a riot is beyond what us "reasonable," or else that whatever use of force could not be reasonably believed to be necessary, then the legal protections this draft provides will not apply to them.

[The Yellow Monkey]

"Against as written, since it justifies rioting mobs using this as a legal defence."

A member of a rioting mob (in the ordinary sense without further context) could not claim, with a straight face, that they were rioting as a "necessary" measure to "protect" themselves or someone else. Such a scenario fails the reasonableness test already baked into the law.

But lets assume, for sake of argument, that a group of people - the RiotousMobbians - are being subject to violent persecution and genocide. In that case, perhaps they could engage in group violence in collective self defense. Far from being an undesirable product of the Convention on Defense of Self and Others, I would consider that outcome a positive.

Beyond the more obvious applications in personal defense situations, would this proposal make it more difficult for repressive police states to control their populations with violence? Maybe. But that would be a good thing for the worldwide civil rights, even if it's a bummer for the terrible preferences of dystopias like Araraukar.

[The New Nordic Union]

"Against as written, since it justifies rioting mobs using this as a legal defence."

OOC: Anyone saying that's not true, point out the bit that makes it not true as long as the word "any" is included. Also, understand that in IC Araraukar is a police state and will oppose anything that gives the population any right to act violently. Even as restricted as currently.

I get that you're editing reactively, but what was the actual reasoning for removing the restriction? Your own words, not copypasting.

OOC: The word that makes it not true is the 'unlawful' in 'act of unlawful violence'. A person defending someone from an aggressor is acting lawfully. So, therefore, anyone attacking that person is not acting in self-defense as defined by the proposal.
This is also the case in many RL legal orders. [EDIT: This also includes Finland, as far as I have been able to find out.]

[Araraukar]

OOC: The word that makes it not true is the 'unlawful' in 'act of unlawful violence'. A person defending someone from an aggressor is acting lawfully. So, therefore, anyone attacking that person is not acting in self-defense as defined by the proposal.

OOC: And if you see Person A pummeling Person B, how are you to know that Person B was the original attacker, if you didn't witness the original threatening action? That's my whole point. And that's how mobs tend to react; not knowing who started it, they read the situation as is (that is, it's an unlawful attack on someone), and react to that, no matter how non-justified it is. The proposal would justify the mob's reaction, as in their POV they would be defending someone from an acute attack. Enter the opposite mob, seeing the new situation, reacting to that, etc.

Unless nations are able to make any "vigilante violence" unlawful, then that's going to hold true. And if nations are able to do that, then this can't be Strong strength, as nations can pass national laws to make it not apply.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: The word that makes it not true is the 'unlawful' in 'act of unlawful violence'. A person defending someone from an aggressor is acting lawfully. So, therefore, anyone attacking that person is not acting in self-defense as defined by the proposal.

OOC: And if you see Person A pummeling Person B, how are you to know that Person B was the original attacker, if you didn't witness the original threatening action? That's my whole point. And that's how mobs tend to react; not knowing who started it, they read the situation as is (that is, it's an unlawful attack on someone), and react to that, no matter how non-justified it is. The proposal would justify the mob's reaction, as in their POV they would be defending someone from an acute attack. Enter the opposite mob, seeing the new situation, reacting to that, etc.

Unless nations are able to make any "vigilante violence" unlawful, then that's going to hold true. And if nations are able to do that, then this can't be Strong strength, as nations can pass national laws to make it not apply.

OOC: There is no way for you to do so, but the risk for being wrong is on you. It does not enable mobs to use self-defense as a legal defense, which was your point, when it is not justified. I see what you are getting at in that it might be undesirable for mobs going around dishing out 'justice' as they seem fit... however, they will still be prosecuted (and especially so in a police state, I would assume) in a way that dissuades others from doing as they did. This however should not mean it should be impossible for persons to come to the aid of another.
As before, I have not heard of any RL countries which allow for broad defense having problems with mob violence being defended in court using this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: (Back on mobile, sorry for answer brevity.) That's because in RL judges are given considerable leeway in how to apply national laws and international ones don't have the force of law unless ratified. In NS that doesn't work, with WA law being absolute, no wiggle room given.

Regardless of that, given that nations are allowed some leeway in what is lawful and what isn't, this doesn't read as Strong, but Significant instead.

And you can expect Araraukar to find every possible wiggle room inch to strangle this out of existence in IC. But that's just RP and shouldn't have any effect on proposal text as such.