[PASSED] LEO Force Restrictions

[Jedinsto]

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]

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."

OOC: the main reason for ,e opposing is the fact that I expect my police to go derek chauvin. Although about EMT’s- that’s actually pretty solid.

[Jedinsto]

OOC: the main reason for ,e opposing is the fact that I expect my police to go derek chauvin.

And that, right there, is why nobody on this forum likes you.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

OOC: the main reason for ,e opposing is the fact that I expect my police to go derek chauvin.

And that, right there, is why nobody on this forum likes you.

OOC: Welp, being a far-right on police and crime comes with its own pros and cons...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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

OOC: Can we keep General in General, please? Kthx.

/notamod

[Araraukar]

OOC: the main reason for ,e opposing is the fact that I expect my police to go derek chauvin.

And that, right there, is why nobody on this forum likes you.

OOC: I currently like him more than you.

To get anywhere approaching internationality with this, I suggest pulling your head out of your ass and looking at online sources of people's attitudes towards police outside of USA, because generally speaking USA is not a model country on human rights or people acting violently. Look up the Japanese police practices on calming down potentially violent people, for example? Or look up numbers of people shot/injured by police "for no reason" in Europe? Why do those kinds of news always come from USA? Are the police there trained to reach for their gun first instead of last? Or is it just because so many people have guns that it's the only safe approach for the police?

Over here (RL Finland) handgun ownership is so rare (most guns people possess, are hunting ones) that it actually breakes the national limit on news when anyone commits a crime with a firearm being involved (whether actually shooting it or just waving one around), with entire areas of the city/other population center being put in lockdown while they go find and neutralize the gun-toting idiot. And yes, "neutralize" may mean killing them if they can't be talked down. I always feel sorry for the police when they need to kill someone, because that's so rare and foreign a concept over here that they are always provided with therapy to get over it.

So anything derived mainly from USA, where things like random police brutality are considered a problem, sound always so alien, because they are. Most nations' police forces are not something that people are afraid of, nor is random police brutality a thing like it is in USA. So please keep that in mind when writing a resolution. The police exist to protect, not punish. Don't take away their ability to protect.

[Greater Cesnica]

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

OOC: Can we keep General in General, please? Kthx.

/notamod

"But the General Assembly has the word General in it!"

/s

[Greater Cesnica]

And that, right there, is why nobody on this forum likes you.

OOC: I currently like him more than you.

OOC: Surely this doesn't reflect badly on you whatsoever.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I currently like him more than you.

OOC: Surely this doesn't reflect badly on you whatsoever.

OOC: Why would it? Some players are always more annoying than others. I don't like IA either, but that doesn't mean I couldn't be civil with him on this forum.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Surely this doesn't reflect badly on you whatsoever.

OOC: Why would it? Some players are always more annoying than others. I don't like IA either, but that doesn't mean I couldn't be civil with him on this forum.

oof

[Jedinsto]

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]

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.

OOC: Clauses b, c, d and e. EDIT: The issues have already been pointed out by others - criminal on the run, or a gunman shooting people, as examples.

Btw, I'd appreciate it if you didn't compare me to a fascist.

Grow up. Not everyone will always love you and think you're the brightest. The Laka-whatsit hasn't been around long enough to get on my nerves yet, and has been polite OOCly, insofar as I've noticed their posts at all.

[Tinhampton]

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.

Please elaborate on how they "take away police's ability to protect."

OOC: Why would it? Some players are always more annoying than others. I don't like IA either, but that doesn't mean I couldn't be civil with him on this forum.

oof

This isn't Roblox, either.

Article d amended and new Article e added - thanks again, Jedinsto.

[Jedinsto]

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.

B, C, D, and E seem like it's more of stopping LEOs from beating the shit out of people than stopping them from protecting people but ok.

[Greater Cesnica]

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.

They don't restrict the police's ability to protect whatsoever. The restrictions are perfectly sensible.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: *<[snip>*
I fail to see how we're taking away police's ability to protect.
*<snip>*

Like so:

"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?

[Jedinsto]

OOC: *<[snip>*
I fail to see how we're taking away police's ability to protect.
*<snip>*

Like so:

"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?

See the new article d. Some of those situations would fall under immediate danger/will be immediate danger.

[Tinhampton]

Article g has been changed from a strong recommendation to a mandate by consensus of the drafting team. Some other changes to the operative clauses have also been made.

[Araraukar]

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

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? And "excessive use of force" sounds more in line with your mandates than "use of excessive force".

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.

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.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Jedinsto]

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 make Batman vigilantes into law enforcement officers by a WA law.

The "or otherwise independently working in" part was to cover bounty hunters etc. Perhaps some rewording is in order.

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.

Why would that not be a crime? I think nations would be smart enough to outlaw resisting arrest themselves. When somebody is resisting arrest, it suddenly becomes not so viable to arrest them without any use of force.

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.

The whole problem here is that it's not the case IRL (and the same in the NS world), that or such laws are not always enforced (which is a pretty big understatement depending on what nation(s) we're talking about).

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.

You absolutely could use force to detain a rapist if they don't stand down themselves. If the child's life is not in danger, then no, shooting the rapist would not be allowed. Wouldn't shooting the rapist also put the child at risk of being shot?

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.

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

You made some good points otherwise, so hopefully Tin will include them. Thanks for the feedback!

Edit: Fixed a broken quote tag.

[Araraukar]

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.

[Old Hope]

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:

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,

You unfortunately don't know how much force is necessary; as a police officer. You can only make educated guesses.

[CoraSpia]

"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."

[Old Hope]

"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."

Yes, responsibly. They still have to work with incomplete information, though. Asking the police to use only necessary force is asking the police to know everything, which is very unreasonable. Police can be trained to use on the force that is likely necessary in a given situation. But not on the use of force that is actually necessary in every single possible situation because they do not have perfect information.

[Jedinsto]

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.

I disagree that the same goes for police brutality. I don't know how that's still up for debate but meh I'll go with it.