[PASSED] LEO Force Restrictions

[Tinhampton]

Bring Up My Proposal (and GC's, of course).

[Unified Communist Councils]

"Another Tinhamptonian World Assembly proposal grounded in egalitarian truth. The fact of the matter is, rehabilitation almost always triumphs over punitive justice. The scaling back of excessive force for World Assembly members is a must. All too often are minority groups and political opposition repressed violently using law enforcement. Political matters and chauvinistic points of views justifying discrimination are not valid excuses to oppose this proposal. In principle it is sound, engendering more confidence in law enforcement as guardians as opposed to the states' right arm in the monopolization of violence." – Kim Dokja, Appointed Ambassador of the Supreme Congress

[Tinhampton]

My prospective submission date is January 5th 2022, although this may change depending on lack of further feedback...

this is definitely looking like a lack of further feedback

[Tinhampton]

I'll likely submit this a week from now or so... although I get that some of you may have more important business to attend to, hence why I've Last Called this

[Apatosaurus]

[preamble]
The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines a "LEOLaw Enforcement Officer,"(LEO) for the purposes of this resolution, as a person employed by law enforcement in a member state in the course of their employment as such,
2. orders 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,
3. 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,
4. requires that LEOs avoid causing death or serious injury to any person unless the life or bodily sovereignty of any person, including the LEO in question, is (or could potentially be likely would be) placed in immediate danger by that person , and may not use excessive force as per section c,
5. declares that LEOs must allow all people they have harmed under Article d to receive all basic first aid necessary for the survival of those people, and
6. compels member states to criminalise all use of force by LEOs that contradict Articles b-e b to e, and to punish those entities that employ those LEOs who use force in contradiction of such Articles.

[Tinhampton]

snip

Almost entirely taken on board - thanks! Some rewording that you didn't have in mind has been made to more smoothly clarify that the use of excessive force by LEOs is never acceptable.

I also swapped your preferred placement of "LEO" and "law enforcement officer" around; this proposal generally uses "LEO" in its main body.

[Thousand Branches]

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

"recognising" is a weird word to open this clause with?

"realised" --> "fully realised"

"sometimes deprived" --> "often infringed upon"

Believing that the introduction of such a standard will help protect individuals of all backgrounds (including members of vulnerable and historically marginalised groups) from unwarranted police brutality...

"vulnerable and" --> "vulnerable or"

Is "police" a fully accurate word to represent all LEOs?

a "LEO" (law enforcement officer) as a person employed by law enforcement in a member state in the course of their employment as such, and

I'm not too sure about this definition. "employed by law enforcement" can encompass a lot more positions than simply LEOs, like say emergency dispatchers or front desk clerks. It should, I think, define an LEO by their actual profession, not simply by who they are hired by. And if that is already communicated through the rest of this resolution, I will say that at least for me, that is incredibly unclear.

the use of "excessive force" by a LEO against a person as the use by that LEO of more force than is necessary to restrain and subsequently detain that person,

I don't like the way this is formatted, the beginning bit tends to just repeat at the end and it feels like it could be made a bit more clear?

orders 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,

"orders" feels so bossy "directs" might be a better option?

"their" --> "any employed"

"suspected criminals or any other person" --> "any other individual"

NON-EDITING NOTE: This clause is kinda useless? The use of "viable and available" is vague to a point that it kind of invalidates the whole clause. What is considered viable or available? I'll bet my butt that if this law ever existed irl it would be absolutely worthless in court. There are too many ways to interpret "viable", how would you ever prove something was viable or not? I think this needs to be a harder restriction. As a second note, it should also dictate that such education should be for on-the-job stuff.

requires that LEOs avoid causing death or serious injury to any person unless the life or bodily sovereignty of any person (including the LEO in question) is, or likely would be, placed in immediate danger by that person,

"or likely would be" would flow better in dashes imo.

declares that LEOs must allow all people they have harmed under Article d to receive all basic first aid necessary for the survival of those people, and

"allow" is a weird word?

Second "all" --> 'any"

"the surivival of those people" --> "their survival"

compels member states to criminalise all use of force by LEOs that contradict Articles b to e, and to punish those entities that employ those LEOs who use force in contradiction of such Articles.

"all" --> "the"

"contradict" should be plural?

"and to punish those entities that employ those LEOs who use force in contradiction of such Articles." --> "and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles."

Boom done, hope these were helpful. Have a great day!

-A

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Believing that the introduction of such a standard will help protect individuals of all backgrounds (including members of vulnerable and historically marginalised groups) from unwarranted police brutality...

...

Is "police" a fully accurate word to represent all LEOs?

OOC: The phrase "police brutality" is a generally accepted term for excessive or grossly excessive use of force by law enforcement officers. I don't see this line of inquiry as particularly useful.

a "LEO" (law enforcement officer) as a person employed by law enforcement in a member state in the course of their employment as such, and

I'm not too sure about this definition. "employed by law enforcement" can encompass a lot more positions than simply LEOs, like say emergency dispatchers or front desk clerks. It should, I think, define an LEO by their actual profession, not simply by who they are hired by. And if that is already communicated through the rest of this resolution, I will say that at least for me, that is incredibly unclear.

What does this matter? If a dispatcher abandons her post and goes outside to beat up a suspected purse-snatcher beyond the extent necessary to subdue or arrest that person, she should be subject to punishment; if she doesn't, then she won't be, and what's the point of nitpicking? Crucially, the proposal as currently stated lacks an explicit requirement to punish those who order the excessive use of force without physically participating in it themselves. Dispatchers, shift commanders, training staff, etc. who may direct these actions should also be held to account. At which point this nitpick becomes actively counterproductive.

orders 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,

"orders" feels so bossy "directs" might be a better option?

NON-EDITING NOTE: This clause is kinda useless? The use of "viable and available" is vague to a point that it kind of invalidates the whole clause. What is considered viable or available? I'll bet my butt that if this law ever existed irl it would be absolutely worthless in court. There are too many ways to interpret "viable", how would you ever prove something was viable or not? I think this needs to be a harder restriction. As a second note, it should also dictate that such education should be for on-the-job stuff.

This is a reasonable point. A useful touchstone here might be the case of Stephen Mader, who was fired for attempting to de-escalate the situation while confronting an apparently armed suspect (who was shot by fellow officers seconds later). The problem is making this determination, and enforcing member states to make the determination ably and in good faith. Perhaps something like: "...any other person when the success of less forceful measures has not been ruled out, either on the scene or in hindsight."

[Thousand Branches]

OOC: The phrase "police brutality" is a generally accepted term for excessive or grossly excessive use of force by law enforcement officers. I don't see this line of inquiry as particularly useful.

Fair enough, retracted.

What does this matter? If a dispatcher abandons her post and goes outside to beat up a suspected purse-snatcher beyond the extent necessary to subdue or arrest that person, she should be subject to punishment; if she doesn't, then she won't be, and what's the point of nitpicking? Crucially, the proposal as currently stated lacks an explicit requirement to punish those who order the excessive use of force without physically participating in it themselves. Dispatchers, shift commanders, training staff, etc. who may direct these actions should also be held to account. At which point this nitpick becomes actively counterproductive.

Also fair enough, also retracted (although I do still think that definition could probably be clarified somewhat).

:roll:

We all have our little bits of personal preference, this is one of mine

This is a reasonable point. A useful touchstone here might be the case of Stephen Mader, who was fired for attempting to de-escalate the situation while confronting an apparently armed suspect (who was shot by fellow officers seconds later). The problem is making this determination, and enforcing member states to make the determination ably and in good faith. Perhaps something like: "...any other person when the success of less forceful measures has not been ruled out, either on the scene or in hindsight."

This is the sort of thing I was referring to here. There are many instances of police brutality that have been argued as necessary across the board when oftentimes they really weren't. I think allowing that problem to persist is somewhat... bad xD

[Tinhampton]

I agree with SL on everything he's said; other than that, Ara's (other) thoughts on the preamble, Articles e and f have been taken on board. After some conversations with other people, Article a(ii) now defines excessive force in relevant part as the use of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation."

On further consideration, this will probably be submitted on New Years' Eve.

[Sanctaria]

Given that "excessive force" retains a vague definition, albeit for necessary and understandable reasons, I'm not sure how effective this resolution is, though I invite the Ambassador to correct me if or when my analysis of the situation strays.

Each instance of arrest, or detaining/apprehending, an individual is a unique event, with different factors having an effect on the situation. Is the suspect armed, are they under the influence, are they operating a vehicle which may be considered dangerous, do they have any mental illness which may be exacerbated by the situation, for example. Similarly, if we look to the LEO: are they trained, how experienced are they, do they carry a sidearm or other weapon like a baton, or maybe they carry an irritant spray. Are they stressed, are they tired, what shift are they on, is it a double shift etc etc.

Naturally it follows then that each incidence of restraining and detention will carry with it a separate evaluation of how much force is reasonable force, and how much force would go beyond the reasonable and become excessive force. But despite the preambulatory hopes, and well-intentioned they may be, to introduce a standard, such a standard does not exist at all in the proposal. Excessive force here is defined only as "the use of "excessive force" by a LEO against a person as the use by that LEO of significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain that person".

As I said, I understand completely the difficulty, insurmountable perhaps, to define excessive force further and introduce specific standards because of the aforementioned reasons surrounding the individuality or uniqueness of arrest, but similarly there seems to be no process here of detailing if an event excessive force was used, was correctly used, or if it was in fact unreasonable and excessive.

To put it more clearly, if a LEO claims the force used was not excessive, but was reasonable and necessary, is that enough to satisfy the terms of the resolution? And if that is the case where that is deemed to be satisfactory, then how are standards created, like the preamble claims, and how can citizens in WA member nations really feel they remain protected against excessive force when it remains a decision of the LEO in question as to how much force is reasonable. Because under the terms of the proposal, as I read it, is that the situation remains it being entirely up to a LEO on if the force exercised was reasonable or not, with no mandated post-event debriefing or evaluation to determine if the LEO was correct in his assumption - such a move might be considered someway towards creating a standard.

I would suggest a number of different edits to this proposal - extant resolutions notwithstanding so apologies if this duplicates or contradicts - in order to rectify what I consider some significant redundancy within this resolution

• As mentioned, require a compulsory post-reasonable force evaluation with non-involved, superior officers, and potentially medical experts, to determine if the force used was reasonable or if it verged into the excessive
• Require surveillance cameras fitted to LEO body armour/uniforms, and within any official vehicles, both of which are linked, and which are turned on automatically when lights-and-sirens are activated
• Mandate that LEOs carry non-lethal forms of instruments designed to aid in the capture of suspects, including but not limited to TASERs, irritant spray, and self-defence batons
• Mandated and regular CPD training courses on what constitutes, for that nation, a boundary (insofar as possible) between reasonable and excessive force
• Recommendation that, where possible, having a lone LEO operating without a partner should be severely discouraged, thereby giving the LEO enough backup to reduce the need for excessive force

[Greater Cesnica]

I would suggest a number of different edits to this proposal - extant resolutions notwithstanding so apologies if this duplicates or contradicts - in order to rectify what I consider some significant redundancy within this resolution

• As mentioned, require a compulsory post-reasonable force evaluation with non-involved, superior officers, and potentially medical experts, to determine if the force used was reasonable or if it verged into the excessive
• Require surveillance cameras fitted to LEO body armour/uniforms, and within any official vehicles, both of which are linked, and which are turned on automatically when lights-and-sirens are activated
• Mandate that LEOs carry non-lethal forms of instruments designed to aid in the capture of suspects, including but not limited to TASERs, irritant spray, and self-defence batons
• Mandated and regular CPD training courses on what constitutes, for that nation, a boundary (insofar as possible) between reasonable and excessive force
• Recommendation that, where possible, having a lone LEO operating without a partner should be severely discouraged, thereby giving the LEO enough backup to reduce the need for excessive force

Thank you for your feedback- all of this will be implemented shortly.

[Tinhampton]

all of this will be implemented shortly.

Can confirm

[Sanctaria]

Thank you for your feedback- all of this will be implemented shortly.

all of this will be implemented shortly.

Can confirm

I look forward to reviewing the next draft, then.

[Sanctaria]

I've read the latest draft - the addition of my delegation as a co-author was quite generous, thank you.

Not to press something you may have already dismissed, but I do think it's important to state clearly that the final determination of whether or not force that was used was reasonable or excessive should not rest with the LEO who exercised said use of force.

If the suggestion of mandated post-event review panels is unpalatable, then may I suggest the following in (b):

b. orders all entities that employ LEOs to:

1. ensure, through education and in practice, that their LEOs do not use force against suspected criminals or any other person when the use of less forceful measures has not been ruled out (whether on the scene or in retrospect),
2. educate their LEOs on when the use of force constitutes excessive force, as well as on when the use of those items described in Article c(ii) is appropriate, and
3. regularly review incidents where use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure the application did not exceed reasonable use,

Suggested wording only, please feel free to revisit the language, but I do think it's important for the WA to take a very clear position that simply claiming the use of force was reasonable will not be sufficient enough evidence to deny any accusations of excessive force.

[Tinhampton]

snip

Your proposed b(iii) has been added in principle (i.e. to require LEO employers to "regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force") - sorry that I skimmed that point over in the first instance, that was completely my fault and not GC's.

[Sanctaria]

snip

Your proposed b(iii) has been added in principle (i.e. to require LEO employers to "regularly review incidents where the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force") - sorry that I skimmed that point over in the first instance, that was completely my fault and not GC's.

No worries - thanks for the consideration of my point.

[Sanctaria]

Before this is submitted, I would suggest amending c(ii) slightly, just to ensure it's crystal clear on the types of weapons that LEOs are able to carry - I would hate to see this fail to pass because it's read as a ban on LEOs carrying lethal weapons.

c. mandates that LEOs:
ii. carry, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by that nation to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect, and

Again, wording is just suggested. It was a quick scribble, maybe have a think about the best way to phrase it.

[Tinhampton]

c. mandates that LEOs:
ii. carry, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by that nation to carry, less-than-lethal items intended to help restrain or detain suspected criminals (such as batons, irritant spray and tasers) to that effect, and

This is the based department calling to notify you that we are impressed with your work

[Tinhampton]

Proposal-A-Go-Go (and quorate)

AS OF 2200 GMT ON SATURDAY: Approvals: 56 out of 56 needed (Tinhampton, Sanctaria, Albrook, The Scottish Republic, Thousand Branches, Madjack, Echoslavia, Republic Of Ludwigsburg, One Small Island, Elyrethusa, The Flyin, Aynia Moreaux, Enlais, The United Provinces of North America, Treadwellia, Yaxopsville, The Huge Golden Empire, Hetic South, AJ Empire, The Finntopian Empire, Neim, His Excellency, Budgie Snugglers, Cheries, Novum Orientis, Soviet repub, Super Awesome Fun Times, Edfort, Sedgistan, Americatain, Zombiedolphins, Reultan, Noble Titans, Goatia, Quentania, Penetration Nation, The Communists of the Multiversal Empire, Josephtan, Tevaris, Bayin, Andusre, Wisea, The Age of Utopia, Man Eaters, The Anarchist Federation of Spain, Tau Ceti Omega, USS Juneau, Embreydo, Vaarland, Kikittaukak, Candensia, Potenzia, Antamaran, Repreteop, Lys Arva, The Unified Pumaxi)

[Triseria]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote FOR the General Assembly Resolution, "LEO Force Restrictions".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[Samondt]

AF1 CODE: AAAJGTL79GF54LJ65D

OPEN MONDAY JAN. 10TH

[Random Country 453632]

It just feels a bit too specific for me... Voted against but that's just my opinion

[Otaku Stratus]

We already have an issue about making police wear mandatory cameras, interestingly rather than being treated as something that would protect people, if you choose that result it snarkily suggests you've increased the surveillance-state level. So this resolution is kind of redundant with that. It's also bad for a number of other reasons, primarily its motivation.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I worry about this resolution's broad, circular definition of Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). Tax policy analysts, municipal judges, customs officials, building code inspectors, real property assessors, public school administrators... all of these people are required to enforce the law in their positions. So now under Clause (c)(ii) they must come to work armed with a nightstick, pepper spray, a tazer, or equivalent items. An odd thing for the WA to mandate. This is one of those cases where I have to assume being employed "by law enforcement" has a specialized police meaning that isn't clear from the resolution but implicitly understood. Although if that were the case, why try to define LEO at all... Anyway, it was a strange choice to define LEO in this way, in my view. Best practice is to either give a definition that meaningfully limits the field, or not to define the term at all.

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.

I must also vehemently deny the premise that excessive force is "often" - or ever - used by the Princess's law enforcement officers. The Princess's officers are mostly overworked public servants trying to do their best to serve their communities. But that aside, I only have minor quibbles really. The Princess of course supports the aims of this proposal in limiting excessive force by state actors, wherever that may occur. A perfect law on this subject does not exist, and by Royal Decree the Princess has said that perfect must not be the enemy of good.

And so I cast my vote FOR this proposal.