The Police and Security officer act.

[Danielturner]

The World Assembly,

APPALLED at the lack of respect shown to police and security officers while doing their job.

RECOGNIZES that many nations do not do enough to keep these people safe.

FURTHER RECOGNIZES that many officers get injured as a result of disrespectful and intoxicated individuals.

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution 'intoxicated' as an individual that us unable to control his/her actions because of excessive use of alcohol and/or recreational drugs.

FORCES nations to provide the necessary security to officers when dealing with intoxicated individuals.

ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Police and Security Guards Protection Committee.(WAPSGPC).

CHARGES the WAPSGPC with handling the compensation claims of the police and secruity guards.

CHARGES the individuals accused of assaulting/abusing a police/security officer with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and a minimum of 5 years.

I need help with this. The proposal is open to any suggestion/criticism.

[Qumkent]

Putting aside the presumption that police persons are not trained to deal with violence and are somehow more deserving of recompense for their injuries in the line of duty than other persons, might we ask why this statute must be so specific in the matter of sentencing ?

We might add that due to the wild disparities in length of life among citizens of the member states of the WA that 5-10 years may either be an enormous chunk of a person's life or an insignificant one.


Yours,

[Absolvability]

I share some of Ambassador Mongkha's concerns... and would like to add that I don't see how we're going to provide security for police officers. As far as I know it is they who provide security. So will they be defending themselves? I feel that this statute is in serious need of further detail, and perhaps some rethinking as well. It's a bit of a conundrum, trying to provide police officers with protection. They know what their job entails and were no doubt prepared for it. Perhaps we should instead focus on providing some sort of 'hazard pay' for those individuals of dangerous employment. That might be an interesting subject to mandate.

[Flibbleites]

Wouldn't any WA security force be just as illegal as a WA police force?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Southron Nation]

moreover, the people of the Southron Nation would like to know why a nationalized police force is even required? are not the citizens of each nation capable of protecting themselves? we will not support such a measure as this as it would infringe on our citizens god given rights of self determination. while we abhor any violent behavior directed at another human being made in God's Holy image, we cannot allow the state to intervene in the individuals responsibility for his/her likeness in God. once more, the Southron Nation respectfully refuses to support such legislation.

[Tanara]

"I have the feeling that this is no more than a WA police force in security clothing, and just as illegal as proposing a WA military." The UnDelegate from Tanaara snorted as he wadded the proposal up and filed it in the nearest trashcan.

[Grays Harbor]

We do not require a WA security force. We can provide for our own security as sovereign nations without the WA dictating to us how, when, why and where we shall act. One size does not fit all.

[Enn]

I rather suspect that my fellow ambassadors have been misreading the proposal before us. This in no way creates a WA Security, or police force, or whatever. It creates Another Useless Committee, and interferes in domestic policing matters.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Ambassador for Enn

[Danielturner]

Wouldn't any WA security force be just as illegal as a WA police force?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I thought of that but it provides security for police officers, not a WA police force.

[Walabamba]

What category does this fall under?

[Sedgistan]

Wouldn't any WA security force be just as illegal as a WA police force?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I thought of that but it provides security for police officers, not a WA police force.

What do you mean by 'security'? Are you suggesting a group of people going around to protect police officers, or just that police officers are better trained & equipped?

[Grays Harbor]

Wouldn't any WA security force be just as illegal as a WA police force?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I thought of that but it provides security for police officers, not a WA police force.

Why does the WA need to involve itself in what is a very specific national function? Our Police, nor anybody elses, require "security" provided by the WA. This is, as has noted, another level of useless bureaucracy not needed by anybody.

[Kharsus]

The UN has their own peacekeeping force, why shouldn't the WA?

[Almagarde]

The World Assembly,

APPALLED at the lack of respect shown to police and security officers while doing their job.

RECOGNIZES that many nations do not do enough to keep these people safe.

FURTHER RECOGNIZES that many officers get injured as a result of disrespectful and intoxicated individuals.

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution 'intoxicated' as an individual that us unable to control his/her actions because of excessive use of alcohol and/or recreational drugs.

FORCES nations to provide the necessary security to officers when dealing with intoxicated individuals.

ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Police and Security Guards Protection Committee.(WAPSGPC).

CHARGES the WAPSGPC with handling the compensation claims of the police and secruity guards.

CHARGES the individuals accused of assaulting/abusing a police/security officer with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and a minimum of 5 years.

I need help with this. The proposal is open to any suggestion/criticism.

So you want more bodyarmor to Government thugs with guns? Or you want to cure the Cause of conflict and Outlaw the Sale of Alcohol, forcing the real social problems that allowing the angry populace to get drunk continues to mask.



Drunks dont Assassinate Presidents. Sober People Do.
Motto of Representative Governments

[Enn]

The UN has their own peacekeeping force, why shouldn't the WA?

OOC:
Two things.
1) This is off-topic (though I won't blame you, since most of the discussion in this thread has been about this idea). The proposal in discussion has absolutely nothing to do with creating a WA police force, or security, or army, or peacekeeping force, or what have you.

2) The WA is specifically barred from having any military force whatsoever.

Game Mechanics

[snip]

Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The WA doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

This rule has been around since the very beginning. It's not going anywhere.

[Zwar (Ancient)]

How are you going to define "excessive" and "losing control"?

[Grays Harbor]

The UN has their own peacekeeping force, why shouldn't the WA?

The UN does not have its own peacekeeping force. Soldiers are seconded from UN members nations to participate in peacekeeping operations. all the UN does is give them a light blue beret and helmet (also known as "aiming points"), and instructions not to shoot at anybody under any circumstances even if under attack. UN peacekeeping forces are little more than walking targets for whoever it is they are supposed to be "keeping the peace" with.

[Ajax Prime]

Wouldn't any WA security force be just as illegal as a WA police force?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

ha ha ha ha ha flibble its so fun to say

[Viktors]

You might want to add something about increased training budget for security purposes? Just a thought, but you do have a great idea here, and i will support it 100%.

Yours,
Sir Viktor Caedus II

[Burninati0n]

Reading along, it was an OK proposal, if a little unnecessary. You have to keep in mind, if nations want to protect their police, it's already been done, and if they don't, they don't want this to be a resolution, and I can't see a reason to push this on them. Furthermore, it's not as if we can post this resolution on all of our officers' uniforms and they will miraculously become immune to wounds. Making them so would require a great deal more funding than we would like to provide.

Then, I got to: "CHARGES the individuals accused of assaulting/abusing a police/security officer with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and a minimum of 5 years."

Since when did the WA become my very own personal judge? My judicial system is perfectly capable of coming up with its own punishments, thank you very much.

[Bears Armed]

Then, I got to: "CHARGES the individuals accused of assaulting/abusing a police/security officer with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and a minimum of 5 years."

Since when did the WA become my very own personal judge? My judicial system is perfectly capable of coming up with its own punishments, thank you very much.

And then there's the fact that this says "accused" rather than "convicted"...

[The Palentine]

Reading along, it was an OK proposal, if a little unnecessary.

Your being generous old bean! Its a completely awful proposal, and a complete waste of the WA's time, and money. The WA has absolutely no right to go into my nation and tell my cops how to do the job, that they have been trained to perform. Furthermore, it is unneeded to boot!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador to Danielturner,

I think getting the WA to tell how national civil and military police and security forces should be run is pretty much micromanagement in my opinion.

[Botteronistan]

From the Desk of the Prime Minister
Greetings leaders,
Botteronistan agrees with many of the Nations' views expressed here in this forum, but may need stronger language.

First, we must say that Sovereignty is not an issue to be taken lightly.

We feel that this measure would be intrusive, presumptuous, and aggressive. We hold that as separate, Sovereign Nations, we hold supreme authority within our territory and any violation of this would be seen as interference in our State and would be regarded as threatening to our security interests, and therefore legitimate grounds for unilateral action. This may sound extreme, but we have much precedent on which we rely for these matters, stemming from both our nation and other large and influential countries as well.

Many internationally renown scholars argue that sovereignty can only be either present or absent, and cannot exist partially. If an international court can impose punishments on foreign nationals, the sate loses the authority to negotiate and enforce their own laws, thus literally having their sovereignty taken away from under them. This is something up with which Botteronistan absolutely cannot put.

Secondarily, the right of the people to exercise free speech that is given in some countries would be infringed by this. We must, as an international organization, consider the rights endowed upon the citizenry of some of our member states.

Botteronistan believes that Police forces are an integral part of a civilized society, but it is up to the State Government to handle violations of all Laws of the land. As there is no international policing force, there is absolutely no precedent for the institution of a retaliatory international law against violators of national or local laws.

All the best,

Jane Dennery
Prime Minister by Decree
In Service of Her Majesty Queen Botteron
Grove City, Botteronistan

[The Magic Spirit]

The fact this proposal singles out intoxicated individuals is rather disturbing. While I can't deny this is a problem (especially outside the Magic Spirit), most acts of violence against the police or any other individual are still committed by lucid non-intoxicated people. If you want the proposal to have any chance of success, those people need to be addressed to.

Additionally, the sentencing should be left to the national courts. There are so many differences in punishments between nations that one size doesn't fit all. Ten years is peanuts for elves while for some other race this could mean a life sentence...