[extropy-chat] The Consensus :Expressio unius est exclusioalterius

[Dirk Bruere]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Consensus :Expressio unius est
exclusioalterius


> Yes isnt it obvious?
> Everyone that cares about the right to self defense OUTSIDE of ones home
is
> only some US gun nut who thinks being tapped on the shoulder by a beggar
is
> an assault that can or should be met with automatic fire from the assault
> rifle they habitually carry...
>
> Please
> no more ad hominem bigotry, lets keep this rational shall we?
>
> Here's what its like in my world, its is quite explicit
> Some constitutional foundations:
>
> ARTICLE I
> DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
> SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
> The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or
> the state, SHALL NOT  be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be
> construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain
> or employ an armed body of men.
>
> Some statutory provisions:
>
> RCW 9A.16.020
> Use of force -- When lawful.
> The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of
another
> is not unlawful
> in the following cases:
> (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully
> aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense
against
> his or her person, or a malicioustrespass, OR other malicious interference
> with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case
> the force is *not more than is necessary
>
> note: we have case law that covers what not more than is necessary means,
it
> means until the threat has stopped.
>
> RCW 9A.16.050
> Homicide -- By other person -- When justifiable.
> Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
> (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife,
> parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence
or
> company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part
> of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury
> to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such
> design being accomplished; or
> (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the
> slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of
abode,
> in which he is.
>
> We have the reqirement of explicity of laws:
>
> Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
> This conclusion is further supported by the well established rule of
> constitutional construction, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius." The
> express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of the other. State ex
> rel. Banker v. Clausen, 142 Wash. 450, 253 Pac. 805 (1927)."
>
> It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment [435 U.S. 982 ,
> 986] is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.
> Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that
> man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that
> laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to
> know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may
trap
> the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and
> discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide EXPLICIT
> standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates
> basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an
> ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and
> discriminatory application." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104,
108
> (1972):
>
> Your manifesto also states in part:
> "There are no Rights without corresponding Duties, both of which must be
> legally enforceable to the same extent. Where a corresponding Duty cannot
be
> defined in law no Right will exist. "
>
> That is very dangerous

Not IMO, since I view 'Rights' as a social construct and contract.


> And states
>  "Home occupiers will be allowed to defend themselves and their property
> using 'necessary force' rather than 'minimal force'. The Rights of the
> criminal will be subordinate to the Rights of the victim in all cases. "

> would it be so hard to say :
> We recognise all people have the right to defend themselves?

Yes, because that right already exists under UK law.
What does not exist is the 'right' to walk around in public armed.
Additionally, 'reasonable force' has been too restrictively applied in the
UK IMO esp with respect to home invasions (called aggravated burglary here).

> BTW this is the same policy that Russia curently has, Notice the word
> "allowed", it is considered a permission granted, and not inherent in
> humanhood. Again I think Ill keep my freedom thanks, but if you want to
live
> in a police state that "allows" you to defend your life, good for you.

Then why do you need it written into your law if it's so obvious?

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org