[extropy-chat] The Consensus :Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

[R.Coyote]

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

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?

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.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com <mailto:dirk at neopax.com>>
To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Consensus

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "R.Coyote" <etheric at comcast.net <mailto:etheric at comcast.net>>
> To: "Dirk Bruere" <dirk at neopax.com <mailto:dirk at neopax.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 12:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Consensus
>
>
> >
> > Home occupiers = apparently not out and about town, at work ect.
> >
> > all rights of self defense implicitly waved once you step out the door.
> >
> > right of self defense waved for right of travel
> >
> > no thanks
>
> So where does it say that?
> The manifesto covers points that differ from existing law.
> Under existing law the right of self defence exists using 'reasonable
> force'.
> Or are you 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 you habitually carry?
>
> Dirk
>
> The Consensus:-
> The political party for the new millennium
> <http://www.theconsensus.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat