[PASSED] LEO Force Restrictions

[Ladie Mayerrien]

ced

[Amnesty International]

How can any self-respecting nation support this? The ability, nay, the right for the law enforcement officers of Amnesty International to use any level of force they deem most enjoyable. Under this proposed paradigm it would be impossible to give known criminals/those arbitrarily detained the encouragement they need to confess to the charges levied against them and thereby be broken on the smoothly-running wheel of justice.

[Barfleur]

I'm also a bit confused by the use of the term "bodily sovereignty of any person" in Clause (d)(i). I'm used to that term mostly showing up in abortion (and now vaccination...) debates. So LEOs can lawfully cause death or life-altering injury in order to defend against an immediate danger to someone else's bodily sovereignty. What does that mean? Given the use of the politically charged terms ("right to life" shows up in the preamble), I can't help but read Clause (d)(i) as permitting LEOs to shoot the president dead before he can sign abortion restrictions or a ban on certain contraceptives into law. Or shoot a public health official before they administer a vaccine to a reluctant child.

"Ambassador, this is an odd sort of reasoning--infringing on the right to life, in this case, clearly means the right of a person who has been born to keep on living, especially given GA#499 requires member nations to define life as beginning at birth. And as to vaccines, you can't shoot a doctor for vaccinating a child (if they or their parents have consented, see the relevant GA resolutions on consent); it means you can shoot someone about to inject ketamine into someone at a club without consent, which clearly places the victim at risk of serious harm."

How can any self-respecting nation support this? The ability, nay, the right for the law enforcement officers of Amnesty International to use any level of force they deem most enjoyable. Under this proposed paradigm it would be impossible to give known criminals/those arbitrarily detained the encouragement they need to confess to the charges levied against them and thereby be broken on the smoothly-running wheel of justice.

"Your nation's name and its ideas, dare I say it, do not seem to jell together. Perhaps 'Misery International' or 'Violence International' would be better."

OOC: Full support.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I'm also a bit confused by the use of the term "bodily sovereignty of any person" in Clause (d)(i). I'm used to that term mostly showing up in abortion (and now vaccination...) debates. So LEOs can lawfully cause death or life-altering injury in order to defend against an immediate danger to someone else's bodily sovereignty. What does that mean? Given the use of the politically charged terms ("right to life" shows up in the preamble), I can't help but read Clause (d)(i) as permitting LEOs to shoot the president dead before he can sign abortion restrictions or a ban on certain contraceptives into law. Or shoot a public health official before they administer a vaccine to a reluctant child.

"Ambassador, this is an odd sort of reasoning--infringing on the right to life, in this case, clearly means the right of a person who has been born to keep on living, especially given GA#499 requires member nations to define life as beginning at birth. And as to vaccines, you can't shoot a doctor for vaccinating a child (if they or their parents have consented, see the relevant GA resolutions on consent); it means you can shoot someone about to inject ketamine into someone at a club without consent, which clearly places the victim at risk of serious harm."

Ha ha. Well, I'm an odd sort of reasonable person.

Trying to prevent a suicide can also be imminently threatening to someone's "bodily sovereignty." For some reason, this proposal's terms do not require LEOs to avoid using deadly force to stop a guy trying to grab ahold of a bridge jumper.

Why on earth would an officer shoot someone trying to prevent a suicide, you might ask? I don't know. This proposal takes the position that LEOs are "often" infringing on people's rights with unwarranted excessive force. If that is our premise, then this was a strange place to draw the line on where the megalomaniacs need to stop and where they can be tolerated.

Rhetoric aside: I just don't understand why the concept of bodily sovereignty was unnecessarily introduced into this proposal at all. In my view, the clause invoking that concept adds nothing to what was already accomplished by Section (c)(i)'s mandate that LEOs "not use excessive force against any person."

Anyway, I did say I voted FOR didn't I? Can't a gal also poke fun at a proposal's funny looking parts?

[Port Happy]

This should include an exemption to Article d for terrorist actions which do not directly and imminently threaten serious injury or death.

To illustrate: if a Die Hard villain is initiating an infrastructure “Fire Sale” or Dr Evil is about to put a hole in the ozone layer, LEOs (e.g. John McClane and Austin Powers) should be permitted to use lethal force, if non-lethal force isn’t an option.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Artorrios O Southwoods rises to his feet, and addresses the chamber.

"Firstly, I must apologise for the relative lateness of these comments. Unfortunately our Legal Attache, who had been covering the early stages of the drafting process, was taken ill, and somehow no other member of this Mission's staff was assigned to cover the matter instead."
(OOC: I've been feeling a bit burnt-out recently, and unfortunately haven't been giving this forum as much attention as it needs: Sorry!).

"Secondly, Bears Armed opposes this proposal as written and has instructed me to vote against it, for the following reasons_
A. Its assumption that people's rights to life are often infringed on due to the excessive use of force by law enforcement officers, no matter how accurate that assessment might be with regard to the sponsoring nations themselves, is insulting to the many nations -- including my own -- where that definitely is not the case.

"B. Its lack of any limit on how long after an incident an officer can be decided "in retrospect" to have used excessive force, meaning that any law enforcement officer who uses any force whatsoever even once must then have to worry about being charged with doing so excessively forever after, seems excessive in itself.

"C. The fact that the law enforcement officers typically will have had to make their decisions almost instantaneously, whereas people studying the evidence can take as long as they want about that before deciding, is unbalanced.

"D. The section concerning assessments about the need for the levels of force used to be made retrospectively effectively requires the people making those assessments to consider facts that the law enforcement officers involved had no way of knowing at the time. Consider, for example, a case where somebody goes on a shooting spree -- perhaps in a school -- and is then shot by a policeman who considers doing so the only reliable way of saving innocent lives there... but who is then found to have used up all of their ammunition just before they were shot: Under this proposal's rules the policeman would be considered guilty of using excessive force even though they could not have known that the criminal's gun had just been emptied! That clause should have questioned whether the law enforcement officers reasonably could have had the relevant information.

"E. The subclause about body-worn cameras apparently assumes that all member nations possess the technology and funds necessary for issuing those to all of its law enforcement personnel which, again, is not the case. Are lower-tech and/or impoverished nations meant to manage without adequately sized police force because they cannot provide such equipment? If its provision is to be considered mandatory, should the authors not have included a means by which those nations can obtain funding from the W.A. General Fund -- or from the sponsoring nations' own treasuries -- in order to acquire and maintain the cameras.

"For these reasons, my Mission has been instructed that if this proposed resolution is passed then we should produce a 'Repeal' proposal. If we are forced by events to do so, and that repeal also passes, then I hope that the sponsoring nations will take our reasoning into account when drafting any replacement for this text."

[Amerion]

The South Pacific's World Assembly Delegation has cast the Coalition's vote FOR this proposed resolution, LEO Force Restrictions, and warmly encourages fellow member regions to vote FOR.

'No Rec' or No Recommendation indicates a vote where, in the absence of a recommendation from the Office of WA Legislation, the Admiral Delegate General voted according to the majority stance of World Assembly members in the South Pacific.

[Caymarnia]

While a degree of force is sometimes necessary, it is worth the effort to properly instruct our law enforcers that force should be the last option rather than the first in the majority of cases. Shoplifters, jaywalkers, and what not should not be shot to death on the spot, whereas lunatics firing off automatic weapons in a school or office should not be approached gently, that sort of thing. On that topic, using a less... perjorative definition of lunatics: a sufferer of mental illness should also be approached with special attention, and again not summarily shot or beaten down. Often times they cannot help themselves.

And if all else fails, there's always the Army...

Caymarnia votes for the measure.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"B. Its lack of any limit on how long after an incident an officer can be decided "in retrospect" to have used excessive force, meaning that any law enforcement officer who uses any force whatsoever even once must then have to worry about being charged with doing so excessively forever after, seems excessive in itself.

...

"D. The section concerning assessments about the need for the levels of force used to be made retrospectively effectively requires the people making those assessments to consider facts that the law enforcement officers involved had no way of knowing at the time. Consider, for example, a case where somebody goes on a shooting spree -- perhaps in a school -- and is then shot by a policeman who considers doing so the only reliable way of saving innocent lives there... but who is then found to have used up all of their ammunition just before they were shot: Under this proposal's rules the policeman would be considered guilty of using excessive force even though they could not have known that the criminal's gun had just been emptied! That clause should have questioned whether the law enforcement officers reasonably could have had the relevant information.

The princess has decreed that her vote shall be changed to AGAINST. The Princess was persuaded by the arguments of Ambassador Southwoods that the problems with this proposal are not minor or avoidable quibbles but rather very serious harms to the law enforcement systems of many nations.

The key problem that Southwoods points out is valid. This proposal makes no exception for officers to act reasonably based on available, but possibly incomplete information. That is a humungous problem for this proposal, because every law enforcement officer almost certainly will be required to act swiftly and reasonably to address an emergency situation at some point in their career.

I tried very hard to find a way to use creative compliance to avoid the harmful effects of this law. I was unsuccessful. The law says that member nations must criminalize the use of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" without regard to what the officer may have reasonably believed about the need for force. Accordingly, this law requires member nations to make criminals out of officers who use force reasonably under the circumstances if, in hindsight, it was more force than was actually necessary. Southwoods pointed out the negative effects that would have on an officer who believes shooting a mass murder is necessary to stop a rampage when the mass murder has (unbeknownst to the officer) run out of ammo. There are many other examples in more common situations. An officer who grabs ahold of a suspect who reasonably appears to be reaching for a weapon becomes a criminal if it turns out the suspect actually has no weapon. An officer who tackles a fleeing suspect becomes a criminal if a board later determines that the officer could have simply kept pace with the suspect until they tired and gave up. An officer who uses handcuffs for safety to arrest an assault and battery suspect becomes a criminal if a board later determines that the person could have been detained without the cuffs.

All of these problems stem from the proposal's refusal to acknowledge that officers must be allowed to make reasonable use of force decisions, and that criminality should be about whether the officer exceeded the bounds of reason.

[Xanthorrhoea]

The princess has decreed that her vote shall be changed to AGAINST. The Princess was persuaded by the arguments of Ambassador Southwoods that the problems with this proposal are not minor or avoidable quibbles but rather very serious harms to the law enforcement systems of many nations.

The key problem that Southwoods points out is valid. This proposal makes no exception for officers to act reasonably based on available, but possibly incomplete information. That is a humungous problem for this proposal, because every law enforcement officer almost certainly will be required to act swiftly and reasonably to address an emergency situation at some point in their career.

I tried very hard to find a way to use creative compliance to avoid the harmful effects of this law. I was unsuccessful. The law says that member nations must criminalize the use of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" without regard to what the officer may have reasonably believed about the need for force. Accordingly, this law requires member nations to make criminals out of officers who use force reasonably under the circumstances if, in hindsight, it was more force than was actually necessary. Southwoods pointed out the negative effects that would have on an officer who believes shooting a mass murder is necessary to stop a rampage when the mass murder has (unbeknownst to the officer) run out of ammo. There are many other examples in more common situations. An officer who grabs ahold of a suspect who reasonably appears to be reaching for a weapon becomes a criminal if it turns out the suspect actually has no weapon. An officer who tackles a fleeing suspect becomes a criminal if a board later determines that the officer could have simply kept pace with the suspect until they tired and gave up. An officer who uses handcuffs for safety to arrest an assault and battery suspect becomes a criminal if a board later determines that the person could have been detained without the cuffs.

All of these problems stem from the proposal's refusal to acknowledge that officers must be allowed to make reasonable use of force decisions, and that criminality should be about whether the officer exceeded the bounds of reason.

I’d argue that depends on your definition of “situation.” If you look at the officer’s personal situation in your example, they are facing an armed opponent who has already demonstrated a willingness to use lethal force against people who are not a threat. In their situation, shooting the person may be a reasonable response. To state that such a shooting is excessive purely because of a coincidence of circumstance that an officer had no way of knowing at the time is absurd.

The situation is not that they shot a person out of ammunition. The situation is that they shot a person who they had an entirely justifiable belief was still armed and willing to use lethal force.
Your other examples can be similarly addressed by examining an officer’s personal situation. I see no problem with this particular clause.

More problematic are some of the other issues raised by Ambassador Southwoods, namely:

The lack of a statute of limitations in the proposal. This one is easily remedied. I see little in the proposal preventing nations from imposing their own statute of limitations.

Affordability for low-income nations: this one is the lethal clause for me. Allowances should be made for them.

I’m changing my vote to against, purely due to the lack of consideration for low-income nations.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I’d argue that depends on your definition of “situation.” If you look at the officer’s personal situation in your example, they are facing an armed opponent who has already demonstrated a willingness to use lethal force against people who are not a threat. In their situation, shooting the person may be a reasonable response. To state that such a shooting is excessive purely because of a coincidence of circumstance that an officer had no way of knowing at the time is absurd.

The situation is not that they shot a person out of ammunition. The situation is that they shot a person who they had an entirely justifiable belief was still armed and willing to use lethal force.
Your other examples can be similarly addressed by examining an officer’s personal situation. I see no problem with this particular clause.

The situation is the set of circumstances a person finds themselves in. It would include all circumstances that exist, even ones of which the person is unaware. The proposal only asks what is "necessary" in a situation, not what is reasonable. An officer's belief does not make anything more or less "necessary." A reasonable belief serves only to justify what would otherwise be viewed as unnecessary force under the circumstances, because the officer did not know of those circumstances and acted based on what he did know or thought he knew.

I’m changing my vote to against, purely due to the lack of consideration for low-income nations.

I am glad we ultimately agree on the proper vote here.

[Xanthorrhoea]

The situation is the set of circumstances a person finds themselves in. It would include all circumstances that exist, even ones of which the person is unaware. The proposal only asks what is "necessary" in a situation, not what is reasonable. An officer's belief does not make anything more or less "necessary." A reasonable belief serves only to justify what would otherwise be viewed as unnecessary force under the circumstances, because the officer did not know of those circumstances and acted based on what he did know or thought he knew.

I guess we just disagree on semantics here. I believe a tenable definition of "the situation" would also acknowledge the fact that an officer was unaware/could not reasonably have been aware of certain information. That knowledge gap forms part of the set of circumstances that make up the overall situation.

I'd argue more, but ultimately it's semantics and at the end of the day it's a moot point. It looks like this will easily pass anyway, and far stonger grounds for a possible repeal lie in the overly onerous restrictions this will impose on poorer nations.

[Wallenburg]

"The Wallenburgian office opposes this on two crucial matters. First, ex post facto prohibitions on the use of force are absurd and unjust. Frankly, I cannot determine how section b(i) does not contradict General Assembly Resolution #79. Second, the requirements of section c(iii) are technologically impossible for many member states, including my own. There exist no video cameras small enough not to impede the ordinary duties of police wearing them, much less ones that can wirelessly communicate with a computer networked police siren system. This resolution mandates Wallenburg's noncompliance by the material limitations of volume, mass, and energy."

[Southen Mark]

Ambassodor Uljik Robertson of the Imperium of Southem Mark speaking

His Imperial Majesty Georgi Ivan Bakalow III states that the following WA legislation that has been proposed is, as i quote ''An utter joke made by some liberal college kids that are too scared to even order food''.

The Imperium of Southen Mark denounces this legislation and will not follow it even if it passes, just like we did for other legislation that goes against our constituion and beliefs. Using force on the scum of our Imperium who prey on the hard working has worked on curbing both minor and violent crimes, with violent crimes being non existent on our mainland and falling by 63% on our newly accuired territories. Crimenals think three times before engaging in illegal activities since our Kremlum guards can easily kurb stomp them on the ground thanks to his Imperial Majesty's iron fist policy on crime.

If this legislation is to pass however, it will sadly be enforced on other nations who do not consent, so we encourage a counter legislation to VETO such an embarrasing leftist proposition. This is all thank you.

[The Adeptorum]

THE ADMINISTRATUM OF THE MOST HOLY EMPEROR OF THE ADEPTORUM
OFFICE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS

Date: 11/01/2022

On the "LEO Force Restrictions" resolution

This Holy Empire has shown its commitment to the rule of International Law and the protection of Human Rights, but there are points of concern about this matter that require our formal objection:

About the merit of the GA#590

1. We do not consider the topic of this resolution as being an international issue and as such, we do not recognize the merit of the resolution.

2. As currently formulated the present resolution oversteps the right to self-rule of Member States.

3. This Holy Empire proved its commitment to the defense of Human Rights, especially during the current conflicts in the Taiwanese region, but we will refrain from supporting any resolution that imposes material obligations over smaller nations that cannot and will not be enacted simply because such nations are economically incapable of doing so.

About the content of the GA#590

4. As stated before in this document, section c(iii) creates material obligations that some Member States simply do not have the necessary economic resources to fulfill. In any case, we cannot agree with any resolution that directly impacts the national budget of Member States and create direct financial obligations, overstepping the Member States' right to self-rule.

5. Section d(ii) should make clear that its requirements can only be enacted from the approval of the resolution onwards. Ex post facto application of law is an abomination, and the law should only retroact in benefit of the defendant. As nullum crime sine (prævia) lege, the offending LEOs did not commit any wrongdoing by the time they've acted if they acted before the promulgation of the present resolution.

6. Section e requires ex post facto application of the law regarding LEOs that have administered force in contradiction to the resolution's articles in the past. Again, we are not supporting such abhorrent usage of law by any means and in any form.

Final considerations

This Holy Empire will abide by the resolution as approved but strongly advocates for it to be repealed as soon as possible in order to protect the interests of the Member States and guarantee the just application of the law.

In Lux Pariter!

[Tinhampton]

LEO Force Restrictions was passed 11,403 votes to 3,631. (75.85% support)

[Apatosaurus]

"Apatosaurus is in compliance with this resolution."

[Wallenburg]

Wallenburg is not in compliance with this resolution, and has submitted a file on the circumstances of its noncompliance to the Independent Adjudicative Office attached to a petition concerning long-term transition into a fully compliant status.