[PASSED] Repeal "LEO Force Restrictions​​"

[Frisbeeteria]

Repeal "LEO Force Restrictions​​"

---

---

Category: Repeal || Resolution: GAR #590 || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Recognizing a disturbing history of excessive force exercised by law enforcement toward members of the public and the need for international attention toward police violence,

Determining that the language of the target resolution nevertheless paralyzes the capacity for law enforcement to detain suspects in its attempt to prevent excessive use of force,

Anticipating a more diligent approach to international regulation of the use of force by law enforcement entities,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 590 "LEO Force Restrictions" for the following causes:

1. Section b.i criminalizes the use of force conditional on information not available to the detaining officer or officers. The methods they use to detain a suspect are rendered illegal after-the-fact, based on information that may only unveil itself weeks, months, or even years after the detention.
   
   
2. Section c.iii makes several radical assumptions which render its enforcement frustratingly difficult, circuitous, or even impossible for many member states.
   
   
   1. It assumes the wide availability of miniature video cameras capable of capturing images of sufficient quality and film length to provide useful insight into the actions of an officer wearing it.
      
      
   2. It assumes ubiquitous wireless technology, such that miniature video cameras attached to law enforcement officers can communicate with electronic vehicle equipment whenever "those vehicles' lights or sirens activate".
      
      
   3. It assumes that all activation of law enforcement vehicles' emergency signals indicates a potential for use of excessive force by an officer, and that all potential for use of excessive force by an officer follows the activation of a law enforcement vehicle's emergency signals.
      
      
   4. It assumes that every law enforcement officer has a designated vehicle to which their miniature video cameras can wirelessly connect, and that law enforcement officers do not patrol on vehicles without electronic components or on foot.
      
      
   5. It assumes a universal signal for impending law enforcement interaction: "lights or sirens". This does not accommodate any other signal that a law enforcement vehicle may use.
3. Section d.ii requirements result in the criminalization of all homicides committed by a law enforcement officer, regardless of cause or danger presented toward the officer, for failure to ensure that the suspect receives "basic first aid necessary for their survival".
   
   
   1. Section d.ii requires law enforcement to render life-preserving aid to all parties to which they cause "death or life-changing injury". It is, however, beyond an officer's ability to render life-preserving aid to an already dead person. Thus, the section e mandate renders murder every homicide committed by an officer.
      
      
   2. Furthermore, d.ii requires law enforcement to render life-preserving aid even when doing so would put one or more officers at risk of injury or death, such as in the case of apprehending or neutralizing multiple suspects and causing life-threatening injury that neutralizes one but not all suspects.

[Wallenburg]

Repeal "LEO Force Restrictions​​"

---

Recognizing a disturbing history of excessive force exercised by law enforcement toward members of the public and the need for international attention toward police violence,

Determining that the language of the target resolution nevertheless paralyzes the capacity for law enforcement to detain suspects in its attempt to prevent excessive use of force,

Anticipating a more diligent approach to international regulation of the use of force by law enforcement entities,

The World Assembly hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution 590 "LEO Force Restrictions" for the following causes:

1. Section b.i criminalizes the use of force conditional on information not available to the detaining officer or officers. The methods they use to detain a suspect are rendered illegal after-the-fact, based on information that may only unveil itself weeks, months, or even years after the detention.
   
   
2. Section c.iii makes several radical assumptions which render its enforcement extremely difficult, clunky, or even impossible for many member states.
   
   
   1. It assumes the wide availability of miniature video cameras capable of capturing images of sufficient quality and film length to provide useful insight into the actions of an officer wearing it.
      
      
   2. It assumes ubiquitous wireless technology, such that miniature video cameras attached to law enforcement officers can communicate with electronic vehicle equipment whenever "those vehicles' lights or sirens activate".
      
      
   3. It assumes that all activation of law enforcement vehicles' emergency signals indicates a potential for use of excessive force by an officer, and that all potential for use of excessive force by an officer follows the activation of a law enforcement vehicle's emergency signals.
      
      
   4. It assumes that every law enforcement officer has a designated vehicle to which their miniature video cameras can wirelessly connect, and that law enforcement officers do not patrol on vehicles without electronic components or on foot.
      
      
   5. It assumes a universal signal for impending law enforcement interaction: "lights or sirens". This does not accommodate any other signal that a law enforcement vehicle may use.
3. Section d.ii criminalizes all homicides committed by a law enforcement officer, regardless of cause or danger presented by the suspect, for failure to ensure that the suspect receives "basic first aid necessary for their survival".

[Hulldom]

Ambassador Le Maldo takes the paper from his assistant Bouchard. He adjusts his glasses and quickly reads the draft, his lips moving all the while. After a minute, he looks up and addresses Chief Representative Ogenbond.

"The Hulldomian Delegation could certainly support this. We do question, however, why the Wallenburgian Chief Representative does not attack what we thank is a relatively obvious flaw with c(iii) namely that in granting an opt-out if recording capacity of a body-warn camera is full, LEOs are essentially given that license to do as they please while that camera's storage is full and before its contents are stored elsewhere, rendering its storage on that device superfluous. It seems rather obvious to us that could be...problematic in the target's execution."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The C.D.S.P. will support this as written."

[WayNeacTia]

"Looks good to me."

Wayne

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is this true?

Section d.ii criminalizes all homicides committed by a law enforcement officer, regardless of cause or danger presented by the suspect, for failure to ensure that the suspect receives "basic first aid necessary for their survival".

To clarify what I mean here: Does it give rise to liability if an LEO provides basic first aid necessary for survival and then the person perishes? If the person required something more interventionist than basic first aid, it probably wouldn't be basic first aid. But – to give a insensitive analogy – I could give you funds needed to avert bankruptcy but due to your mismanagement you could still go bankrupt or I could give you weapons needed to defend your country and you could still be defeated by some guys in Toyota Land Cruisers.

I think more broadly though, the negligence standard is dumb in the case that you're are engaged in a firefight with multiple criminals. Police should not be expected to play medics in Battlefield 1 (or something like that), waltzing into a crossfire to perform first aid. Perhaps this is what you meant by the clause.

[Wallenburg]

Is this true?

Section d.ii criminalizes all homicides committed by a law enforcement officer, regardless of cause or danger presented by the suspect, for failure to ensure that the suspect receives "basic first aid necessary for their survival".

To clarify what I mean here: Does it give rise to liability if an LEO provides basic first aid necessary for survival and then the person perishes? If the person required something more interventionist than basic first aid, it probably wouldn't be basic first aid. But – to give a insensitive analogy – I could give you funds needed to avert bankruptcy but due to your mismanagement you could still go bankrupt or I could give you weapons needed to defend your country and you could still be defeated by some guys in Toyota Land Cruisers.

I think more broadly though, the negligence standard is dumb in the case that you're are engaged in a firefight with multiple criminals. Police should not be expected to play medics in Battlefield 1 (or something like that), waltzing into a crossfire to perform first aid. Perhaps this is what you meant by the clause.

Well, that's one degree to which the clause presents problems. However, here's how I read the target and why I chose this specific language:

Section d.ii requires law enforcement to render first aid to all parties harmed under d.i. Section d.i includes "death or life-changing injury" under the scope of this harm. Law enforcement is unable to render first aid to a dead person. It's not just that the first aid fails to keep them alive, they are already dead by the time officers can possibly begin to render first aid to keep them alive. Therefore, law enforcement violates section d.ii whenever an officer kills someone. Then, section e criminalizes all violations of sections b thru d, including violations of section d.ii. Thus, every homicide committed by an officer becomes murder.

[Fachumonn]

Snipped.

Will there be a replacement draft?
I think we need some legislation like LEO force restrictions, even if Tin and Cesnica's isn't going to be it.

[Apatosaurus]

Section d.ii criminalizes all homicides committed by a law enforcement officer, regardless of cause or danger presented by the suspect, for failure to ensure that the suspect receives "basic first aid necessary for their survival".

"Good."

[Tinhampton]

GC's been absent for a while but I hope to work with Sanctaria on a replacement draft in the coming time periods - no guarantees, however.

[Fachumonn]

Fachumonn will support this draft as written, only if there is a follow up draft by either Tin or Wallenberg.

[Untecna]

"Support as written, Ambassador. We hope to see the replacement if it comes."

[WayNeacTia]

Section d.ii criminalizes all homicides committed by a law enforcement officer, regardless of cause or danger presented by the suspect, for failure to ensure that the suspect receives "basic first aid necessary for their survival".

"Good."

So your saying that it is good thing that LEO's be prosecuted because they didn't run out and start performing first aid on someone they just shot, even when they are still taking rounds?

[Apatosaurus]

"Good."

So your saying that it is good thing that LEO's be prosecuted because they didn't run out and start performing first aid on someone they just shot, even when they are still taking rounds?

"No, it is a good thing for LEO's to be prosecuted for killing people."

[WayNeacTia]

So your saying that it is good thing that LEO's be prosecuted because they didn't run out and start performing first aid on someone they just shot, even when they are still taking rounds?

"No, it is a good thing for LEO's to be prosecuted for killing people."

Even in self defense?

[Apatosaurus]

"No, it is a good thing for LEO's to be prosecuted for killing people."

Even in self defense?

"Ambassador, what does deadly force accomplish that a non-lethal weapon does not?"

[Morover]

"Morover supports repeal of the target legislation. We have noted a rise in hostilities since the passage of this resolution, and we can only blame one thing - and before you ask, no, it is not the change of government from the highly benevolent forces that be to a more tyrannical government. It can't be."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Support, and am happy to see no repeal.

[WayNeacTia]

Snipped.

Will there be a replacement draft?
I think we need some legislation like LEO force restrictions, even if Tin and Cesnica's isn't going to be it.

No.... We don't. Nations are perfectly capable of handling this, without the need for WA handholding.

[Wallenburg]

Even in self defense?

"Ambassador, what does deadly force accomplish that a non-lethal weapon does not?"

"Risk mitigation and prevention. 'Non-lethal' isn't a property weapons can have, either. Some are simply more or less lethal than others."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is this true?

Section d.ii criminalizes all homicides committed by a law enforcement officer, regardless of cause or danger presented by the suspect, for failure to ensure that the suspect receives "basic first aid necessary for their survival".

To clarify what I mean here: Does it give rise to liability if an LEO provides basic first aid necessary for survival and then the person perishes? If the person required something more interventionist than basic first aid, it probably wouldn't be basic first aid. But – to give a insensitive analogy – I could give you funds needed to avert bankruptcy but due to your mismanagement you could still go bankrupt or I could give you weapons needed to defend your country and you could still be defeated by some guys in Toyota Land Cruisers.

I think more broadly though, the negligence standard is dumb in the case that you're are engaged in a firefight with multiple criminals. Police should not be expected to play medics in Battlefield 1 (or something like that), waltzing into a crossfire to perform first aid. Perhaps this is what you meant by the clause.

Well, that's one degree to which the clause presents problems. However, here's how I read the target and why I chose this specific language:

Section d.ii requires law enforcement to render first aid to all parties harmed under d.i. Section d.i includes "death or life-changing injury" under the scope of this harm. Law enforcement is unable to render first aid to a dead person. It's not just that the first aid fails to keep them alive, they are already dead by the time officers can possibly begin to render first aid to keep them alive. Therefore, law enforcement violates section d.ii whenever an officer kills someone. Then, section e criminalizes all violations of sections b thru d, including violations of section d.ii. Thus, every homicide committed by an officer becomes murder.

I see. Perhaps that logical chain could be clarified in the draft.

Otherwise, support in principle.

[Fortress World of Cadia]

"This should be left for a nation itself to handle, not the WA."

[Fachumonn]

"This should be left for a nation itself to handle, not the WA."

If they don't want to abide, they can leave the WA.

[WayNeacTia]

"This should be left for a nation itself to handle, not the WA."

If they don't want to abide, they can leave the WA.

What exactly do you think the World Assembly is?

[Apatosaurus]

"Ambassador, what does deadly force accomplish that a non-lethal weapon does not?"

"Risk mitigation and prevention. 'Non-lethal' isn't a property weapons can have, either. Some are simply more or less lethal than others."

"But how do lethal weapons mitigate and prevent risk more than less-lethal weapons?"