Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:58 am
OOC: I'm working on a rewrite of that clause right now, actually. I believe that part was intended to be like "you can't do the Derek Chauvin and stop EMTs from seeing to an injured suspect."
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Jedinsto wrote:OOC: I'm working on a rewrite of that clause right now, actually. I believe that part was intended to be like "you can't do the Derek Chauvin and stop EMTs from seeing to an injured suspect."
Laka Strolistandiler wrote:OOC: the main reason for ,e opposing is the fact that I expect my police to go derek chauvin.
Thermodolia wrote:OOC
As for 'Black Lives Matter', I consider them either not to be thinking logically or to be outright hypocrites: In both the USA and the UK, the Blacks killed by ['white'] police are significantly outnumbered by the Blacks killed by [non-Police] Blacks, but where are the marches demonstrating against those killings? And how many of the BLM protestors also, for example, demonstrate outside the PRC's embassies & consulates to proclaim that "Uighur Lives Matter"?
OOC: To your OOC point some BLM supporters have stated that no lives shall matter until Black Lives Matter, some have also said that Asian Lives don’t matter
Araraukar wrote:snip
Jedinsto wrote:Araraukar wrote:snip
OOC: I'm not really sure what the whole point of that post was, but ok. I fail to see how we're taking away police's ability to protect. I don't like police brutality, same with most people, so here's our answer to that. If you have actual productive feedback to provide I'd be glad to hear it.
Btw, I'd appreciate it if you didn't compare me to a fascist.
Araraukar wrote:Jedinsto wrote:OOC: I'm not really sure what the whole point of that post was, but ok. I fail to see how we're taking away police's ability to protect. I don't like police brutality, same with most people, so here's our answer to that. If you have actual productive feedback to provide I'd be glad to hear it.
OOC: Clauses b, c, d and e.
Araraukar wrote:Jedinsto wrote:OOC: I'm not really sure what the whole point of that post was, but ok. I fail to see how we're taking away police's ability to protect. I don't like police brutality, same with most people, so here's our answer to that. If you have actual productive feedback to provide I'd be glad to hear it.
OOC: Clauses b, c, d and e.Btw, I'd appreciate it if you didn't compare me to a fascist.
I didn't? I said you're more annoying than him. I don't care what your ideology is, or his/hers, that has no relevance.
Araraukar wrote:Jedinsto wrote:OOC: I'm not really sure what the whole point of that post was, but ok. I fail to see how we're taking away police's ability to protect. I don't like police brutality, same with most people, so here's our answer to that. If you have actual productive feedback to provide I'd be glad to hear it.
OOC: Clauses b, c, d and e.
Jedinsto wrote:OOC: *<[snip>*
I fail to see how we're taking away police's ability to protect.
*<snip>*
Bears Armed wrote:"Criminal is armed: Law enforcement personnel are not allowed to prioritize disarmament over restraint?
"Criminal is using a ranged weapon, such as a rifle: Law enforcement personnel can only try closing in to attempt restraint, no matter how many of them -- or other people -- the criminal might kill while they are doing so, instead of using ranged weapons themselves to neutralize the threat?
"Law-enforcement personnel present are outnumbered by the criminals there: They can only try to restrain the criminals, one each a time, even though that leaves the "surplus" criminals free to harm them -- or to harm other people -- while they are doing so, instead of putting some of those criminals down hard & fast so that they could then face the remaining ones on more equal terms?
Bears Armed wrote:Jedinsto wrote:OOC: *<[snip>*
I fail to see how we're taking away police's ability to protect.
*<snip>*
Like so:Bears Armed wrote:"Criminal is armed: Law enforcement personnel are not allowed to prioritize disarmament over restraint?
"Criminal is using a ranged weapon, such as a rifle: Law enforcement personnel can only try closing in to attempt restraint, no matter how many of them -- or other people -- the criminal might kill while they are doing so, instead of using ranged weapons themselves to neutralize the threat?
"Law-enforcement personnel present are outnumbered by the criminals there: They can only try to restrain the criminals, one each a time, even though that leaves the "surplus" criminals free to harm them -- or to harm other people -- while they are doing so, instead of putting some of those criminals down hard & fast so that they could then face the remaining ones on more equal terms?
Tinhampton wrote: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,
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,
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
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...
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,
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,
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,
demands that LEOs avoid causing death or serious injury to any person unless:
- the life of any person, including the LEO in question, is (or could potentially be) placed in immediate danger by that person, or
- 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,
requires that LEOs allow all people they have harmed under Article d to receive all necessary healthcare,
insists that member states criminalise all use of force by LEOs that contradict Articles b-e, and
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.
Araraukar wrote:OOC post. One of you asked for proper feedback. You have only yourselves to blame.
Can you define, just for me, "law enforcenent in a member state" and then explain how someone can independently be working as part of it? You don't want to makeBatmanvigilantes into law enforcement officers by a WA law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jedinsto wrote:Yeah again, nations are intelligent enough to outlaw resisting arrest by themselves.
Tinhampton wrote: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,
requires that LEOs avoid causing death or serious injury to any person unless:
- the life of any person, including the LEO in question, is (or could potentially be) placed in immediate danger by that person, or
- 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,
CoraSpia wrote:"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."
Araraukar wrote:Jedinsto wrote: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?
Look, you are going to have something of an uphill battle with this unless worded so it does nothing, so add that clause in to sweeten the deal. It makes as much sense to include as anything else in the proposal, and would help convince people like me who do not think police brutality is an issue outside of nations that have other, more serious human rights issues too.