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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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."

[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.

[Emsworth]

With four ayes, the amendment is passed.

[Emsworth]

The question is on final passage. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

This Amendment requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

[Emsworth]

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

There have voted:
Aye: 8
No: 0

Therefore, the Amendment is passed by the Senate and submitted to the Regions for ratification.

[Emsworth]

Senators,

As you know, we are supposed to wait until all of the regions open voting booths on this amendment before proceeding to the next bill. However, the last time the Senate approved an amendment, this rule was waived on the grounds that some of the regional officials responsible for opening voting booths (including Lt. Governor Immy of the Pacific) were absent.

As this circumstance is still in effect, I hope that the PPT will not disagree with bringing up the next piece of legislation now. I do not intend to usurp the PPT's powers, but I have assumed that his consent is still in effect, as the circumstances delineated above are still applicable. I would apologize in advance if I have been in error in doing so; at the same time, however, I do wish to keep the Senate moving along.

The next bill, therefore, will be up shortly.