[SEMI-PUBLIC] The Wreckage of the General Assembly - Term XIV

[unmerged(28894)]

"I simply don't accept that a man should be allowed to propose the worst piece of legislation I've ever seen and not tell us why we should institute this train-wreck. Without his absence we cannot understand his motives. Nevertheless, moving on...

Frankly, I feel this legislation is unnecessary. This is absolutely all we need:

I. Any citizen is permitted to use reasonable force to defend themselves or their family if physically threatened, after giving a warning. No charges shall be pressed against those who use force reasonably.

II. The force shall be considered to be reasonable if it is judged to be proportionate to the severity of the threat.

III. Any who use unreasonable force shall face criminal charges as normal.

If you want to see me propose an amendment, by all means consider that to be such. If you want to see sense and realise that the police have a role, that we can defend ourselves and our property without filling our trauma wards with gunshot victims, persuade Per Zhokhyen to withdraw this bill."

 

[Estonianzulu]

Alastar Cain enters the General Assembly Chamber for the first time.

"Speaker, members of the assembly, I am taking my seat as a member of the General Assembly for the Eutopian Labour Party."

 

[unmerged(51077)]

*JB Arioni after presenting himself in the reception goes into the grand hall of the grand assembly and present himself there*

Im taking my place in the grand assembly as a member in the grand assembly as a member of the Eutopian Nationalist Party

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Minister Zhokhyen has requested and been granted permission to address the Assembly regarding the Property Defense Rights Act. When he does so, I ask that Minister Zhokhyen also take the opportunity to indicate whether he accepts the changes proposed by Mr. Berenguerr as a friendly amendment.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

Zhokhyen enters the building.

"Hello, friends.

"Elimination of the right to defend property as suggested in my bill is not acceptable. Right to property is one important principle of a free society. I cannot agree with the government denying individuals the right to prevent tresspassing of individuals of unknown intent or telling them that they can't do anything to stop a burglar when the majority of burglary cases go unsolved.

"Most of the 'questions' you gentlemen have been raising are already answered in the bill. Improper application of this law has a stiff penalty. Perhaps that should be increased? If the tresspasser is unarmed, the owner of the home or business must warn them. Is that not clear?

"Perhaps if you men have true problems with the bill, you should say so. The wording of the bill can be changed if it is unclear. Grey areas such as defense of property can be more clearly defined. However, what I have been hearing from this assembly is that property is not right. Its okay to steal: we'll go easy on thieves! Is this really the message you want to send?

"Stop with the excuses. Either start suggesting ways to clean up the wording, or follow Mr. Berenguerr's lead and say you would rather protect a criminal than an honest citizen."

 

[aussieboy]

Mr. Zhokyen, I see no reason, I repeat, no reason to reject the Berenguerr Amendment. Besides, basically, he cut all the fat out of your bill and left the bill still effective. There’s no use writing a thousand words on a bill if three sentences will do.

 

[Hyzhenhok]

"The clauses that protect property are not 'fat', Mr. Cojuanco. Mr. Berengeurr's bill continues the corrent practice of giving thieves free reign in the homes of our citizens, free of any reprisal. Given that most burglaries go unsolved, this is unnacceptable."

 

[aussieboy]

There, Then I propose this amendment, to cool down Mr. Zhokyen and his partymates a little:

I. Any citizen is permitted to use reasonable force to defend themselves, their family or their immovable property if physically threatened, or being given due reason they are physically threatened, after giving due warning. No charges shall be pressed against those who use force reasonably.

II. The force shall be considered to be reasonable if it is judged to be proportionate to the severity of the threat.

III. Any who use unreasonable force shall face criminal charges as normal.

 

[unmerged(28894)]

"To paraphrase Per Zhokhyen, he's all for unreasonable force. This raises the question of whether the Presidency attracts the mad or makes them thus. Perhaps we should search out Per Leary in our nation's fine asylums?

Nevertheless, congratulations on the most blatant sophistry since Ambrose of Milan."

Berenguerr pauses and tips an imaginary hat to Zhokhyen.

"Nevertheless, your bill was garbage. The bill nowhere mentions the need to give warning before shooting at the unarmed - and there is no reason you should be shooting them anyway if they are not a threat, it makes murder by a householder a crime with a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and worst of all it puts the right to property above the right to life.

I'm happy to accept Per Cojuanco's amendment and will withdraw my own, although frankly the best way to protect your home is to reduce poverty, rehabilitate drug addicts, educate convicts and fund the police force well.

What I'm not happy with is the idea that nutters like you should be given a loaded gun and a free rein."

 

[Hyzhenhok]

"Mr. Berenguerr, if everyone who disagrees with you is crazy, I don't see why you are bothering with a democracy.

"You've misread my bill. It's ten years on top of normal homicide penalties. And again, it clearly states that force may be only used against unlawful, threatening entry. I would agree to include that warning must be given in the bill, and admit that was an oversight on my part.

"However, given the objections to 'grey areas', I prefer that we amend my bill, not adopt Mr. Cojuanco's. If we want to reduce these grey areas, it will have to get a little wordy. Mr. Cojuanco's suggestion leaves too much discrepency on where the line is drawn in regards to threat and what is and is not proper use of force. I don't feel it would be wise to give judges the ability to run with this bill. We would end up with one precinct with a judge giving no penalty for improper use, and one next door with a judge ruling that all force is improper. If we want to clear the grey areas, the bill needs to have much stronger definition in it that Mr. Cojuanco's proposal."

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Gentlemen, let me remind you that this is the General Assembly, not a WWF match. Choose your tone accordingly, and kindly refrain from personal attacks. If you feel you absolutely must supplement your arguments with invective, you have ample opportunity to do so outside the Assembly.

 

[aussieboy]

We are getting nowhere debating this any further. Why don't we just put the amendment to vote, and, after that, the bill?

*mutters*
Where's Leary when you need him?

 

[unmerged(1522)]

*Jerome smiles sweetly at Cojuanco*

Mr. Cojuanco, I will not curtail debate simply because you happen to be bored. You claim that debate is going nowhere. In fact, Minister Zhokhyen's last comments clearly indicate a willingness to amend his bill, but also indicate misgivings about the particular amendment proposed by yourself. In addition, neither the ENP nor the PEL have yet had a chance to comment on your amendment. Consequently, it seems to me that there is a lot of room left for *constructive* debate. I suggest that you, along with everybody else, make an effort to explore that room.

If it turns out that there is, in fact, no common ground to be found in a reasonable period of time, rest assured that your amendment *will* be put to a vote.

Now, can we get back to the actual debate?

 

[unmerged(27364)]

My fellow Assembly pers , the real question is , how will a jury interpret the wording of this bill , or any of these amendments. What is reasonable force to one person , may not be to another. Per Zhokhyen "might" view any intrusion onto his property as a threat , where as Per Berenguerr might not feel threatened unless a person fired off a shot at him. What is defined as a threat , what is reasonable force.

For instance , a 18 year old army private , might could shoot your toes off , but a little old lady might miss and put one through your eye. Or , could I slash a person to death in my home with a broadsword , or spray them with fuel and set them ablaze?

Please , we must debate what we feel would be a "reasonable" response. What is a great enough threat to allow the use of deadly force? I have not had time to search through all of Eutopia's criminal law code , but I would hope that it would be understood that a person could defend themselves already, without this new legislation.

Perhaps we could start with something like this

Any person who commits the act of breaking and entering between the hours of 8 PM and 8 AM shall , by definition , constitute a "threat" to the occupants of said property

Any force used against said person , shall constitute reasonable application of force under this act

This is the type of ideas we need. It defines a specific offender and the situation in which a burglar would always be a threat to a person, at night. Please , let us be constructive and offer more ideas.

 

[Estonianzulu]

Any force...

Here is the problem I have. Any force? This violates all concepts of cruel and unusal punishment.

This law seems hell-bent on legalizing what most western nations are opposed to, vigilanteism. This bill takes the power out of the hands of police and puts it into the hands of indivuals. Now, I am not opposed to self defense, but I think we as a nation would be taking a horid step by passing this bill.

Mr Zhokhyen, you earlier stated that not passing this bill would be inviting theives? You are wrong sir. This bill would invite murder. A theft, even a major one, is punishable by prison time, not death. This bill is in essance changing that punishment. The right to property is vital, I agree. However, the right to life is even more important. If we pass this bill, murder with a firearm will increase, I gurantee it now. And we as an Assembly would be irresponsible of we let this bill pass.

 

[unmerged(27364)]

Excellent point Per Cain. I was simply putting forth an idea. If you will check the transcript in GA speech # 274 you will note that I asked what force would be considered reasonable.

Thge point in the previous example was that in the dark of night , if someone is in your home you would most likely feel threatened , more so than if it happened in the day when you could easily see.

"Any force" does not invite a person to chase the intruder from thier property , following them where they go to kill them there. I will amend my amendment as follows then.

Any person who commits the act of breaking and entering between the hours of 8 PM and 8 AM shall , by definition , constitute a "threat" to the occupants of said property

Any force used against said person , shall constitute reasonable application of force under this act

Application of said force , shall be in a defensive manor and on the location of the property in question only. Once the intruder surrenders , the occupant must not pursue use of deadly force any further.

 

[Estonianzulu]

Well Revereand Pollos,

The point you are making is valid, it does clear up certain unclear points in the bill. That being said it does not dissuade me from my previous stance. This bill is still a clear strike against the power of the police, and a promotion of vigilante justice.

We are telling people it is alright to kill car thieves. That is not the case. I want to defened my home and property as much as any, but my television is not worth the life of someone, no matter how they try to steal it. The only time deadly force is acceptable is in a matter of life or death.

If during a robbery, the robber was armed and threatened the citizen, then the use of deadly force would be acceptable.

 

[unmerged(27364)]

Per Cain , you have an excellent point regarding the use of "deadly force" for the theft of a TV. Perhaps we should seek an alternate solution. We could divide the definition of force into two groups , deadly force which could result in death and non-deadly force , which is used to subdue or restrain a criminal until the police arrives.

It would require an exstensive rewriting of this bill , but we could use this to find common ground on both sides of the aisle.

*turning to Per Zhokhyen*

If you would be willing to allow a friendly amendment , which would seperate the defense of property into those allowing use of "deadly force" and those allowing for "non-deadly force" it would help greatly to bring some productive debate to the floor in regards to this legislation.

 

[unmerged(28894)]

"Surely this could be covered by allowing the use of reasonable force. Thus tt is reasonable to restrain a thief until the police arrive. It is not reasonable to kill him or to throw a bucket of water over him and attach the electrodes. Whereas if a man is pointing a gun (or even something you could reasonably believe was a gun) at your child, no reasonable man could say a decision to use as much force as you thought necessary could be wrong. The issue of reasonable force, incidentally, is probably something that it is safe to leave to our judges. They are not stupid, after all.

My problem with Per Zhokhyen's bill is not that it goes slightly too far. It is that, to my mind, it is manifestly inappropriate. I thank Per Pollos for his attempts to mediate, and suggest that Per Zhokhyen acts to severely curtail his bill so that it protects the right to property without inciting murder, because if he doesn't moderate it significantly I don't think we can make any real progress."

 

[Hyzhenhok]

"I believe most of this has already been covered. Execution-styled killings are not allowed by my bill. I will agree to Reverend Pollos' ammendment, as it clears up and defines what I mean by 'reasonable'. Executions are not reasonable. Use of a firearm in apprehending a caught thief, however, is reasonable. What I want to avoid is thieves who have been caught trying to make a risky get away and complicating the issue because they believe they are protected by the law.

"Perhaps the solution is to outline in the bill that a use of firearm in apprehending caught thieves is legal, but lethal force in such circumstances is not justified save the most dire of extra conditions."