This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
B753 - Stand Your Ground Bill 2015, TSR UKIP

Stand Your Ground Bill 2015


Image


An act to adopt the law currently in some USA States, called the 'Stand Your Ground Law' in case of attack



BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Stand Your Ground Law

1) An individual has no duty to retreat from any place they have a lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if they reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.
(A) This can be in any place, public, or privately in the homer
(B) Reasonable defence will be classified on a case by case basis, but would vary with how serious the threat to life is.
2) In a public place, where a nearby person comes across an incident like this, they may use any level of force, including lethal force, should they feel another law abiding member of the public is facing imminent and immediate threats of serious bodily harm or death.
3) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if the individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual


2: Extent, Commencement & Short Title

1) This act shall apply to the whole of Britain and Northern Ireland
2) This bill, if passed, may be cited as the Stand Your Ground Act 2015.
3) This act shall come into force on 1st January 2016, and will only occur in cases after this date.
0
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Oh good God.

Yes, I imagine this will garner a lot of support from the left.
0
It's a Shame
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
How can you support manslaughter?!
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by toronto353)
B753 - Stand Your Ground Bill 2015, TSR UKIP

Stand Your Ground Bill 2015


Image


An act to adopt the law currently in some USA States, called the 'Stand Your Ground Law' in case of attack



BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Stand Your Ground Law

1) An individual has no duty to retreat from any place they have a lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if they reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.
(A) This can be in any place, public, or privately in the homer
(B) Reasonable defence will be classified on a case by case basis, but would vary with how serious the threat to life is.
2) In a public place, where a nearby person comes across an incident like this, they may use any level of force, including lethal force, should they feel another law abiding member of the public is facing imminent and immediate threats of serious bodily harm or death.
3) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if the individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual


2: Extent, Commencement & Short Title

1) This act shall apply to the whole of Britain and Northern Ireland
2) This bill, if passed, may be cited as the Stand Your Ground Act 2015.
3) This act shall come into force on 1st January 2016, and will only occur in cases after this date.
We're a Republic
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
How about no...
(A) This can be in any place, public, or privately in the homer
also where is the homer?
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
I'm not sure on the actual bill though. I can see both sides of it. I'll watch some debate before deciding
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
Whether deadly force should be acceptable to prevent serious bodily harm or sexual assault I would question. I can see why it would be acceptable in a life-death situation but otherwise I'm not convinced.

I also suggest that the weapon used to provide this lethal force is proportional to the threat, e.g. if you're facing a threat from bare hands it's not acceptable to blow the assailant's head off with a shotgun.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by O133)
Whether deadly force should be acceptable to prevent serious bodily harm or sexual assault I would question. I can see why it would be acceptable in a life-death situation but otherwise I'm not convinced.

I also suggest that the weapon used to provide this lethal force is proportional to the threat, e.g. if you're facing a threat from bare hands it's not acceptable to blow the assailant's head off with a shotgun.
Agreed.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by PetrosAC)
We're a Republic
The Queen is still head of state.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by nebelbon)
The Queen is still head of state.
No she isn't.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by nebelbon)
The Queen is still head of state.
I thought we were acting as if a President was signing off legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong
0
The Legal Eagle
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
"Case by case basis" - so, what you mean is, you're going to leave it to Judges to decide? Which, seeing as Judges are individuals, will have different views, different thoughts, and will decide things differently. Meaning, I could inflict GBH on someone who I thought I was going to harm me, in Canterbury, and do the same in Dover, and then not have a defence?

Are you intentionally trying to clog up the appellate courts? Or are you out to encourage miscarriages of justice?

A face-palming no from me.
0
Airmed
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
I can't form a decision on this bill right now. Leave it with me or I'll either abstain when it comes to it.
0
Jean-Luc Picard
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
Nay. this legislation has been atrocious in the USA, having it here would be another disaster, sickening legislation from UKIP, utterly repulsive.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I thought we were acting as if a President was signing off legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong
No president has been elected, we are without a head of state.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I thought we were acting as if a President was signing off legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong
No, that never passed. The Queen still has the final say afaik.
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by O133)
No she isn't.
The President bill failed?
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by nebelbon)
No, that never passed. The Queen still has the final say afaik.
The President bill failed?
No, the amendment to elect a TSR President never passed. The Act to introduce a President in place of the Monarch did pass. We operate under the assumption of a RL President, in the same way that we operated under the assumption of a RL Monarch and never had a TSR King or Queen.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by nebelbon)
No, that never passed. The Queen still has the final say afaik.
Sadly not.

The bill removed the monarchy, it simply did not replace it.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by O133)
No, the amendment to elect a TSR President never passed. The Act to introduce a President in place of the Monarch did pass. We operate under the assumption of a RL President, in the same way that we operated under the assumption of a RL Monarch and never had a TSR King or Queen.
Since we've never elected a president which was the specific intention in the bill we've removed the monarchy but not replaced them, hence the PM is likely the acting head of state (not sure what the RL precedent is).
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (145)
14.38%
I'm not sure (43)
4.27%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (302)
29.96%
I have already dropped out (26)
2.58%
I'm not a current university student (492)
48.81%

Watched Threads

View All