The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Badger]

     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?

[Badger]

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.

You must be logged in to read this 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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Good point, I will change that.

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".

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.

[Badger]

     Nobody benefits per se, though passing a more restrictive law than the federal one has put the Southeast in the position of having the most conservative child pornography statute. This change brings us in line with the rest of the nation.

     Also, since the pre-existing regional law is based on that of the state of Georgia, I think that means the age of consent in the region is 16, as is the case in Georgia. I think it would make sense that if someone is old enough to consent to having sex, then that person is also old enough to consent to appearing in a pornographic video.

The latter adds much increased long-term consequences and risk for exploitation by adults.

[Badger]

     Nobody benefits per se, though passing a more restrictive law than the federal one has put the Southeast in the position of having the most conservative child pornography statute. This change brings us in line with the rest of the nation.

     Also, since the pre-existing regional law is based on that of the state of Georgia, I think that means the age of consent in the region is 16, as is the case in Georgia. I think it would make sense that if someone is old enough to consent to having sex, then that person is also old enough to consent to appearing in a pornographic video.

The latter adds much increased long-term consequences and risk for exploitation by adults.

     I suppose the point I am trying to make is that these people are old enough that we entrust them to decide whether or not they wish to be sexually active.

     Besides, the point remains that I do not see why the standard that is good enough for the other four regions isn't good enough for the Southeast. The way I see it, the burden of proof is on the people who wish to place restrictions on individual interactions, & I am not convinced that this merits any restrictions additional to those laid out by federal statute.

I'm pretty sure the Mideast doesn't allow 16 year olds to be videotaped committing sexual acts. Perhaps you're confusing the age of consent?

Remeber, PiT, we're not talking about the "freedom" for a teenager to videotape themshelves having sex so much as we're talking about the scumbags who would so employ 16 year old kids to make a buck off of using them for porn.

16 year olds are already prohibited from working in a variety of particularly dangerous jobs for their safety (a certain level of maturity is required to be a cop or work around a blast furnace), shouldn't "porn actress" be one of them?

I'm all for freedom for someone to do damn near whatever they want in life, but any good libertarian would agree there are exceptions for those unable to make coherent choices, specifically children and the mentally ill.

In juni court I see a different segment of teenagers with poorer judgment, decision-making skills, and impluse control, but 16 is just too damned young to make the decision whether they want to earn $100 taking their clothes off for the nice man with a camara.

[Badger]

     Nobody benefits per se, though passing a more restrictive law than the federal one has put the Southeast in the position of having the most conservative child pornography statute. This change brings us in line with the rest of the nation.

     Also, since the pre-existing regional law is based on that of the state of Georgia, I think that means the age of consent in the region is 16, as is the case in Georgia. I think it would make sense that if someone is old enough to consent to having sex, then that person is also old enough to consent to appearing in a pornographic video.

The latter adds much increased long-term consequences and risk for exploitation by adults.

     I suppose the point I am trying to make is that these people are old enough that we entrust them to decide whether or not they wish to be sexually active.

     Besides, the point remains that I do not see why the standard that is good enough for the other four regions isn't good enough for the Southeast. The way I see it, the burden of proof is on the people who wish to place restrictions on individual interactions, & I am not convinced that this merits any restrictions additional to those laid out by federal statute.

I'm pretty sure the Mideast doesn't allow 16 year olds to be videotaped committing sexual acts. Perhaps you're confusing the age of consent?

Remeber, PiT, we're not talking about the "freedom" for a teenager to videotape themshelves having sex so much as we're talking about the scumbags who would so employ 16 year old kids to make a buck off of using them for porn.

16 year olds are already prohibited from working in a variety of particularly dangerous jobs for their safety (a certain level of maturity is required to be a cop or work around a blast furnace), shouldn't "porn actress" be one of them?

I'm all for freedom for someone to do damn near whatever they want in life, but any good libertarian would agree there are exceptions for those unable to make coherent choices, specifically children and the mentally ill.

In juni court I see a different segment of teenagers with poorer judgment, decision-making skills, and impluse control, but 16 is just too damned young to make the decision whether they want to earn $100 taking their clothes off for the nice man with a camara.

     I checked, & the Mideast Pornography and Sex Crime Statute was passed in April 2005, setting the same restrictions. Of note, the Southeastern initiative says that its definition of child pornography is more restrictive than the federal definition, but I do not quite see how that's the case. Explanation on this matter would be appreciated:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I suppose it has to do with my lack of experience in the world, but I just don't see that much of a difference in terms of maturity between a 16 year-old & an 18 year-old. I also suppose it would only be sensible for me to defer to your judgment on such matters, since you clearly know more about it than I do.

You must be correct on the status of Mideast law. I said "pretty sure" as I wasn't entirely positive (obviously). The 2005 statute you cited is well before my time.

I appreciate the deference, but honestly it is simply a personal judgment call. Myself I believe that there is a material difference in maturity between 16 and 18 year olds generally. Of course there are great differences between individuals, but as there's no way to quantitatively test maturity such bright line age prohibitions must, by definition, simply aim for the general mean of the age group.

[Badger]

     In that case, I would like to offer it as a friendly amendment. I would also like to accept the amendment, being the sponsor of the bill.

FTR: I oppose extending this to 16 yr olds at all, but since this is just an online sim and the SE leg seems so intent on passing this (so if I ever run for office and an opponent uses this to claim I'm "soft on child pornography, you're a damned liar and you know it).

If I can offer one additional nitpick, maybe the term "or other valuable consideration" should be included along with "profit or money". This would so cover some old slimeball that gives pictures of a naked 16 year old for booze and/or drugs instead of cash.