[GA, passed] Basic Self-Defense Rights

Basic Self-Defense Rights
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Zinke Zoogle Bee-Bop | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

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

Hereby enacts the following in all member nations:

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

Click to expand...

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Zyvetskistaahn:

Against. I think the tests for lawful self-defence prescribed in the proposal are largely what one would expect from an attempt to pass a resolution on this issue, however, I am of the view that the law of self-defence ought to be left to national governments to determine absent some particularly pressing issue of specific concern.
EDIT: spelling “absent”

Click to expand...