Public consultation process
Please scrutinise all the proposed amendments and replies before commenting or voting. Short comments are most often read and must not exceed 100 words.You can propose an Amendment at the bottom of this page - please read the guidelines .
Note that the original wording appears again first below and sustains the same comment & voting regime as all other amendment proposals.
Section 2.13. Section 2.13. All citizens have the right to use reasonable force to defend self and family under threat of violence. Reasonable force defined as up to and inflicting bodily harm on the antagonist, short of death.
Section 2.13. "Reasonable force defined as up to and inflicting bodily harm on the antagonist, short of death." is not grammatical. Also, whether death ensues or not is not dependent on how reasonable the force may have been. This would appear to do away completely with the defence of justifiable homicide in self-defence. The right to "self-"defence should include the right to defend others, whether family members or not. This provision goes (in my view unjustifiably) further than Article 2(2) ECHR. To the extent that it does so, this should be a matter for a Criminal Code, rather than a constitution.
Section 2.13. I agree with Caledonialan that the phrase 'short of death' is counter-productive, and should be removed, for exactly the reasons that he states.
Section 2.13. I agree.
Section 2.13. I don't think this should be in a constitution. This should come under laws.
Section 2.13. Section 2.13. All citizens have the right to use reasonable force to defend self and family under threat of violence. Reasonable force defined as up to and inflicting bodily harm on the antagonist, short of death and does not extend to excessive force involving extra-judicial punishment
Section 2.13. Have a problem with this whole section..
Self and Family is to narrow and should be expanded to other Citizens ( mibbi even sentient beings ?? )
But mainly the " short of Death " phrase ... it is not and cannot be, a victims fault if the aggressor has an "eggshell skull " neither is it a victims fault if they fear that they could not deal with an aggressor who "gets back up" a second/ third time ... this section is treading into common law and should be a matter for the Judiciary.
Any improvement in this matter should be directed at the judiciary !!!
Also the phrase " reasonable FORCE " is subjective and IMHO should be reserved for only the the special powers of the Police.
Reasonable Force is expected surely only from professionals, someone in actual fear for their life has nae thought for reason or they'd have nae other thought at all !