[Abandoned] Reasonable Self-Defence Act

[Denathor]

Civil Rights | Significant

The World Assembly,

Noting that a person may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person may be required to defend themselves,

Recognizing that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation is currently in place to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. an "aggressor" as a person who attempts to do unlawful physical harm to another person,
   2. the "act of reasonable defence" to be the use of force that is necessary in a given context to protect a person from an aggressor,
   3. a "weapon" as any item wielded for the sole purpose of inflicting serious or mortal injury,
2. Mandates that:
   
   1. the act of reasonable defence of oneself shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted, unless disproved, as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater evidentiary burdens than other affirmative defences,
   2. a person shall have no defence if the perceived threat was attributable to intoxication or other impairment that was voluntarily induced,
   3. if a person kills an aggressor in self-defence, they must have reason to believe that their life was in danger through acts or threats by the aggressor and/or the presence of a weapon or weapons,
3. Directs the judiciary of member nations, when deciding whether or not the act of defence was reasonable, to consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to:
   
   1. the nature of the threat,
   2. whether there were other means available to respond to the threat,
   3. the person’s role in the initial interaction,
   4. any relationship or interaction between the parties prior to the incident,
   5. the proportionality of the person’s response to the threat,
   6. whether the act committed was in response to an action that the person knew was lawful
4. Permits that one who mistakenly but reasonably believes that they are attacked by an aggressor may use this Act to defeat liability for their act of defence, provided the defence meets the standards of reasonability,
   
   
5. Reserves the right of member nations to pass legislation to set restrictions on what actions may be considered reasonable for a defence such that they do not interfere with a person’s ability to commit the basic act of reasonable defence.

Civil Rights | Strong

The World Assembly,

Noting that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person(s) may be required to defend themselves.

Disappointed that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation has been passed to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

1. Defines "reasonable force" as the force required to restrain or otherwise non-lethally incapacitate a threat to one's safety,

2. Declares that no person who uses reasonable force to defend themselves or others from another party where the person feels there is a threat shall face prosecution for the use of this force,

3. Further declares that in cases where use of force is outside of this definition, specifically where the threat is killed, the defender will not be covered by this immunity,

4. Provides for one to defend another person or persons using reasonable force.

Civil Rights | Strong

The World Assembly,

Noting that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person(s) may be required to defend themselves.

Disappointed that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation has been passed to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

1. Accepts the act of reasonable self-defence as the use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence:
   
   1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
   2. is unlawful,
2. Declares that the act of reasonable self-defense 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 then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
   
   1. excessively injured by defence that goes beyond what would be considered reasonable by a nation's judiciary, or
   2. killed.
   In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of a nation's judiciary,
   
   
3. Affirms that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defense, but damages may be awarded in cases that meet the exceptions of clause two,
   
   
4. Provides for one to defend another person or persons using reasonable force.

Civil Rights | Strong

The World Assembly,

Noting that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person or persons may be required to defend themselves.

Disappointed that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation is currently in place to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

1. Defines the act of reasonable self-defence to be the use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence:
   
   1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
   2. is unlawful,
2. Requires that the act of reasonable self-defence 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 then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
   
   1. injured by a defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary, or
   2. killed.
   In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of the judiciary of a nation,
   
   
3. Mandates that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defence, unless a case meets the exceptions defined in Clause 2,
   
   
4. Clarifies that a person is permitted to defend another person or persons from a threat using reasonable force if the latter person or persons are unable to defend themselves from a threat.

Civil Rights | Strong
The World Assembly,

Noting that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person or persons may be required to defend themselves.

Recognizing that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation is currently in place to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

1. Defines the act of reasonable self-defence to be the use of force to protect any person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence:
   
   1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
   2. is unlawful,
2. Requires that the act of reasonable self-defence 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 then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
   
   1. injured by a defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary, or
   2. killed.
   In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of the judiciary of a nation,
   
   
3. Compels nations to pass legislation to set limits on behaviour that may be considered reasonable for a defence,
   
   
4. Mandates that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defence, unless a case meets the exceptions defined in Clause 2.

[/list]

Civil Rights | Strong

The World Assembly,

Noting that a person or persons may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person or persons may be required to defend themselves.

Recognizing that while a resolution was passed on this important topic, it has since been repealed to be replaced with a more detailed piece of legislation,

Shocked that no other legislation is currently in place to replace the aforementioned resolution,

Believing that those who respond to such threats with force to protect themselves or others should not be punished for this,

Aware that the possibility exists for persons accused of violent crimes to attempt to claim "self-defence" as a legal defence,

Hereby:

1. Defines:
   
   1. an "aggressor" as a person who attempts to do harm to another person,
   2. the "act of reasonable self-defence" to be the use of force to protect any person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence
      
      1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
      2. is unlawful,
   3. a "security officer" as a peace officer, military personnel or private security guard,
   
   
2. Requires that before self-defense is used, a person must make all possible attempts to avoid conflict, such as through alerting a security officer or retreating from the aggressor,
   
   
3. Mandates that the act of reasonable self-defence 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 then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
   
   1. injured by a defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary, or
   2. killed.
   In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of the judiciary of a nation,
   
   
4. Compels nations to pass legislation to set limits on behaviour that may be considered reasonable for a defence,
   
   
5. Orders that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defence, unless a case meets the exceptions defined in Clause 3.

Draft 22:
-Changed the "permits" clause to "reserves"
-Added two new clauses: a new "permits" clause, which allows for people to negate liability if they mistakenly think they’re being attacked, and a "directs" clause, which hopefully clears up some concerns about the term "reasonable"

Draft 21:
-Removed the "affirms" clause
-Rewording to make this an affirmative defence again
-Removed examples from the "permits" clause

Draft 20:
-Added and did some rewording of the "affirms" clause

Draft 19:
-Reworded the "mandates" and "permits" clauses

Draft 18:
-Removed the definitions of "critical injury" and "serious injury"
-Removed the clause 2 exceptions
-Removed clause 3
-Reworded clause 4

Draft 17:
-Added the definitions of "critical injury" and "serious injury"

Draft 16:
-Changed the name of the draft
-Removed all references to the right to defend others. Leaving that for another time
-Reworded the definitions

Draft 15:
-Removed clause 4ii
-Slightly reworded clause 4

Draft 14:
-Reworded Clauses 1 and 2

Draft 13:
-Reworded Clause 1

Draft 12:
-Fixed some grammar in the preamble and Clause 2
-Changed all instances of "self-defence" to just "defence"
-Rewording of Point ii of Clause 1
-Amalgamation and reformatting of Clause 4 and 5

Draft 11:
-Split Clause 2 into two different clauses and did some rewording

Draft 10:
-Reworded Clause 2

Draft 9:
-Removed the lists from Clauses 3 and 4, but kept most of the text

Draft 8:
-Changed the title
-Added examples to Clauses 3 and 4

Draft 7:
-Removed Clause 2 because S.P. is the America your America could smell like just joking, don’t kill me
-Added Clause 4 as a compromise
-Removed the definition of "security officer" from Clause 1

Draft 6:
-Removed Clause 5
-Changed "compels" to "requires" in Clause 4

[Bananaistan]

"This has the same issues as the old law. Clause 2 states that "no person ... shall face prosecution". Judges/juries are not permitted to decide if reasonable force was used and therefore this would effectively prevent any prosecution of assault once the perpetrator claims that they used reasonable force in response to a threat."

[Denathor]

"I see your point, but adding references to a nation's judiciary would make the resolution irrelevant for nations without a functioning judiciary, which I believe was part of your argument for repeal. However, I would be more than happy to change the wording to attempt to accommodate a solution."

Declares that no person who uses reasonable force to defend themselves or others from another party where the person feels there is a threat shall face prosecution where the judiciary of a nation feels that the use of force falls within the definition of "reasonable force",

[Aclion]

Reasonable force isn't really the standard you want to be using anyway. It's an invitation for judicial activism, ablest, and treats acts of desperate self defense as offences to the terms of some kind of vile duel set by the aggressor.

What I would use is
"reasonable self-defense shall be understood to refer to use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence;
a: may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
b: is unlawful.

The act of reasonable self-defense shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater standards of evidence then other affirmative defenses.

No damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defense.

[Potted Plants United]

The act of reasonable self-defense shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater standards of evidence then other affirmative defenses.

OOC: I'd add the exception to that for cases where the assailant ended up dead, especially when the threat they presented was not immediately life-threatening. So basically, you can't shoot someone point-blank, if the only weapon they had was their fists, and get away with it.

This has been attempted many times before, and tends to fall flat on its face because RL people playing this game have very different understanding of "reasonable self-defence". Many people, like myself, would, for instance, consider anything where someone ends up dead as unreasonable.

[Separatist Peoples]

Reasonable force isn't really the standard you want to be using anyway. It's an invitation for judicial activism, ablest, and treats acts of desperate self defense as offences to the terms of some kind of vile duel set by the aggressor.

What I would use is
"reasonable self-defense shall be understood to refer to use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence;tk,yhg
a: may reasonably be expected to cause harm, andt
b: is unlawful.

The act of reasonable self-defense shall not be criminalized, shall be accepted as a legal justification for the use of force, and shall not be subjected to greater standards of evidence then other affirmative defenses.

No damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defense.

"A few minor quibbles if this language is adopted. Broadly, I agree that this language is appropriate.

"'Standards of evidence' in this case would probably be better served as 'burdens of proof' or 'evidentiary burdens'. Evidentiary standards strikes me as relative to admissible evidence rather than the degree of convincing, and there are valid reasons for differing evidentiary standards, if not burdens of proof.

"I also think that this can be written in the active voice to ease comprehension, reduce unnecessary words, and generally improve the flow.

"Finally, as a note on the draft as a whole, and not specifically regarding the honorable delegation from Aclion's input, there is a concern of muddling civil penalties and criminal penalties when discussing legal liability for self-defense, made much more complicated by the fact that self-defense is a valid legal defense for radically different legal actions. I would strongly suggest that, if the author wishes to address both aspects, they clearly delineate the two in their draft with separate headings.

"The C.D.S.P. delegation is tentatively supportive of a draft on self defense that does not discentivize the use of force in a situation threatening to life or limb without reaching into micromanagement. While the average jury of the Confederate Dominion does not believe it is inherently unreasonable to use a firearm to prevent even an unarmed attacker from beating them to death, as we recognize that bare fists and booted feet are just as deadly as a blade or gun, we nonetheless recognize a national interest in regulating its own standards of behavior."

[Denathor]

"Thank you for all your input. I’ve made several revisions on the parts in question that I hope aligns it more with the standard of work that we all wish would be put forth at the World Assembly. There may still be some problems with clause two, but I have written as best I can."

Hereby:

1. Accepts the act of reasonable self-defence as the use of force to protect a person from an act of violence or the reasonably perceived threat of an imminent act of violence; where said act of violence:
   
   1. may reasonably be expected to cause harm, and
   2. is unlawful,
2. Declares that the act of reasonable self-defense 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 then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is:
   
   1. excessively injured by defence that goes beyond what would be considered reasonable by a nation's judiciary, or
   2. killed.
   In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of a nation's judiciary,
   
   
3. Affirms that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defense, but damages may be awarded in cases that meet the exceptions of clause two,
   
   
4. Provides for one to defend another person or persons using reasonable force.

[The COT Corporation]

Noting[/b] that a person or persons Either add a (s) to the end of "persons" or remove the (s) from the other time you mentioned them. may come across a situation where their safety becomes threatened by another party, and that said person(s) may be required to defend themselves.

[Araraukar]

Accepts
Declares
Affirms
Provides

OOC: The verbs you use are weird. The first one by convention should be "Defines", since it's a definition. The rest.... they're better for some kind of official statement than law. Try using words like "mandates" or "requires" and similar, to make things binding. If you're clarifying something, use "clarifies".

[Maowi]

OOC: Clause 4 seems somewhat unnecessary given that your definition of "reasonable self-defence" does not specify who is doing the defending. Also, make sure you're consistent throughout with your use of defence vs defense.

2. [...] i. excessively injured by defence that goes beyond what would be considered reasonable by a nation's judiciary,

I agree that giving the nation's judiciary the ability to make decisions regarding this is a good idea, but I think something at least a little more specific than "reasonable" ought to be provided as a parameter. Perhaps something like "defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary"?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Perhaps something like "defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary"?

OOC: I like that. It makes the pool of acceptable choices of self-defence much smaller. In Araraukar's case "call the police" would likely be the only one determined to be necessary and thus acceptable.

[Denathor]

OOC: Clause 4 just affirms that someone can use the self-defence rights to defend someone other than themselves without fearing penalty. I’ve changed the wording to hopefully make that clearer. Also redid the suggested wording. Thanks!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Clause 4 just affirms that someone can use the self-defence rights to defend someone other than themselves without fearing penalty.

OOC: That's not self-defence, though. I mean, I'd understand defending like children, or someone else unable to defend themselves, but at what point does it become "attacking another attacker"? If person A attacks person B and person C attacks person A to defend person B, can person D then attack person C to defend person A? Where does it stop? Especially if we're not talking of just a couple of people but a gang or a mob?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Clause 4 seems somewhat unnecessary given that your definition of "reasonable self-defence" does not specify who is doing the defending. Also, make sure you're consistent throughout with your use of defence vs defense.

2. [...] i. excessively injured by defence that goes beyond what would be considered reasonable by a nation's judiciary,

I agree that giving the nation's judiciary the ability to make decisions regarding this is a good idea,

OOC
I don't. The judiciary are not, in most societies, supposed to be law-makers. The limits of acceptable behaviour in such cases should be set in legislation by the relevant government (preferably a democratically elected one, of course) or -- if these decisions are left to the courts -- systems that use juries as well as a judiciary should give those a say in it as well.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Clause 4 seems somewhat unnecessary given that your definition of "reasonable self-defence" does not specify who is doing the defending. Also, make sure you're consistent throughout with your use of defence vs defense.



I agree that giving the nation's judiciary the ability to make decisions regarding this is a good idea,

OOC
I don't. The judiciary are not, in most societies, supposed to be law-makers. The limits of acceptable behaviour in such cases should be set in legislation by the relevant government (preferably a democratically elected one, of course) or -- if these decisions are left to the courts -- systems that use juries as well as a judiciary should give those a say in it as well.

Ooc: well. Ish. What is reasonable is a question of fact that would fall to the finder of fact. Jury or judge as the system warrants. Legislatures can find certain acts as unreasonable as a matter of law, but usually the question of whether an action is reasonable is decided in court and not in a legislative session.

Ymmv, this is probably system dependent, but I think most states dont break it out in legislation quite that much even where force is particularly discouraged.

[Maowi]

OOC
I don't. The judiciary are not, in most societies, supposed to be law-makers. The limits of acceptable behaviour in such cases should be set in legislation by the relevant government (preferably a democratically elected one, of course) or -- if these decisions are left to the courts -- systems that use juries as well as a judiciary should give those a say in it as well.

OOC: I mean, the WA should be the one doing the lawmaking. It was for that reason that I suggested writing a more specific standard into the proposal. I just think the individual courts should be the ones determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether a specific action met or surpassed that standard or not. (About juries - I'd been under the impression that "judiciary" also included juries but I know very little about that so I'll assume I was wrong; I didn't mean to say that juries should not be able to make that decision.)

[Denathor]

OOC: That's not self-defence, though. I mean, I'd understand defending like children, or someone else unable to defend themselves, but at what point does it become "attacking another attacker"? If person A attacks person B and person C attacks person A to defend person B, can person D then attack person C to defend person A? Where does it stop? Especially if we're not talking of just a couple of people but a gang or a mob?

OOC: I admit I never considered that. I removed Clause 4 and slightly changed the wording in Clause 1 from "a person" to "any person' just to get the point across without a separate clause (as per Maowi's feedback).

OOC
I don't. The judiciary are not, in most societies, supposed to be law-makers. The limits of acceptable behaviour in such cases should be set in legislation by the relevant government (preferably a democratically elected one, of course) or -- if these decisions are left to the courts -- systems that use juries as well as a judiciary should give those a say in it as well.

OOC: I added a clause to address this. I don’t believe it breaks any rules, but I’m slightly uneasy about how I worded it. Suggestions welcome.

[The Yellow Monkey]

[*]Mandates that no damages shall be awarded to an aggressor in compensation for harm suffered as a result of reasonable self-defence, unless a case meets the exceptions defined in Clause 2.

While an interesting Tort reform idea, I don't think this belongs in a civil rights proposal.

[The New Nordic Union]

2. Requires that the act of reasonable self-defence 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 then other affirmative defences, except in cases where the aggressor is
i. injured by a defence that goes significantly beyond what would be necessary to ensure removal of the threat, as determined by the nation's judiciary, or
ii. killed.

OOC: I am not sure this is intentional, but as per this provision, any self-defense that results in killing the aggressor might be criminalised, even if the killing is 'necessary to ensure removal of the threat'? I agree that it might be reasonable to subject those cases to the higher eveidentiary burdens mentioned; however, allowing to criminalise all cases in which an aggressor is killed (not even intentionally) goes against the spirit of proportionality expressed by other provisions in this draft, and the Believing clause of the preamble.

[Kaboomlandia]

Kevin McCallister has entered the chat

But in all seriousness, I think adding in a "duty to retreat" clause could clear some stuff up.

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t think that ‘disappointed’ is the right verb for your second preambulatory clause, as it should be a good thing that a path has been cleared for more detailed legislation.”

[Denathor]

While an interesting Tort reform idea, I don't think this belongs in a civil rights proposal.

"I respectfully disagree. If we were to remove this clause, it would mean that in order to have this legal protection, that clause would have to stand as an independent piece of legislation to be added later. I am not convinced that it would be able to stand independently, nor do I think we could afford to have a gap between this legislation and the confirmation of those rights that the clause allows."

OOC: I am not sure this is intentional, but as per this provision, any self-defense that results in killing the aggressor might be criminalised, even if the killing is 'necessary to ensure removal of the threat'? I agree that it might be reasonable to subject those cases to the higher eveidentiary burdens mentioned; however, allowing to criminalise all cases in which an aggressor is killed (not even intentionally) goes against the spirit of proportionality expressed by other provisions in this draft, and the Believing clause of the preamble.

OOC: The gist of the Clause 2 exceptions is that the total immunity provided by the defence of "self-defence" might not extend to those cases if a jury decides that the force used was unreasonable according to the laws standards that Clause 3 compels nations to create. It doesn’t necessarily mean that those cases must be prosecuted, it’s just a safeguard so you can’t kill someone, claim self-defence and walk away without charges. The case can be examined first to determine if the killing was justified. This is what is meant by

In either of the previous cases, additional charges may still be laid at the discretion of the judiciary of a nation

Kevin McCallister has entered the chat

But in all seriousness, I think adding in a "duty to retreat" clause could clear some stuff up.

An interesting idea. I’m not quite sure how to word it, however. Assuming I understand what you’re trying to say, I feel like an attacker would retreat as soon as they recognize that they’re losing. In this case, there’s no need to legislate such a clause, but I could add something to try and prevent someone from taking shots at an attacker as they’re fleeing. Let me know if I missed something and completely misinterpreted your point.

“I don’t think that ‘disappointed’ is the right verb for your second preambulatory clause, as it should be a good thing that a path has been cleared for more detailed legislation.”

IC: "This has been changed to reflect your point."

[Araraukar]

Kevin McCallister has entered the chat
But in all seriousness, I think adding in a "duty to retreat" clause could clear some stuff up.

An interesting idea. I’m not quite sure how to word it, however. Assuming I understand what you’re trying to say, I feel like an attacker would retreat as soon as they recognize that they’re losing. In this case, there’s no need to legislate such a clause, but I could add something to try and prevent someone from taking shots at an attacker as they’re fleeing. Let me know if I missed something and completely misinterpreted your point.

OOC: In my understanding (could be wrong) they meant that you should first try to escape an attacker, before attacking them in self defence. Or at least that's something that should be added, in addition to some duty of relying on authorities if they're present. Like, if there's a security officer (guard, police, etc.) within hearing, call for help and let them deal with it, rather than attacking the moment someone threatens you.

[Denathor]

OOC: In my understanding (could be wrong) they meant that you should first try to escape an attacker, before attacking them in self defence. Or at least that's something that should be added, in addition to some duty of relying on authorities if they're present. Like, if there's a security officer (guard, police, etc.) within hearing, call for help and let them deal with it, rather than attacking the moment someone threatens you.

Ah, that would make more sense and would be a good idea. I added a clause to address this and made some changes for Clause 1. I’m not 100% sure whether to put the new clause before or after the "Mandates" clause, but I put it before for now.

[Kenmoria]

“I think you should have ‘reasonable attempts’ rather than ‘possible attempts’ in clause 2. Giving all of your earthly possessions to an attacker is a possible way to avoid conflict, but it’s not the sort of thing the WA should be mandating.”