Forums » Suggestions
A vast majority of legislation is based on, or an outright adoption of, historic "common law".
If regards to modern legislation of "Self Defense", there are normally the following considerations.
a) escape is not an option (excepting ones home or refuge).
b) damage is imminent and unavoidable.
c) defensive force applied is reasonably proportionate to the threat.
MSKanaka: You will have to show me a state law that contradicts the above points before I will believe it.
As this relates to the station NFZ, I believe you should be allowed to fire on a aggressor in a station's NFZ. This is not limited to defending yourself, but is considered as a general defense of the public at large (a common (and legally recognized) justification for use of force against criminal action).
I support the idea of removing all NFZ implied protections in regards to criminals that are KOS to the relevant faction, regardless of whether or not that KOS is temporary.
If regards to modern legislation of "Self Defense", there are normally the following considerations.
a) escape is not an option (excepting ones home or refuge).
b) damage is imminent and unavoidable.
c) defensive force applied is reasonably proportionate to the threat.
MSKanaka: You will have to show me a state law that contradicts the above points before I will believe it.
As this relates to the station NFZ, I believe you should be allowed to fire on a aggressor in a station's NFZ. This is not limited to defending yourself, but is considered as a general defense of the public at large (a common (and legally recognized) justification for use of force against criminal action).
I support the idea of removing all NFZ implied protections in regards to criminals that are KOS to the relevant faction, regardless of whether or not that KOS is temporary.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but 2.3 billion will overflow your karma counter.
From what I noticed, I can fire in a NFZ and just get a warning message. I just can't actually hit anyone.
From what I noticed, I can fire in a NFZ and just get a warning message. I just can't actually hit anyone.
Roda: while I'm not conducting a 50-state survey of statutes and case law just for your edification, please consider the following about your inconcise list:
a1) While difficulty and safety of a hypothetical retreat is often considered, it is never a black or white issue. What the legal standard is, even in "duty to retreat" jurisdictions, varies wildly (to say nothing of variation in application by those fickle idiots, jurors): sometimes the question is retreat with reasonable safety, sometimes it's closer to any possibility of retreat, sometimes it's enough to show the inverse, that there would be any danger in attempting retreat. Then, of course, there's this point http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/06/news/shoot.php So, some U.S. states clearly have disavowed the requirement of 'retreat if you can' for justifiable homicide.
b1) "Imminence" and "unavoidability" of harm are not always the terms used, and you'll find the difference among definintions even of those terms vary by as many jurisdictions as have adopted either or both as a standard. Simply put, it's never one level of showing among different jurisdictions: some places mean imminent as in there's a gun pointed at you and an finger on that weapon's trigger; others mean imminent as in someone has implictly threatened your wellbeing and is reaching under their coat for you know not what. Even you can figure out the import of such distinctions, I should think.
c1) I shouldn't dignify the statement that "reasonably proportionate to the threat" is a single standard for judging conduct with a reply, but here goes. What's proportionate and to what threat also varies. In some jurisdictions, there are lines drawn between the sort of lethal force brought to bear against the allegedly justified killer: if attacked by a knife, defending yourself with a .45 might be unjustified. Many jurisdictions do not attempt such distinctions, instead only considering whether the force brought to bear has any potential to cause death or severe bodily harm unless some defensive action is taken: come at an individual in those jurisdictions with an ice pick, crowbar, kitchen knife, or firearm, and when that individual calmly dispatches you at a safe distance with a barrage of pistol fire, they'll be cleared and home in time for supper.
a1) While difficulty and safety of a hypothetical retreat is often considered, it is never a black or white issue. What the legal standard is, even in "duty to retreat" jurisdictions, varies wildly (to say nothing of variation in application by those fickle idiots, jurors): sometimes the question is retreat with reasonable safety, sometimes it's closer to any possibility of retreat, sometimes it's enough to show the inverse, that there would be any danger in attempting retreat. Then, of course, there's this point http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/06/news/shoot.php So, some U.S. states clearly have disavowed the requirement of 'retreat if you can' for justifiable homicide.
b1) "Imminence" and "unavoidability" of harm are not always the terms used, and you'll find the difference among definintions even of those terms vary by as many jurisdictions as have adopted either or both as a standard. Simply put, it's never one level of showing among different jurisdictions: some places mean imminent as in there's a gun pointed at you and an finger on that weapon's trigger; others mean imminent as in someone has implictly threatened your wellbeing and is reaching under their coat for you know not what. Even you can figure out the import of such distinctions, I should think.
c1) I shouldn't dignify the statement that "reasonably proportionate to the threat" is a single standard for judging conduct with a reply, but here goes. What's proportionate and to what threat also varies. In some jurisdictions, there are lines drawn between the sort of lethal force brought to bear against the allegedly justified killer: if attacked by a knife, defending yourself with a .45 might be unjustified. Many jurisdictions do not attempt such distinctions, instead only considering whether the force brought to bear has any potential to cause death or severe bodily harm unless some defensive action is taken: come at an individual in those jurisdictions with an ice pick, crowbar, kitchen knife, or firearm, and when that individual calmly dispatches you at a safe distance with a barrage of pistol fire, they'll be cleared and home in time for supper.
Lecter,
I did not make any extra ordinary effort to explain these points in extreme legalese, but rather, just to convey the general points in question.
Your cited example of exception to "duty to retreat" is of notable interest, but only as it extends beyond the long accepted right to defend one's person and property (including one's home).
There is no doubt that many terms and definitions are subject to debate and interpretation. None the less, I think it is still useful to have at least a general understanding of legal expectations.
More to the point, while I might enjoy an ongoing debate of real word legislation on this and other matters with you, you failed to render an opinion of my suggestion to changes to the game, relevant to this thread. Please submit a post on your position, of my suggestion, and/or the originally intended thread topic.
I did not make any extra ordinary effort to explain these points in extreme legalese, but rather, just to convey the general points in question.
Your cited example of exception to "duty to retreat" is of notable interest, but only as it extends beyond the long accepted right to defend one's person and property (including one's home).
There is no doubt that many terms and definitions are subject to debate and interpretation. None the less, I think it is still useful to have at least a general understanding of legal expectations.
More to the point, while I might enjoy an ongoing debate of real word legislation on this and other matters with you, you failed to render an opinion of my suggestion to changes to the game, relevant to this thread. Please submit a post on your position, of my suggestion, and/or the originally intended thread topic.
(1) What you're missing is that the points you listed cannot give one a (useful or true) "general understanding of legal expectations" because they are so utterly devoid of meaning. They are not general, overarching meta-norms of the law of self defense in any substantive sense; rather, they're your (poorly informed) opinion distilled into soundbite form.
(2)My cited example is "of notable interest . . . only as it extends beyond the long accepted right to blah blah blah."
(a) You asked for a single instance of any state law conflicting with any point in your list: I gave you 15 states that expressly disclaim any duty to retreat ANYWHERE, not just within the "home or refuge."
(b) You are mistaken that there is a "long accepted right to defend one's . . . property." Pure defense of property is one of the fundamental non-starters for lethal force, a fact true across all of American jurisprudence, both criminal and civil. Defense of the home always works because of the fact that there are people there: you'll find a famous case involving spring-guns, a damaged leg, and a home with no people in it that makes clear you may never use lethal force in defense of property alone (there's laws about fleeing felons, but that's rather a separate offshoot of justification not involved with self-defense).
3) I posted my VO related thought earlier, which was not unlike your subsequent point about what the NFZ should actually protect. http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/18252#228288
(2)My cited example is "of notable interest . . . only as it extends beyond the long accepted right to blah blah blah."
(a) You asked for a single instance of any state law conflicting with any point in your list: I gave you 15 states that expressly disclaim any duty to retreat ANYWHERE, not just within the "home or refuge."
(b) You are mistaken that there is a "long accepted right to defend one's . . . property." Pure defense of property is one of the fundamental non-starters for lethal force, a fact true across all of American jurisprudence, both criminal and civil. Defense of the home always works because of the fact that there are people there: you'll find a famous case involving spring-guns, a damaged leg, and a home with no people in it that makes clear you may never use lethal force in defense of property alone (there's laws about fleeing felons, but that's rather a separate offshoot of justification not involved with self-defense).
3) I posted my VO related thought earlier, which was not unlike your subsequent point about what the NFZ should actually protect. http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/18252#228288
My post was to correct MSKanaka's statement that a person is not allowed to defend them self. You did cite an example that challenges one of my points, but not at all in MSKanaka's favor, but rather, even farther from her point than mine.
While the points I made may not be precise, they are far more accurate than what MSKanaka presented, and, more practical than anything you have yet presented.
I would not hesitate to employ your presented arguments after the fact, in a court of law, but certainly would not care to base my actions on them before the fact, in the real world. When faced with immediate or imminent danger, I may not have time to call my lawyer or read the relevant precedences. A general understanding of the law's expectations can go along way in determining my rights to defend myself, while keeping me out court.
If you don't like my "sound bites", then lets hear yours. Something requiring less than a law degree would be appreciated.
While the points I made may not be precise, they are far more accurate than what MSKanaka presented, and, more practical than anything you have yet presented.
I would not hesitate to employ your presented arguments after the fact, in a court of law, but certainly would not care to base my actions on them before the fact, in the real world. When faced with immediate or imminent danger, I may not have time to call my lawyer or read the relevant precedences. A general understanding of the law's expectations can go along way in determining my rights to defend myself, while keeping me out court.
If you don't like my "sound bites", then lets hear yours. Something requiring less than a law degree would be appreciated.
First, let's get clear on the most important thing: I have zero interest in doing anything in MSK's favor. I was just pointing out how your list was flawed. FYI, my example doesn't "challenge" your first point, it demonstrates that, in at least 15 states, it's flat out wrong.
Second, I have a very simple soundbite for you: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You cannot have a useful understanding of the law on this point that is not jurisdiction-specific. Anything more simplistic will invariably land you in deep shit.
If you want your understanding of the law on justifiable homicide to help, rather than harm, you when making judgments before you act... read a damn guide to the law of the relevant jurisdiction. The NRA, for example, publishes some nice ones, written by people like me to be both (1) accurate, and (2) understandable by __________ such as yourself.
Ta-ta, Rode-a; we've veered far off course here.
Second, I have a very simple soundbite for you: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You cannot have a useful understanding of the law on this point that is not jurisdiction-specific. Anything more simplistic will invariably land you in deep shit.
If you want your understanding of the law on justifiable homicide to help, rather than harm, you when making judgments before you act... read a damn guide to the law of the relevant jurisdiction. The NRA, for example, publishes some nice ones, written by people like me to be both (1) accurate, and (2) understandable by __________ such as yourself.
Ta-ta, Rode-a; we've veered far off course here.
There are 'Self-defense for Dummies' books out there? Sweetness, got to get me one of those for my place.
Wow... I didn't mean to start an argument out of it... :-/
Historically, Ive been killing people with prejudice outside of any station, therefore I have set the precedent, killing people at stations is fun and profitable. Thread over!
Tram, this is, more or less, a debate concerning the faction standing redux. When implemented, the common sense repercussions mentioned should be included.
Shouldn't the repercussions vary by the nature of the place you're at? I imagine the Itani would be very upset at killing in their station sectors, while the Serco might be less so. Corvus probably couldn't care less what happens to you, regardless of your standing with them; other Gray space entities may also frown on station kills less so than, say, the UIT themselves.
I'm just having a bit of a problem with the idea that X action in Y type of location is always A Very Bad Thing and will cause Z consequence everywhere.
I'm just having a bit of a problem with the idea that X action in Y type of location is always A Very Bad Thing and will cause Z consequence everywhere.
seconded.*
and i think it's time those station turrets get deployed everywhere in monitored space. except gray space stations.
* my agreeing with lecter on this is statistical proof of the chaos in our rapports.
and i think it's time those station turrets get deployed everywhere in monitored space. except gray space stations.
* my agreeing with lecter on this is statistical proof of the chaos in our rapports.
*Ding ding ding* AAAAAND there's Roda in the red corner, claiming many victories against members of such guilds as Itan, PA, and CLM! AAAND IN THE BLUE CORNER: DR. LECTER!!! He's shown annoying-ness almost comparing to myself, and he's back for another swipe at Roda in legal-esque talk!!
And I have no clue what I'm talking about!
And I have no clue what I'm talking about!