[PASSED] LEO Force Restrictions

[Thermodolia]

"Full support for this. Police officers by the nature of their job are given training on the use of force as well as a partial mandate to use it that other citizens are not. If they are unable to use those things responsibly then they should immediately lose them."

“That other citizens are not?” “Excuse me ambassador but I can use force just as much as an officer of the law can!”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Yeah again, nations are intelligent enough to outlaw resisting arrest by themselves.

OOC: Same goes for police brutality, but you're still insisting this proposal is necessary?

OOC: Yes. States do what they feel is in their interest. Laws against resisting arrest are laws against undermining the authority of the state. No state will fail to have a law against resisting arrest. On the other hand, laws against police brutality are often seen as undermining the authority of the state, and so the state will only pass these to the extent that it must do so to avoid mass protest and social disorder. If a state has so cowed its people that its police can beat them with impunity, it has no reason to suddenly show spontaneous benevolence.

TL;dr the quoted portion was a bad analogy, attempting to claim exact opposite things as very similar.

I'm struggling to understand the resistance to this proposal. We guarantee freedom of expression, press, assembly; freedom from slavery, torture, genocide; we stick all kinds of thorns in the side of dictatorships while stopping just shy of actually violating the ideology ban rule. But suddenly someone comes along and wants to limit the ability of cops to beat the fuck out of random people and get away with it, suddenly that's a bridge too far and we need to make sure we don't stop Officer Barbrady from being able to take down the absolute fucking swarms of purse snatchers, hostage takers, and Batman villains that have suddenly cropped up all over member states like a plague of locusts?

The inconsistency here is disappointing.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Same goes for police brutality, but you're still insisting this proposal is necessary?

OOC: Yes. States do what they feel is in their interest. Laws against resisting arrest are laws against undermining the authority of the state. No state will fail to have a law against resisting arrest. On the other hand, laws against police brutality are often seen as undermining the authority of the state, and so the state will only pass these to the extent that it must do so to avoid mass protest and social disorder. If a state has so cowed its people that its police can beat them with impunity, it has no reason to suddenly show spontaneous benevolence.

TL;dr the quoted portion was a bad analogy, attempting to claim exact opposite things as very similar.

I'm struggling to understand the resistance to this proposal. We guarantee freedom of expression, press, assembly; freedom from slavery, torture, genocide; we stick all kinds of thorns in the side of dictatorships while stopping just shy of actually violating the ideology ban rule. But suddenly someone comes along and wants to limit the ability of cops to beat the fuck out of random people and get away with it, suddenly that's a bridge too far and we need to make sure we don't stop Officer Barbrady from being able to take down the absolute fucking swarms of purse snatchers, hostage takers, and Batman villains that have suddenly cropped up all over member states like a plague of locusts?

The inconsistency here is disappointing.

OOC: I suspect Ara is nitpicking and being oppositional here for the sake of it.

[Tinhampton]

REGARDING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Recalling that a proposal that would have banned corporal punishment in all member states was recently defeated due to its failure to prevent law enforcement officials (LEOs) from using excessive force while on duty,

How does this help your cause? Couldn't you instead word it more like "Due to recent call by member nations to have a resolution reducing excessive use of force by law enforcement officials" so that it'd be more of an IC thing than referring directly to something that happened on the forum? [...]

Affirming, therefore, that a comprehensive prohibition of corporal punishment cannot be enacted by this body in the absence of a resolution preventing the use of such excessive force,

Again, don't drag other proposals into this. Make this stand on its own. You should be explaining what the problem is, and why it needs international legislation to tackle. So what is the problem? Don't look at "police beating people up". Look at what that causes. Do people trust police less? Are they more likely to try to resolve police-needing situations on their own? Use such reasonings instead of a very specific and anemic reason.

As of time of writing, Corporal Punishment Ban is being defeated with 6,038 votes in favour and 8,212 votes against. 1,471 of those votes against were cast by McMasterdonia of The North Pacific (1,047) and Imperium Anglorum of Europe (424). Now let's see what their IFVs have to say about this...

The North Pacific: ...the resolution permits the excessive use of force during the arrest of criminal suspects, essentially permitting police brutality during arrests. Such an exception is disturbing, and by itself gives sufficient reason to oppose this proposal.

Europe: We also are disappointed the proposal's exceptions clause permitting the use of excessive force in police arrests, essentially permitting police brutality during arrests. Police services ought to use a proportionate level of force to the threat while endeavouring to capture suspects alive. Giving them free licence to beat suspects into unconsciousness seems an overwhelming oversight.

Had TNP and Europe's delegates - and Greater Cesnica of Fascist Region, who co-authored both IFVs and has 23 votes - instead voted in favour of Corporal Punishment Ban, it would have passed by 7,532 votes to 6,718 (52.86% support). I remain convinced that you cannot ban corporal punishment in the WA without also banning the excessive use of force by police etc.

RE "what is the problem?": Thanks - those are some good ideas and I'll be sure to talk to my co-authors about this.

---

REGARDING EVERYTHING ELSE

OOC post. One of you asked for proper feedback. You have only yourselves to blame.

Recognising that no other sapient right can be realised without the right to life, which is sometimes deprived as a result of such excessive force, and

...the right is deprived? How? Killing someone is not taking their right to life away, it's taking their life away. But still, again, "right to life" sounds like anti-abortion sentiment, you should be, again, less concerned about police beating people up/killing them, and more concerned about the effect that has on society. See above.

That's my point

Believing that the passage of this resolution will not only protect members of historically marginalised groups from police brutality, but also indirectly enhance protections for children and members of other vulnerable groups against unwanted physical harm as punishment...

What are "historically marginalised groups" - when taking into account that CoCR has been around for half a generation by now - and how???

Simply because a "historically marginalised group" is not marginalised now does not mean they have never been marginalised.

defines a "LEO," for the purposes of this resolution, as a person employed by (or otherwise independently working in) law enforcement in a member state in the course of their employment as such,

Can you define, just for me, "law enforcement in a member state" and then explain how someone can independently be working as part of it? You don't want to make Batman vigilantes into law enforcement officers by a WA law.

RE first sentence: Law enforcement is enforcing the law. RE second sentence: that might have been kinda the point but I'll talk to my co-authors about this.

requires all entities that employ LEOs to ensure, through education and in practice, that their LEOs do not use force against suspected criminals or any other person when non-violent means of detainment are viable and available,

Non-violent means of detainment are always viable and available when the detainee doesn't make things difficult. Yet I don't see anything anywhere saying that violently resisting detaining police officer (or whatever VIRGO you want to use as euphenism) is a crime. Which should definitely be part of this, for any of the restrictions on the police to make sense.

This resolution is intended to restrict the actions of police officers, not of suspected criminals. I will, however, have a word with my co-authors about this.

mandates that, should a LEO have no choice other than to use force against a person, that LEO must use no more force than is necessary to restrain and subsequently detain that person,

Given this is the case in RL, then... how would this make any difference? There will always be the occasional asshole that breaks the law even when they know it's the law.

I refer you to Article b and to the quotes from TNP and Europe's IFVs on my corporal punishment thing above.

demands that LEOs avoid causing death or serious injury to any person unless:

1. the life of any person, including the LEO in question, is (or could potentially be) placed in immediate danger by that person, or
2. all non-violent means of detainment against that person have been exhausted, and using lethal force against that suspect is necessary to prevent them from avoiding arrest,

So someone's raping a child, but that child's life isn't in danger, so you can't hurt them to make them stop raping the child - let's say there's a physical barrier that lets you see/hear/shoot but not move through, the place is surrounded so they can't avoid arrest once the locksmith gets there to open the gate, but until then you can't shoot the perp and they're free to rape the child they're with.

Article d may be amended to cover "the life or bodily sovereignty of any person;" alternatively, it may not.

requires that LEOs allow all people they have harmed under Article d to receive all necessary healthcare,

Wouldn't it make more sense to require the VIRGO take the perp to get medical treatment after arrest, if the perp is in need of medical care? And does "all necessary healthcare" include taking them to the dentist if they've not gone before and have bad cavities, despite that not having anything to do with the crime, the arrest or the police officer?

This is sensible (and you are a sensible person). Once again, I'll talk to my co-authors about this.

insists that member states criminalise all use of force by LEOs that contradict Articles b-e, and

Shouldn't the people who hired them be also penalized, given they've failed to obey clause b.? And you still should make it a crime to resist peaceful arrest, as that's the perp forcing the police to use force.

RE punishments for employers: possibly, I'll talk to Jed and GC. RE resisting arrest: what I said above.

requires members to repeal laws providing for qualified immunity for LEOs, which have no effect bar to prevent those who have been unduly disadvantaged by LEOs from challenging their actions in court.

What's "qualified immunity"? And "unduly disadvantaged" is pure weasel-wording. If you mean "injured", use that word. If you got arrested after robbing a kiosk, and due to detainment for the next 24 hours, missed calls from your employer and got fired, do you really think you should be allowed to sue the police officer for losing your job? I mean, in nations where anything due to your own stupidity wasn't just laughed out of the court to begin with.

RE qualified immunity, I quote from the [American - sorry!] Cato Foundation's website dedicated to this: "Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine developed by the Supreme Court in the late 1960s, which shields state actors from liability for their misconduct, even when they break the law. Our primary federal civil rights statute—generally called “Section 1983” after its place in the U.S. code—says that any state actor who violates someone’s constitutional rights “shall be liable” to the party injured. But under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the Court has held that such defendants can’t be sued unless they violated “clearly established law...” [SCOTUS] has continued to tighten this standard over the years, and clarified that qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”"

RE undue disadvantage: that particular section is intended as an aid for voters, not an absolute or otherwise definitive summary of what QI laws do.

I read the recentmost changes and didn't correct into this commentary the wordings that don't cause any effect changes. Whether you use "insists" or "compels" has no effect on what comes after.

I blame the grey parrot.

[Great Algerstonia]

"The World Assembly has taken an addiction towards backwards liberal feel-good policies that threaten security and stability, and offer no efficiency in return. We oppose this bill. Stop infringing on security procedures used by countries around the Assembly, else hundreds of states will fall into unrest once intimidation and surveillance factors are removed."

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth.

[Araraukar]

I'm struggling to understand the resistance to this proposal.

OOC: I don't think anyone disagrees that police shouldn't use unnecessary force. But the proposal has at times (it's been edited enough times to be more sensible now) been veering very close to trying to ban the necessary use of force. And like someone pointed out earlier (unless I hallucinated what I read on the bus ride home), hindsight is always perfect - it's easy to say, after you know all the facts, that an arresting officer used too much force to detain someone only pretending to be drunk and violent for a joke with their buddies, but the police had no way of knowing that and had to work off of the assumption that the person really was drunk and violent, and act accordingly.

We guarantee freedom of expression, press, assembly

Up to a point. Which kinda makes an excellent comparison here; there needs to be a limit where an individual's freedoms start infringing on the societal stability, which in turn threatens the wellbeing (and sometimes even life and freedom) or everyone, not just that one individual.

we stick all kinds of thorns in the side of dictatorships while stopping just shy of actually violating the ideology ban rule.

Eh, I'm managing just fine with Araraukar being a WA nation and a dictatorship, but then it never was a dystopia to begin with. It's a dictatorial police state and its police forces would be horrified that there are police somewhere out there who randomly beat up or shoot people. Araraukarian police don't even generally carry firearms.

But suddenly someone comes along and wants to limit the ability of cops to beat the fuck out of random people and get away with it

Where has anyone said anything to defend that? I mean, I'm sure that Banana, Bears and I certainly haven't.

The inconsistency here is disappointing.

Which inconsistency would that be? You say dictatorial nations resist anything that makes it more difficult to control their citizens - isn't that consistency instead?

I disagree that the same goes for police brutality.

Wouldn't a Reasonable Nation^TM take every step necessary to ensure that their citizens will rather call the police than try to settle disputes on their own? Especially as regular citizens don't often have access to safe, non-lethal methods (pepper spray, tazers, etc.) nor are they trained in unarmed takedowns of suspects in a way that causes the fewest injuries possible to both sides - there'd be more violence and deaths if people took the law to their own hands.

OOC: I suspect Ara is nitpicking and being oppositional here for the sake of it.

Of course I'm nitpicking, that's essential for sorting out the exact wording, since a GA resolution only does what the resolution says it does. If you think that's just for the sake of oppositionalism, then you still have a lot to learn.

Simply because a "historically marginalised group" is not marginalised now does not mean they have never been marginalised.

So in RL Christians would count (early Roman Era).

[Jedinsto]

I disagree that the same goes for police brutality.

Wouldn't a Reasonable Nation^TM take every step necessary to ensure that their citizens will rather call the police than try to settle disputes on their own? Especially as regular citizens don't often have access to safe, non-lethal methods (pepper spray, tazers, etc.) nor are they trained in unarmed takedowns of suspects in a way that causes the fewest injuries possible to both sides - there'd be more violence and deaths if people took the law to their own hands.

The fuck? How is this relevant like, at all? But yes, I'm sure they would prefer their law enforcement officers do the law enforcing.

Edit: Actually, I don't really know the answer to your question. Some reasonable nations may allow private citizens to do their law enforcement. I don't think RNT really applies there.

[Araraukar]

The fuck? How is this relevant like, at all?

OOC: A reasonable nation would have a law against resisting arrest = a reasonable nation would have a law against police brutality. Same logic.

I don't think RNT really applies there.

Well, it's supposed to be applied to every proposal.

[Jedinsto]

What's not relevant about it is how you were bringing up calling the police over citizens' arrest, when I was saying that reasonable nation theory does not apply to outlawing and enforcing the outlawing of police brutality. The reason RNT applies to resisting arrest is because reasonable nations do not purposefully circumvent something to their own detriment.

Edit: And this is what I meant RNT does not apply to-

Wouldn't a Reasonable NationTM take every step necessary to ensure that their citizens will rather call the police than try to settle disputes on their own? Especially as regular citizens don't often have access to safe, non-lethal methods (pepper spray, tazers, etc.) nor are they trained in unarmed takedowns of suspects in a way that causes the fewest injuries possible to both sides - there'd be more violence and deaths if people took the law to their own hands.

The thing is, this proposal does not touch the legality of Vigilantes; it neither outlaws them, nor recognizes them under international law. In other words, nations may still outlaw private citizens acting as law enforcement. So again, I don't know why you're bringing this up.

Edit 2: RNT is involved in the arguments of the proposal.

[Potted Plants United]

What's not relevant about it is how you were bringing up calling the police over citizens' arrest, when I was saying that reasonable nation theory does not apply to outlawing and enforcing the outlawing of police brutality. The reason RNT applies to resisting arrest is because reasonable nations do not purposefully circumvent something to their own detriment.

OOC: I've spent a day trying to understand why you think RNT works on one and not the other, and I still don't get it. Why would a reasonable nation want their citizens to be afraid of their police?

That is, your argument being that a reasonable nation would not already have laws in place to prevent unnecessary police brutality. If that is not your argument then at some point there is a miscommunication on likely both our part. If it is your argument, then I really don't understand your idea of a reasonable nation.

So again, I don't know why you're bringing this up.

Because:

Yeah again, nations are intelligent enough to outlaw resisting arrest by themselves.

OOC: Same goes for police brutality.

EDIT: Pretend this is an OOC Araraukar post. Forgot I was on PPU.

Further EDITs because apparently I fail at typing today.

[Jedinsto]

As of right now, I am leaving it fully up to Tinhampton if she wants to leave my name on as a co-author or not.

[Tinhampton]

Jedinsto will be retained as a co-author. The recent PRA incident was unfortunate but I have every confidence that he will educate himself about and ultimately ally with - rather than denigrate - trans people.

Following some discussion I had with my co-authors about the points Ara made on June 5th:

• the status-quo Article a - in which vigilantes do not count as LEOs - remains; to that effect, this proposal remains neutral on vigilantes,
• I believe that RNT covers laws concerning violently resisting arrest; provisions criminalising it will not remain in this proposal, which covers the actions of LEOs rather than suspects,
• Article d now covers the "life and bodily sovereignty of any person,"
• Article e has been amended to require only that LEOs have basic first aid competence in the event they kill or seriously injure a suspect, and
• police forces, and other entities which employ LEOs, will be held responsible for their LEOs breaching Articles b-e (in addition to those LEOs themselves).

If this is somehow perfect, I foresee submission on Monday 6th September. If it isn't, I may have to consult with my co-authors on some particularly tricky changes; understandably, this may delay this proposal's submission by a few weeks after 6th September.

[Bananaistan]

"So police officers still have to start off by politely asking violent criminals to present themselves for arrest.

"This proposal is anti-solidarity. It advances the rights of criminal scumbags ahead of law enforcement and honest citizens. The People's Republic of Bananaistan condemns the Tinhampton government and delegation for their continued refusal to consider the rights of hard working, law abiding ordinary citizens, and their continuous presenting of un-socialist proposals."

[WayNeacTia]

Just curious whether you believe attaching Jedistino and GC as co-authors will make any difference whether this actually passes or not?

[Tinhampton]

Just curious whether you believe attaching Jedistino and GC as co-authors will make any difference whether this actually passes or not?

My co-authors both contributed to highly influential IFVs concerning End Capital Punishment. I forcibly conscripted enlisted their assistance not because of their prestige but because they know their stuff

[WayNeacTia]

Just curious whether you believe attaching Jedistino and GC as co-authors will make any difference whether this actually passes or not?

My co-authors both contributed to highly influential IFVs concerning End Capital Punishment. I forcibly conscripted enlisted their assistance not because of their prestige but because they know their stuff

So what exactly have they contributed to this since being added as co-authors? It looks exactly the same as it did when you initially drafted it, and they weren't listed as co-authors then.

[Tinhampton]

This was the former text of Article d:

d. requires that LEOs avoid causing death or serious injury to any person unless:

1. the life or bodily sovereignty of any person, including the LEO in question, is (or could potentially be) placed in immediate danger by that person, or
2. all non-violent means of detainment against that person have been exhausted, and using lethal force against that suspect is necessary to prevent them from avoiding arrest,

After consulting with Greater Cesnica, I have removed Article d(ii). No other changes have been made.

Do you have any other thoughts about this?

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I literally have no idea what the last clause means (particularly the US-centric reference to qualified immunity) and whether it does anything that GAR#572 doesn't already do.

[Imperium Anglorum]

requires members to repeal laws providing for qualified immunity for LEOs, which have no effect bar to prevent those who have been unduly disadvantaged by LEOs from challenging their actions in court.

All qualified immunity laws have an effect beyond the stated one above. This clause does literally nothing.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: I literally have no idea what the last clause means (particularly the US-centric reference to qualified immunity) and whether it does anything that GAR#572 doesn't already do.

I was reliably informed that I could not pass a resolution requiring national (and below)-level QI laws to be repealed without a repeal'n'replace of GA#374 "The Rule of Law..." and GA#572 is that replacement. (Cretox suggested that we change the anti-QI clause from a suggestion, which was present in the very first draft, into a requirement when this was first being drafted in June - which met with agreement from my co-authors - and I'd like to thank him for it, even if he probably isn't here to read this. )

Besides, to reiterate my response to Ara:

I quote from the [American - sorry!] Cato Foundation's website dedicated to this: "Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine developed by the Supreme Court in the late 1960s, which shields state actors from liability for their misconduct, even when they break the law. Our primary federal civil rights statute—generally called “Section 1983” after its place in the U.S. code—says that any state actor who violates someone’s constitutional rights “shall be liable” to the party injured. But under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the Court has held that such defendants can’t be sued unless they violated “clearly established law...” [SCOTUS] has continued to tighten this standard over the years, and clarified that qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”"

requires members to repeal laws providing for qualified immunity for LEOs, which have no effect bar to prevent those who have been unduly disadvantaged by LEOs from challenging their actions in court.

All qualified immunity laws have an effect beyond the stated one above. This clause does literally nothing.

What is that "effect"? And besides (again), to reiterate my response to Ara (again):

that particular section is intended as an aid for voters, not an absolute or otherwise definitive summary of what QI laws do.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: I literally have no idea what the last clause means (particularly the US-centric reference to qualified immunity) and whether it does anything that GAR#572 doesn't already do.

I was reliably informed that I could not pass a resolution requiring national (and below)-level QI laws to be repealed without a repeal'n'replace of GA#374 "The Rule of Law..." and GA#572 is that replacement. (Cretox suggested that we change the anti-QI clause from a suggestion, which was present in the very first draft, into a requirement when this was first being drafted in June - which met with agreement from my co-authors - and I'd like to thank him for it, even if he probably isn't here to read this. )

Besides, to reiterate my response to Ara:

I quote from the [American - sorry!] Cato Foundation's website dedicated to this: "Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine developed by the Supreme Court in the late 1960s, which shields state actors from liability for their misconduct, even when they break the law. Our primary federal civil rights statute—generally called “Section 1983” after its place in the U.S. code—says that any state actor who violates someone’s constitutional rights “shall be liable” to the party injured. But under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the Court has held that such defendants can’t be sued unless they violated “clearly established law...” [SCOTUS] has continued to tighten this standard over the years, and clarified that qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”"

All qualified immunity laws have an effect beyond the stated one above. This clause does literally nothing.

What is that "effect"? And besides (again), to reiterate my response to Ara (again):

that particular section is intended as an aid for voters, not an absolute or otherwise definitive summary of what QI laws do.

Well you have a number of problems at two levels.

First, no repeal and replace of GA 374 was necessary because qualified immunity is not "necessary" for police to operate. Because only those immunities that could be granted were "necessary", qualified immunity was implicitly barred. Now, instead, we have GA 572, which allows member nations to bar cases if police officers are alternatively held accountable by internal investigations, which are notoriously biased in favour of police. Eg. The attempt to fix this problem was entirely unsuccessful and literally went backwards.

Second, your clause doesn't say that qualified immunity laws are prohibited. It says that qualified immunity laws "which have no effect bar to prevent those who have been unduly disadvantaged by LEOs from challenging their actions in court" are prohibited. (Or alternatively, repealed; then nations could just re-enact them, which is another issue with your wording.) The restrictive clause starting with "which" poorly handles the entire rationale underlying qualified immunity, which is that it is something which should be given to police officers so they are not personally ruined for actions taken in good faith that lead to damages. See Harlow v Fitzgerald,

[The social costs of permitting claims against public officers] include the expenses of litigation, the diversion of official energy from pressing public issues, and the deterrence of able citizens from acceptance of public office. Finally, there is the danger that fear of being sued will dampen the ardour of [public officials in the] discharge of their duties. Harlow v Fitzgerald (1982) 457 US 800, 814 (quotation marks omitted).

Insofar that is a rationale for the qualified immunity, qualified immunity cannot have "no effect bar" preventing people from filing suit. Nor does it deal with the possibility that courts could award small statutory or capped damages in such cases. Nor is it clear what "undue disadvantage" means here.

[Tinhampton]

This - and, by extension, End Corporal Punishment - will be submitted in 2022. (With that said, I'm looking more at a January submission. Jedinsto has been removed as a co-author due to the new co-authorship mechanism not allowing the citation of CTEd nations.)

Second, your clause doesn't say that qualified immunity laws are prohibited. It says that qualified immunity laws "which have no effect bar to prevent those who have been unduly disadvantaged by LEOs from challenging their actions in court" are prohibited. (Or alternatively, repealed; then nations could just re-enact them, which is another issue with your wording.)

Some changes have been made following consulation with my co-author... unfortunately I took six weeks to make them.

...the entire rationale underlying qualified immunity, which is that it is something which should be given to police officers so they are not personally ruined for actions taken in good faith that lead to damages.

A well-meaning crime is still a crime.

See Harlow v Fitzgerald

Yeah, sure

[Imperium Anglorum]

Second, your clause doesn't say that qualified immunity laws are prohibited. It says that qualified immunity laws "which have no effect bar to prevent those who have been unduly disadvantaged by LEOs from challenging their actions in court" are prohibited. (Or alternatively, repealed; then nations could just re-enact them, which is another issue with your wording.)

Some changes have been made following consulation with my co-author... unfortunately I took six weeks to make them.

The change seems only to have been omitting the restrictive clause. What progress in six weeks. I will think on this.

...the entire rationale underlying qualified immunity, which is that it is something which should be given to police officers so they are not personally ruined for actions taken in good faith that lead to damages.

A well-meaning crime is still a crime.

See Harlow v Fitzgerald

Yeah, sure

Both of these responses miss the point.

The first thing is that qualified immunity does not bar any prosecution for a criminal act. What it bars is a civil suit for tort damages. These are separate; your claim "A well-meaning crime is still a crime" seems to mix the two up. Surely if you want to ban something you ought to know what it is.

The dismissive "Yeah, sure" is really rich coming from you, the great linker of reductive UN position papers that that have no legal impact or empirical support. It might be perhaps acceptable if I hadn't then provided the whole quote right below the see tag. Or perhaps if it had nothing to do with the argument I was making, which is that 'qualified immunity laws "which have no effect bar to prevent those who have been unduly disadvantaged by LEOs from challenging their actions in court"' don't exist, as all QI laws have an effect beyond the restrictive clause.

[Tinhampton]

The reason why there has been so little progress with the other six articles of this proposal is that my co-author and I are satisfied with them. Article g has been removed - also with his agreement - and the preamble has been significantly reformed as a result; said Article was unfortunately causing substantial harm to this proposal and distracted from its stated goal of LEO Force Restrictions.

I continue to believe that - when making policies - the General Assembly should primarily focus on whether and how such policies will result in meaningful, positive change to the lives of inhabitants of member states. NationStates is not a comprehensive political simulator where all those who fail to attach supporting legal essays to their proposals are laughed out of a reputation; it is a game, and one that is theoretically old enough to go and buy a six-pack of Fosters from the nearest liquor store at that. If it gets asked for proof of age, it can always pull out a copy of our predecessor's Universal Bill of Rights, dated August 8th 2003 - which protected the rights of all people to "not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment."

[Tinhampton]

My prospective submission date is January 5th 2022, although this may change depending on lack of further feedback, abundance of further feedback, or shocks in the WA that might require my attention. The fact that most of the recent conversation since Jedinsto's August bump has focused on two now-removed clauses may be a good sign