Addition to the Bill of Rights, Article VI

[Emsworth]

Addition to the Bill of Rights, Article VI

16.  Each individual shall have the inherent Right of defending the life, liberty and property of any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available, including the use of deadly force.
Sponsor: Sen. Sam Spade

[King]

So if some woman finds her husband cheating on her, she has the right to kill the mistress and defend her 'property'?

[MasterJedi]

So if some woman finds her husband cheating on her, she has the right to kill the mistress and defend her 'property'?

haha

But this does need to be defined and narrowed a lot more before I even think of voting for it.

[MHS2002]

I would like to propose an amendment to the Amendment:

Addition to the Bill of Rights, Article VI

16.  Each individual shall have the inherent Right of defending the life of any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available, including the use of deadly force.

[Emsworth]

Although I consider myself a staunch civil libertarian, I oppose this measure. Insofar as protecting life is concerned, I would agree that the use of deadly force should be permissible.

Leaving aside the issue of taking another's life, I feel, when it comes to protecting liberty and property. If a student finds that another has taken his pencil without his permission, should he be able to punch the other student in an attempt to regain said writing instrument? Should unknowingly trespassing, without intent to do harm, result in the trespasser being shot by an irked owner?

This amendment offers too much of a loophole for murderers and vigilantes, and is otherwise generally unreasonable, IMHO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It has long been accepted as a principle of the law that one may kill another legally to defend oneself from imminent harm. This has been recognized by the courts as a part of the right to life, making an Amendment unnecessary.

In some cases, the use of lethal force is unjustified. Assume that someone says in anger "I will kill you," but is not actually holding any weapon, or otherwise physically threatening you. The current law legitimately prevents you from shooting the person dead on the spot, because your life is not in actual danger at the time. This distinction is, in my opinion, a very important one.

[MHS2002]

It has long been accepted as a principle of the law that one may kill another legally to defend oneself from imminent harm. This has been recognized by the courts as a part of the right to life, making an Amendment unnecessary.

In some cases, the use of lethal force is unjustified. Assume that someone says in anger "I will kill you," but is not actually holding any weapon, or otherwise physically threatening you. The current law legitimately prevents you from shooting the person dead on the spot, because your life is not in actual danger at the time. This distinction is, in my opinion, a very important one.

I figured this much was the case, but I decided to introduce the amendment anyway so as to make it something that I would actually consider voting for. I have the same concerns as you when it comes to the original Amendment.

[John Dibble]

I like the intent of the amendment, I agree with the loophole thing - two criminals break into a house, the owner tries to kill one, the other kills the owner and uses this amendment as justification for murder. How long would it take some idiot judge to interpret this in such a way?

Thusly, if we are going to consider this, I propose the following amendment to Philip's amendment.

"Each individual shall have the inherent Right of defending the life of any law abiding individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available, including the use of deadly force."

Still, I think this is lacking in at least one other respect - what justifies defending someone else's life? You could have someone trying to defend a child from getting run over by placing landmines at the end of the street to prevent cars from entering, just as an extreme example.

Ultimately though, I think this amendment is unnecessary since, as Emsworth pointed out, it has pretty much always been accepted that self-defense and defense of others is legal(though in some places they have ridiculous laws that force you to retreat if you can).

Anyways, I'll try thinking of a better wording some more.

[jokerman]

That's an excellent amendment and I will support the bill with the addition of that amendment.

[John Dibble]

Ok, I think I've thought of some better wording that will cover loopholes and still maintain the intent of this amendment.

"The right of law abiding individuals to defend themselves and other law abiding individuals with physical and deadly force from criminals intent upon causing them physical harm shall not be infringed."

[Sam Spade]

I am fine with Dibble's rewording, except I assume criminals intent" should be "criminal intent".

[Emsworth]

I am fine with Dibble's rewording, except I assume criminals intent" should be "criminal intent".

I'll assume that you have introduced the amendment to the Senate floor.

Sen. MHS2002, would you like a vote on your amendment, or is Magistrate Dibble's wording acceptable?

[MHS2002]

Well, I wouldn't mind, except that Dibble called me Philip.

In all seriousness, I withdraw my amendment and submit Dibble's (since I guess a Senator still needs to introduce it).

[John Dibble]

I am fine with Dibble's rewording, except I assume criminals intent" should be "criminal intent".

No, it's criminals as in the plural of criminal. So, in other words one or more criminals with the intent of causing harm.

[John Dibble]

Well, I wouldn't mind, except that Dibble called me Philip.

Sorry, saw your avatar and the Philip switch turned on in my brain.

[Sam Spade]

I am fine with Dibble's rewording, except I assume criminals intent" should be "criminal intent".

No, it's criminals as in the plural of criminal. So, in other words one or more criminals with the intent of causing harm.

I would then think it would be criminal(s) intent.  The way it's worded right now, it means to me that their would have to be more than one criminal to protect this right fully.

[John Dibble]

I am fine with Dibble's rewording, except I assume criminals intent" should be "criminal intent".

No, it's criminals as in the plural of criminal. So, in other words one or more criminals with the intent of causing harm.

I would then think it would be criminal(s) intent.  The way it's worded right now, it means to me that their would have to be more than one criminal to protect this right fully.

Well, yeah, if you were the most most idiotic judge on the planet, lol.

[Sam Spade]

I am fine with Dibble's rewording, except I assume criminals intent" should be "criminal intent".

No, it's criminals as in the plural of criminal. So, in other words one or more criminals with the intent of causing harm.

I would then think it would be criminal(s) intent.  The way it's worded right now, it means to me that their would have to be more than one criminal to protect this right fully.

Well, yeah, if you were the most most idiotic judge on the planet, lol.

I still would not prefer to give any judge the chance to earn that moniker, so I'd like the change.

[John Dibble]

I am fine with Dibble's rewording, except I assume criminals intent" should be "criminal intent".

No, it's criminals as in the plural of criminal. So, in other words one or more criminals with the intent of causing harm.

I would then think it would be criminal(s) intent.  The way it's worded right now, it means to me that their would have to be more than one criminal to protect this right fully.

Well, yeah, if you were the most most idiotic judge on the planet, lol.

I still would not prefer to give any judge the chance to earn that moniker, so I'd like the change.

Well, ok then.

"The right of law abiding individuals to defend themselves and other law abiding individuals with physical and deadly force from any criminal or criminal group intent upon causing them physical harm shall not be infringed."

[Emsworth]

Might I ask why the imminent danger standard is not included? Perhaps:

"The right of a person to defend himself and other persons from imminent unlawful physical harm shall not be infringed."

"Imminent unlawful physical harm" was included to make sure that some judge does not declare resistance to arrest constitutionally protected. Also, "criminal" was not included because the term would imply a finding of guilt, which may not necessarily have occurred. "Law-abiding" was not included because a criminal should be able to defend himself after being released from prison.

[John Dibble]

Might I ask why the imminent danger standard is not included?

Probably because we are thinking in terms of common sense, and most of us have to try hard to think like idiot judges and lawyers, lol.

[Emsworth]

Might I ask why the imminent danger standard is not included?

Probably because we are thinking in terms of common sense, and most of us have to try hard to think like idiot judges and lawyers, lol.

Ah, but we liberals find it easy

[Emsworth]

Btw, either John Dibble's proposal or my proposal would have to be introduced by a Senator in order to be voted upon.

Dibble's: "The right of law abiding individuals to defend themselves and other law abiding individuals with physical and deadly force from any criminal or criminal group intent upon causing them physical harm shall not be infringed."

Mine: "The right of a person to defend himself and other persons from imminent unlawful physical harm shall not be infringed."

[Sam Spade]

I like Emsworth's best; I'll introduce it.

On Emsworth's version, I would certainly vote aye.

[MasterJedi]

I like Emsworth's best; I'll introduce it.

On Emsworth's version, I would certainly vote aye.

I like Emsworth's and would vote aye on it as well.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question is on the Spade Amendment. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.