Advertisement
by Amnesty International » Fri Jan 07, 2022 2:16 pm
by Barfleur » Fri Jan 07, 2022 2:17 pm
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote: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.
Amnesty International wrote: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.
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:42 pm
Barfleur wrote:Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote: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."
by Port Happy » Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:28 pm
by Bears Armed Mission » Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:04 pm
by Amerion » Sun Jan 09, 2022 8:18 pm
by Caymarnia » Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:29 am
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:10 am
Bears Armed Mission wrote:"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.
by Xanthorrhoea » Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:30 am
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote: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.
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Mon Jan 10, 2022 10:45 am
Xanthorrhoea wrote: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.
Xanthorrhoea wrote:I’m changing my vote to against, purely due to the lack of consideration for low-income nations.
by Xanthorrhoea » Mon Jan 10, 2022 12:51 pm
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote: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.
by Wallenburg » Mon Jan 10, 2022 2:49 pm
by Southen Mark » Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:58 pm
by The Adeptorum » Tue Jan 11, 2022 12:33 am
by Tinhampton » Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:34 am
by Apatosaurus » Tue Jan 11, 2022 11:52 am
by Wallenburg » Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:10 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Countriopia
Advertisement