NationStates

---

IC: by Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly.

OOC: currently inspired by the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (link edited on March 9th 2024 after OHCHR redesigned their website in the interim, breaking virtually every single link in the process; OP otherwise unchanged versus 11-JAN-2022). I intend to submit a version of this as soon as a consensus arises that said version does not contain any significant flaws.

LEO Force Restrictions
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Concerned that there currently exists no universal standard to regulate the use of force by law enforcement officers on duty in member states,

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

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

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. 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
   2. 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,
2. 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 the use of force was exercised by LEOs to ensure that such use did not constitute the use of excessive force,
3. mandates that LEOs:
   
   1. not use excessive force against any person,
   2. carry, in addition to any other class of weapon or item they are permitted by the nation they work in 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
   3. wear body-worn cameras linked to any official vehicles they may be associated with which automatically turn on when those vehicles' lights or sirens activate; those cameras must neither be turned off unless their recording capacity is fully utilised nor have any of their recordings deleted unless they have been backed up in a secure third location,
4. requires that LEOs:
   
   1. avoid causing death or life-changing 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, and
   2. ensure that people they have harmed under Article d(i) receive any basic first aid necessary for their survival,
5. compels member states to criminalise the use of force by LEOs that contradicts Articles b to d, and to punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles, and
6. strongly recommends that entities that employ LEOs ensure that they are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty.

Co-authors: Greater Cesnica, Sanctaria

OOC: Sorry, but I came here expecting something about satellites. Your topic isn't as interesting.

Though I do notice that police are somehow meant to also be doctors and nurses.

Also, not an international issue.

Potted Plants United wrote:OOC: [...] Also, not an international issue.

Both co-authors contributed to TNP's dispatch recommending a vote against Corporal Punishment Ban on the grounds that it "permits the excessive use of force during the arrest of criminal suspects, essentially permitting police brutality during arrests" (and due to the inconsistency between preamble and operative clauses). GC also contributed to a near-identical IFV for Europe. It should go without saying that End Corporal Punishment is likely to pass if this passes and ECP is deemed to be neither inconsistent nor ineffective by the 0.02%

I'm hardly the biggest fan of Black Lives Matter (with capital letters) but there were many vaguely BLM-y protests in many countries after the murder of George Floyd around this time last year, including "in the Forest of Dean - [where] some 98% of the population are white." By no means is an issue that affects many people both in the American state of Minnesota and the English county of Gloucestershire "not an international issue," at least not OOCly.

Tinhampton wrote:blah blah Real World

OOC: On RL Earth there might be something international about it, given we're the same species and can more or less (current travel restrictions not counting) move from one nation to another with fair ease. In NS WA we're sprinkled into different universes, different solar systems and likely between them too, we're a multitude of species.

And I know you can ignore that when writing a proposal, but you can't believably ignore the fact that police officers cannot force a doctor or nurse to treat someone, nor should you use the WA to try to force that situation to happen, given all WA nations are already required to guarantee healthcare to all of their inhabitants.

We are opposed to this not only because it’s not an international issue, but also because in some cases clause c can means the difference between life or death for the officer. Sometimes the use of excessive force can me justified, especially when considering what exactly kind of crime police sometimes have to face... *skips through several pages of pre-written text than looks around, adding: And I’m NOT going to read whatever these idiots from Utadeh wrote for me here, never in the whole world...

OOC: Lakan Colonial Police is almost literally locked in a guerilla war with organized crime which usually requires them to either fire first or die while shouting “Drop your weapon!”

Tinhampton wrote:
I'm hardly the biggest fan of Black Lives Matter (with capital letters) but there were many vaguely BLM-y protests in many countries after the murder of George Floyd around this time last year, including "in the Forest of Dean - [where] some 98% of the population are white." By no means is an issue that affects many people both in the American state of Minnesota and the English county of Gloucestershire "not an international issue," at least not OOCly.

OOC: And a bunch of (poorly written) proposal on police brutality were unleashed upon the GA queue. I'm not american but considering how fast things died down, I can't help but wonder if those BLM-y protests outside US were done by people bored by the lockdowns and chasing a fad, exaggerating insignificant issues or pulling ones out of their ass. Which also makes me wonder how relevant this proposal is if you don't consider most WA nations are like the US.

I fail to see how this is not an international issue. Objectors, please explain why even though some national governments refuse to do anything about this or in fact sponsor it, the GA shouldn't step in?

in some cases clause c can means the difference between life or death for the officer. Sometimes the use of excessive force can me justified

If a life is in immediate danger, such as hostage situations or chasing heavily armed and dangerous criminals, that seems like a time article D can be invoked and lethal force would be allowed. Also, by virtue of force being excessive, it is not justified.

The truth is the GA's stance on police brutality is that it is in fact an international issue and needs to be snuffed out immediately.

"This is a criminal's charter WA style. If a suspect flees, not only is a police officer banned from shooting them, they can't even jump them.

"Completely and utterly opposed to this "liberal" nonsense. I often wonder why you lot are always more concerned with the rights of criminals, scumbags, fascists and counterrevolutionaries than ordinary law abiding workers."

"Shooting those who resist arrest simply for their resistance still seems to be pretty excessive to me, ambassador."

Jedinsto wrote:"Shooting those who resist arrest simply for their resistance still seems to be pretty excessive to me, ambassador."

"Forcing nations and honest police to let criminals run away seems to be pretty excessive to me."

Bananaistan wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:"Shooting those who resist arrest simply for their resistance still seems to be pretty excessive to me, ambassador."

"Forcing nations and honest police to let criminals run away seems to be pretty excessive to me."

"Who says the criminals are allowed to run away? There's a difference between not killing somebody and allowing them to evade justice."

Jedinsto wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
"Forcing nations and honest police to let criminals run away seems to be pretty excessive to me."

"Who says the criminals are allowed to run away? There's a difference between not killing somebody and allowing them to evade justice."

"If a criminal runs away, how exactly can they be stopped without using force? What do you expect the police officer to do after politely asking them to stop fails?"

Bananaistan wrote:

Jedinsto wrote:"Who says the criminals are allowed to run away? There's a difference between not killing somebody and allowing them to evade justice."

"If a criminal runs away, how exactly can they be stopped without using force?"

"That seems like a situation in which they would be required to use force. Lethal force? No. See section c."

Jedinsto wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
"If a criminal runs away, how exactly can they be stopped without using force?"

"That seems like a situation in which they would be required to use force. Lethal force? No. See section c."

"If the criminal runs away, the conflict is resolved. Section b requires that police allow people to run away because that's always a non-violent, viable and available option to end the conflict."

I am exceptionally confident this won’t pass.

"The conflict is not resolved as that criminal would still be in need of arrest."

OOC: Reminder that reasonable nation theory exists. At this point we're talking circumvention where circumvention would be harmful to the circumventor.

Jedinsto wrote:"The conflict is not resolved as that criminal would still be in need of arrest."

OOC: Reminder that reasonable nation theory exists. At this point we're talking circumvention where circumvention would be harmful to the circumventor.

"The proposal does not say this. If two people have some quarrel and the aggressor pisses off, that's a resolved conflict - it has ended when the aggressor ceases their attack. If you don't want it to be a resolved conflict, write it down in the proposal."

OOC: But anyway, this will be my last comment in this topic unless required for GenSec reasons. Writing off a bit of exaggerated RP with RNT is annoying. Enjoy your repeal hooks.

"conflict resolution" changed to "detainment" as per Jeddy's recommendation.

Against. This liberal claptrap doesn’t need to be here

Oh boo-hoo, such a liberal standpoint to not want people to be beaten by police officers

"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?
"PREPOSTEROUS!"

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attache,
Bears Armed Mission at the W.A.
(and [male] anthropomorphic Giant Panda).

________________________________________________________

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"?

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?
"PREPOSTEROUS!"

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attache,
Bears Armed Mission at the W.A.
(and [male] anthropomorphic Giant Panda).

________________________________________________________

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

“Clause d requires an exception for the life of another person aside from the LEO being in danger.”

Smith: Ambassador Lewitt, your suggestion was pre-emptively heeded in our previous draft, and would have been present in this one had one of my understudies not accidentally copied the draft before that. Consider it done.

OOC: In countries where healthcare is primarily 'private', wouldn't article 'd'' require the law enforcement officer to cover the costs of the detained person's treatment, no matter how expensive, even if the "LEO" 's actions during & after the detention had been fully legal under the rest of this resolution? If so, then -- apart from anything else -- in nations where that healthcare isrelatively expensive you would actually be giving law enforcement personnel an incentive to kill rather than just wound... Indeed, under the current wording, would not the "LEO" also be responsible for the cost of any "necessary" medical treatment for the detained person that was not related to the "LEO"'s own actions, such as continued medication for pre-existing conditions?