[PASSED] Basic Self-Defense Rights

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

Hey everybody, this is my first time writing a proposal like this here, so I'd appreciate any advice you have here as well as for getting started in this game in general.

I understand another player has a similar draft on the topic, but I had a few issues with the draft that led me to attempt one of my own.

The World Assembly,

Believing self defense to be an essential human (or otherwise) right to ensure safety and peace of mind,

Hereby enacts the following in all member nations:

1. Every person shall have the inalienable right to protect themselves, other people, and property from violence, destruction, and theft given that the force used for defense is not excessive.
2. For the purposes of this resolution;
   
   1. "violence" shall refer only to physical harm done from one person to another, and
   2. "attack" shall mean a person initiating (or attempting to initiate) violence with another without having been provoked by violence or the actual threat of such violence by the individual(s) they have harmed.
3. If a person, other people, or someone's property are put at an imminent threat of harm or theft due to another person's active attack or attempt of theft, force no less than what is necessary to stop the incoming attack or theft must be permitted in response, provided that such response is proportional to the actual threat.
4. Nothing in section 3 shall apply to any action taken against a law enforcement official lawfully conducting their duties.
5. No person shall face any civil or criminal penalty as a result of any of the actions protected by section 3, provided that no physical damage is inflicted on any party other than the one guilty of the original attack. Any such physical damage to bystanders may still be punished by law where such damage could have been avoided while still acting in self-defense.
6. If a person commits an action in which they mistakenly believe they would be protected by section 3, the reasons for their mistake including real-time context, the person's mental capacity, any prior history between the relevant parties, and any other factors deemed relevant in a court of law shall be considered. If a person can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that;
   
   • the actual danger in question was obscured as a direct result of actions taken by the original aggressor,
   • the person acting in defense of themselves or others could not have known or reasonably have been expected to know that the perceived threat was not as serious as it had been perceived to be, and
   • the response to the perceived level of threat would have been protected by section 3 had the perception of danger been accurate,
   the person shall face no civil or criminal penalty as a result of the actions they took in response to the perceived danger.
7. be it clarified that nothing in this resolution shall prevent any member state from expanding and strengthening the availability of self-defense.

[The Overmind]

Every person shall have the inalienable right to protect themselves, other people, and their own property from violence, destruction, and theft given that the force used for defense is not excessive.

How is "excessive" defined -- what constitutes a use of force for defense that qualifies as "excessive"?

Within a person's own home, the owner shall have the full, unabated right to use intentionally lethal force when facing an active attempt of violence by an intruder directed to themselves or anybody else in the residence.

What is the burden of proof for this affirmative defense? Is one an intruder only if they enter into a home without permission, or immediately after being told to leave? Is an "active attempt of violence" any sort of violence? Does it have to be physical? If it's physical, is it sufficient for the use of lethal force that the intruder -- however you've defined them -- pushes them? Throws a small soft object (e.g. a wet sponge) at them? Dumps water on their head? Seems to be standing aggressively?

Outside of one's home, if a person's own life (or other lives) are in danger as a result of an active attempt of violence from another person, intentionally lethal force must be permitted to stop the attempt of violence.

What is the standard for judging that one's own life or that of another person is in danger?

If a person, other people, or a person's own property are put at an imminent threat of harm or theft due to another person's active attempt of violence or theft, force no less than what is necessary to stop the incoming attack or theft must be permitted in response.

So a person may use explicitly lethal force to protect their property -- say a pencil -- from harm as long as that was the only way to stop them from damaging it -- say breaking it in half?

Nothing in sections 1-4 shall apply to any action taken against a law enforcement official lawfully conducting their duties.

This does not protect a person who uses lethal force to save their own life or that of another in the face of a law enforcement official lawfully conducting their duties, regardless of the circumstances? Let us say that there is no statute for excessive force in a nation, and the World Assembly passes no such statute, and a police officer decides, in the course of a lawful arrest, to choke a person to death, and that person uses whatever force they need to prevent their own death or else another intercedes in this way, these statutes would not protect them?

No person shall face any civil or criminal penalty as a result of any of the actions protected by sections 1-4.

A person who destroys the property of a bystander or else injures or kills a bystander may face no civil or criminal penalties for doing so because they were using violent or lethal force to, ostensibly, protect themselves, someone else, or their property?

If a person commits an action in which they mistakenly believe they would be protected by sections 1-4, the reasons for their mistake including real-time context, the person's mental capacity, any prior history between the relevant parties, and any other factors deemed relevant in a court of law shall be considered. If the person could not reasonably have been able to know that the perceived threat in question was not as serious as it had been perceived, the person shall face no civil or criminal penalty as a result of the actions they took in response assuming the perceived level of threat would have been protected by sections 1-4. Mandatory mental health treatment may still be assigned when necessary if the person's mental state was directly responsible for the distorted perception of threat.

A person need not even meet the affirmative defense laid out in the above statutes? They need only demonstrate contextual factors that could have obscured their ability to make a reasonable decision about using violent or lethal force against someone they ostensibly perceived as a threat through no fault of the injured party? And they are free from civil or criminal penalties for doing so in any capacity?

My overall problem with this piece of legislation is that it not only permits, but encourages the use of unnecessary lethal force, absent any evidentiary standards, and subject to ex post facto justifications. I find it hard to imagine a way in which this could be rewritten where I would support it in principle, but definitely totally opposed as writen.

[Tesseris]

Hey everybody, this is my first time writing a proposal like this here, so I'd appreciate any advice you have here as well as for getting started in this game in general.

I understand another player has a similar draft on the topic, but I had a few issues with the draft that led me to attempt one of my own.

[box]The World Assembly,

Believing self defense to be an essential human (or otherwise) right to ensure safety and peace of mind,

Remove the ''or otherwise'' or Tesseris cannot support.

[The Overmind]

Hey everybody, this is my first time writing a proposal like this here, so I'd appreciate any advice you have here as well as for getting started in this game in general.

I understand another player has a similar draft on the topic, but I had a few issues with the draft that led me to attempt one of my own.

[box]The World Assembly,

Believing self defense to be an essential human (or otherwise) right to ensure safety and peace of mind,

Remove the ''or otherwise'' or Tesseris cannot support.

It wouldn't improve my view of the proposal much, but I agree that it should simply read "an essential sapient right" as it is codified in WA law.

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

Every person shall have the inalienable right to protect themselves, other people, and their own property from violence, destruction, and theft given that the force used for defense is not excessive.

How is "excessive" defined -- what constitutes a use of force for defense that qualifies as "excessive"?

The intention there was the following clauses would elaborate, it might not be the best structuring job, I admit.

Within a person's own home, the owner shall have the full, unabated right to use intentionally lethal force when facing an active attempt of violence by an intruder directed to themselves or anybody else in the residence.

What is the burden of proof for this affirmative defense? Is one an intruder only if they enter into a home without permission, or immediately after being told to leave? Is an "active attempt of violence" any sort of violence? Does it have to be physical? If it's physical, is it sufficient for the use of lethal force that the intruder -- however you've defined them -- pushes them? Throws a small soft object (e.g. a wet sponge) at them? Dumps water on their head? Seems to be standing aggressively?

Regarding the burden of proof, I’ll elaborate on all that when I have access to a computer to make some edits. The plan at the moment is that the burden of proof still lies on the prosecution to prove the defendant was NOT acting in self defense, and must prove this beyond reasonable doubt. Also, I don’t believe the intruder needs to be defined, as shooting someone who’s leaving would not necessarily be permitted by this. Also I believe “violence” already implies physicality, and I’d say that yes, if you are attacked in your own home whether that’s running at you with a weapon, shoving you, or whatever else, lethal force is not excessive.

Outside of one's home, if a person's own life (or other lives) are in danger as a result of an active attempt of violence from another person, intentionally lethal force must be permitted to stop the attempt of violence.

What is the standard for judging that one's own life or that of another person is in danger?

Fairly subjective to the situation I’d say, I believe it should be judged case by case. I believe any court acting in good faith would hopefully make the right decision more often than not.

If a person, other people, or a person's own property are put at an imminent threat of harm or theft due to another person's active attempt of violence or theft, force no less than what is necessary to stop the incoming attack or theft must be permitted in response.

So a person may use explicitly lethal force to protect their property -- say a pencil -- from harm as long as that was the only way to stop them from damaging it -- say breaking it in half?

No. This resolution only guarantees that in this situation you may use force NO LESS THAN WHAT IS NECESSARY to stop the attacker. Shooting someone for stealing a pencil goes above what is necessary to stop the theft. Does this mean maybe you can grab it out of their hand? Yes.

Nothing in sections 1-4 shall apply to any action taken against a law enforcement official lawfully conducting their duties.

This does not protect a person who uses lethal force to save their own life or that of another in the face of a law enforcement official lawfully conducting their duties, regardless of the circumstances? Let us say that there is no statute for excessive force in a nation, and the World Assembly passes no such statute, and a police officer decides, in the course of a lawful arrest, to choke a person to death, and that person uses whatever force they need to prevent their own death or else another intercedes in this way, these statutes would not protect them?

Well I’d sincerely hope that countries that follow other WA standards wouldn’t allow their cops to beat people to death in the streets, but I will admit that is a problem. However, limiting what cops can do in their arrests is probably best covered separately from this.

No person shall face any civil or criminal penalty as a result of any of the actions protected by sections 1-4.

A person who destroys the property of a bystander or else injures or kills a bystander may face no civil or criminal penalties for doing so because they were using violent or lethal force to, ostensibly, protect themselves, someone else, or their property?

I’ll take a look at this when I get a chance but as written I don’t think that would be protected regardless.

If a person commits an action in which they mistakenly believe they would be protected by sections 1-4, the reasons for their mistake including real-time context, the person's mental capacity, any prior history between the relevant parties, and any other factors deemed relevant in a court of law shall be considered. If the person could not reasonably have been able to know that the perceived threat in question was not as serious as it had been perceived, the person shall face no civil or criminal penalty as a result of the actions they took in response assuming the perceived level of threat would have been protected by sections 1-4. Mandatory mental health treatment may still be assigned when necessary if the person's mental state was directly responsible for the distorted perception of threat.

A person need not even meet the affirmative defense laid out in the above statutes? They need only demonstrate contextual factors that could have obscured their ability to make a reasonable decision about using violent or lethal force against someone they ostensibly perceived as a threat through no fault of the injured party? And they are free from civil or criminal penalties for doing so in any capacity?

I can do some slight rewording here, but yes, if someone is holding a fake gun in a bank robbery and gets shot by an upstanding nearby citizen, I believe the upstanding citizen should not be hit with a murder charge.

My overall problem with this piece of legislation is that it not only permits, but encourages the use of unnecessary lethal force, absent any evidentiary standards, and subject to ex post facto justifications. I find it hard to imagine a way in which this could be rewritten where I would support it in principle, but definitely totally opposed as writen.

I’m not really seeing how the permitted force is truly unnecessary, but I appreciate the feedback regardless. And like I said earlier I can’t do much about edits atm so I’ll take all this into account in the morning.

Hey everybody, this is my first time writing a proposal like this here, so I'd appreciate any advice you have here as well as for getting started in this game in general.

I understand another player has a similar draft on the topic, but I had a few issues with the draft that led me to attempt one of my own.

[box]The World Assembly,

Believing self defense to be an essential human (or otherwise) right to ensure safety and peace of mind,

Remove the ''or otherwise'' or Tesseris cannot support.

I intentionally left that in the non-operative part of the proposal cuz it was mostly a joke in reference to my alien-themed nation. If that’s enough to make you oppose, that’s just too bad.

[The Overmind]

The plan at the moment is that the burden of proof still lies on the prosecution to prove the defendant was NOT acting in self defense, and must prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

It is generally on the criminal defendant to prove an affirmative defense. What you describe is carte blanche to kill people unless the prosecution can somehow prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant didn't think their life was in danger. How do you expect the prosecution to prove such a thing? You are effectively tying the hands of the prosecution, internationally, to try premeditated murder.

Also, I don’t believe the intruder needs to be defined

Given that it is a principle component of the standard you have set by which the obligation not to use lethal force against another person is removed, it most certainly does.

Also I believe “violence” already implies physicality

It does not. See other forms of violence.

I’d say that yes, if you are attacked in your own home whether that’s running at you with a weapon, shoving you, or whatever else, lethal force is not excessive.

So, if someone is in their home with their friend, and, say, they get into a heated argument, after they tell their friend to leave, if their friend throws a cup of water in their face, are they now justified in pulling their sidearm and putting a couple of holes in them?

I believe any court acting in good faith would hopefully make the right decision more often than not.

You're talking about a court trying to decide if an affirmative defense for the use of lethal force has been justified under the law while I'm telling you that the law itself doesn't even give guidance on when that is the case. Is the standard for judging if one's life is in danger just that they felt it was? Does there have to be some compelling instrument with which to harm them? Does there have to be a convincing display of intent to use this instrument? You can't just hand wave away what exactly you are setting up as the standard for permitting lethal force. You are obligated to carefully outline when someone can take another's life, or else you are, in essence, just legalizing murder.

This resolution only guarantees that in this situation you may use force NO LESS THAN WHAT IS NECESSARY to stop the attacker.

The relevant statute reads, "If a person, other people, or a person's own property are put at an imminent threat of harm or theft due to another person's active attempt of violence or theft, force no less than what is necessary to stop the incoming attack or theft must be permitted in response."

So, again, if the only way to stop someone from snapping my pencil in half is to shoot them, that is clearly permitted under this wording. Perhaps they are across the room. Perhaps they are already flexing my poor pencil's delicate backbone. Only a quick draw of my side-arm can stop them. The law says it must be permitted. You might find this sort of interpretation absurd, but that is precisely because it is being brought to your attention that the current wording allows absurd scenarios to take place and that this needs to be far more carefully written.

Well I’d sincerely hope that countries that follow other WA standards wouldn’t allow their cops to beat people to death in the streets, but I will admit that is a problem. However, limiting what cops can do in their arrests is probably best covered separately from this.

Unless you're saying that you will remove that clause, you are, indeed, saying that while this seemingly covers all sorts of questionable scenarios where lethal force may be used, stopping a cop from murdering you or another person with lethal force, should they do so according to the legal standards of their position, is one of the only times this proposal stops short of protecting someone acting in self-defense.

I’ll take a look at this when I get a chance but as written I don’t think that would be protected regardless.

It very clearly would be. If a person is following the first four clauses, and, in the process, harms, lethally or otherwise, a person, or else destroys their property, this clause, as written, would take away all civil and criminal liability for damages to the innocent, injured, party.

I can do some slight rewording here, but yes, if someone is holding a fake gun in a bank robbery and gets shot by an upstanding nearby citizen, I believe the upstanding citizen should not be hit with a murder charge.

Let me remind you of what I said: "hey need only demonstrate contextual factors that could have obscured their ability to make a reasonable decision about using violent or lethal force against someone they ostensibly perceived as a threat through no fault of the injured party?"

I’m not really seeing how the permitted force is truly unnecessary, but I appreciate the feedback regardless. And like I said earlier I can’t do much about edits atm so I’ll take all this into account in the morning.

What I am going to suggest to you, overall, even though I personally think that this is never going to shape up to be any sort of legislation that I can personally support, is that you take very seriously the duty to clearly define or otherwise word things so that you do not create a proposal that is so permissive of lethal force in ostensibly justified circumstances that it hamstrings any ability of member nations to regulate acts of premeditated murder within their borders. Because, at this rate, my opposition is the least of the obstacles you will face in clearing the hurdle of making this a resolution.

[Tigrisia]

Every person shall have the inalienable right to protect themselves, other people, and their own property from violence, destruction, and theft given that the force used for defense is not excessive.

That means that I am not necessarily allowed to defend the property of my spouse?

Also, consider the following situation: Person A points a gun at person B to rob them, person B reacts with holding a gun against person A. Would it be legal for person A to kill person B to stop the treat of person B?

If a person's own life (or other lives) are in danger as a result of an active attempt of violence from another person, intentionally lethal force must be permitted to stop the attempt of violence.

What if milder measures are available and maybe even more reasonable? We heavily recommend to incorporate the principle of proportionality into the resolution.

We are concerned that this resolution is only limited to the attack by persons and does not extend to other "emergency measures", for example destruction of property to stop a fire.

Also, please define "attack" more precisely. Consider the following: Person A is attacked by person B. Person B takes some thing of person C as defensive weapon (e.g. a chair). Is person B attacking person C by this definition? Is it an "attack" to enter a house if this is the only way to save their live? Consider the following: It's a snow storm, freezing cold, Person A is out in the wild. There is a small hut of person B that is heated. Entering would save their live, not entering it would doom them. Is person A attacking person B?

For the delegation of the Federal Republic of Tigrisia at the World Assembly,
Prof. Dr. jur. Mag. jur. Hans Meyer
Chief Lawyer

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

Thanks for the feedback. I've incorporated most of it minus the part about LEOs, as I still believe that is something which needs to be addressed separately. If the states themselves wish to allow people to defend themselves against LEOs acting out of line, they may do so as they wish. And again, I sincerely hope member states do not normalize beating their own citizens to death, but if they do then again that is something which needs to be addressed separately.

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

Made some grammatical changes, as well as removing the clause pertaining specifically to lethal force after realizing its redundancy following discussion on discord.

Any further feedback is appreciated.

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

Bump, giving this another week or two unless someone finds some major flaw.

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

Bump. If no one has any further thoughts on this I will move forward fairly soon.

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

This has been submitted with a few minor last-minute edits.

[Fachumonn]

This has been submitted with a few minor last-minute edits.

I would recommend waiting longer, and if you are going to submit, you're going to need to campaign as well.

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

This has been submitted with a few minor last-minute edits.

I would recommend waiting longer, and if you are going to submit, you're going to need to campaign as well.

I have finally got the campaign up and running lmao, prolly should've waited at least till I had time to get the program running before I submitted

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

This has officially reached quorum and as of the time of writing this is expected to go to vote July 4.

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

Given that one proposal ahead of mine in the queue was withdrawn, this will go to vote next.

[Bytonic]

ok, just one thing. Does any of this tie in with/hypothetically repeal Arms Licenses and any other previous legislation associated with posession and responsible usage and regulation of weapons?

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

ok, just one thing. Does any of this tie in with/hypothetically repeal Arms Licenses and any other previous legislation associated with posession and responsible usage and regulation of weapons?

No, those things are still up to the member nations to decide. This only relates to the defense from violence itself. A situation could potentially arise where someone has an illegal gun they use to defend themself from an attack, and they could still be charged for having the illegal gun, however this resolution would protect them from the murder charge assuming all other criteria are met.

[Bytonic]

How do you submit?
Also, if I'm campaigning HOW THE HELL DOES THE GAME EXPECT ME TO BUY THAT MANY STAMPS?! I WOULD NEED OVER 18,000 TO SEND TO EVERY WA MEMEBER!

[Bisofeyr]

How do you submit?
Also, if I'm campaigning HOW THE HELL DOES THE GAME EXPECT ME TO BUY THAT MANY STAMPS?! I WOULD NEED OVER 18,000 TO SEND TO EVERY WA MEMEBER!

Ask these questions in the Questions thread stickied in this forum, don’t hijack a proposal thread.

[Barfleur]

"I would personally weaken the necessary showing in clause 6 to require the defendant only to prove the relevant facts by a preponderance of the evidence. I also worry that, in the example given by ZZBB about illegal weapons possession, a person who temporarily uses a gun--even if the person's possession of the gun is not licensed--would still nonetheless be criminally liable due to the absence of a necessity defense to that charge. Nevertheless, those are matters to be addressed by future legislation, and so I support this proposal."

[Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop]

"I would personally weaken the necessary showing in clause 6 to require the defendant only to prove the relevant facts by a preponderance of the evidence. I also worry that, in the example given by ZZBB about illegal weapons possession, a person who temporarily uses a gun--even if the person's possession of the gun is not licensed--would still nonetheless be criminally liable due to the absence of a necessity defense to that charge. Nevertheless, those are matters to be addressed by future legislation, and so I support this proposal."

“Given the presence of clause 7, member nations should be free to lower the qualifications for an absolute defense.”

[The Ice States]

"Noting that this resolution has reached vote around an hour ago, the Eternal Union has cast its vote in favour and prays for the prompt resolution of the long debate on this topic."

~Claudia Lindner,
Deputy World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Avinis]

Against. This isn't something a one-size-fits-all international agreement handles especially well.

[First Nightmare]

Section 6, due to its nonreliance on section 5, gives greater protection to those who mistakenly(yet reasonably) act in self defense: It does not give exceptions for third party damages.

That's not good.