Modification of Section 2: Right to Self Defence and Necessity

[Vollgas]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law:
Change.

What law do you wish to change/add:
Add the following line to Section 2: Right to Self Defence and Necessity:

Any person who fails to report self-defense to the authorities as soon as it is practicable or flees the scene after reporting it will be charged as if it was not self-defense.

(Check responses for an alternative version)

Why should this change/addition be made:
Long story short, as things are right now, anyone could down another person and, if they have a brain, they will be able to easily get away with it by claiming it was self-defense and that they didn't just report it, knocking down most of their sentence. Of course, there are cases where the evidence is clear. If we find the owner of a house inside his own property downed and killed by the same person with a revolver, self-defense is a stretch and a half. However, most cases are not black or white.

What is the aim of this change/addition:
This small addition would make policing work regarding DNA evidence and bodies that are found too late much easier for everyone.

Additional Information:
N/A.

 

[lencz]

If they didn't even make a report or made any effort to let you know what happened, they haven't acted in goodwill. Unless a really short amount of time passed between the self defence and you arriving they had ample time to: call/message 911, buy a phone, escape their pursuers. All it takes is a call or a short message to 911.

So unless they have a really good excuse or the circumstances point to self defence, I would personally always warrant them for Murder.

If it's really old DNA, which is not clear like dead cop, gov employee, it's good to think whether you have solid enough evidence to actually pursue the charges.

 

[northnortheast]

Is this not already a thing?:

Section 2: Right to Self Defence and Necessity​

Any action performed under this section that is contrary to the law that results or is likely to result in death or injury of a person, or damage to property or possessions must be reported to emergency services as soon as it is practicable to do so.

I have suggested to change the wording of this to be more specific in this thread:
https://perpheads.com/threads/minor-word-change-section-2-right-to-self-defence.54882/

 

[Vollgas]

So unless they have a really good excuse or the circumstances point to self defence, I would personally always warrant them for Murder.

That is most reasonable and I agree strongly with the points you have presented. This is also how most incidents are handled. However, I see no harm in adding a short line that clarifies it.

I have suggested to change the wording of this to be more specific in this thread:
https://perpheads.com/threads/minor-word-change-section-2-right-to-self-defence.54882/

It's great, and it is similar to my suggestion, but mine does have some differences, such as the need of staying on-scene after making the call, as otherwise people could just make a 911 call claiming self defense and leave, which would not make such a big difference. I did reword the application as I think it does belong in Section 2 like you point out, but I am suggesting an addition rather than a rewording. Either way I think both suggestions go hand in hand. I hope to see both of them approved, as I too agree that LEOs should be notified.

 

[blobvis 2.0]

That is most reasonable and I agree strongly with the points you have presented. This is also how most incidents are handled. However, I see no harm in adding a short line that clarifies it.

Clearly a cop main response, this difference is actually very very big.

In clear print it clearly states if you leave the scene under any and all circumstances you will be charged upon the entirety of the law.

Which include but not limit to:
1) Fleeing a scene due to being shot at by assailants
2) Leaving a scene upon no response due to a big shootout and all cops dying thus leaving u either stuck for 15 minutes until the body despawns or a murder charge.
3) The body gets found later on after the scene got cleared by another person and goes off duty (or dies) and gets found by a "hungry for warrants" sergeant+ as clearly seen above by @lencz (nothing personal but you clearly state u warrant them for it if DNA is found and this would result in them not getting out of self defense) resulting in a murder warrant


This change might seem quite small but is rather huge in consequences due to the actions onto it. There are too many reasons a person might want/has to leave a scene and an investigation should point out what happened hence "questioning warrants" were added but adding this clause will for sure result in people going in on murder charges 24/7 because they ran over a (sweater) person on accident and 0 response for the next minute.

Please just leave it for what it is and do not add this wording.

 

[Vollgas]

1) Fleeing a scene due to being shot at by assailants
2) Leaving a scene upon no response due to a big shootout and all cops dying thus leaving u either stuck for 15 minutes until the body despawns or a murder charge.
3) The body gets found later on after the scene got cleared by another person and goes off duty (or dies) and gets found by a "hungry for warrants" sergeant+ as clearly seen above by @lencz (nothing personal but you clearly state u warrant them for it if DNA is found and this would result in them not getting out of self defense) resulting in a murder warrant

I understand your concerns. Given the points you have exposed here, I think it would be wise to change it to

Any person who fails to report self-defense to the authorities as soon as it is practicable will be charged as if it was not self-defense.

That way, those who don't report it can be directly warranted without a hint of doubt, but those who report it and flee can be wanted for questioning.

 

[northnortheast]

Any person who fails to report self-defense to the authorities as soon as it is practicable will be charged as if it was not self-defense.

This is already a thing. Read Section 2. Am I going crazy?

 

[Bnjemann]

Necessity covers a lot of things. There are circumstances where you are not able to report it until cops arrive on scene, there are times where you have to flee the scene and times where pulling out your phone to notify authorities isn’t safe. The wording in this law also isn’t sufficient. Charging someone for murder when they did not unlawfully take a life isn’t sufficient. Adding this to the law simply blurs the lines.

Someone who lawfully defends themselves or someone else and fails to report t altercation, if by some act of sheer luck or a compelling argument manages to still prove it was self defense, then regardless, they would already be guilty of a significant offence which carries a circumstantially justified charge against the offender anyways. I don’t see a need or a reason to change this.

If you’ve killed someone already and failed to report it, the body gets found and you get a warrant, you’d likely regardless be charged with murder because you failed to be able to prove on the scene of the crime that you’d done so for a lawful reason. As it stands this is how it is enforced, when you kill someone officers must investigate and determine you had just cause, if you’re unable to prove it, all that can be proven is you took a life without clear cause and subsequently, you’d be charged.

There’s no need for clarification because it’s simply a case of thought, investigation and basic deduction. Having this “Clarification” in the law is just something I see being utilised against someone in circumstances it wasn’t intended to be.

 

[Vollgas]

This is already a thing. Read Section 2. Am I going crazy?

Not really, it only says Any action performed under this section that is contrary to the law that results or is likely to result in death or injury of a person, or damage to property or possessions must be reported to emergency services [...] It states nothing about self-defense being nullified by not calling Emergency Services.

Given the reasoning everyone has presented, I may either close the suggestion of try to figure out something else from scratch. I appreciate the guidance and the feedback everyone has provided.

 

[northnortheast]

It states nothing about self-defense being nullified by not calling Emergency Services.

As it leads the section with must, it can be assumed to be a condition of its application, meaning that the Self Defence exemptions only apply if it is met.

This has been the de facto interpretation of it and I couldn’t see why it would need to be clarified any further, let alone in a separate law. However, from the posts in this thread, it is clear that this wording has been at least misinterpreted by yourself and so I do wonder if others have had the same issue.

As discussed earlier by others, adding a section on “fleeing the scene” is impractical as a self-defence situation may necessitate that the plaintiff flees to preserve their life. This would only serve to push otherwise potentially justified self defence cases straight to arrest warrants for nothing other than convenience and would also skip over potentially interesting investigative roleplay.