NationStates Jolt Archive

It's been a while since I submitted this for the first time to assess possible support. Here's the old thread. Clicky. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358162) I'm going to re-submit this in about a month, probably. Let me know if you have any concerns or would like to volunteer to help in the telegramming campaign.


Right to Self-Protection

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description:

NOTICING that there are persons who, individually or collectively, willingly cause harm to other persons.

RECOGNIZING that such persons engage in acts of violence which are harmful to both sovereign individuals and societies.

URGES member nations to enact the following:

1.) All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property.

2.) All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons.

Who defines "reasonable force"? If member nations create their own definitions of "reasonable force", then this resolution is pointless, as they can define "reasonable force" to be as strong or as weak as they like. If the United Nations is to define "reasonable force", then Waterloovia would like to see such a definition included as part of the resolution.

I would think that reasonable force would depend on the situtation, and as such should not be defined by the resolution.

As a proponent of self-defense, I support this resolution; however, it should not be submitted as-is, it needs to be expanded.

I think you should consider adding the following:
_______________________________________
Reasonable force is defined as:
(1) Lethal force, when the attacker poses a direct threat to the lives of the defending citizen or bystanders, intending to kill or cause serious injury; or the defending citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to injure or kill. Trespassing and attempting to gain unauthorized entry to a citizen's home or place of business, especially through force (i.e. "breaking and entering") shall be considered "sufficient reason" to use lethal force. Trespassing itself is not necessarily cause to use lethal force, however, there has to be evidence of the trespasser's evil intent.

(2) Non-lethal force, when the attacker poses a threat to the property of a law-abiding citizen, or attempts to cause minor, non life-threatening injury to any citizen.

(3) Intimidation, when the citizen has legitimate reason to believe that they intend to cause any of the above crimes. What constitutes "legitimate reason" includes, but isn't limited to, being directly threatened, either verbally or through body language/threatening gestures.


The definition of Lethal Force includes, but is not limited to: the use of any firearm, dangerous edged weapons, certain martial arts, or any other attack likely to cause life-threatening injury or death, including non-lethal weapons wielded in such a way as to cause extreme, life-threatening injury.

Non-Lethal Force is defined as the use of devices such as pepper-spray, stun guns, most bludgeoning weapons, martial arts (when used to restrain or disable without killing), other forms of hand-to-hand combat, and any other weapon or technique used to disable an adversary without causing potentially lethal damage.

Intimidation includes verbal warnings, the brandishing of a weapon, etc, but does not include behavior that tries to incite a fight; only behavior likely to discourage another from attacking.

This resolution does not protect the use of violence against law enforcement or members of the military acting under orders, unless it is clear that they are acting on their own or with complete disregard for the law.

Finally, no citizen who defends themselves legally according to this resolution may be charged with any crime in relation to defending themselves, including weapons charges, unless it is clear that the pose an immediate danger to the public and hold a record of violent crimes.

As a proponent of self-defense, I support this resolution; however, it should not be submitted as-is, it needs to be expanded.

That is very much a matter of opinion...

I think you should consider adding the following:
_______________________________________
Reasonable force is defined as:
(1) Lethal force, when the attacker poses a direct threat to the lives of the defending citizen or bystanders, intending to kill or cause serious injury; or the defending citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to injure or kill. Trespassing and attempting to gain unauthorized entry to a citizen's home or place of business, especially through force (i.e. "breaking and entering") shall be considered "sufficient reason" to use lethal force. Trespassing itself is not necessarily cause to use lethal force, however, there has to be evidence of the trespasser's evil intent.

(2) Non-lethal force, when the attacker poses a threat to the property of a law-abiding citizen, or attempts to cause minor, non life-threatening injury to any citizen.

(3) Intimidation, when the citizen has legitimate reason to believe that they intend to cause any of the above crimes. What constitutes "legitimate reason" includes, but isn't limited to, being directly threatened, either verbally or through body language/threatening gestures.


The definition of Lethal Force includes, but is not limited to: the use of any firearm, dangerous edged weapons, certain martial arts, or any other attack likely to cause life-threatening injury or death, including non-lethal weapons wielded in such a way as to cause extreme, life-threatening injury.

Non-Lethal Force is defined as the use of devices such as pepper-spray, stun guns, most bludgeoning weapons, martial arts (when used to restrain or disable without killing), other forms of hand-to-hand combat, and any other weapon or technique used to disable an adversary without causing potentially lethal damage.

Intimidation includes verbal warnings, the brandishing of a weapon, etc, but does not include behavior that tries to incite a fight; only behavior likely to discourage another from attacking.

This resolution does not protect the use of violence against law enforcement or members of the military acting under orders, unless it is clear that they are acting on their own or with complete disregard for the law.

Finally, no citizen who defends themselves legally according to this resolution may be charged with any crime in relation to defending themselves, including weapons charges, unless it is clear that the pose an immediate danger to the public and hold a record of violent crimes.

While I appreciate the common-sense approach that you have provided, I will not add those stipulations because they intrude directly and strictly on national sovereignty and will lose me votes if it reaches quorum.

On the contrary, the UN members seem to love to micromanage other people's nations. Look at the resolutions that have already been passed.

I feel it is necessary to lay out some kind of framework for this, some definition of "reasonable force", or the nations that oppose self-defense will just define it so restrictively that the resolution becomes effectively useless.

Also, resolutions do get deleted if they aren't specific enough. You have to lay out what you want, rhetoric isn't enough.

On the contrary, the UN members seem to love to micromanage other people's nations. Look at the resolutions that have already been passed.

I have, though it pains me to do so.

I feel it is necessary to lay out some kind of framework for this, some definition of "reasonable force", or the nations that oppose self-defense will just define it so restrictively that the resolution becomes effectively useless.

Darn.

Also, resolutions do get deleted if they aren't specific enough. You have to lay out what you want, rhetoric isn't enough.

Really? I don't suppose you have any proof that resolutions (or proposals, which is probably what you meant) have gotten deleted for being all rhetoric?

I have evidence to the contrary...

Resolution # 7 "Sexual Freedom"

Resolution # 15 "Protect Historical Sites"

Resolution # 16 "Elimination of Bio Weapons"

Resolution # 19 "Religious Tolerance"

Sure, they occasionally slip through, but a lot of them don't. Look at the thread "A Case Study of deleted proposals". The moderators like specifics.

Both operative clause gives me pause. Both are quite broad, and could easily be used as a defense in circumstances where "defense of self" or "defense of others" wasn't really in play.
Common law principles, in general, require the presence of circumstances that threaten imminent death or serious injury to one's self or others, or the imminent destruction of one's own property. RL statutory refinements have modified the common law rule so that the effect is more narrow, but my point is that as written the proposal is way to broad.
I could go for a formulation based on the Restatement 2d of Torts, or the model criminal codes which most US states adopted back in the 1960s and 1970s, but this proposal, as written, invites a lot of problems because of its broadness.

As a proponent of self-defense, I support this resolution; however, it should not be submitted as-is, it needs to be expanded.

Depends on the expanding.

I think you should consider adding the following:
_______________________________________
Reasonable force is defined as:
(1) Lethal force, when the attacker poses a direct threat to the lives of the defending citizen or bystanders, intending to kill or cause serious injury; or the defending citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to injure or kill. Trespassing and attempting to gain unauthorized entry to a citizen's home or place of business, especially through force (i.e. "breaking and entering") shall be considered "sufficient reason" to use lethal force. Trespassing itself is not necessarily cause to use lethal force, however, there has to be evidence of the trespasser's evil intent.

Using lethal force in response to general trespassing is legal in DLE. If you have no business there, you shouldn't be there. Part of the rights of citizens.

(2) Non-lethal force, when the attacker poses a threat to the property of a law-abiding citizen, or attempts to cause minor, non life-threatening injury to any citizen.

See above for why this won't work in DLE.

(3) Intimidation, when the citizen has legitimate reason to believe that they intend to cause any of the above crimes. What constitutes "legitimate reason" includes, but isn't limited to, being directly threatened, either verbally or through body language/threatening gestures.

If you're stupid enough to use threatening gestures in a nation that issues its citizens assault rifles and get shot, it's you're fault. People tend to be politer.

The definition of Lethal Force includes, but is not limited to: the use of any firearm, dangerous edged weapons, certain martial arts, or any other attack likely to cause life-threatening injury or death, including non-lethal weapons wielded in such a way as to cause extreme, life-threatening injury.

Good definition.

Non-Lethal Force is defined as the use of devices such as pepper-spray, stun guns, most bludgeoning weapons, martial arts (when used to restrain or disable without killing), other forms of hand-to-hand combat, and any other weapon or technique used to disable an adversary without causing potentially lethal damage.

See above.

Intimidation includes verbal warnings, the brandishing of a weapon, etc, but does not include behavior that tries to incite a fight; only behavior likely to discourage another from attacking.

Good enough.

This resolution does not protect the use of violence against law enforcement or members of the military acting under orders, unless it is clear that they are acting on their own or with complete disregard for the law.

No complaints.

Finally, no citizen who defends themselves legally according to this resolution may be charged with any crime in relation to defending themselves, including weapons charges, unless it is clear that the pose an immediate danger to the public and hold a record of violent crimes.

Does this include them using an illegal weapon for self-defense?

i like the scope of this resolution, but it is way to vauge...protecting one's property or person is open to interpretation...can a bad look constitute as a threat, and therefore allow a person to attak another person and then claim self defence...or what if a person gets lost in the woods while hunting and unknowingly wanders onto another person's property, can the land owner shoot first then ask questions later?

Depends on the expanding.


Using lethal force in response to general trespassing is legal in DLE. If you have no business there, you shouldn't be there. Part of the rights of citizens.

Exactly.


See above for why this won't work in DLE.
This bit about non-lethal force refers to stuff like pickpockets. Tresspassers can be shot, under the bit about lethal-force.


If you're stupid enough to use threatening gestures in a nation that issues its citizens assault rifles and get shot, it's you're fault. People tend to be politer.

True, but not all nations issue people assault rifles.

Does this include them using an illegal weapon for self-defense?
I suppose it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It depends, since "illegal weapons" vary from nation to nation. I do think it is morally wrong for an average citizen to be arrested and prosecuted after fighting off an attacker with a gun that's been in his family for years, but wasn't registered when the latest gun control act was passed.

On the other hand, if some fool stumbles into a terrorist hideout, looking for something to steal, they shoot him and the cops find out, the terrorists should not get off scot-free. Hence the "unless it is clear that the pose an immediate danger to the public and hold a record of violent crimes" bit. It's up to individual nations and judges to decide what constitutes "clear" evidence that they are dangerous, so individual nations still have great freedom to enforce this part of the resolution.

Most of this comes from Fatastistan's attitude towards gun control, and civil liberties in general: Do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else, or damage their freedom.

Really? I don't suppose you have any proof that resolutions (or proposals, which is probably what you meant) have gotten deleted for being all rhetoric?

I have evidence to the contrary...

Resolution # 7 "Sexual Freedom"

Resolution # 15 "Protect Historical Sites"

Resolution # 16 "Elimination of Bio Weapons"

Resolution # 19 "Religious Tolerance"

And, possibly (not ashamed to admit it):

Resolution # 75 The Nuclear Terrorism Act.


As far as this resolution goes, depending on how this coordinates with my life in a month, I would be happy to send out some telegrams. I doubt there's much more help I could offer than that: I seem to be quickly outgunned in the debate threads.

This bit about non-lethal force refers to stuff like pickpockets. Tresspassers can be shot, under the bit about lethal-force.

There's that bit about it not necessarily being evil and evidence required.

True, but not all nations issue people assault rifles.

Which is why invading me dangerous. An armed populous with the majority liking the government makes for a diifficult conquer.

I suppose it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It depends, since "illegal weapons" vary from nation to nation. I do think it is morally wrong for an average citizen to be arrested and prosecuted after fighting off an attacker with a gun that's been in his family for years, but wasn't registered when the latest gun control act was passed.

Wait, we're supposed to control how guns are spread around in our nations?

On the other hand, if some fool stumbles into a terrorist hideout, looking for something to steal, they shoot him and the cops find out, the terrorists should not get off scot-free. Hence the "unless it is clear that the pose an immediate danger to the public and hold a record of violent crimes" bit. It's up to individual nations and judges to decide what constitutes "clear" evidence that they are dangerous, so individual nations still have great freedom to enforce this part of the resolution.

The part about having to prove they pose a menace to society just by having an illegal weapon is what is difficult. Can you change it to be something along the lines of "unless they are breaking other laws this does not regulate in the process"?

Most of this comes from Fatastistan's attitude towards gun control, and civil liberties in general: Do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else, or damage their freedom.

Similar attitude here.

There's that bit about it not necessarily being evil and evidence required.

It's a rough draft, sorry if it's kind of hard to follow. I'll have to work on it.


Which is why invading me dangerous. An armed populous with the majority liking the government makes for a diifficult conquer.

Hell, that's why the Japanese never invaded Pearl Harbor. They knew they'd have a rifle pointed at them out of every other window.


Wait, we're supposed to control how guns are spread around in our nations?

No, that's just an example of how the law can protect people, they may not intend to hurt anyone (innocent), but might still be going against some ill-conceived, pointless regulation.


[/QUOTE]
The part about having to prove they pose a menace to society just by having an illegal weapon is what is difficult. Can you change it to be something along the lines of "unless they are breaking other laws this does not regulate in the process"?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I've got to try rewrite that bit.


Similar attitude here.
It's nice to know I'm not the only one here who respects the rights of the people.

Vastiva likes the first draft, as "reasonable force" in Vastiva usually consists of anything up to assault rifle fire in all cases. We do not endorse micromanagement of our justice system.

"Well, you should have hit him."
"I DID hit him."
"Yes, but you did it with a car..."

Another interesting proposal this.. I will probably vote against this if it comes up on the basis that me (and my nation) do not feel that crucial legal principles such as the right of self-defence ought to be defined or granted anywhere above national level. But I'm not really here to argue that point now, just thought I could contribute my two cents to the discussion on reasonability.

Quote from Halsbury's Laws of England and Wales (imaginary places in a strange dimension known as the real world ;) ) :

"In determining whether the force used was reasonable the court will take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the nature and degree of force used, the seriousness of the evil to be prevented and the possibility of preventing it by other means."

The point to note here is the phrase 'in determining whether the force used was reasonable the court will take into account all the circumstances of the case'. Circumstances depend on the facts of a case, and the facts of a case, obviously, will vary. That is why there is no authoritative definition of reasonable force, or reasonability in general in English and Welsh law. The closest we can get to the 'reasonable man' at the end of the day is what the jury/court of a specific case says is reasonable. Certainly, that is not an ideal state of affairs. However, to me it makes more sense than defining reasonability to a given jury which for some reason or another does not think that the definition is useful or reasonable within the specific 'facts' context of a case. We shouldn't forget that juries are made up of ordinary people - 'over-directing' them as to reasonability will confuse rather than clarify if the facts of a case do not lend themselves to categories of reasonability. We trust juries to put people away for life (and to death in some cases), we should at least trust that they have common sense.

I hope that makes some sense - I will be happy to clarify when I am less tired and it is less late at night.

Mickey.

I wouldn't use England's laws as examples, since both have a horrible record when it comes to self-defense cases. In the end, you have to have some sort of guideline in place, since different people will make different decisions.

I'm a student and practitioner of the laws of England and Wales and wasn't aware of a horrible record on self-defence. My specialty may not be criminal law but could you provide some case examples for your point of view and reasons why you think it is a horrible record? That way I'll be more prepared to agree or disagree with you.

Before we get into a slanging match as to the real world merits of different legal systems, let me clarify that I was not suggesting using English law as a guideline (remember I'm actually opposed to the proposal) but using it to construct a sensible argument in support of NOT defining reasonability from a real world perspective. The fact that English law is the basis on which common law jurisdictions (USA minus Louisiana I think, Australia, New Zealand etc) have constructed their own legal systems, is why I thought it would be useful in an argument that seems quite America-centric as to legal theory being relied on.

Mickey

I favour leaving the specifics up to the nations.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

As others have said, I will not endorse this as I feel it is the responsibility of the nation itself, not the UNs.

As others have said, I will not endorse this as I feel it is the responsibility of the nation itself, not the UNs.

Wow! A person even more strict about national sovereignty than myself! You are a rare creature indeed!

But on to the matter of the proposal itself. At the behest of one of the Texas nations who made a very good suggestion on our offsite forum, I changed a couple of things. Here is the revised version.


Right to Self-Protection

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description:

NOTICING that there are persons who, individually or collectively, willingly cause harm to other persons.

RECOGNIZING that such persons engage in acts of violence which are harmful to both sovereign individuals and societies.

URGES member nations to enact the following:

1.) All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current illegitimate assaults.

2.) All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current illegitimate assaults.


I realize that some people are going to want me to be very specific and really lay the smackdown on sovereignty here, but I am unwilling to do that. Frankly, there is no reason for me to assert my views so strongly on other nations that have perfectly effective and consistent justice systems that differ from my own. It would be nice if we could just pass such laws to solely affect the nations that are consistently violating the human rights of their citizens, but we can't because that sort of proposal is illegal, and the only way to get something even closely resembling it passed would be to be so vague that the people who want specificity still wouldn't like it. So here are the reasons I structured the proposal the way I did.

1. Addresses an important issue.
2. Treads as lightly as possible on national sovereignty.
3. Allows for multiple valid judicial system types to exist.

You've got my support if it comes to a vote. Now, to try to convince my regional delegate...

You've got my support if it comes to a vote. Now, to try to convince my regional delegate...

Thanks, DLE! Good luck convincing your regional delegate. :)

Hi Texan

This is a pretty nitpicky point but it's not meant to be criticism. It may not make much difference as to effect but if getting the wording right is a concern it may help.

I would replace 'illegitimate' with 'unlawful' ie against the law. 'Illegitimate' can be construed much more widely. 'Unlawful' is much more widely used as legal terminology.

I would replace 'assaults' with 'trespasses'. It may sound awkward but with what I remember of early days criminal law assaults can only be committed against people whereas trespasses can be performed against both people and property ie trespass against the person under which there are several categories of assaults and battery, as well as against land ie trespass to land. If it sounds too awkward I'd probably separate out the different rights ie
1. self-defence for yourself
2. defence of others
3. self-defence of own property
4. defence of other's property

There is also the issue that technically trespass to land included just entering onto someone else's property (eg a field with cows), but maybe you want to cover that. Anyways, good luck with it all.

Thanks! I'll switch to "unlawful," unless someone else has a reasonable objection to that term. :)

Why do they need the right to defend someone elses property? I totally disagree with the first part, but I do understand it. But the right to protect someone elses property? That's not self-protection, it's just acting like a vigalante (which might not be spelt like that I admit).

Why do they need the right to defend someone elses property? I totally disagree with the first part, but I do understand it. But the right to protect someone elses property? That's not self-protection, it's just acting like a vigalante (which might not be spelt like that I admit).

So if I stop a person from stealing my friend's or my neighbor's car, that's acting like a vigilante?

Pretty much. Yeah.

My UN delegate will almost certainly approve this, if I can get him disentangled from his 3 ex-wives long enough to notice it.

His name is AOF. Telegram him and I can almost guarantee he'll support it.

My UN delegate will almost certainly approve this, if I can get him disentangled from his 3 ex-wives long enough to notice it.

His name is AOF. Telegram him and I can almost guarantee he'll support it.

Thanks! I'll put him on my telegram list. :) Can I tell AOF that you sent me?

Pretty much. Yeah.

Ok. So I guess asking you to support it would be out of the question? :D

Thanks! I'll put him on my telegram list. :) Can I tell AOF that you sent me?

heh heh heh...

Sure!

Ok. So I guess asking you to support it would be out of the question? :D

The whole basis of your proposal is (or appears to be) that sometimes people do violance to other people.

And yet your proposal urges our nations to allow the same thing.

I really do understand why it might be a good idea, and it does pain me to have to say no, but I can't support something that is going to have the potential to destroy law and order in my nation.

However if you can assure me that the "urges" part means I can ignore it once it is in place, then I will be happy to support it :}

The whole basis of your proposal is (or appears to be) that sometimes people do violance to other people.

And yet your proposal urges our nations to allow the same thing.

I really do understand why it might be a good idea, and it does pain me to have to say no, but I can't support something that is going to have the potential to destroy law and order in my nation.

However if you can assure me that the "urges" part means I can ignore it once it is in place, then I will be happy to support it :}

Ummm...that was kinda the whole point of the "URGES" part. If nations are really finding the text that objectionable, they don't have to follow it.

Ummm...that was kinda the whole point of the "URGES" part. If nations are really finding the text that objectionable, they don't have to follow it.

That's okay then :}

*Bump* for the "old" proposal. ;)

Heh, I'm sorry if you think I kind've stole your idea.

Heh, I'm sorry if you think I kind've stole your idea.

It did look that way, at first. But then I realized that were I in your shoes I might have done basically the same thing, so I don't care. :)

Well, after some revisions, here is the current text of my proposal.


Right to Self-Protection

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description:

NOTICING that there are persons who, individually or collectively, willingly cause harm to other persons.

RECOGNIZING that such persons engage in acts of violence which are harmful to both sovereign individuals and societies.

URGES member nations to enact the following:

~ All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

I am happy to suppor this, mostly because it doesn't say who defines reasonable (leaving it in my hands in my nation) and it doesn't say that someone can not be forced to show why they did it in a court (again leaving it up to my nation). So if the court finds that the force was not reasonable, the person can be suitably chastised.

Good to see this thread coming to life again. The debate was getting a bit circular over at the other thread.

I like the flexibility of this. I'll have to do some thinking as to whether I feel that legal rights like this ought to be imposed at the UN level (kind of torn between 'legal sovereignty' and a firm personal belief in a right of self-defence) but I won't speak up against this proposal, to put it that way! You may however find me get unduly worked up and speak up against someone who comes on and says 'this is too vague!'. I do have a suggestion though, and this is from the point of view of me believing personally in self defence - maybe extend this to defence of other people and the defence of their property too, which of course would need to be reasonable in terms of force used too. Wasn't this provided for in the proposal you made earlier?

Good luck with it all.

Good to see this thread coming to life again. The debate was getting a bit circular over at the other thread.

I like the flexibility of this. I'll have to do some thinking as to whether I feel that legal rights like this ought to be imposed at the UN level (kind of torn between 'legal sovereignty' and a firm personal belief in a right of self-defence) but I won't speak up against this proposal, to put it that way! You may however find me get unduly worked up and speak up against someone who comes on and says 'this is too vague!'. I do have a suggestion though, and this is from the point of view of me believing personally in self defence - maybe extend this to defence of other people and the defence of their property too, which of course would need to be reasonable in terms of force used too. Wasn't this provided for in the proposal you made earlier?

Good luck with it all.

(smirk) It was but someone (who looked quite a lot like me) objected to it on the grounds that self-defence can not possibly be applied to protecting someone else. Now whether it was removed cause I objected, or cause it was seen to make (a little) sense I couldn't say :}

Wasn't this provided for in the proposal you made earlier?

It certainly was. Tori was strenuously objecting to that part, so I cut it. I wasn't happy about it, though.


Also, I have decided to change the submission time to tomorrow morning.

It certainly was. Tori was strenuously objecting to that part, so I cut it. I wasn't happy about it, though.

Well, tell Tori to go look at some real world law books, then maybe she'll change her (his?) mind! ;) Most self defence laws have an 'defence of other' section attached to it. Appreciate the whole democratic proposal-drafting though, most of these proposals seem to just get submitted THEN debated. Which is a bit pointless. Kind of a 'shoot first, then ask' mentality.

Well, tell Tori to go look at some real world law books, then maybe she'll change her (his?) mind! ;) Most self defence laws have an 'defence of other' section attached to it. Appreciate the whole democratic proposal-drafting though, most of these proposals seem to just get submitted THEN debated. Which is a bit pointless. Kind of a 'shoot first, then ask' mentality.

The first time I submitted it I never did a drafting phase. That's because the initial submission does two things for me. It allows me to assess the base level of support among the regular UN delegates, and provides me with a list of delegates that are friendly to such proposals.

Well, tell Tori to go look at some real world law books, then maybe she'll change her (his?) mind! ;) Most self defence laws have an 'defence of other' section attached to it. Appreciate the whole democratic proposal-drafting though, most of these proposals seem to just get submitted THEN debated. Which is a bit pointless. Kind of a 'shoot first, then ask' mentality.

Btw - Tori would be me. And I am she. Just so that is clear.

Secondly - this proposal made a mention of protecting someone elses life, regardless of whether they are on your property or not. Which would imply that you could use it to defend someone you have never met on the street. I know this is an exteme example but you could shoot someone on the street because they are swinging a punch at someone.

I admit it is unlikely that would happen, but in a proposal championing the right of "self-defence" applying it to the ability to defend someone else - who is not your self is, in my view, a little contradictory.

(Also quite a lot of the law in the UN would never pass in the real world. Cause the real world would be damn scary if it did!!)

(1) Lethal force, when the attacker poses a direct threat to the lives of the defending citizen or bystanders, intending to kill or cause serious injury; or the defending citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to injure or kill. Trespassing and attempting to gain unauthorized entry to a citizen's home or place of business, especially through force (i.e. "breaking and entering") shall be considered "sufficient reason" to use lethal force. Trespassing itself is not necessarily cause to use lethal force, however, there has to be evidence of the trespasser's evil intent.

(2) Non-lethal force, when the attacker poses a threat to the property of a law-abiding citizen, or attempts to cause minor, non life-threatening injury to any citizen.




I had questions regarding the parts in bold when these definitions of what force is to be used when were proposed earlier. Trespassing and breaking and entering pose threats to property, so how is it that the 1st bold clause is considered different from the 2nd bold one?

In addition to that, I would argue that most who break into houses don't have the intention of killing the inhabitants, but rather the intention of theft. When one simply breaks into a house, it should be considered a threat to property, being that the intruder has given no sign of wanting to murder those inside. However, if the inhabitant confronts the intruder, and the intruder pulls a knife on them, then that would be a threat to the inhabitant, and thus it would be justifiable for the inhabitant to eliminate the threat.

Btw - Tori would be me. And I am she. Just so that is clear.

Secondly - this proposal made a mention of protecting someone elses life, regardless of whether they are on your property or not. Which would imply that you could use it to defend someone you have never met on the street. I know this is an exteme example but you could shoot someone on the street because they are swinging a punch at someone.

I admit it is unlikely that would happen, but in a proposal championing the right of "self-defence" applying it to the ability to defend someone else - who is not your self is, in my view, a little contradictory.

(Also quite a lot of the law in the UN would never pass in the real world. Cause the real world would be damn scary if it did!!)

Apologies for not realising who you were.. and similarly if you found my 'real life law books' comment condescending - it was a bit hurried. We seem to have agreed so far and I see your point, but I think it is important to remember the 'reasonable force' provision (which I've discussed in A LOT of detail elsewhere). I definitely think you should be allowed to defend someone on the street and not fear automatic conviction for whatever assault you committed, but with a VERY important qualification - that the force should be reasonable in the circumstances. In my view the same applies to property. Killing someone who punches a stranger is clearly not a reasonable response - however, coming to the stranger's aid by punching back would be. That is the (morbid) beauty of reasonable force. Self-defence laws are usually couched in terms of 'in defence of yourself and others', so yes, including the word 'self' is probably contradictory but I don't think it should be too narrowly interpreted.

There should be no legal duty to come to anyone's aid, but similarly, there should be no obligation not to either. I appreciate that the resolution is silent on this point, but that may be the implication of limiting defence to yourself.

Apologies for not realising who you were.. and similarly if you found my 'real life law books' comment condescending - it was a bit hurried. We seem to have agreed so far and I see your point, but I think it is important to remember the 'reasonable force' provision (which I've discussed in A LOT of detail elsewhere). I definitely think you should be allowed to defend someone on the street and not fear automatic conviction for whatever assault you committed, but with a VERY important qualification - that the force should be reasonable in the circumstances. In my view the same applies to property. Killing someone who punches a stranger is clearly not a reasonable response - however, coming to the stranger's aid by punching back would be. That is the (morbid) beauty of reasonable force. Self-defence laws are usually couched in terms of 'in defence of yourself and others', so yes, including the word 'self' is probably contradictory but I don't think it should be too narrowly interpreted.

There should be no legal duty to come to anyone's aid, but similarly, there should be no obligation not to either. I appreciate that the resolution is silent on this point, but that may be the implication of limiting defence to yourself.

I admit that in terms of this reaction I might have been being a tad paranoid. But I see proposals for "self-defence" and my mind reads "vigalantism" (and probably doesn't spell it like that).

The problem is not with defending yourself (providing you have to go to court to prove it was required) or others (with the same proviso) but the possible extentions to it.

For example - you know for sure there is a convicted paedophile living in your street, where a lot of families have children. Now you might be a peacable type who won't do anything, but I can see someone who thinks that the padeophile is a danger could aruge that to protect his children from imminent attack he has to do whatever is necessary to drive the guy out of his house, or failing that, stop him from hurting the children.

And that could be justified in the terms of defending someone else from impending attack. Which is the basis of this proposal.

I know - an over the top example. But there is a reason we have a police force in TilEnca, and when I read proposals that put the powers of the police in to the hands of those less well trained, I tend to get scared and react in a bad way.