[DRAFT] Right to Defend self, others and Property

[Keswickholt]

The Senator William Harrison of the Federal Republic of Keswickholt hereby proposes the below draft for speculation and constructive feedback from the honourable members of the Assembly.

This World Assembly,

Believes that it is necessary for a resolution that gives a person or other being the right to defend themselves, another person or property.

Hereby the Assembly will protect the right of the individual to protect themselves as described below;

Part 1: Self Defence of one's self or another:

1. A person or other being may use force that is necessary, proportionate and reasonable to the force being used against them to defend themselves or another person or other being.
   
2. The Individual defending themselves or another must only use force that any reasonable person or other being believes is reasonable and proportionate to the level of force being used against that individual or another.
   
3. A person or other being may use force in defence of themselves or another if they believe that if they did not then harm or serious injury would be caused to themselves or another due to that inaction.

Part 2: Defence of Property

1. A person or another being may use force that is necessary, proportionate and reasonable to defend property belonging to themselves or another from any other party that wishes to destroy, alter or damage that property.

Part 3: Excessive Force

1. A person or other being who uses force against another, and the level of force used is inappropriate to the level originally presented, has used Excessive Force and as such cannot claim Self Defence

Part 4: Definitions

1. Reasonable is defined as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate to the actions presented.
2. Proportionate is defined as exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities.
3. Necessary is defined as needed to be done, achieved, or present; essential.
4. Property is defined as a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively and a building or buildings and the land belonging to it or them.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why is the measure of reasonable subjective and not objective? Why is the right to defend property not exclusive of lethal force?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

First, just saying 'reasonable' is not a standard.

Then, a few questions.

1. Is this an affirmative defence?
2. Can you use self-defence against the police?
3. Can you claim self-defence after putting yourself into a position to use self-defence?
4. Can you attack someone who is lying in wait alongside the road who is holding their weapon like a bandit about to attack?
5. If A believes B is on their property and B believes A is on their property, but C actually is in seisin of the property, who is in the right?
6. Why do your definitions feel like they walked out of a dictionary?

[Keswickholt]

First, just saying 'reasonable' is not a standard.

Then, a few questions.

1. Is this an affirmative defence?
2. Can you use self-defence against the police?
3. Can you claim self-defence after putting yourself into a position to use self-defence?
4. Can you attack someone who is lying in wait alongside the road who is holding their weapon like a bandit about to attack?
5. If A believes B is on their property and B believes A is on their property, but C actually is in seisin of the property, who is in the right?
6. Why do your definitions feel like they walked out of a dictionary?

1. It is in UK Law (OOC)
Q1. No
Q2. I will make amendments to the draft
Q4. No, I will make amendments to the draft
Q5. Complicated, being that a tenant has legal ownership to protect the property as much as the Landlord
Q6. I can write in such a way to mimic a dictionary, I have no control over that, it is an issue I have at work as well.

"Why is the measure of reasonable subjective and not objective? Why is the right to defend property not exclusive of lethal force?"

It is subjective as it is measured against what a person of reasonable standing would consider as proportionate and reasonable at that time, it cannot be measured as that could mean that a person who wasn't present at the time would be able to use hindsight to make judgement.

As not everything needs to end in death, you can defend a property without killing someone, that is a measured defence, for example lethal force can be used on someone in possession of a Firearm or weapon but not in the case of a person who is unarmed.

[Separatist Peoples]

First, just saying 'reasonable' is not a standard.

Then, a few questions.

1. Is this an affirmative defence?
2. Can you use self-defence against the police?
3. Can you claim self-defence after putting yourself into a position to use self-defence?
4. Can you attack someone who is lying in wait alongside the road who is holding their weapon like a bandit about to attack?
5. If A believes B is on their property and B believes A is on their property, but C actually is in seisin of the property, who is in the right?
6. Why do your definitions feel like they walked out of a dictionary?

1. It is in UK Law (OOC)
Q1. No
Q2. I will make amendments to the draft
Q4. No, I will make amendments to the draft
Q5. Complicated, being that a tenant has legal ownership to protect the property as much as the Landlord
Q6. I can write in such a way to mimic a dictionary, I have no control over that, it is an issue I have at work as well.

"Why is the measure of reasonable subjective and not objective? Why is the right to defend property not exclusive of lethal force?"

It is subjective as it is measured against what a person of reasonable standing would consider as proportionate and reasonable at that time, it cannot be measured as that could mean that a person who wasn't present at the time would be able to use hindsight to make judgement.

As not everything needs to end in death, you can defend a property without killing someone, that is a measured defence, for example lethal force can be used on someone in possession of a Firearm or weapon but not in the case of a person who is unarmed.

"Your proposal allows the possibility of lethal force to defend property.

"Further, objective standards are used all the time in these cases. They are a benchmark of what society thinks is reasonable. What a reasonable ordinary person would do in a situation balances out the subjective but good faith belief of a deranged person."

[Picairn]

1. A person or other being who uses force against another, and the level of force used is inappropriate to the level originally presented, has used Excessive Force and as such cannot claim Self Defence

What is "inappropriate" in this context? Hypothetical: If some guy charges at me with a knife and I shoot the guy and he drops dead, am I using Excessive Force since his level of force (knife) is less than mine (gun)?

[Imperium Anglorum]

First, just saying 'reasonable' is not a standard.

1. It is in UK Law (OOC)

I know that the word 'reasonable' is in UK law, specifically, in this case, Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s 76. A similar reasonable standard is set for police use of force in Criminal Law Act 1967 s 3. If you read my linked post, however, you'd also see how amorphous that standard is when applied by nations acting in their self-interest. Your response is pretty unresponsive as to why I believe that just saying 'reasonable' is not a standard.

Even if the World Assembly had a judiciary by which it could establish clear tests for determining what is reasonable, we cannot know the actual results of those judicial decisions. It adds nothing to a proposal when we cannot see it. What results are duelling assertions about how that court operated which are probably resolved under reasonable nation theory, meaning there is no net gain in concreteness or in amenity by including such a provision.

Either way, your standard for allowing use of force is insufficient.

Then, a few questions.

1. Is this an affirmative defence?
2. Can you use self-defence against the police?
3. Can you claim self-defence after putting yourself into a position to use self-defence?
4. Can you attack someone who is lying in wait alongside the road who is holding their weapon like a bandit about to attack?
5. If A believes B is on their property and B believes A is on their property, but C actually is in seisin of the property, who is in the right?
6. Why do your definitions feel like they walked out of a dictionary?

Q1. No
Q2. I will make amendments to the draft
Q4. No, I will make amendments to the draft
Q5. Complicated, being that a tenant has legal ownership to protect the property as much as the Landlord
Q6. I can write in such a way to mimic a dictionary, I have no control over that, it is an issue I have at work as well.

1. No support if it is not an affirmative defence. Given it is not an affirmative defence, this will become the next 'benefit of clergy'.

2. Do so.

3. There isn't a response to this question. Assuming arguendo that the answer is 'Yes', then no support.

4. Why should a preemptive attack of this sort be permitted? Sure, Gaius in the Digest says that Roman law would permit such an attack, but in a world (like the modern one) where there are few bandits, what is the chance that the person lying in wait is actually a bandit? Might they instead be an undercover officer monitoring a dangerous criminal?

5. Let's assume that neither B nor A have the lawful right to the property but each believes that they have such a right for himself. Both satisfy your subjective use for force test and everyone shoots each other dead even though they are defending unlawfully claimed property. This is a bad use of force standard.

6. No, you apparently can't 'write in such a way to mimic a dictionary'. I wouldn't be pointing this out so explicitly other than the fact that it apparently was worth being dishonest about and is easily disproved when I too can use Google. But here we are.

'Reasonable is defined as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate to the actions presented' but see https://www.lexico.com/definition/reasonable 'As much as is appropriate or fair; moderate'.

'Proportionate is defined as exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities' but see https://musicaldictionary.com/harmonious/ 'exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities'.

'Necessary is defined as needed to be done, achieved, or present; essential' but see https://www.lexico.com/definition/necessary 'Needed to be done, achieved, or present; essential'.

'Property is defined as a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively...' but see https://www.lexico.com/definition/property 'a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively'

---

The Senator William Harrison of the Federal Republic of Keswickholt hereby proposes the below draft for speculation and constructive feedback from the honourable members of the Assembly.

This World Assembly,

Believes that it is necessary for a resolution that gives a person or other being the right to defend themselves, another person or property.

Hereby the Assembly will protect the right of the individual to protect themselves as described below;

Part 1: Self Defence of one's self or another:

1. A person or other being may use force that is necessary, proportionate and reasonable to the force being used against them to defend themselves or another person or other being.
   
2. The Individual defending themselves or another must only use force that any reasonable person or other being believes is reasonable and proportionate to the level of force being used against that individual or another.
   
3. A person or other being may use force in defence of themselves or another if they believe that if they did not then harm or serious injury would be caused to themselves or another due to that inaction.

Part 2: Defence of Property

1. A person or another being may use force that is necessary, proportionate and reasonable to defend property belonging to themselves or another from any other party that wishes to destroy, alter or damage that property.

Part 3: Excessive Force

1. A person or other being who uses force against another, and the level of force used is inappropriate to the level originally presented, has used Excessive Force and as such cannot claim Self Defence

Part 4: Definitions

1. Reasonable is defined as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate to the actions presented.
2. Proportionate is defined as exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities.
3. Necessary is defined as needed to be done, achieved, or present; essential.
4. Property is defined as a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively and a building or buildings and the land belonging to it or them.

[Scalizagasti]

A person or another being may use force that is necessary, proportionate and reasonable to defend property belonging to themselves or another from any other party that wishes to destroy, alter or damage that property.

"So someone can defend property that does not belong to them? That seems like it could be exploited or misinterpreted quite easily. For example, what if the 'other party' is in fact the owner of the property which some random person has elected to defend? What if the property is a river owned by the government that is being dammed by private contractors?"