NationStates Jolt Archive

I've already submitted it.
I think this resolution is the best way to take on this issue, which has come up before. It gives every citizen the right to defend themselves, with a common-sense definition of "reasonable force", while still protects the right of individual governments to expand the definition of reasonable force, and doesn't touch the issue of the right to bear arms, as I feel this needs its own proposal. I hope you vote for this, I've gone over it again and again and tried to weed out anything to extreme. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who are tired of poorly-written, poorly thought-out proposals.

Here's the text:

The Right to Self-Defense
Self-preservation is the most basic of instincts, among both humans and the animal world. Nevertheless, many so-called "civilized" nations encourage their citizens that the only acceptable way to face an armed attack is to offer no resistance, and that those who dare to resist must be punished.

This proposal affirms the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from attack or threat of attack using any appropriate force without fear of legal prosecution.

Under this resolution, each citizen may use lethal force under the following circumstances:

1.)If attacked, with the intent of causing life-threatening injury or death to the citizen or another;

2.)If the citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to cause life-threatening injury or death;

3.)If the attacker trespasses on the citizen's property, gaining entrance through the use of force (i.e., breaking and entering).

The citizen may use non-lethal force under the following circumstances:

1.)When the attacker poses a threat to the property of a law-abiding citizen;
2.)Attempts to cause minor, non life-threatening injury to any citizen.

The citizen may respond by attempting to intimidate the potential attacker if:
1.)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 through fear.

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 citizen may be charged with a crime for the act of defending themselves in accordance with these guidelines. Likewise, the perpetrator of an attack or a trespasser may not file a civil lawsuit for any damage done, when they have committed a crime.

Every citizen shall have the right to defend themselves to the minimum extent as defined above, however the governments of individual nations are free to expand the definitions provided above to give their citizens more freedom in defending themselves and their property.

Also, it should be known that this resolution does not specify any individual right to own weapons. All nations are free to determine what weapons should be legal within their borders, as their societies dictate.

I think this would fare better as a daily issue instead of a UN resolution.

How would you know whether the person was within their right to use lethal force?

Personally, I think you can defend yourself without taking someone elses life.

The resolution doesn't require anyone to use lethal force. And "sufficient reason to believe" is left intentionally undefined, to be left up to individual nations or judges.

Got my UN delegate to approve it. We (Lichto and myself) wholeheartedly approve and back it.

How would you know whether the person was within their right to use lethal force?

Personally, I think you can defend yourself without taking someone elses life.

Guy is aiming a gun at you. You have a gun and the only open spots are his head and the barrel of his gun. You have chance to save your life. What do you shoot?

Okay so you could devise certain situations that could prmpt me into saying I would use lethal force. I never said this resolution made people use lethal force. I simply said how do you determine if someone was justified in using lethal force. Do you simply take their word. "Honestly officer I was within my right." Please read first.

Okay so you could devise certain situations that could prmpt me into saying I would use lethal force. I never said this resolution made people use lethal force. I simply said how do you determine if someone was justified in using lethal force. Do you simply take their word. "Honestly officer I was within my right." Please read first.

You go with the evidence and investigate. If the evidence doesn't contradict them, then they used it with reason. Then again, DLE has a far more liberal policy on lethal force than many nations...

What if there is no evidence present? That does happen from time to time.

Then you have only their word.

At least you'll never have the following scenario happen:

Police Officer: Son, I think you used a little too much force this time.
Citizen: But, officer, I was afraid for my life and it was all necessary!
Police Officer: I can understand using the minigun filled with armor piercing bullets on him, and see a good arguement for the six rounds from a grenade launcher, and there is a slight chance the stabbing his remains thirty-two times was called for. But tying him to a stake and setting him fire before cutting out his heart and slowly sawing off his head was definitely excessive force.
Citizen: What punishment am I in for?
Police Officer: Since this is your first offense, I'm giving you a warning and letting you go. But the next time you have questions about excessive force, trap the criminal somehow and we'll demonstrate what is acceptable force when we arrive.

1.)If attacked, with the intent of causing life-threatening injury or death to the citizen or another;
How can you know when your life is in danger? It reminds me an all story about a young girl in a taxi late at night. When the dreiver turned his face to the girl to have is money, the girl shot him twice in the head. She was relaxed because of the probably intention of arming her.

2.)If the citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to cause life-threatening injury or death;
What is a sufficient reason? The race? the scar on his face? maybe because he had his hand to the interior of his jacket...

3.)If the attacker trespasses on the citizen's property, gaining entrance through the use of force (i.e., breaking and entering).;
What about collectivist nations. Come to Feliz, every house is open strangers. You can hang your hamacas anywhere.

The citizen may respond by attempting to intimidate the potential attacker if:
1.)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.

And this doesn't solve the problem. Rap or Trashmetal bands have an agressive body language, and can have threatening gestures.

Sufficient reason? It's really up to the nations to decide for a reason, since the definition is bound to differ from place to place.

I'd say that sufficient reason would be, the person is threatening you, has a weapon drawn (that's a dead giveaway), or says they have a weapon.

I'm not really sure what you consider 'threatening.' There's a big difference between a thrash metal band's on-stage behavior and a crackhead in an alleyway telling you to hand over your wallet before he stabs you to death...

I think that the proposal is well written and well presented. I agree with the proposal and this it is just vague enough to allow interpretations by the nations. I will back this proposal.

Fatastistan

Interesting move to pre-submit this proposal without presenting it for debate, which was the case with the previous (and thankfully, for very many reasons much less extensive) resolution on this topic. You've effectively made yourself and your resolution immune to any complaints (which you may have to address, but which you won't necessarily have to now) and can safely ride it out hoping for enough people to not realise the implications of this resolution for the way their legal systems work, and thus vote for it. By all means, it's fairly well written, if not following the traditional UN format, and it's obvious you feel very strongly about this, which is all commendable.

I was against the 'old' proposal on grounds of that I did not feel that the right of self-defence was a legal right amenable to application and definition at the UN level, but I supported it in principle. I believe (as does my nation) in a right of self-defence where property and person are concerned, but I do not believe in guidelines as to where my courts ought to draw the line as to what is reasonable or not. That is up to my courts to decide, and not an international organisation. My nation is unique, and the facts of every case are unique - what is reasonable will depend on the circumstances of an individual case and the extent of reasonable behaviour will be decided by the people of my country as represented in a jury. You rely on 'common sense' to justify your guidelines - but let me ask you and everyone who reads this a question:

What is common sense if not what we entrust to the people who have the power to convict and sentence people to life imprisonment, or even death? Ask yourself as a potential jury member (on behalf of the people of your nation, of course) if you want common sense dictated to you. I would hope this answer was no.

Mickey.

The proposal doesn't really try to dictate "common sense". It was left intentionally vague to allow different nations to make their own interpretations based on their own society.

Perceptions of "common sense" obviously vary from region to region. To some extend, yes, the proposal dictates common sense to people. But all laws do, when you think about it. I've at least tried to minimize this.

I've got to go for now, I'll try to elaborate later.
If you have any issues, I'd love to talk about them.

What is a sufficient reason? The race? the scar on his face? maybe because he had his hand to the interior of his jacket...

The beauty of this proposal is that the author has left what qualifies as "sufficient reason" up to your nation's legal system. Is your judiciary system so inept that they require the United Nations to tell them what a sufficient reason is to believe your life is in danger?

What about collectivist nations. Come to Feliz, every house is open strangers. You can hang your hamacas anywhere.

And this doesn't solve the problem. Rap or Trashmetal bands have an agressive body language, and can have threatening gestures.

Lame arguments. Seems like you're trying to find a problem with the proposal that just isn't there.

It's funny - if the proposal is too vague, people trash it as being worthless. if it's too specific, it's "taking away the rights of a sovereign nation". It's really a struggle to write something that falls between the two.

It's funny - if the proposal is too vague, people trash it as being worthless. if it's too specific, it's "taking away the rights of a sovereign nation". It's really a struggle to write something that falls between the two.

Hey, I know how it feels brother. I've seen a lot of good proposals shot down for a lot of idiotic reasons. If you want to get something passed, you've got to campaign your ass off. I'm going to talk to my region delegate about this and hopefully get him to approve it. I'll also be telegramming other UN delegates and requesting their endorsements. Shit, I like it. I don't see a problem with it in the least beat.

Hey, thanks for the support. I really need it. I'm pretty hopeful that it'll reach quorum.

The beauty of this proposal is that the author has left what qualifies as "sufficient reason" up to your nation's legal system. Is your judiciary system so inept that they require the United Nations to tell them what a sufficient reason is to believe your life is in danger?

Lame arguments. Seems like you're trying to find a problem with the proposal that just isn't there.
Right! I'm lacking of arguments?
I think that's embarssing is the "UP TO" your nation's system. UN is a wish, a whisper, a hope for so many oppressed people. With this proposal you are giving the oportunity to all dictatorial countries to have their proper, sanctified by the UN, damn repression liberty.
the sufficien reason can permit us to kill every other race people because they can be a danger. Someone went to jail? He's a danger! Someone likes children, he's a danger and so one. What each nation will do with such a proposal, everything he wants. You can have a look at my nation, no prison and no crime.
This proposal for me is a legalised murder of any different people.
Sory for my english.

Feliz

The beauty of this proposal
Beauty??
I'm sorry I can't see any of it. This is only a proposal to give the right to kill.
Work on your own nation. Tell how loving your brother can be a paradise. You'll nether have to propose such things.
Only education can make your masses love each other.

Feliz

It's funny - if the proposal is too vague, people trash it as being worthless. if it's too specific, it's "taking away the rights of a sovereign nation". It's really a struggle to write something that falls between the two.

You noticed, huh? :(

Beauty??
I'm sorry I can't see any of it. This is only a proposal to give the right to kill.
Work on your own nation. Tell how loving your brother can be a paradise. You'll nether have to propose such things.
Only education can make your masses love each other.

Feliz
It does not give people "the right to kill" or "legalise murder".

I don't see how anyone can believe, that, when your life is being threatened by an attacker, that the only correct course of action is to let them do whatever they want to you. You can go on about "loving your brother" all you want, but some people simply will not listen. There are far too many people in the world who make their living through crime and death, and, worse, there are the people who kill for their own perverse pleasure. You can't love a serial killer into letting you go unharmed.

Do you think that a woman who is raped and murdered is morally superior to one who takes her safety into her own hands, and kills or disables her attacker?


What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. There's no resolution already on the books that I know of saying that nations can't allow widespread extermination of ethnic minorities if they want to, yet it still doesn't happen within UN countries. This resolution will not change this, much less legalize mass slaughter.

Also, I think I need to point out that this proposal doesn't allow the killing of anyone who "may be dangerous". Lethal force is only justified in this regard if these "dangerous looking people" are attacking the citizen, and it is clear that the attacker intends to use lethal force themselves.


I wonder, did you even read the proposal?

Thanks for the reply. This is a (almost) totally unrelated to my last post:

Under this resolution, each citizen may use lethal force under the following circumstances:
...

3.)If the attacker trespasses on the citizen's property, gaining entrance through the use of force (i.e., breaking and entering).

I take this to mean that you endorse the killing of (spurious example) maybe someone who is clinically insane or so drunk as not to be aware of their own actions, who perhaps breaks a window, steps in, and right into the crosshairs of the property owner who lies in wait with a shotgun. In defence of his property?

I am not too keen on burglarizing drunk people myself, but I'm looking to clarify the meaning of 3) and provide an example of the sort of trouble you may run into if you endorse such 'self-defence' at a higher level with no regard to the circumstances of a particular case.

As for the current discussion on moral superiority, and the various hypothetical examples being used, I think it just goes to show that as moral standards will vary and 'scenarios' will differ there is no way a 'blanket' right of self-defence with no regard to the particulars of the situation in which 'self-defence' was used, should be endorsed by the member states of the UN. It's easy enough to believe in a right of self-defence as a 'good thing' but we mustn't forget where this law will ultimately be applied. Do we want judges directing juries to disregard what actually happened in the case before them, just because the parameters of self-defence are laid out in higher law?

The insane/drunk guy will get shot, and the guy with the shotgun will get away with it, no matter what. See, with hypothetical examples any point can be validly made.

Good question. I actually considered this for a while before I submitted the proposal.

The proposal, as you mentioned, only allows lethal force if they try to gain access to your property through force, such as breaking down a door, ramming a fence with a car, etc.

As for the drunken/insane people, I have a lot of alcoholics in my family. None in my immediate family, luckily, but I'm still pretty familiar with the whole thing. This is the main reason I, personally, don't touch alcohol. Now, getting to the point, drunks may not be aware of their surroundings, but drunks are also very unpredictable. Drunks can be easy to piss off, especially if they mistakenly believe that you are the intruder in their home. I'd consider a drunk, if they wandered into my home a pretty big threat. Would I shoot them? No, but I also really don't like to take chances.

As for insane people, they're often just as unpredictable, if not more. If a paranoid schitzophrenic goes off his meds and breaks into my home to hide from the UFOs or black helicopters, I'm not going to feel particularly safe. My first reaction would be to call the police, but what if he thinks I'm a government agent or an alien and comes after me with a knife?

I am not a big supporter of the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, but shit does happen.

Now, I think you've got to look at it from the homeowner's perspective. You're awakened in the middle of the night by a loud crash as someone punches through a downstairs window. You pull your Glock and trusty flashlight out of the nightstand/gunsafe/closet/whatever else, and head downstairs to check it out. You hear someone knocking over objects, running into furniture. Maybe it's a burglar. Your heart pounds as you think of your children, asleep in their beds, and completely vulnerable. Oh God, you think, what if it's a kidnapper? Or a rapist? You round the corner, into the hall, gun in hand, turn on the flashlight and see a filthy, unshaven man fumbling with the knob on the door that, incidentally, leads to your daughter's bedroom. He raises a hand to shield his eyes from the light, and gives a slurred, half-conscious yell as the door swings open...

What do you do in this kind of situation?

I know the safety of my family would be my first priority, legal consequences be damned. It'd probably never pass through my mind that this man might be drunk to the point of being totally unaware of his whereabouts. As far as I'm concerned, this person made a conscious choice to start drinking, and if he gets that drunk, it's his own fault. I think the obvious solution to this issue would simply be to not let people get drunk off their ass like that, but I might just be biased against alcohol due to family issues. I don't think alcohol should be banned at all, but that if you are drunk you are still responsible for your actions, since it was your own choice to become drunk in the first place.

Exactly. There have been cases in other nations where thieves have broken into houses. Even though the theif has a gun, and has already broken in, when they were shot and killed, the homeowner went to jail. This proposal is to stop things such as this from happening. To give a basic right to the citizens of UN nations not to be jailed for defending theirselves. In my nation, homeowners have the option to shoot anyone who's cought breaking and entering as long as it's not pre-meditated or a uniformed officer of the law. The same as citizens are allowed to shoot criminals guilty of any federal offense. Our complex network of indoor cameras throughout the nation along with high resolution satillite coverage allow us to verify their story afterwards.
I realize this system wouldn't be feasible in a lot of nations.

Exactly. There have been cases in other nations where thieves have broken into houses. Even though the theif has a gun, and has already broken in, when they were shot and killed, the homeowner went to jail. This proposal is to stop things such as this from happening. To give a basic right to the citizens of UN nations not to be jailed for defending theirselves. In my nation, homeowners have the option to shoot anyone who's cought breaking and entering as long as it's not pre-meditated or a uniformed officer of the law. The same as citizens are allowed to shoot criminals guilty of any federal offense. Our complex network of indoor cameras throughout the nation along with high resolution satillite coverage allow us to verify their story afterwards.
I realize this system wouldn't be feasible in a lot of nations.

And what about the time where the theif breaks in, doesn't have a gun, makes no motion that is really threatening and still gets shot and killed? Should the homeowner go to jail then, or be rewarded for shooting an unarmed person dead?

3.)If the attacker trespasses on the citizen's property, gaining entrance through the use of force (i.e., breaking and entering).


Suppose your house is on fire, and you haven't noticed. The guy breaks the window to get in, to come in and save you. And you kill him.

Would you prefer he didn't come in to your house to save your life?

If he breaks into the house to save you, you'd think he'd be shouting for you to get the hell out before you burn to a crisp. Also, if you're alert to detect the presence of an intruder, you'd probably be able to hear the fire, fire alarms or smell the smoke. Most times, when people are trapped in burning buildings, it is because they were overwhelmed by smoke inhilation, usually because they were asleep. In this case, they wouldn't be able to shoot the intruder, as they'd be unconscious.

If something else happened like a shed in the backyard catching fire, and the people not noticing somehow, you'd think any do-gooder would have the courtesy to knock first.


And what about the time where the theif breaks in, doesn't have a gun, makes no motion that is really threatening and still gets shot and killed? Should the homeowner go to jail then, or be rewarded for shooting an unarmed person dead?

This is a very strange situation, because most people don't break into homes just to strike up conversations with their occupants. Real life isn't a computer RPG where you can just pick the lock on someone's house, come inside, wander around, and chat with them like nothing's wrong. Then go rifle through their possessions.

If he breaks into the house to save you, you'd think he'd be shouting for you to get the hell out before you burn to a crisp. Also, if you're alert to detect the presence of an intruder, you'd probably be able to hear the fire, fire alarms or smell the smoke. Most times, when people are trapped in burning buildings, it is because they were overwhelmed by smoke inhilation, usually because they were asleep. In this case, they wouldn't be able to shoot the intruder, as they'd be unconscious.

If something else happened like a shed in the backyard catching fire, and the people not noticing somehow, you'd think any do-gooder would have the courtesy to knock first.


(smirk) Cause when they are fighting against smoke inhalation and the panic that ensues when you are in a burning building, manners are always the first thing on your mind.

I admit it was a little bit of an unlikely example, but not beyond reason.


This is a very strange situation, because most people don't break into homes just to strike up conversations with their occupants. Real life isn't a computer RPG where you can just pick the lock on someone's house, come inside, wander around, and chat with them like nothing's wrong. Then go rifle through their possessions.

I am suggsting that the person is going to steal something, but is unarmed and not being threatening and in no way can actually kill you.

For example - you find someone going through your dvd cabinet (for want of a better example). He doesn't have a gun, a knife or anything to attack you with. You see him, he turns, about to raise his hands in surrender, but because you are now empowered by this proposal to kill anyone you think is a threat, you blow the back of his head all over your wall paper.

He is dead for doing nothing more than trying to rob your house.

You don't see any problem with that at all?

About the whole knocking thing, I meant, if a seperate building like a shed or a detatched garage was on fire (and you'd probably have to be asleep, unconscious or in a seperate building to not notice a fire), they wouldn't break in and get shot, they'd simply knock or shout, since the house isn't on fire yet.

As for the unarmed burglar thing, that's why the good lord gave man 'discretion'.

Most of the gun-owners I know wouldn't shoot a man in cold blood, especially if he was surrendering. If someone is crazy enough to do that, they probably wouldn't care if it was technically legal or not.

It's possible they might not have time to surrender or escape, but, on the other hand, as before, try to look at it from the eyes of the homeowner.

To be perfectly frank, when someone sets out to burglarize a house, they must know that there is danger involved. I would think that if this proposal was passed, people would not be blown away frequently for petty burglary, they'd simply stop breaking into people's houses. Criminals are often not very smart, but they're rarely suicidal.

About the whole knocking thing, I meant, if a seperate building like a shed or a detatched garage was on fire (and you'd probably have to be asleep, unconscious or in a seperate building to not notice a fire), they wouldn't break in and get shot, they'd simply knock or shout, since the house isn't on fire yet.

As for the unarmed burglar thing, that's why the good lord gave man 'discretion'.

Most of the gun-owners I know wouldn't shoot a man in cold blood, especially if he was surrendering. If someone is crazy enough to do that, they probably wouldn't care if it was technically legal or not.

It's possible they might not have time to surrender or escape, but, on the other hand, as before, try to look at it from the eyes of the homeowner.

To be perfectly frank, when someone sets out to burglarize a house, they must know that there is danger involved. I would think that if this proposal was passed, people would not be blown away frequently for petty burglary, they'd simply stop breaking into people's houses. Criminals are often not very smart, but they're rarely suicidal.

I think you have too much faith in people who own guns :}

Hey, I'm one of them. People who do really seem to have a bad reputation among mainstream society, but many of these people are some of the most responsible and intelligent men and women I've ever known. Sure there are plenty of idiots, but that could be said of any part of society. And the idiots usually get themselves arrested before they manage to kill anybody, so it all works out in the end.

You know, most of the states in the US now have laws that allow citizens with a clean record to get concealed handgun permits, and a very large amount of people have gotten these permits, and use them frequently (according to the U.S. government firearms are used defensively many thousands of times a year, almost never are actual shots fired, too). You never hear of any unjustified shootings.

As an interesting side note, take a look at the police's track record when it comes to accidental shootings and general gun safety...

Yeah, I mean, more people are killed accudentally by doctors every year than by accidental gun deaths

Well, I won't really say that's true without having gone over the actual statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised.

As to if the thief you dosn't have a gun when he breaks in, in my nation, he can be just as dead with no worry to the homeowner as far as I'm concerned.
That's the main reason my nation has no crime. Is it worth risking geting shot to steal a few things? You can't spend the money if you're dead. If you want to talk to me about the criminal's rights, they gave them up when they decided to commit a crime.

As to if the thief you dosn't have a gun when he breaks in, in my nation, he can be just as dead with no worry to the homeowner as far as I'm concerned.
That's the main reason my nation has no crime. Is it worth risking geting shot to steal a few things? You can't spend the money if you're dead. If you want to talk to me about the criminal's rights, they gave them up when they decided to commit a crime.
That's interesting. The main reason there's no crime in Enn is because there are no guns. Just goes to show that there's more than one way of fighting crime.

Well, it's only been up for a very short time, and it's already got 18 approvals. Only 126 to go.

If you want to try to get your regional delegates to approve it, I'd really appreciate it. Or let me know who to talk to.


There's nothing wrong with approving your own proposal if you're a regional delegate, is there?

Anything below 30, I attribute to the 20+ or so people who apparently just go through and approve every proposal...

That's interesting. The main reason there's no crime in Enn is because there are no guns. Just goes to show that there's more than one way of fighting crime.

Don't kid yourself. If there is no crime, it isn't because of gun control. You think that there was no crime before guns were invented? Look at countries where guns are pretty much banned (like England and Australia, for RL examples). Violent crime has skyrocketed.

I really don't want to get into the whole gun-control argument, though.

If you'd look through the proposal you'd see that it specifically states that it has absolutely nothing to do with gun control laws, and, actually, doesn't cover the legality of any weapon.

Crime is controlled more by the society than government policy. If you have a country with absolutely no one but peace-loving, nonviolent, law-abiding citizens, than what's the point in opposing this proposal? It won't ever apply to your country, since no one will ever have to defend themselves, as there is no crime.

As to if the thief you dosn't have a gun when he breaks in, in my nation, he can be just as dead with no worry to the homeowner as far as I'm concerned.
That's the main reason my nation has no crime. Is it worth risking geting shot to steal a few things? You can't spend the money if you're dead. If you want to talk to me about the criminal's rights, they gave them up when they decided to commit a crime.

Oddly enough in TilEnca we have no crime either. But the police are not armed and no one owns a gun.

So why do you assume the fact everyone has a gun is a reason there is no crime?

If you have a country with absolutely no one but peace-loving, nonviolent, law-abiding citizens, than what's the point in opposing this proposal? It won't ever apply to your country, since no one will ever have to defend themselves, as there is no crime.

On principal. You are giving someone the right to murder someone else with absolutely no come back on them.

I used a hypothetical example which was rebutted by another hypothetical example. With few exceptions this entire debate has turned into everyone asking everyone else 'what if..?' Is it only to me that it is blindingly obvious that BECAUSE we are able to argue with such varied examples, and seemingly make valid points, that the suggested 'guideline' simply won't do in determining what is 'right' in individual case scenarios?

Honestly, what is wrong with a jury deciding what is right and reasonable within the context of the case scenario that is before them? I've asked this question before but in different guises and I have yet to see an answer that specifically addresses it.

I used a hypothetical example which was rebutted by another hypothetical example. With few exceptions this entire debate has turned into everyone asking everyone else 'what if..?' Is it only to me that it is blindingly obvious that BECAUSE we are able to argue with such varied examples, and seemingly make valid points, that the suggested 'guideline' simply won't do in determining what is 'right' in individual case scenarios?

Honestly, what is wrong with a jury deciding what is right and reasonable within the context of the case scenario that is before them? I've asked this question before but in different guises and I have yet to see an answer that specifically addresses it.

I have no problem with the jury deciding. I have a problem with the idea that a person has carte-blanche to do what he wants in defence of his own home. If he shoots someone he should not be excused because he says he was defending his home, he should be taken to court and made to prove it. If the jury, and the legal system, decide it was fair, then I would have no problem with it. But in writing this and the other proposal about this, it takes out any idea of having to prove the basis of your actions. Which is just wrong.

No, it does not. You still have to prove you acted within the bounds of the law.

No, it does not. You still have to prove you acted within the bounds of the law.

As you said


This proposal affirms the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from attack or threat of attack using any appropriate force without fear of legal prosecution.


By your own words you don't have to prove you acted within the bounds of the law, because you can do it without fear of legal prosecution.

Tilence - just to clear things up, I totally agree with you. My comments were directed at the proposer of this resolution and the people in support of it.

I 100% agree that contentious instances of self-defence should be taken to court for a jury to decide on its SPECIFIC FACTS. I could not emphasise those words enough, and they are exactly why any resolution that seeks to impose a carte-blance of self-defence with no meaningful grounds of review is abhorrent ot me.

Tilence - just to clear things up, I totally agree with you. My comments were directed at the proposer of this resolution and the people in support of it.

I 100% agree that contentious instances of self-defence should be taken to court for a jury to decide on its SPECIFIC FACTS. I could not emphasise those words enough, and they are exactly why any resolution that seeks to impose a carte-blance of self-defence with no meaningful grounds of review is abhorrent ot me.

I know. I was agreeing with you too :}

There is a difference between investigation and prosecution.

Probably should've used conviction, but you get what I mean.

There is a difference between investigation and prosecution.

Probably should've used conviction, but you get what I mean.

But surely in a NSUN member nation you can not say that someone will not be convicted if they commit a crime. Even if the crime is in the supposed defence of their property, they can still be convicted. A proposal outlawing that right would be in violation of due process and fair trial and generally speaking human rights.

I and the region I represent would oppose this. The citizens cannot agree minor issues, agreeing on what constituted possibly lethal threatening force is impossible. Plus, they'd probably want to use it against our police force.

Did you read through the proposal?


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.


You can't "use it against the police".

Okay, it doesn't look like this proposal is gonna get approved. I suggest that you resubmit it. I've also got a few ideas for changes, though these aren't why I think it failed...(needs more advertising, though I wouldn't know much about that)

Anyways, my ideas:

Change the "Minor injury" and "Life threatening injury or death" to "Non lethal force" and "Lethal force". You'll have to change the wording some if you do that, though. It's just, Minor Injury sounds like scratching and stuff, and it just leaves too much inbetween the two. Also, add a "sufficient reason" part, under non-lethal. Thanks for listening.

I love it. Just one recommendation to help take care of some complaints and cut down the size:

Instead of the lethal/non-lethal distinction, just say that they can use 'necessary force' to protect their rights in emergency situations. That way someone who blows the head off of a candy thief still gets murder, someone who blows the head off of a burglar without a warning shot first gets manslaughter and someone who blows the head off of a serial rapist cannibal gets a medal.

And my suggestion - either drop it (smirk - that might be asking a bit much) or at least remove the part that suggests you can do this without any recourse against you. If you kill someone, you should get investigated by the police, and sent to jail if you can't prove it was required :}

It always has been like that. If the government can prove that the citizen in question didn't act according to the letter of the resolution, they can punish them however they want. You'd think that'd pretty much go without saying.

It always has been like that. If the government can prove that the citizen in question didn't act according to the letter of the resolution, they can punish them however they want. You'd think that'd pretty much go without saying.

And yet your resolution says


This proposal affirms the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from attack or threat of attack using any appropriate force without fear of legal prosecution.

Under this resolution, each citizen may use lethal force under the following circumstances:

1.)If attacked, with the intent of causing life-threatening injury or death to the citizen or another;

2.)If the citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to cause life-threatening injury or death;

3.)If the attacker trespasses on the citizen's property, gaining entrance through the use of force (i.e., breaking and entering).


So if you see someone who you believe is about to kill you, you can kill them first and - by the phrasing of the resolution - you CAN NOT be prosecuted for it. And it just comes down to you saying "I thought he was going to kill me". There is nothing about proving that fact, and since it is just an opinion how are you going to prove it one way or the other unless you can get telepaths in?

A right to kill trespassers?!! For pity's sake!! I suppose that even children fall under these rules, too. That means that I can kill children who get into my garden wanting to pick an apple or too while I'm away? If you were more careful, I would support you on this issue. However, the rest of the formulation seems OK.

Also mark that you grant a right to fight to a person who had attacked and had been fought back. I would change this thing, too.

Christ, it doesn't say anything about killing any trespassers, much less children sneaking into your yard to pick an apple. It only applies to people who are breaking and entering.

Also mark that you grant a right to fight to a person who had attacked and had been fought back. I would change this thing, too.
I don't think it does, but I'll try to be more specific about that.


So if you see someone who you believe is about to kill you, you can kill them first and - by the phrasing of the resolution - you CAN NOT be prosecuted for it. And it just comes down to you saying "I thought he was going to kill me". There is nothing about proving that fact, and since it is just an opinion how are you going to prove it one way or the other unless you can get telepaths in?

Read the proposal. You can't claim that you acted legally without proving that you had sufficient reason to use lethal force. "Sufficient reason" being left up to the individual nations to define. I personally would leave it up to the jury to decide on a case-by-case basis, but any nation would be free to come up with whatever they want in regards to this.

I did read the proposal. And to show you I did I will explain exactly where I got the problems I am telling you about from :}


The Right to Self-Defense
Self-preservation is the most basic of instincts, among both humans and the animal world. Nevertheless, many so-called "civilized" nations encourage their citizens that the only acceptable way to face an armed attack is to offer no resistance, and that those who dare to resist must be punished.


Generally we try to teach our people to run away. That way they don't risk killing someone else, even by accident.


This proposal affirms the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from attack or threat of attack using any appropriate force without fear of legal prosecution.


Two things.

1) What if someone breaks in to the house of a known criminal, or attacks a known criminal? Are they permitted to defned themselves from attack, or are they exempt from this since they are not law abiding?

2) This explicitly states that someone can not be prosecuted. It doesn't say anything about juries deciding whether a person breached the resolution or not. It says that they can not be prosecuted if they are defending their home, even if they kill the person without any real justification at all.


Under this resolution, each citizen may use lethal force under the following circumstances:

1.)If attacked, with the intent of causing life-threatening injury or death to the citizen or another;


How can someone ever be sure of the intent of another person (unless they are telepathic). The best you can do is guess, and when you are talking about ending the life of another person I don't believe that guessing is strong enough justification


2.)If the citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to cause life-threatening injury or death;


How can you show what is sufficient reason? And - more to the point - how can you disprove someone who says they believed they had sufficient reason?

And - more to the point - since you can't proscute someone if they were only defending themselves and they say they had suffiecent reason, you can not bring them before a jury to prove it one way or another.


3.)If the attacker trespasses on the citizen's property, gaining entrance through the use of force (i.e., breaking and entering).


Forgive me if I am misreading this, but doesn't this mean I can shoot someone dead if they break in to my house? Even if they are unarmed, alone and make no moves to indicate they are going to attack me?

(OOC - a case was reported in Scotland of a guy coming home drunk to the wrong house. He thought he had forgotten his keys, so he broke a window to get in. He was no danger to anyone - even the police thought so. But under this proposal I would be perfectly in my rights to shoot him dead, and no one could do a damn thing about it because I can not be prosecuted for using lethal force)


The citizen may use non-lethal force under the following circumstances:

1.)When the attacker poses a threat to the property of a law-abiding citizen;


So if a kid is throwing stones at my windows I can hit him with a blunt object? He is clearly posing a threat to my property (he could break one of my windows) and hitting him with a blunt object is permitted under your definition of non-lethal force. But I am pretty sure this is not what you had in mind, is it?


2.)Attempts to cause minor, non life-threatening injury to any citizen.


This part I can almost deal with, but there is no chance you will make this the only thing in the resolution, is there?


The citizen may respond by attempting to intimidate the potential attacker if:
1.)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.


Since this includes, but is not limited to, anyone coudl argue that anything is "legitimate reason". And as such can use "intimidation" tactics against anyone they chose. In an of-itself this is not so bad, but if you get a lot of drunk people doing this, then the potential for riots, mass fights and general violance is pretty obvious.


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.


Rocket launchers? Grendades? RPGS? Nuclear missile launchers? (Ok - the last one is a tad sarcastic, but "any firearm"?)


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.


What if you accidentally kill someone while using non-lethal force? You can hit someone with a toaster and kill them if you do it the wrong way.
Would you be exempt from prosecution for killing them?


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 through fear.


Two things.

What if the weapon goes off accidentally and kills someone? Would you still be exempt from prosecution?

Also what if you are trying to intimidate someone who is drunk? It is not beyond reason that even if you are not trying to start a fight you could. What are the legal ramifications then?


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.


To whom does it have to be clear to?

If I am in a country for the first time, and I see some policemen trying to restrain someone, I might think they are behaving in a manner contrary to law, but they might acting perfectly fine.

Also what if the orders the military are acting under are illegal? Such as shooting civilians in the head? They are acting under orders, so am I not permitted to attack them or stop them from doing it?


No citizen may be charged with a crime for the act of defending themselves in accordance with these guidelines. Likewise, the perpetrator of an attack or a trespasser may not file a civil lawsuit for any damage done, when they have committed a crime.


This is where you lose me. You keep saying that the person would have to prove what they did was fine infront of a jury - mostly to disuade my problems. But under various resolutions, and under general common sense, you can not bring someone before a jury if they havge not been charged with anything. And according to the guidelines there is no way you could every charge someone with what they did. There are so many loopholes that charging them would be impossible. And if you can't charge them, you can't prosecute them, and you REALLY can't bring them before a jury.

And while I sort of agree about the lawsuit thing, there is a question of balance. If someone gets in to a bar fight, and ends up in a coma because someone used this proposal to shoot him then I think they should be permitted to seak damages from the person who shot him, since it was clearly an over-reaction and not something that can be justified.


Every citizen shall have the right to defend themselves to the minimum extent as defined above, however the governments of individual nations are free to expand the definitions provided above to give their citizens more freedom in defending themselves and their property.


And this is very, very dangerous. I could use this paragraph to write a law in to my nation saying "If you don't like the look of someone, and you think they might attack you at some point in the future, by the theory of self-defence you can shoot him right now". And there is nothing in the proposal to say this would be illegal - infact it could be welcomed and justified under the various points of this whole proposal.


Also, it should be known that this resolution does not specify any individual right to own weapons. All nations are free to determine what weapons should be legal within their borders, as their societies dictate.


Again - this is something I accept. But without the rest of the proposal it's pretty pointless, because it is already the situation in the NSUN.


I get that people should be allowed to defend themselves if they are attacked. But they should not be given the legal right to kill people on the basis that they thought the attacker was going to kill them. It opens up far too many loopholes, lets people take the law in to their own hands without any comeback and - in certain parts of the proposal - has a serious potential to give rise to more violance and death.

Don't have much time, but...

I did read the proposal. And to show you I did I will explain exactly where I got the problems I am telling you about from :}

Actually I was talking to the guy who said that he'd be able to kill children picking apples from his yard, which isn't in the proposal.


Generally we try to teach our people to run away. That way they don't risk killing someone else, even by accident.


Running doesn't do you much good if you're cornered, or if they can outrun you.


Two things.

1) What if someone breaks in to the house of a known criminal, or attacks a known criminal? Are they permitted to defned themselves from attack, or are they exempt from this since they are not law abiding?
Fine, if it matters, I'll try to change the wording.


2) This explicitly states that someone can not be prosecuted. It doesn't say anything about juries deciding whether a person breached the resolution or not. It says that they can not be prosecuted if they are defending their home, even if they kill the person without any real justification at all.


How can someone ever be sure of the intent of another person (unless they are telepathic). The best you can do is guess, and when you are talking about ending the life of another person I don't believe that guessing is strong enough justification

I would think that a man advancing on you with a knife drawn isn't just looking to chat. Obviously you have to have some evidence to justify your actions.


How can you show what is sufficient reason? And - more to the point - how can you disprove someone who says they believed they had sufficient reason?

And - more to the point - since you can't proscute someone if they were only defending themselves and they say they had suffiecent reason, you can not bring them before a jury to prove it one way or another.

I don't think it does. If it really matters that much, I'll try to clarify that next time.


Forgive me if I am misreading this, but doesn't this mean I can shoot someone dead if they break in to my house? Even if they are unarmed, alone and make no moves to indicate they are going to attack me?

(OOC - a case was reported in Scotland of a guy coming home drunk to the wrong house. He thought he had forgotten his keys, so he broke a window to get in. He was no danger to anyone - even the police thought so. But under this proposal I would be perfectly in my rights to shoot him dead, and no one could do a damn thing about it because I can not be prosecuted for using lethal force)

I thought we were past this. Hypothetically, yes, you would be justified, but I seriously doubt that something like this would ever happen. If it's really that much of a concern, I'll go over it when I have the time.


Rocket launchers? Grendades? RPGS? Nuclear missile launchers? (Ok - the last one is a tad sarcastic, but "any firearm"?)

They aren't firearms. But the proposal already protects the nation's ability to restrict any weapons they want, because I really don't want to get into that debate right now.


And this is very, very dangerous. I could use this paragraph to write a law in to my nation saying "If you don't like the look of someone, and you think they might attack you at some point in the future, by the theory of self-defence you can shoot him right now". And there is nothing in the proposal to say this would be illegal - infact it could be welcomed and justified under the various points of this whole proposal.

Technically, there's nothing stopping you from doing this right now.
The proposal isn't going to change anything.

I don't have time to say anything more right now.

Actually I was talking to the guy who said that he'd be able to kill children picking apples from his yard, which isn't in the proposal.


True, but you could hit them with a blunt object under your proposal. Which is not really all that much better.


Running doesn't do you much good if you're cornered, or if they can outrun you.


Then you disable them and run away again. Or yell "Help" in a loud voice. There are alternatives to killing people.


Fine, if it matters, I'll try to change the wording.


It kind of matters. Because some evil lawyer could argue that someone who is not law abiding (and that could mean someone who shoplifted once in their life, or who once parked on double yellow lines) has no right to defend themselves, and should be charged with murder when they kill someone who broke in to their home.


I would think that a man advancing on you with a knife drawn isn't just looking to chat. Obviously you have to have some evidence to justify your actions.


Justify to whom? You can't justifty them to a jury because you would have to have been prosecuted for a crime at that point, which is not permitted under your proposal. If you have to justify it to the police, then it means the police are now acting as a jury in cases of wrongful death, manslaugher and murder, which I am pretty sure is not a good thing.



How can you show what is sufficient reason? And - more to the point - how can you disprove someone who says they believed they had sufficient reason?

And - more to the point - since you can't proscute someone if they were only defending themselves and they say they had suffiecent reason, you can not bring them before a jury to prove it one way or another.
I don't think it does. If it really matters that much, I'll try to clarify that next time.


I have to admit, I don't understand your answer to that :}


I thought we were past this. Hypothetically, yes, you would be justified, but I seriously doubt that something like this would ever happen. If it's really that much of a concern, I'll go over it when I have the time.


If it's really tmat much of a concern? You have just given me a licence to kill anyone I find in my house without ever having to explain it!! Of course it matters!!!


They aren't firearms. But the proposal already protects the nation's ability to restrict any weapons they want, because I really don't want to get into that debate right now.


What's a rocket launcher if it is not a firearm? What is a grenade launcher if it is not a firearm?

I understand you don't want to get in to gun control, but this would mean you could justifibly use a rocket launcer or (and I have seen a theoretical one of these) a hand held nuclear missile launcher for self-defence.


Technically, there's nothing stopping you from doing this right now.
The proposal isn't going to change anything.


It will condone it and make it so that no nation in the UN could write a law to prevent it. (Btw - we HAVE laws to stop people killing other people cause they don't like the look of them. And this proposal, if it passed, would make all those laws illegal and have the potential to turn TilEnca in to a horrible place to live).



I don't have time to say anything more right now.

Eh. I can wait :}

(Ok - I realise that some of what I am saying is the extreme cases, but if I can think of them then people who are not as sane, as nice and as adverse to killing other people can think of them as well. And would you really want to be the person who will be known for bringing in a resolution that lead to mass murder all over the UN?)

TilEnca, I think the people your describing wouldn't be adverse to killing someone regardless of it's legality. What you have to remember is that the majority of people aren't insane or evil, and that the majority of them have common sense (hence the "common" part). This resolution leaves it up to the individual nations to decide what is sufficient reason to defend yourself. In a nation where the goverment is evil enough to consider a kid picking apples in your yard enough provocation to bash him across the head with a baseball bat, I don't really think they are going to let the matter of legality bother them. There are always some crazies, and those that are crazy enough to ignore the law, the goverment can do little about except try and get them help before it's too late. Those that do obey the law the goverment can keep under control. We have laws very similar to this in Ryloss, and there are those occasional crazies who kill people, and those laws allow them to claim legality. We would try to take them to court, but they usually end up lynch mobbed before we get a chance. (Off the record, as we have security cameras in all public areas, we have full knowledge of these lynch mobs, some of our nations Patrollers have even been among them. No investigations have been made into them, as when someone gets lynched, everyone knows it was coming, and the person deserved it.)

Here's the thing - it is not the fact you can kill someone I object to. (Ok - that is the part I object to. Killing is a bad thing in any case). But the fact you can kill someone who did nothing to do, and not have to answer for it in a court of law. Which is what this proposal says is the case.

I am not saying you get convicted of murder - if you can prove self-defence then you should not be sent to jail.

But this proposal syas that if someone breaks in to your house, you can kill them. And not have to answer for it at all, ever, at all.

Why am I the only person who thinks this is such a bad, bad thing?

First of all, it doesn't FORCE you to use lethal force. Also, your objection has been made, and refuted, before. Breaking and entering is a concious decision. Or, if your intoxicated, you chose to get intoxicated.

I refer you to post #26 in this thread.

First of all, it doesn't FORCE you to use lethal force. Also, your objection has been made, and refuted, before. Breaking and entering is a concious decision. Or, if your intoxicated, you chose to get intoxicated.

I refer you to post #26 in this thread.

I am sorry, but you are aruging that because someone got drunk they should be allowed to be killed? You really think that is acceptable? Seriously? Someone who is drunk should be killed? With no comeback against the person who shoots him?

Appolegy accepted. No, I am arguing that if a drunken person breaks into your home, he is responsible for his actions. If this person just falls onto the couch and goes to sleep, I'd call the police. If I feel this person poses a threat, I'd probably conk him over the head with something. But if worst came to worst, I WOULD shoot him. Understand, this resolution would probably not (that is, I assume you live in the US) be giving you any new powers. I sincerely doubt a jury would convict you for shooting a drunk out of fear for your children in the situation described in that post. This resolution merely formalizes it.

Appolegy accepted. No, I am arguing that if a drunken person breaks into your home, he is responsible for his actions. If this person just falls onto the couch and goes to sleep, I'd call the police. If I feel this person poses a threat, I'd probably conk him over the head with something. But if worst came to worst, I WOULD shoot him. Understand, this resolution would probably not (that is, I assume you live in the US) be giving you any new powers. I sincerely doubt a jury would convict you for shooting a drunk out of fear for your children in the situation described in that post. This resolution merely formalizes it.

I don't think that this could come to a jury because the proposal says you can't be prosecuted under this resolution.

It would give a person the power to shoot someone in their home and not have to explain it to the police, to the law courts, to the persons family or the persons children.

It's wrong.

(I am done arguing because you all seem to be convinced that being allowed to shoot people when you are not in danger is perfectly acceptable, which is a mindset I can never get myself in to)

The Right to Self-Defense
Self-preservation is the most basic of instincts, among both humans and the animal world. Nevertheless, many so-called "civilized" nations encourage their citizens that the only acceptable way to face an armed attack is to offer no resistance, and that those who dare to resist must be punished.

This proposal affirms the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from attack or threat of attack using any appropriate force without fear of legal prosecution.

Under this resolution, each citizen may use lethal force under the following circumstances:

1.)If attacked, with the intent of causing life-threatening injury or death to the citizen or another;

2.)If the citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to cause life-threatening injury or death;

3.)If the attacker trespasses on the citizen's property, gaining entrance through the use of force (i.e., breaking and entering).

The citizen may use non-lethal force under the following circumstances:

1.)When the attacker poses a threat to the property of a law-abiding citizen;
2.)Attempts to cause minor, non life-threatening injury to any citizen.

The citizen may respond by attempting to intimidate the potential attacker if:
1.)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 through fear.

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.


The ones in bold I have questions about. First off, what constitutes "poses serious threat of trepassing on property," since it is considered seperate from actual trespassing. Also, what is sufficient proof? That needs to expanded on, because it may confuse many citizens, and I personally don't believe that I should be able to put a round in someone because they're violent people and simply say that they're going to kill me.

The other problem is that by breaking into a house, the intruder doesn't immediately pose a threat to the family. Burglars usually don't have the intent of killing those they steal from. I think that would be a good time for Non-Lethal Action, however. I believe that Lethal Action should only be used if danger to yourself or a person is imminent, but still, I'm willing to listen, so please the questions I posed.

You didn't highlight anything about "poses a threat to tresspass".

Your other questions have ALL been answered BEFORE.

Sufficient reason is to be defined by each member nation individually.

As for breaking and entering, imagine: You awaken to the sound a window being jhimmied (sp?). You grab your trusty hand gun from wherever you store it and go downstairs, to the sight of a man wearing all black with a ski-mask. You are immediatly fearful for your sleeping, defenseless children. This man may be a kidnapper, or a pedophile. The man proceeds to walk towards the door of your 7 year old daughter and 4 year old son's bedroom. He puts his hand on the doorknob and is about to open it. What do you do? I know that in this situation, I would shoot. I could yell at him to freeze, to turn around, something like that, but that would almost definetly awaken the children, and they would come out wondering what's going on, putting them within easy reach of the intruder, who might decide they would make good hostages/shields. That said, I'd probably shoot him somewhere non-fatal. Or try to, at least.

Edit: Also, I would do this regardless of whether or not it was legal, my children's lives are more important than anything else at that moment in time.

You can't go after someone because you believe they "pose a serious threat of trepassing on property". Here's the a slight revision, I'd rather you guys nitpick this and leave the old one alone since it's already expired:


The Right to Self-Defense
Self-preservation is the most basic of instincts, among both humans and the animal world. Nevertheless, many so-called "civilized" nations encourage their citizens that the only acceptable way to face an armed attack is to offer no resistance, and that those who dare to resist must be punished.

This proposal affirms the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from attack or threat of attack using any appropriate force without fear of punishment; assuming it is proven that they acted within the bounds of this resolution. This does not protect them from being punished for other crimes that might be related to the incident, such as weapons violations.

Under this resolution, each citizen may use lethal force under the following circumstances:

1.)If attacked, with the intent of causing life-threatening injury or death to the citizen or another;

2.)If the citizen has sufficient reason to believe that the attacker intends to cause life-threatening injury or death;

3.)If the attacker trespasses on the citizen's property, gaining entrance through the direct use of force (i.e., breaking and entering), with the intent to steal/destroy property or cause injury to inhabitants.

The citizen may use non-lethal force under the following circumstances:

1.)When the attacker poses a threat to the property of a citizen, such as theft or wanton destruction;

2.)Attempts to cause non life-threatening injury to any citizen.

The citizen may respond by attempting to intimidate the potential attacker if:
1.)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, or they are trespassing on private property.

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 through fear.

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

The perpetrator of an attack or a trespasser may not file a civil lawsuit for any damage done, when they have committed a crime.

Every citizen shall have the right to defend themselves to the minimum extent as defined above, however the governments of individual nations are encouraged to expand the definitions provided above.

Also, it should be noted that this resolution does not specify any individual right to own weapons. All nations are free to determine what weapons should be legal within their borders, as their societies dictate.




There. It's not as much a revision as it is a clarification, since I think it's pretty much fine as-is. The part changed the most is the second paragraph, since that seems to be your biggest complaint.

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.
[snip]
Also, it should be noted that this resolution does not specify any individual right to own weapons. All nations are free to determine what weapons should be legal within their borders, as their societies dictate.
These two together create a contradiction. You appear to be saying in the first part that 'any firearm' can be used, while the second talks about how this is nothing to do with the so-called right to own weapons. I would suggest clearing this up. If you are serious about not interfering in a country's ability to choose what wepons are allowed, maybe change the first of my quoted extracts to something along the lines of:

"The definition of Lethal Force includes, but is not limited to: the use of any legal firearm, dangerous edged weapons..." (the rest of this bit is fine as I read it).

This proposal affirms the right of the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves from attack or threat of attack using any appropriate force without fear of punishment; assuming it is proven that they acted within the bounds of this resolution. This does not protect them from being punished for other crimes that might be related to the incident, such as weapons violations.


Yes, you could legally defend yourself with an illegal firearm. But you would still be arrested for having it in the first place.

Ok I've been off the ball for a bit so apologies if I've missed something in the fine print, and I think the ones who have seen my previous posts knows what this is going to about... but I have yet to see the following question addressed:

What is wrong with juries determining what is reasonable force in the specific circumstances of a fact scenario?

This resolution endorses guidelines which are not conducive to the normal operation of legal systems that leave judgement as to facts to the jury.

On a related issue:

You are mixing up subjective and objective tests - under the 'lethal force'-section you first say 'if attacked with the intent' and under clause 2 of the same section 'sufficient reason to believe'. The latter is clearly subjective, the former I don't know but presume to be subjective too. Again, in the 'non-lethal force' section you say 'when the attacker poses a threat ... to a citizen' which can only be an objective test given the provision that it is 'a citizen'. In clause 2 of the same section you say 'Attempts to cause to ... any citizen'. Again, something that must be judged objectively. Now, in the subjective tests it is to the citizen to decide if he has 'sufficient reason' (which I disapprove of when objective considerations are disregarded) while in the objective tests it is for someone else to decide. Exactly who may that be? Perhaps... a jury? Mixing objective and subjective tests like this WILL lead to confusion as to application IN INDIVIDUAL CASE SCENARIOS.

I sincerely hope you all see what I am getting at, but congratulations for sticking with it.. I'm half-hoping it'll go to the voting stage so we get a wider debate on this issue!

Mickey.

I am sorry, but you are aruging that because someone got drunk they should be allowed to be killed? You really think that is acceptable? Seriously? Someone who is drunk should be killed? With no comeback against the person who shoots him?

Yes, it's absolutely acceptable if he's breaking into your home. Let's get something straight; just because he's under the influence doesn't mean he's not accountable for his actions. It's his fault for getting drunk in the first place, and especially his fault for not finding somebody sober enough to take him home. If he stumbles up somebody's driveway, puts an elbow through their window and climbs in, the homeowner should have every right to shoot him.

Put yourself in the homeowner's shoes. You come down the stairs to find a broken window and a strange man stumbling around your living room. You don't know anything about him, don't know if he's a robber or a killer or a looney tune...all you know is, he's tresspassing. A homeowner should have every right to blow him away.

Because what if the man who put his elbow through your window and snuck in wasn't drunk? What if he was a serial killer, in your living room? And what if your only method of defense was to get by an armed killer to his phone so he can call the police?

I don't understand why you're fighting this proposal. Are you suggesting that homeowners SHOULDN'T have the right to self-defense? That if they're staring up the barrel of a gun, they can't defend themselves with lethal force? What are they supposed to do, talk it out and play patty-cake?

Ok I've expressed my contempt for hypothetical examples but will now be hypocritical... but for a good reason..

You're walking down the street on an evening stroll while your three year old son giggles happily as he walks alongside. A drunk man stumbles into you and you both almost fall over. You look at him. He looks at you. You 'don't know anything about him, don't know if he's a robber or a killer or a looney tune...all you know is, he's' just walked into you... That's technically a battery, a crime akin if not worse than trespassing. So as he stands there swaying back and forth, maybe clenching his fist to punch you... you pull out your machete, perform 2nd party hara kiri on him, rip out his guts, try to strangle him with them, before you grab his bottle of moonshine, pour it over him and set him alight. You run away, free of any liability, and the people around you applaud as the drunk turns into charcoal. Permissible self-defence? Never mind, he was drunk/insane (sometimes there isn't such a big difference).

Feel free to either be baffled by the ingenuity and creativity of my example and praise it or shoot it down at your pleasure. I could do both if I had to.

Now, are hypothetical examples like this useful? Let's hear you all say NOOOOO!

Fed-up Mickey.

I don't understand why you're fighting this proposal. Are you suggesting that homeowners SHOULDN'T have the right to self-defense? That if they're staring up the barrel of a gun, they can't defend themselves with lethal force? What are they supposed to do, talk it out and play patty-cake?

Because I don't think that shooting someone who has made no threatening moves, no attempt to kill you, has no weapons and is passed out drunk on the floor is acceptable. And this is EXACTLY what the proposal would permit.

And I am saying that if you shoot someone, if you hit someone, if you kill someone then you should answer for it in a court of law. If the court decides it is justified and lets you go I have no problem with that. But it HAS to go before the court, otherwise you might as well just abandon the police force and put your money towards more funeral homes (cause lets face it - if you can shoot passed out drunk people then you are going to need more funeral homes)

... I don't understand why you're fighting this proposal. Are you suggesting that homeowners SHOULDN'T have the right to self-defense? That if they're staring up the barrel of a gun, they can't defend themselves with lethal force? What are they supposed to do, talk it out and play patty-cake?

I've always found it funny how so many people think that one day you will just randomly be staring up the barrel of a gun, forced with a decision of whether or not to shoot the person holding that gun to protect yourself or your family. Let's take a hypothetical, and I'll try to be as general and reasonable as possible.:

You wake up in the middle of the night, disturbed by the sound of glass breaking (or a door opening, or w/e). You know it's not normal, and soon you're able to ascertain that someone has broken into your home. Do you A) grab your firearm and go out to confront the intruder, or B) grab a beer and go out and try to pacify the intruder (patty cake may be necessary), or C) grab your gun, gather your family, and lock yourselves in a bathroom or closet, with your body between your family and the door, ready to shoot if you need to?

Personally, I'd do something similar to C. It is ridiculous to assume that every situation of breaking and entering (or encounters with drunk/dangerous men in dark alleys, etc.) will end with you "staring up the barrel of a gun." The taking of another human life should be avoided as much as possible. Don't tell me you think petty theft, burglary, trespassing, or assault deserves capital punishment, because that's what it amounts to if you give everyone the right to shoot anyone who they feel is threatening them.

The right to self-defense needs to be both protected and also clearly defined by the law. I can't offer up any good definitions of when it is appropriate to use lethal force, but I do believe the current form of the proposal is too vague and subjective.

Ok I've expressed my contempt for hypothetical examples but will now be hypocritical... but for a good reason..

You're walking down the street on an evening stroll while your three year old son giggles happily as he walks alongside. A drunk man stumbles into you and you both almost fall over. You look at him. He looks at you. You 'don't know anything about him, don't know if he's a robber or a killer or a looney tune...all you know is, he's' just walked into you... That's technically a battery, a crime akin if not worse than trespassing.

That's the first problem with your hypothetical situation right there. Breaking into a man's house in the middle of the night, or heck, even in the day, and bumping into a man on the street are two different things. TOTALLY different. While you might be a little disgruntled by the man's aggressive shoulder knock, that experience is nothing like waking up in the middle of the night, hearing glass shatter, and seeing a shadowy figure prowling around your living room while your kids sleep peacefully in the room down the hall.

So as he stands there swaying back and forth, maybe clenching his fist to punch you... you pull out your machete, perform 2nd party hara kiri on him, rip out his guts, try to strangle him with them, before you grab his bottle of moonshine, pour it over him and set him alight. You run away, free of any liability, and the people around you applaud as the drunk turns into charcoal. Permissible self-defence? Never mind, he was drunk/insane (sometimes there isn't such a big difference).

I understand your stance on this issue. I find it quite admirable that you'd rather solve things through peace and serenity than through a sleek metal revolver. But I ask you to PLEASE read this proposal through again as carefully as possible. Do you consider a man clenching his fist as life-threatening? Not even swinging his fist at you, just clenching it? Dish out a more realistic scenario and than you might earn my attention, but clenching a fist doesn't qualify as life-threatening, or even a life-threatening gesture.

Feel free to either be baffled by the ingenuity and creativity of my example and praise it or shoot it down at your pleasure. I could do both if I had to.

I chose to shoot it down. But that's debate for you. I like how you two keeps swinging.

I've always found it funny how so many people think that one day you will just randomly be staring up the barrel of a gun, forced with a decision of whether or not to shoot the person holding that gun to protect yourself or your family. Let's take a hypothetical, and I'll try to be as general and reasonable as possible.:

Well, whether we like it or not, people all over the world end up in situations like these. Muggers, robbers, killers, scum. Somebody must be doing all the killing, because people are dying every day. Hasn't happened to me or you yet, but whose to say it won't? The truth of the matter is, it can happen to anybody.

You wake up in the middle of the night, disturbed by the sound of glass breaking (or a door opening, or w/e). You know it's not normal, and soon you're able to ascertain that someone has broken into your home. Do you A) grab your firearm and go out to confront the intruder, or B) grab a beer and go out and try to pacify the intruder (patty cake may be necessary), or C) grab your gun, gather your family, and lock yourselves in a bathroom or closet, with your body between your family and the door, ready to shoot if you need to?

The problem is, when there's an intruder rummaging around your house, chances are you may not have time to round up your family. What if you wake up, walk down the hall, and find him in your kid's bedroom? While I'd like to think most dads have time to wake up their family and safely herd them into another room, completely unnoticed by any bad guys (who tend to be alert when they're robbing places) it doesn't always happen that way.

Personally, I'd do something similar to C. It is ridiculous to assume that every situation of breaking and entering (or encounters with drunk/dangerous men in dark alleys, etc.) will end with you "staring up the barrel of a gun."

But it isn't ridiculous. People get shot in robberies all the time. Some times there's no time to think. Only time to react. We need laws protecting homeowners when that time comes. That's why I like this proposal so much.

The taking of another human life should be avoided as much as possible. Don't tell me you think petty theft, burglary, trespassing, or assault deserves capital punishment, because that's what it amounts to if you give everyone the right to shoot anyone who they feel is threatening them.

You know, I love life as much as anyone else. I hate war. I despise the conflict in Iraq despite my conservative leanings. However, the whole basis of my argument is, you don't know the intent of that shadowy figure in your house. He could be out for your family, he could be looking for a new stereo. You don't ask questions. You react. As for "feeling" someone is "threatening" them, whether it's justified or not is left up to your judicial system. And if your judicial system's competent, this shouldn't be a problem. Will accidents happen? Of course. They're inevitable though, and too few and far between to be dishing out this much concern over it.

The right to self-defense needs to be both protected and also clearly defined by the law. I can't offer up any good definitions of when it is appropriate to use lethal force, but I do believe the current form of the proposal is too vague and subjective.

I understand your concerns; but your legal system is the defining factor here. The UN shouldn't have to tell you how to carry out every little minuit detail of a resolution. Than we'd just have pages and pages of tedious reading to do.

I've resubmitted this proposal.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence, Mr. Oranges, but I don't think you quite understood my intention behind presenting such a blatantly unrealistic hypothetical example (except there was a case in England of someone beating up and setting fire to someone in self-defence).. OF COURSE there is a difference between a shoulder knock and a guy rummaging through the toys in your kid's bedroom. There's no argument there. I invited people to shoot down my example to make the point that because such examples are so easily rebuttable they serve little purpose in a debate purporting to be sensible - what examples like that (and its rebuttals) do accomplish however is defeat this resolution, because:

Scenarios will differ, just as the facts of real world cases differ. It is not for a UN resolution to dispense with any need for determination of the specific circumstances of a case in the interest of an unchallenged 'blanket' right of self-defence.

Let me make one thing clear - because I am opposed to this resolution does not mean I am against the right of self-defence. I just think
a) that such a crucial legal right ought to be adapted by national legal systems to the way of life in their states, and not imposed at the UN level
b) where such a right exists, to allow juries to pass judgement as to what is reasonable self-defence in a specific case.

I would hope that position was clear by now, and I apologise if you find it redundant.

Mickey.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence, Mr. Oranges, but I don't think you quite understood my intention behind presenting such a blatantly unrealistic hypothetical example (except there was a case in England of someone beating up and setting fire to someone in self-defence).. OF COURSE there is a difference between a shoulder knock and a guy rummaging through the toys in your kid's bedroom. There's no argument there. I invited people to shoot down my example to make the point that because such examples are so easily rebuttable they serve little purpose in a debate purporting to be sensible - what examples like that (and its rebuttals) do accomplish however is defeat this resolution, because:

Scenarios will differ, just as the facts of real world cases differ. It is not for a UN resolution to dispense with any need for determination of the specific circumstances of a case in the interest of an unchallenged 'blanket' right of self-defence.

You know, I thank you for clearing that up for me. I had it all wrong last night, and I appreciate you pointing this out to me in a polite manner. Too many times do mistakes like these lead to flaming. It was late last night when I read everything, so chalk it up to inattentiveness. My sincere aopolgies for my misunderstanding.

Let me make one thing clear - because I am opposed to this resolution does not mean I am against the right of self-defence. I just think
a) that such a crucial legal right ought to be adapted by national legal systems to the way of life in their states, and not imposed at the UN level
b) where such a right exists, to allow juries to pass judgement as to what is reasonable self-defence in a specific case.

Okay, thanks again for making things clearer for me. The Florida sun must be getting to me. ;)

I still think this proposal should be enforced in UN nation members, specifically because of countries like TiLenca, where running is encouraged above all else, and using lethal force to protect yourself, no matter what the scenario, can put you in the frying pan.

I would hope that position was clear by now, and I apologise if you find it redundant.

Mickey.

Not redundant at all. I've been banned the past few days (see DLE for more details), so I haven't been able to follow this thread. I got unbanned last night, read two or three posts (instead of going back and reading your full argument) and put forth a misinformed view on your argument. Thanks again, and my apologies.

I find it interesting that people consider human beings as possessing a "right to life". What right to life does a man trapped in a flaming aircraft rocketing into the ground with no parachute have? Or someone being mauled by a bear? What right to life does someone drowning in the middle of the ocean have?

There is no "right to life". Death is as inescapable as it is natural, and I think it's arrogant of western civilization to assume otherwise.


I realise this comes from another thread, but I figured since you said it I should at least ask you to comment on in in relate to self-defence.

If no one has a right to life then why should we pass an international law that says they have the right to defend themselves if they are attacked? You are saying they have a right to life - such a right that they can kill someone else to ensure this right.

How do you justify that given your above statement?

Okay. What I said earlier was in regards to the belief that humans are somehow entitled to live forever, or at least as long as their bodies hold out.

Now, I feel the need to distinguish between "god-given" rights, and rights granted by the state. People do not have a "god-given right" to live, God, if you believe in God, has quite obviously decided that everyone must die eventually. The circumstances of your death don't change anything. Someone who dies of old age is just as dead as someone killed in a car wreck. There is really no such thing as a "god-given right", as if there were, God himself would prevent these rights from ever being violated.

The only right God ever gave anyone is the right to make your own choices in life.

Now, the rights granted by a nation to its citizens, such as the right to self-defense in this proposal, are something else entirely. The government is solely responsible for their creation and enforcement, not God.

(grin) Good save :}