The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 04:08:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 170
Author Topic: The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature  (Read 295386 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: March 21, 2010, 02:29:27 AM »

Sorry I wasn't online, I had a lot of homework. Anyway, PiT seems to have interpret this law correctly.

     In that case, I think we ought to narrow it down to property more, maybe looking at the text of real-life castle laws to phrase it precisely. I can give it a shot, or if you wish to you can take care of it.
Logged
Deldem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: March 21, 2010, 11:57:45 PM »

Sorry I wasn't online, I had a lot of homework. Anyway, PiT seems to have interpret this law correctly.

     In that case, I think we ought to narrow it down to property more, maybe looking at the text of real-life castle laws to phrase it precisely. I can give it a shot, or if you wish to you can take care of it.
I agree, even though the abortion thing is a stretch even in the current text.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: March 22, 2010, 12:48:45 AM »
« Edited: March 22, 2010, 02:53:21 PM by SE Legislator PiT »

     Alright, I re-wrote it to make its intention clear. It's not as tough as it could be, but I'd like comments from my colleagues, & I would also like to introduce it as an amendment to replace the current text of the bill:

1. It shall be the right of any property owner to defend his/her property from any person (hereafter referred to as an intruder) who s/he reasonably believes has come onto his/her property with the intent to bring harm and/or cause damage against the property, the property owner, or any guest of the property owner, and who the property owner believes constitutes a direct threat in the intruder's current state.

2. Should a property owner maim or kill an intruder in compliance with this act, that person shall be immune to any and all civil actions arising from the actions of the property owner in response to the actions of the intruder.

3. A property owner acting in compliance with this act shall not be legally bound by any duty to retreat, and may use an amount of force against the intruder that the property owner reasonably believes is necessary to stop the attack, after having given a visual, verbal, or other auditory warning.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: March 22, 2010, 11:07:49 AM »

     Alright, I re-wrote it to make its intention clear. It's not as tough as it could be, but I'd like comments from my colleagues, & I would also like to introduce it as an amendment to replace the current text of the bill:

1. It shall be the right of any property owner to defend his/her property from any person (hereafter referred to as an intruder) who s/he believes has come onto his/her property with the intent to commit criminal acts against the property, the property owner, or any guest of the property owner, and who the property owner believes constitutes a direct threat in the intruder's current state.

2. Should a property owner maim or kill an intruder in compliance with this act, that person shall be immune to any and all civil actions arising from the actions of the property owner in response to the actions of the intruder.

3. A property owner acting in compliance with this act shall not be legally bound by any duty to retreat, and may use an amount of force against the intruder that the property owner reasonably believes is necessary to stop the attack, after having given a visual, verbal, or other auditory warning.

Butting in as one of the forum's legal beagles:

The language is actually fairly good, but needs to be more specific on three key points: Distinguishing the difference between allowed use of lethal vs. nonlethal force; distinguishing use of force permissible for trespass onto one's "home/residence" vs. "property"; and the level of force allowable for imminent threats to property as opposed to persons. In addition, should Section 1 at least require a "reasonable" belief of criminal activity? For that matter, would you possibly want to require a property owner to be actually correct in the suspect being engaged in criminal activity before using lethal force as opposed to merely a reasonable but mistaken belief?

I mention these concerns because under the current language a homeowner could legally kill a trespasser he sees in his yard who it turns out was his teenage son's friend who was going to meet up in the backyard to go wander, or some neighborhood kid cutting through the yard. Even if the property owner was correct that the intruder was up to "criminal behavior", do we really want to make it legal to shoot and kill some teenager who comes into someone's yard to TP the trees or egg the house?
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: March 22, 2010, 02:54:04 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I tried to do that by saying "may use an amount of force against the intruder that the property owner reasonably believes is necessary to stop the attack" in clause 3, as well as "and who the property owner believes constitutes a direct threat in the intruder's current state" in clause 1. Clause 3 in general requires the property owner to warn the intruder before using force & expressly prohibits the use of excessive force, while my intention with the last part of clause 1 was to prohibit the property owner from shooting a fleeing or subdued intruder.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I used property since I wanted it to cover places of business as well, though there might be a slight issue there since if you are talking about a supermarket, it's far more likely that there would be some random employees stocking after hours rather than the actual owner of the building, so they wouldn't be covered by this act.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     In most cases, I'm not sure whether the property owner would be able to ascertain whether an intruder is intending to threaten property or person. I think either way, they would need to be allowed to use the amount of force necessary to stop the person from committing the crime, a standard that could be better interpreted by the courts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Good point, I will change that.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I understand your concern, though I think it might kill the effectiveness of the law if we put too much of a burden on the property owner to affirm the correctness of his actions. One might be hesitant to act, even if he's completely justified in doing so, if he fears that there is a very good chance that he'll get caught up in a lengthy & complicated case.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Good point. I will change "commit criminal acts" in clause 1 to "bring harm or cause damage", since your house being egged is annoying & criminal, but doesn't really cause any damage.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: March 22, 2010, 05:53:49 PM »

     I've edited the post with the amendment. If there are no objections, I'd like to get a final vote opened soon.
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: March 22, 2010, 06:20:34 PM »

The vote is opened for 24 hours
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: March 22, 2010, 06:27:41 PM »

     Aye on the bill & the amendment.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: March 23, 2010, 03:24:12 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I tried to do that by saying "may use an amount of force against the intruder that the property owner reasonably believes is necessary to stop the attack" in clause 3, as well as "and who the property owner believes constitutes a direct threat in the intruder's current state" in clause 1. Clause 3 in general requires the property owner to warn the intruder before using force & expressly prohibits the use of excessive force, while my intention with the last part of clause 1 was to prohibit the property owner from shooting a fleeing or subdued intruder.

*facepalm* Missed the part in section 3. Still had some concerns about "direct threat" in section 1 not distinguishing between threat to property vs. threat to persons not seeming to limit lethal force for any minor property crime like TPing and egging, but I guess the Section 3 clause controls that indirectly.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     In most cases, I'm not sure whether the property owner would be able to ascertain whether an intruder is intending to threaten property or person. I think either way, they would need to be allowed to use the amount of force necessary to stop the person from committing the crime, a standard that could be better interpreted by the courts.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Good point, I will change that.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I understand your concern, though I think it might kill the effectiveness of the law if we put too much of a burden on the property owner to affirm the correctness of his actions. One might be hesitant to act, even if he's completely justified in doing so, if he fears that there is a very good chance that he'll get caught up in a lengthy & complicated case.
[/quote]
When talking about the use of lethal force, is that really a bad thing? Still, I guess adding the "reasonable" requirement may require someone to not completely overreact before shooting the neighbor boy crossing through the yard at night and simply stating "I thought it was a burglar".
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Good point. I will change "commit criminal acts" in clause 1 to "bring harm or cause damage", since your house being egged is annoying & criminal, but doesn't really cause any damage.
[/quote]
That's debatable unless we mean "serious damage" (e.g. arson). And what about say spray painting one's house? Obnoxious and fully deserving prosecution and even nonlethal force to stop (assuming the perpetrators don't escalate and open the door to use of lethal force), but this change in language seems to say exactly the same thing as before. Still, section 3 seems to control this somewhat, but IMHO these clauses seem to contradict more than compliment one another.

Still, overall not bad now that I've properly reread Clause 3. Wink
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: March 24, 2010, 08:27:48 PM »

The bill is defeated 1-0-2
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: March 24, 2010, 08:32:46 PM »


     I was going to comment on the fact that abstentions don't really count as votes, but then I realized that the 33% turnout meant that we didn't have a quorum to pass it.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: March 25, 2010, 03:05:22 PM »

     Hopefully the legislature will be more active this coming term. Failing to attain a quorum on a final vote was rather embarrassing.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: March 25, 2010, 09:22:51 PM »

     I, PiT, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Southeast against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me Dave.
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: March 26, 2010, 05:05:06 PM »

The first measure of business is the vote to Approve Xahar as the Southeast's Region Clerk.

Vote is open for 24 hours.
Logged
CatoMinor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,007
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: March 26, 2010, 05:06:46 PM »

No confirmation hearing?
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: March 26, 2010, 05:52:33 PM »

     Aye
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: March 27, 2010, 09:15:26 PM »

Xahar is approved 2-0-1
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: March 27, 2010, 11:09:08 PM »

Up Next is the Abortion Rights Bill

Debate is for 24 hours.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: March 27, 2010, 11:20:09 PM »

     While I don't think the bill in its current form could pass, I do think we should consider reforming the punishments.
   
     As Badger pointed out to me, there is no requirement of knowledge in the inducement of the abortion for the sentence of prison time. Therefore, under current law, a person who accidentally knocks over a woman in the second or third trimester of pregnancy, causing her to lose the fetus as a result, will go to prison for three years barring jury nullification.

     I would also like to point out that the fine of $500,000 on any person who knowingly induces an illegal abortion is astronomically large, & in my opinion should be greatly reduced.

     Finally, the current law calls for exactly three years of prison & exactly a fine of $500,000. A person convicted of inducing an illegal abortion cannot be sentenced to anything less than the maximum sentence.
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: March 28, 2010, 07:32:52 PM »

The bill is up for a vote in the next 24 hours.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: March 28, 2010, 08:29:01 PM »

     I offer an amendment to eliminate all clauses except clause 3.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: March 29, 2010, 11:15:29 PM »

     SPC has not been online in almost nine days now. The Legislature will never get anything done if its members are not at least reasonably active.
Logged
CatoMinor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,007
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: March 29, 2010, 11:30:32 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Well he is in violation of the rules, what do you propose doing?
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,112
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: March 30, 2010, 02:49:48 AM »

     Given that he has already been absent for four days or so once without leave, I don't think we'd be overly harsh to schedule a special election to replace him.
Logged
CatoMinor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,007
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: March 30, 2010, 04:48:49 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Special elections are out for now because now law has been passed regarding them. If SPC doesn't come back by a certain time I'll consider the seat vacated and appoint someone new. how much time should we give him?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 170  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 13 queries.