NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Self-Defense Compact

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Self-Defense Compact

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:03 am

Self-Defense Compact
Civil Rights | Mild


Admiring the indomitable spirit of all living creatures to preserve themselves against all odds;

Believing that the need to use lethal force is a tragedy, regardless of how necessary it may be;

Concerned that, though intended to ensure peaceful and rational social interactions, some societies nonetheless punish the use of violence when used to defend an individual against exigent risks to self and others;

Seeking to strike a balance between society's efforts to reduce violence and the individual's inherent right to survive when attacked;

The World Assembly hereby establishes the following:

  1. "Reasonable force" is the minimal amount of force an ordinary person would use to prevent or stop a similar attack in similar circumstances.
  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:

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

    2. Prove that they used reasonable force based on the circumstances.
  4. Member states may further limit the aforementioned affirmative defense if the victim of the accused had the authorization to lawfully act on the state's behalf.

  5. Member states otherwise have complete, exclusive jurisdiction over legal regulation of individual self-defense or defense of others in their territory for the purposes of criminal prosecution and associated civil proceedings.
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Sun Mar 21, 2021 7:34 am, edited 17 times in total.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Liberimery
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 402
Founded: May 27, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Liberimery » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:45 am

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.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:47 am

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.

"It is intended to allow member states refuse to apply the defense as against a state actor, like a police officer or enforcement agent."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2961
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jebslund » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:52 am

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.]
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21122
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:09 am

OOC: Perhaps we should make sure that further legislation concerning police/military conduct is not blocked by clause 3?
In the meantime you are here, and it’s beautiful, and escaping isn’t always something bad.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:09 am

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.]

OOC: I wanted to leave that to the member states. It may be that somebody committing a minor crime can nonetheless justifiably claim self defense in some jurisdictions. Your suggestion requires jurisdiction-specific information.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:11 am

Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Perhaps we should make sure that further legislation concerning police/military conduct is not blocked by clause 3?

OOC: How so?

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2961
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jebslund » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:16 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Jebslund wrote:[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.]

OOC: I wanted to leave that to the member states. It may be that somebody committing a minor crime can nonetheless justifiably claim self defense in some jurisdictions. Your suggestion requires jurisdiction-specific information.

[OOC: Eh, then word it in a way that allows it to be up to individual nations. My point is that there's a clearer way to put it.]
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:17 am

Jebslund wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I wanted to leave that to the member states. It may be that somebody committing a minor crime can nonetheless justifiably claim self defense in some jurisdictions. Your suggestion requires jurisdiction-specific information.

[OOC: Eh, then word it in a way that allows it to be up to individual nations. My point is that there's a clearer way to put it.]

OOC: Silence is inherently a reservation to member states, as the WA can only act where it has explicit authorization from a resolution.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1205
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Attempted Socialism » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:20 am

OOC: Article 3 reads weird to me. I know what you're trying to do, but when the clauses just before are about the defendant (Who is, after all, also claiming to be a victim in order to get the benefit of affirmative defence), the slightly convoluted language of Article 3 to victim initially seemed to limit self-defence when claimed by public employees. Could you make it clearer between Article 2 and 3 that there's a change of subject (From the defendant who claims self-defence to the victim of the claimed self-defence)?


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21122
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:20 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Perhaps we should make sure that further legislation concerning police/military conduct is not blocked by clause 3?

OOC: How so?

OOC: Imo, it doesn't act as a blocker, but at least one GenSec member would insist that a resolution installing police deescalation methods, for instance, would contradict that clause.
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: Article 3 reads weird to me. I know what you're trying to do, but when the clauses just before are about the defendant (Who is, after all, also claiming to be a victim in order to get the benefit of affirmative defence), the slightly convoluted language of Article 3 to victim initially seemed to limit self-defence when claimed by public employees. Could you make it clearer between Article 2 and 3 that there's a change of subject (From the defendant who claims self-defence to the victim of the claimed self-defence)?

It does that right here:
Member states may further limit the affirmative defense if the victim of the crime has the authorization to act on the state's behalf.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
In the meantime you are here, and it’s beautiful, and escaping isn’t always something bad.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:23 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: Article 3 reads weird to me. I know what you're trying to do, but when the clauses just before are about the defendant (Who is, after all, also claiming to be a victim in order to get the benefit of affirmative defence), the slightly convoluted language of Article 3 to victim initially seemed to limit self-defence when claimed by public employees. Could you make it clearer between Article 2 and 3 that there's a change of subject (From the defendant who claims self-defence to the victim of the claimed self-defence)?

OOC: I did. I named the victim rather than the accused.

Wallenburg wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: How so?

OOC: Imo, it doesn't act as a blocker, but at least one GenSec member would insist that a resolution installing police deescalation methods, for instance, would contradict that clause.
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: Article 3 reads weird to me. I know what you're trying to do, but when the clauses just before are about the defendant (Who is, after all, also claiming to be a victim in order to get the benefit of affirmative defence), the slightly convoluted language of Article 3 to victim initially seemed to limit self-defence when claimed by public employees. Could you make it clearer between Article 2 and 3 that there's a change of subject (From the defendant who claims self-defence to the victim of the claimed self-defence)?

It does that right here:
Member states may further limit the affirmative defense if the victim of the crime has the authorization to act on the state's behalf.

OOC: I'm having a really hard time twisting Clause 3 into a blocker on something like de-escalation efforts. Am I missing something?

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2961
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jebslund » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:27 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Jebslund wrote:[OOC: Eh, then word it in a way that allows it to be up to individual nations. My point is that there's a clearer way to put it.]

OOC: Silence is inherently a reservation to member states, as the WA can only act where it has explicit authorization from a resolution.

[OOC: I mean there was a clearer way to say what you said in the clause. Instead of, "3.Member states may further limit the affirmative defense if the victim of the crime has the authorization to act on the state's behalf.", possibly "3.Member states may further limit the affirmative defense in cases of persons in the act of committing a crime or against law enforcement/military personnel acting in the course of their duties.". Yes, it's wordier, but it's also clearer in meaning.

Not to mention the act is only a crime if it's not legal self-defense, so wording it as "victim of a crime" is a bit ambiguous.]
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21122
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:28 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:OOC: Imo, it doesn't act as a blocker, but at least one GenSec member would insist that a resolution installing police deescalation methods, for instance, would contradict that clause.

It does that right here:
Member states may further limit the affirmative defense if the victim of the crime has the authorization to act on the state's behalf.

OOC: I'm having a really hard time twisting Clause 3 into a blocker on something like de-escalation efforts. Am I missing something?

OOC: In my opinion, no. I'm referring to the disagreement over whether a clause that "encourages X" or "urges X" or "recommends X" blocks future legislation that "mandates X". The same concerns apply here, as far as I can tell.
In the meantime you are here, and it’s beautiful, and escaping isn’t always something bad.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1205
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Attempted Socialism » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:31 am

OOC:
Wallenburg wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: Article 3 reads weird to me. I know what you're trying to do, but when the clauses just before are about the defendant (Who is, after all, also claiming to be a victim in order to get the benefit of affirmative defence), the slightly convoluted language of Article 3 to victim initially seemed to limit self-defence when claimed by public employees. Could you make it clearer between Article 2 and 3 that there's a change of subject (From the defendant who claims self-defence to the victim of the claimed self-defence)?

It does that right here:
Member states may further limit the affirmative defense if the victim of the crime has the authorization to act on the state's behalf.
Yes, that is the Article 3 I mentioned.
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I did. I named the victim rather than the accused.
Yes, and it took me at least a second look to make sure it was what it said as well as what you clearly meant. I'm asking if you think the change of subject is clear enough - because I doubt it.


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:32 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC:
Wallenburg wrote:It does that right here:
Member states may further limit the affirmative defense if the victim of the crime has the authorization to act on the state's behalf.
Yes, that is the Article 3 I mentioned.
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I did. I named the victim rather than the accused.
Yes, and it took me at least a second look to make sure it was what it said as well as what you clearly meant. I'm asking if you think the change of subject is clear enough - because I doubt it.

OOC: I can't see how naming the subject explicitly is anything less than clear.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21122
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wallenburg » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:33 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:Yes, and it took me at least a second look to make sure it was what it said as well as what you clearly meant. I'm asking if you think the change of subject is clear enough - because I doubt it.

It takes about 6 seconds to read the entire clause, so a 7th isn't exactly unreasonable for securing comprehension of the clause's meaning.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
In the meantime you are here, and it’s beautiful, and escaping isn’t always something bad.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Kiu Ghesik wrote:harris' interpretation of bidenism and subsequent establishment of a bidenist vanguard party to root out malarkey and revisionist elements in society was revisionist in and of itself and should never have been implemented.

Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2961
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jebslund » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:36 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC:Yes, that is the Article 3 I mentioned.
Yes, and it took me at least a second look to make sure it was what it said as well as what you clearly meant. I'm asking if you think the change of subject is clear enough - because I doubt it.

OOC: I can't see how naming the subject explicitly is anything less than clear.

[OOC: Because a victim of assault who then strike their attackers are victims of a crime. Phrasing it in a way that is focused on the actions of the person claiming self defense, or stated to be taken against a specific group (law enforcement, state actors, etc) removes that ambiguity.]
Last edited by Jebslund on Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:41 am

Jebslund wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I can't see how naming the subject explicitly is anything less than clear.

[OOC: Because a victim of assault who then strike their attackers are victims of a crime. Phrasing it in a way that is focused on the actions of the person claiming self defense, or stated to be taken against a specific group (law enforcement, state actors, etc) removes that ambiguity.]


OOC: If the perpetrator of the crime themselves becomes a victim of violent crime, then the opportunity to assert self defense itself applies to them, and the clause would necessarily need to remain unchanged to govern their rights. I think you are imputing confusing interpretations to the phrase that are not realistically confusing. Where the victim of a crime has state immunity to act as they have, member states may limit access to that affirmative defense to the crime.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2961
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jebslund » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:48 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Jebslund wrote:[OOC: Because a victim of assault who then strike their attackers are victims of a crime. Phrasing it in a way that is focused on the actions of the person claiming self defense, or stated to be taken against a specific group (law enforcement, state actors, etc) removes that ambiguity.]


OOC: If the perpetrator of the crime themselves becomes a victim of violent crime, then the opportunity to assert self defense itself applies to them, and the clause would necessarily need to remain unchanged to govern their rights. I think you are imputing confusing interpretations to the phrase that are not realistically confusing. Where the victim of a crime has state immunity to act as they have, member states may limit access to that affirmative defense to the crime.

[OOC: I am applying a colorable interpretation. The use of the term "victim of a crime" is confusing when describing something that otherwise isn't a crime, which is why real-world laws don't use it in regards to self-defense except referring to the person using self-defense, and instead use the person claiming self-defense as the reference point. In other words, real-world laws typically state self defense cannot be claimed against law enforcement acting in accordance with their duties, not that self-defense does not apply when the victim is a member of law enforcement acting in accordance with their duties (see now how that might be confusing? It sounds like it's law enforcement who isn't allowed to claim self-defense.).

A person acting in accordance with their right to self-defense is not committing a crime unless it is in a situation where said right does not apply. Therefore, using "victim of a crime" is not really as clear as you seem to think.]
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:56 am

Jebslund wrote:[OOC: I am applying a colorable interpretation.

OOC: No you aren't. You're applying an interpretation that rests on an unsupported textual construction.

The use of the term "victim of a crime" is confusing when describing something that otherwise isn't a crime, which is why real-world laws don't use it in regards to self-defense except referring to the person using self-defense, and instead use the person claiming self-defense as the reference point.

One need not assert a self defense defense if one has not been charged with a crime, though. So any situation where this applies, by default, must involve a crime.

In other words, real-world laws typically state self defense cannot be claimed against law enforcement acting in accordance with their duties, not that self-defense does not apply when the victim is a member of law enforcement acting in accordance with their duties (see now how that might be confusing? It sounds like it's law enforcement who isn't allowed to claim self-defense.).

If nations want to extend that immunity to off-duty police officers, they can, though. That is deliberate, because some places permit officers use their authority without being confined to uniformed work hours. The whole thing is a permissive, rather than authoritative, clause.

A person acting in accordance with their right to self-defense is not committing a crime unless it is in a situation where said right does not apply. Therefore, using "victim of a crime" is not really as clear as you seem to think.]

This is a misconception that places the cart before the horse. As noted before, one cannot assert a defense without first requiring something to defend against in the first instance. Here, that is a legal charge of some kind. While I have clarified the language slightly to differentiate between a crime and a charge, the structure of the sentence is clear, insofar as it clearly identifies who has immunity.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Jebslund
Minister
 
Posts: 2961
Founded: Sep 14, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jebslund » Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:17 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Jebslund wrote:[OOC: I am applying a colorable interpretation.

OOC: No you aren't. You're applying an interpretation that rests on an unsupported textual construction.]

[OOC: This is going to turn into a "Yes, you are, no, I'm not" thing, so I'm letting this point rest.]

Separatist Peoples wrote:One need not assert a self defense defense if one has not been charged with a crime, though. So any situation where this applies, by default, must involve a crime.

[OOC: Except that the mindset of the average reader is not going to be, "Well, you don't need to claim self-defense unless charged with a crime". It's going to be, "Self-defense isn't a crime". Hence the confusion several people have mentioned now.]

Separatist Peoples wrote:If nations want to extend that immunity to off-duty police officers, they can, though. That is deliberate, because some places permit officers use their authority without being confined to uniformed work hours. The whole thing is a permissive, rather than authoritative, clause.

[OOC: Nowhere did I say "on-duty". Off-duty police officers permitted to use their authority off-duty are still acting in accordance with their duties even though they are not on the clock. They are simply being permitted to perform said duties outside of their scheduled hours.]

Separatist Peoples wrote:This is a misconception that places the cart before the horse. As noted before, one cannot assert a defense without first requiring something to defend against in the first instance. Here, that is a legal charge of some kind. While I have clarified the language slightly to differentiate between a crime and a charge, the structure of the sentence is clear, insofar as it clearly identifies who has immunity.

[OOC: It is a common misconception. That is my point. Your wording is only clear if you have the background in law to know you have to be charged with a crime to claim self-defense. It's not as clear as you think, as evidenced by several people pointing out that the wording is unclear and requires multiple readings to make sense of.]


[OOC: Just noticed the edit. That wording is clearer.]
Last edited by Jebslund on Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:23 am, edited 3 times in total.
Jebslund is a nation of kerbals ruled by Emperor Jebediah Kerman. We reject tyranny, believing that rights should be protected, though we also believe said rights end where the rights of others begin.
Shockingly, we *do* use NS stats, with the exception of lifespan.
Singular sapient: Jebslunder
Plural Sapient: Jebslunden
Singular/Plural nonsapient: Kermanic
Note: When a verb can logically only be done by the sapient using/piloting/holding the object in question, then the appropriate demonym for the number of sapients is used.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. Stop conflating them with political systems.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15933
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:22 am

Jebslund wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: No you aren't. You're applying an interpretation that rests on an unsupported textual construction.]

[OOC: This is going to turn into a "Yes, you are, no, I'm not" thing, so I'm letting this point rest.]

Separatist Peoples wrote:One need not assert a self defense defense if one has not been charged with a crime, though. So any situation where this applies, by default, must involve a crime.

[OOC: Except that the mindset of the average reader is not going to be, "Well, you don't need to claim self-defense unless charged with a crime". It's going to be, "Self-defense isn't a crime". Hence the confusion several people have mentioned now.]

Separatist Peoples wrote:If nations want to extend that immunity to off-duty police officers, they can, though. That is deliberate, because some places permit officers use their authority without being confined to uniformed work hours. The whole thing is a permissive, rather than authoritative, clause.

[OOC: Nowhere did I say "on-duty". Off-duty police officers permitted to use their authority off-duty are still acting in accordance with their duties even though they are not on the clock. They are simply being permitted to perform said duties outside of their scheduled hours.]

Separatist Peoples wrote:This is a misconception that places the cart before the horse. As noted before, one cannot assert a defense without first requiring something to defend against in the first instance. Here, that is a legal charge of some kind. While I have clarified the language slightly to differentiate between a crime and a charge, the structure of the sentence is clear, insofar as it clearly identifies who has immunity.

[OOC: It is a common misconception. That is my point. Your wording is only clear if you have the background in law to know you have to be charged with a crime to claim self-defense. It's not as clear as you think, as evidenced by several people pointing out that the wording is unclear and requires multiple readings to make sense of.]

OOC: Legality challenges are not based on what the reasonable person might misconstrue. It is based on what the law objectively does. If people misread the text, then that is their failing.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6529
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:36 am

“I agree fully with the ‘Irritated’ line, and with the rest of the proposal. This is a good compromise that addresses all of the flaws found in the act passed earlier. Stylistically, I believe that a hyphen in ‘self defence’ would look better, but that is just personal preference.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Stoskavanya
Envoy
 
Posts: 207
Founded: Aug 08, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Stoskavanya » Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:12 pm

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.
Last edited by Stoskavanya on Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pantala and Pyrrhia, Tinhampton

Advertisement

Remove ads