[DRAFT] Repeal "LEO Force Restricions"

[Bears Armed Mission]

"For these reasons, my Mission has been instructed that if this proposed resolution is passed then we should produce a 'Repeal' proposal. If we are forced by events to do so, and that repeal also passes, then I hope that the sponsoring nations will take our reasoning into account when drafting any replacement for this text."

The World Assembly,

1. Recognising the good intentions behind G.A. Resolution #590 'LEO Force Restrictions';

2. Remembering, however, which road is said to be paved with good intentions;

3. Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;

4. Seriously concerned that the way in which this resolution requires member nations to criminalise the use by law enforcement officers of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" and "punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles" apply not only when the decisions about how much force is necessary are made at the time of the incident concerned but also "in retrospect", combined with its requirement that the nations regularly review such matters, mean that such decisions sometimes must be made in retrospect and that this _
A. Ignores the fact that the law enforcement officers typically will have had to make their decisions almost instantaneously, whereas people studying the evidence can take as long as they want about that before deciding, which is unbalanced and seems unfair;
B. Effectively requires the people making those assessments to consider facts that the law enforcement officers involved had no way of knowing at the time, such as whether the perpetrator of a mass shooting had just run out of ammunition, instead of being able to consider only the facts that those law enforcement officers reasonably could have been expected to know;
C./ Lacks 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, which itself is excessive;

5. Noting the resolution's requirement that member nations equip every one of their law enforcement officers with "body-worn cameras linked to any official vehicles they may be associated with which automatically turn on when those vehicles' lights or sirens activate" does not take into account the fact that some member nations might well be insufficiently advanced in technology or simply too poor to do this, whether by allowing exceptions or by offering assistance, and thus forces those nations either to do without at least some of the law enforcement officers whom they would otherwise employ or to disobey this resolution;

6. Noting also that the requirement for those cameras is rendered ineffective, anyway, by the fact that the resolution allows these devices to be turned off when "their recording capacity is fully utilised" but does not require that they possess at least any specific minimum amount of recording capacity, which is a loophole that nations hostile to this legislation could exploit easily -- by issuing cameras with only very small recording capacities -- to render the cameras effectively useless;

7. Hoping that if a replacement for G.A. Resolution #590 is considered necessary then the authors of that new legislation take these points into account;

Hereby repeals G.A. Resolution #590 'LEO Force Restrictions'.

And the second draft:

The World Assembly,

1. Recognising the good intentions behind G.A. Resolution #590 'LEO Force Restrictions';
   
   
2. Remembering, however, which road is said to be paved with good intentions;
   
   
3. Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;
   
   
4. Seriously concerned that the way in which this resolution requires member nations to criminalise the use by law enforcement officers of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" a person and to "punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles" apply not only when the decisions about how much force is necessary are made at the time of the incident concerned but also "in retrospect", combined with its requirement that the nations regularly review such matters, mean that such decisions sometimes must be made in retrospect and that this _
   
   1. Ignores the fact that the law enforcement officers typically will have had to make their decisions almost instantaneously, whereas people studying the evidence can take as long as they want about that before deciding, which is unbalanced and seems unfair;
   2. Effectively requires the people making those assessments to consider facts that the law enforcement officers involved had no way of knowing at the time, such as whether the perpetrator of a mass shooting had just run out of ammunition, instead of being able to consider only the facts that those law enforcement officers reasonably could have been expected to know;
   3. Lacks 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, which itself is excessive;
   
   
5. Noting the resolution's requirement that member nations equip every one of their law enforcement officers with "body-worn cameras linked to any official vehicles they may be associated with which automatically turn on when those vehicles' lights or sirens activate" does not take into account the fact that some member nations might well be insufficiently advanced in technology or simply too poor to do this, whether by allowing exceptions or by offering assistance, and thus forces those nations either to do without at least some of the law enforcement officers whom they would otherwise employ or to disobey this resolution;
   
   
6. Understanding that the legal requirement for law enforcement officers to carry "body-worn cameras" would hinder their ability to carry out undercover investigations;
   
   
7. Realizing that the requirement for those cameras' use is rendered ineffective, anyway, by the fact that the resolution allows these devices to be turned off when "their recording capacity is fully utilised" but does not require that they possess at least any specific minimum amount of recording capacity, which is a loophole that nations hostile to this legislation could exploit easily -- by issuing cameras with only very small recording capacities -- to render the cameras effectively useless;
   
   
8. Hoping that if a replacement for G.A. Resolution #590 is considered necessary then the authors of that new legislation take these points into account;

Hereby repeals G.A. Resolution #590 'LEO Force Restrictions'.

In addition to incorporating the "list" formatting, this version adds one extra clause which is now labelled "6".

Artorrios O Southwoods,
ChairBear,
Bears Armed Mission to the W.A. .

Link to the target resolution

[Xanthorrhoea]

Remembering, however, which road is said to be paved with good intentions;

It’s the one that leads to Rome right?
__________

In all seriousness, support as is. I’m not fully convinced by clause 4, as I think there’s room to creatively comply in a way that avoids those issues. However, I can see the logic, and requiring creative compliance to avoid major problems isn’t great. Otherwise, fully agree with clauses 5 and 6.

Also, very minor typo, you have two clause 6’s.

Edit: my own typo (oh the delicious irony)

[Thousand Branches]

Mildly curious as to the lack of usage of the list function Is that a style thing? Genuinely curious

[Bears Armed Mission]

Also, very minor typo, you have two clause 6’s.

Fixed, thank you (and I've also just fixed a couple of other typos as well).

Mildly curious as to the lack of usage of the list function Is that a style thing? Genuinely curious

It's a matter of habit. I started my authorial career well before that function was made available, and can never remember how it works.


____________________________________________________________________

I've expanded clause 6 slightly, to explain my argument there.

[Bears Armed Mission]

A second draft, using the "list" formatting and adding one extra clause, has now been posted.

I've prepared my Campaign TG, which just needs the code for linking to this proposal's submitted version that -- of course -- won't be available until after I have submitted it.

[WayNeacTia]

Full support

[Untecna]

Full support

Same here. I'm quite surprised Wayneactia has announced support...

[WayNeacTia]

Full support

Same here. I'm quite surprised Wayneactia has announced support...

I usually announce my support for things I intend to vote for. If you don't see me supporting something, chances are I am going to vote against it.

[Apatosaurus]

Congrats, Bears Armed, on getting Wayneactia to support this.

Same here. I'm quite surprised Wayneactia has announced support...

I usually announce my support for things I intend to vote for. If you don't see me supporting something, chances are I am going to vote against it.

I know, right? :P

I am also opposed for the same reason that I oppose Commend Karputsk (just change "Karp used to" to "the author is") :

Entirely opposed to this since Karp used to be a bear. That's right, a bear.

Bears and former bears do not deserve any recognition from the WA.

I hope that everyone else also vote against because of the fact that if this passes, evil grizzly bears will be recognised by the World Assembly.

In all seriousness, here is some feedback.

Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;

I don't really see how this necessitates repeal, to be honest.

Seriously concerned that the way in which this resolution requires member nations to criminalise the use by law enforcement officers of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" a person and to "punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles" apply not only when the decisions about how much force is necessary are made at the time of the incident concerned but also "in retrospect", combined with its requirement that the nations regularly review such matters, mean that such decisions sometimes must be made in retrospect and that this _

Rewrite:

Seriously concerned by the way in which this resolution requires member nations to criminalise the use by law enforcement officers of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" and to "punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles"; this applies not only when the decisions about how much force is necessary are made at the time of the incident concerned, but also "in retrospect"; combined with its requirement that member nations regularly review such matters, this means that such decisions sometimes must be made in retrospect, and:

unbalanced and seems unfair;

Change "seems" to "is"

Understanding that the legal requirement for law enforcement officers to carry "body-worn cameras" would hinder their ability to carry out undercover investigations;

Rewrite:

Understanding the requirement for the use of such cameras also severely hinders their ability to carry out undercover investigations;

a loophole that nations hostile to this legislation could exploit easily -- by issuing cameras with only very small recording capacities -- to render the cameras effectively useless;

Not a fan of the " -- "s, I think it'd be better just using regular commas instead of those.

[Greater Cesnica]

Ambassador McCooley steps into the chamber, and sighs loudly upon seeing the matter being discussed. He makes his way over to his seat in the Assembly. Sitting down, he takes a lean back in his chair, assessing the screen on the wall adjacent to him and the text contained within the repeal. He turns on his microphone, as he prepares to respond to the assertions.

"Thank you, Ambassador Southwoods, for bringing this draft to our attention. So, let's see this first bit..."

Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;

"In my view this is irrelevant to the substantive aspects of the target Resolution. I also don't see the particular insult to most member nations here; as this Assembly has many times in the past written Resolutions binding on all member states with an eye on specifically combating issues in some member states."

Ignores the fact that the law enforcement officers typically will have had to make their decisions almost instantaneously, whereas people studying the evidence can take as long as they want about that before deciding, which is unbalanced and seems unfair;

"Ambassador, you are aware that this line of argumentation has been used many times to justify heinous, horrific acts of brutality and malice by law enforcement against innocent civilians?"

Effectively requires the people making those assessments to consider facts that the law enforcement officers involved had no way of knowing at the time, such as whether the perpetrator of a mass shooting had just run out of ammunition, instead of being able to consider only the facts that those law enforcement officers reasonably could have been expected to know;

"Let's consider the hypothetical you provided specifically. In any reasonable nation, an individual perpetrating a mass shooting who has just run out of ammunition would be considered an active threat by virtue of them being armed, no? The text of the target Resolution does not contradict this point, as a response to an active shooter or a rampage killer in general would undoubtedly entail a strong, potentially lethal response to prevent further harm to the public and law enforcement officers themselves. It is the same story where an individual pulls out a firearm on a police officer- the use of lesser force could be ruled out both in retrospect and in the moment due to the imminent harm that a law enforcement officer would find themselves in at that moment."

Lacks 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, which itself is excessive;

"My advice for law enforcement officers then is to not use force in situations where such usage of force could be considered excessive in retrospect."

Noting the resolution's requirement that member nations equip every one of their law enforcement officers with "body-worn cameras linked to any official vehicles they may be associated with which automatically turn on when those vehicles' lights or sirens activate" does not take into account the fact that some member nations might well be insufficiently advanced in technology or simply too poor to do this, whether by allowing exceptions or by offering assistance, and thus forces those nations either to do without at least some of the law enforcement officers whom they would otherwise employ or to disobey this resolution;

"With all due respect, the cost of body-worn cameras with such capabilities is in most cases significantly less than other areas of spending within member state police departments- including poorer ones. Firearms? Ammunition? Vehicles themselves? Electroshock weapons? The list goes on and on. As for member states being 'insufficiently advanced in technology'? Irrelevant. If domestic manufacturing is not possible then such member states can import body-worn cameras."

Understanding that the legal requirement for law enforcement officers to carry "body-worn cameras" would hinder their ability to carry out undercover investigations;

"Not particularly- body-worn cameras can and have been used successfully in many, many undercover operations and investigations in member states."

Realizing that the requirement for those cameras' use is rendered ineffective, anyway, by the fact that the resolution allows these devices to be turned off when "their recording capacity is fully utilised" but does not require that they possess at least any specific minimum amount of recording capacity, which is a loophole that nations hostile to this legislation could exploit easily -- by issuing cameras with only very small recording capacities -- to render the cameras effectively useless;

"This is a very strange argument, Ambassador. There are two ways to interpret this- one, the memory cards or storage devices that could be inserted and removed into the camera being issued with 'very small recording capacities', or the camera itself and its internal storage device being issued with 'very small recording capacities'. Both approaches seem quite impractical for a member state to pursue for extend periods of time due to the unique challenges of implementing such abnormally small recording capacities, especially given a time when all storage device or camera manufacturers are, to my knowledge, pursuing increasing storage capacities. In fact, I suspect that such a pursuit may in fact lead to investigation and an intervention as per GAR#440, 'Administrative Compliance Act'"

"Well, thank you for hearing my concerns everyone, but especially Ambassador Southwoods." McCooley turns off his microphone, stretching in his chair afterwards. "Need some coffee" he says to himself quietly, before standing up and exiting the chamber.

[Bears Armed Mission]

In all seriousness, here is some feedback.

Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;

I don't really see how this necessitates repeal, to be honest.

By itself, maybeso not, but it seems a valid enough argument to add to the others listed. My nation certainly denies and objects to those implications.

Seriously concerned that the way in which this resolution requires member nations to criminalise the use by law enforcement officers of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" a person and to "punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles" apply not only when the decisions about how much force is necessary are made at the time of the incident concerned but also "in retrospect", combined with its requirement that the nations regularly review such matters, mean that such decisions sometimes must be made in retrospect and that this _

Rewrite:

Seriously concerned by the way in which this resolution requires member nations to criminalise the use by law enforcement officers of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" and to "punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles"; this applies not only when the decisions about how much force is necessary are made at the time of the incident concerned, but also "in retrospect"; combined with its requirement that member nations regularly review such matters, this means that such decisions sometimes must be made in retrospect, and:

I'm considering this.

unbalanced and seems unfair;

Change "seems" to "is"

I probably will.

Understanding that the legal requirement for law enforcement officers to carry "body-worn cameras" would hinder their ability to carry out undercover investigations;

Rewrite:

Understanding the requirement for the use of such cameras also severely hinders their ability to carry out undercover investigations;

Maybe.

a loophole that nations hostile to this legislation could exploit easily -- by issuing cameras with only very small recording capacities -- to render the cameras effectively useless;

Not a fan of the " -- "s, I think it'd be better just using regular commas instead of those.

Maybe.

[Bears Armed Mission]

(OOC: When Ambassador McCooley has returned to the chamber, or has sent one of his staff to find out the response...)

Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;

"In my view this is irrelevant to the substantive aspects of the target Resolution. I also don't see the particular insult to most member nations here; as this Assembly has many times in the past written Resolutions binding on all member states with an eye on specifically combating issues in some member states."

If it considered the problems to exist only in some member states then it should have said so: As written, it clearly suggests that the problems exist in all member states. The insult to those nations not at fault might have been unintentional, but it is still there.

Ignores the fact that the law enforcement officers typically will have had to make their decisions almost instantaneously, whereas people studying the evidence can take as long as they want about that before deciding, which is unbalanced and seems unfair;

"Ambassador, you are aware that this line of argumentation has been used many times to justify heinous, horrific acts of brutality and malice by law enforcement against innocent civilians?"

No. Hrreally? In any case, allowing people who want to find fault with the police hours in which to look at the evidence when the law enforcement officers had only seconds at the most to make their decisions is not balanced: Maybeso a limit of one minute of study for each second during the incident would be a reasonable compromise?
Furthermore, the resolution apparently does not rule out multiple attempts at finding fault with an officer's behaviour in a particular incident if the first attempt fails to convince the courts, which again seems unbalanced and unfair...

Effectively requires the people making those assessments to consider facts that the law enforcement officers involved had no way of knowing at the time, such as whether the perpetrator of a mass shooting had just run out of ammunition, instead of being able to consider only the facts that those law enforcement officers reasonably could have been expected to know;

"Let's consider the hypothetical you provided specifically. In any reasonable nation, an individual perpetrating a mass shooting who has just run out of ammunition would be considered an active threat by virtue of them being armed, no? The text of the target Resolution does not contradict this point, as a response to an active shooter or a rampage killer in general would undoubtedly entail a strong, potentially lethal response to prevent further harm to the public and law enforcement officers themselves. It is the same story where an individual pulls out a firearm on a police officer- the use of lesser force could be ruled out both in retrospect and in the moment due to the imminent harm that a law enforcement officer would find themselves in at that moment."

But the resolution's wording does not allow decisions about the officers' behaviour to be made on the basis of reasonably perceived threats, as you suggest here, only on whether in hindsight they used more force than was actually necessary... and if a shooter has run out of ammunition then using lethal force against them usually woud be using more force than in hindsight was actually needed.

Lacks 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, which itself is excessive;

"My advice for law enforcement officers then is to not use force in situations where such usage of force could be considered excessive in retrospect."

Who knows what might be considered excessive in retrospect, especially as the resolution sets no time limit on how much later such matters can be considered? Social attitudes can vary over time, after all... and having to consider whether their actions might be considered, on every action when the use of force seems necessary, might well delay the officers' reactions to events for long enough to let their targets inflict further harm on people present.

Noting the resolution's requirement that member nations equip every one of their law enforcement officers with "body-worn cameras linked to any official vehicles they may be associated with which automatically turn on when those vehicles' lights or sirens activate" does not take into account the fact that some member nations might well be insufficiently advanced in technology or simply too poor to do this, whether by allowing exceptions or by offering assistance, and thus forces those nations either to do without at least some of the law enforcement officers whom they would otherwise employ or to disobey this resolution;

"With all due respect, the cost of body-worn cameras with such capabilities is in most cases significantly less than other areas of spending within member state police departments- including poorer ones. Firearms? Ammunition? Vehicles themselves? Electroshock weapons? The list goes on and on. As for member states being 'insufficiently advanced in technology'? Irrelevant. If domestic manufacturing is not possible then such member states can import body-worn cameras."

You do realise that having to import the devices -- and the extra expertise needed to maintain them -- would probably increase the cost, yes? Do you realise that not all police forces do issue, and perhaps even some police forces could not afford to issue, all of the other items that you list for comparison there?

Understanding that the legal requirement for law enforcement officers to carry "body-worn cameras" would hinder their ability to carry out undercover investigations;

"Not particularly- body-worn cameras can and have been used successfully in many, many undercover operations and investigations in member states."

You've never heard of criminals searching people to check that they aren't "wearing a wire"? Hrreally? And that's even if the technology available makes the cameras small enough not to be obvious without a specific search...

Realizing that the requirement for those cameras' use is rendered ineffective, anyway, by the fact that the resolution allows these devices to be turned off when "their recording capacity is fully utilised" but does not require that they possess at least any specific minimum amount of recording capacity, which is a loophole that nations hostile to this legislation could exploit easily -- by issuing cameras with only very small recording capacities -- to render the cameras effectively useless;

"This is a very strange argument, Ambassador. There are two ways to interpret this- one, the memory cards or storage devices that could be inserted and removed into the camera being issued with 'very small recording capacities', or the camera itself and its internal storage device being issued with 'very small recording capacities'. Both approaches seem quite impractical for a member state to pursue for extend periods of time due to the unique challenges of implementing such abnormally small recording capacities, especially given a time when all storage device or camera manufacturers are, to my knowledge, pursuing increasing storage capacities. In fact, I suspect that such a pursuit may in fact lead to investigation and an intervention as per GAR#440, 'Administrative Compliance Act'"

A nation's police forces, or even the police force of a single large city, might well number in the tens of thousands. Given that fact, and the number of cameras that would be required in such cases, a government that did not want its police's actions to be scrutinised closely might find it worthwhile to commission a manufacturing run of cameras with limited capabilities... and as the resolution does not even specify that the cameras must have "adequate" or "reasonable" recording capacity I doubt very much whether the Administrative Compliance Act would be considered applicable.

[The Adeptorum]

OOC:

I have a draft on the same topic posted here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=514568. Sadly, due to personal problems I do not have the time required to properly fix and improve it. Feel free to take whatever you want from it as I am dropping the DRAFT even if I honestly disagree with the proposal.

Once I have the time to read yours, I'll post my comments on it.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

A nation's police forces, or even the police force of a single large city, might well number in the tens of thousands. Given that fact, and the number of cameras that would be required in such cases, a government that did not want its police's actions to be scrutinised closely might find it worthwhile to commission a manufacturing run of cameras with limited capabilities... and as the resolution does not even specify that the cameras must have "adequate" or "reasonable" recording capacity I doubt very much whether the Administrative Compliance Act would be considered applicable.

I do not know if there is a full study on this anywhere, but anecdotally, IRL, Nashville, TN's police force estimates its expenditures at about 3 million per year to equip 1.222 officers and 740 police cruisers (or just over 1.529 USD per camera, yearly, though this does represent essentially ALL patrol officers). While the provenance is questionable we also have:
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/BWCCostBenefit.pdf
which shows Dallas, Phoenix, and Mesa costs within the 1.000 to 2.500 per camera range, though those departments also have REALLY low deployment rates compared to Nashville.

I assume some economy of scale is going on (Dallas has about as many cameras as Nashville, Mesa and Phoenix are deploying significantly smaller numbers of cameras at higher per camera costs, but it is still conjecture on my part that an economy of scale is going in).

I could see the budget being a problem in a more marginal office, somewhere that has like 50 to 60 officers.

Source Links:
Nashville Police budget: https://www.nashville.gov/sites/default ... 1633361361
Nashville BWC Program: https://www.nashville.gov/departments/p ... rn-cameras

[Greater Thamesholm Concilliar Republic]

“We support this.

The proletariat needs our brave, hard-working,
police for protection from sadistic bourgeois thugs such as those who point realistic replica guns at them to put them in fear of their life, shout threats at women or the elderly from vehicles with tinted windows or make death threats with their hands in their pockets.

The typical progress of such people is thus:
1. WestThames College bully
2. Harasser of women at their university
3. Bourgeois repressive state operative
4. Unemployed thug sore at the world
5. murderous Contra.”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;

"I have to be honest, ambassador, this comes off as toddler-level whining. Are nations in compliance with Resolution #9 insulted by its prohibitions? Do nations that have eliminated terrorist groups take umbrage at the wording of Resolution #25? My country is a relatively prosperous land, devoid of warlords and ethnic violence, and we've adequately peaceful relations with our neighbors - should we be up in arms over the World Assembly's outrageous presumption that we require an entire law to stop us from committing genocide? Repeal everything, sir! Tear it all down, for it is a grave insult to the member nations that are living paradises to insinuate that any member state actually needs WA resolutions! We mustn't allow the despicable accusation that member states are imperfect to reverberate through these halls! Tear it all down, I say!"

[Greater Thamesholm Concilliar Republic]

I think you should send this off now, it seems to have majority support on here.

[Tinfect]

Remembering, however, which road is said to be paved with good intentions;

"Do explain which road that is, and why your nation's roads concern the World Assembly, with regards to law enforcement. Or, don't. The point is that oblique cultural references are bad form considering that the World Assembly is an international institution."

Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;

"The Imperium finds itself in agreement with the Lyricalian delegation on this matter; it may very well be the case that neither the Imperium nor your nation has such concerns, but their existence within foreign governments is unquestionable. The World Assembly does not refuse to prohibit slavery on the grounds that it would imply that those nations without the institution might indeed maintain it; to do such in this case is, simply absurd."

Seriously concerned that the way in which this resolution requires member nations to criminalise the use by law enforcement officers of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" a person and to "punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles" apply not only when the decisions about how much force is necessary are made at the time of the incident concerned but also "in retrospect", combined with its requirement that the nations regularly review such matters, mean that such decisions sometimes must be made in retrospect and that this _

"The Imperium will note that this perceived demand of wholly retroactive decision-making is based wholly on a particular interpretation of the target; do observe the following excepts of the legislation in question:"

[...] 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),

"In simple terms, Ambassador, the decision may be made based on the conditions at the scene or by later analysis, as a Member-State sees fit. With regards to regular review, there is no mandate that Member-States may not take into account the assessment of the personnel on-scene."

Ignores the fact that the law enforcement officers typically will have had to make their decisions almost instantaneously, whereas people studying the evidence can take as long as they want about that before deciding, which is unbalanced and seems unfair;

"This argument is, frankly, incoherent. One would hope that law enforcement personnel are highly trained individuals specifically and uniquely, excepting perhaps for military personnel, selected for their ability to make adequate decisions under significant difficulty. If a Member-State's law-enforcement personnel are inclined to violence at the slightest uncertainty, then that is a significant flaw within the organization in question, and it is best replaced. Additionally, 'seem's unfair', is, shall we say, not convincing."

Noting the resolution's requirement that member nations equip every one of their law enforcement officers with "body-worn cameras linked to any official vehicles they may be associated with which automatically turn on when those vehicles' lights or sirens activate" does not take into account the fact that some member nations might well be insufficiently advanced in technology or simply too poor to do this, whether by allowing exceptions or by offering assistance, and thus forces those nations either to do without at least some of the law enforcement officers whom they would otherwise employ or to disobey this resolution;

Understanding that the legal requirement for law enforcement officers to carry "body-worn cameras" would hinder their ability to carry out undercover investigations;

Realizing that the requirement for those cameras' use is rendered ineffective, anyway, by the fact that the resolution allows these devices to be turned off when "their recording capacity is fully utilised" but does not require that they possess at least any specific minimum amount of recording capacity, which is a loophole that nations hostile to this legislation could exploit easily -- by issuing cameras with only very small recording capacities -- to render the cameras effectively useless;

"These appear to be legitimate, if minor concerns. The Imperium will note that the Resolution may additionally be read to require Member-States to endlessly revisit all recorded instances of force on a regular basis; an insurmountable bureaucratic nightmare.

All that being said, regardless of the myriad flaws of this draft, The Imperium offers tentative support; the target is simply an undue burden on the effective enforcement of the law."

[WayNeacTia]

the target is simply an undue burden on the effective enforcement of the law."

And thus the crux of the whole repeal argument.

"For these reasons, my Mission has been instructed that if this proposed resolution is passed then we should produce a 'Repeal' proposal. If we are forced by events to do so, and that repeal also passes, then I hope that the sponsoring nations will take our reasoning into account when drafting any replacement for this text."

The World Assembly,

1. Recognising the good intentions behind G.A. Resolution #590 'LEO Force Restrictions';

2. Remembering, however, which road is said to be paved with good intentions;

3. Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;

4. Seriously concerned that the way in which this resolution requires member nations to criminalise the use by law enforcement officers of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" and "punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles" apply not only when the decisions about how much force is necessary are made at the time of the incident concerned but also "in retrospect", combined with its requirement that the nations regularly review such matters, mean that such decisions sometimes must be made in retrospect and that this _
A. Ignores the fact that the law enforcement officers typically will have had to make their decisions almost instantaneously, whereas people studying the evidence can take as long as they want about that before deciding, which is unbalanced and seems unfair;
B. Effectively requires the people making those assessments to consider facts that the law enforcement officers involved had no way of knowing at the time, such as whether the perpetrator of a mass shooting had just run out of ammunition, instead of being able to consider only the facts that those law enforcement officers reasonably could have been expected to know;
C./ Lacks 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, which itself is excessive;

5. Noting the resolution's requirement that member nations equip every one of their law enforcement officers with "body-worn cameras linked to any official vehicles they may be associated with which automatically turn on when those vehicles' lights or sirens activate" does not take into account the fact that some member nations might well be insufficiently advanced in technology or simply too poor to do this, whether by allowing exceptions or by offering assistance, and thus forces those nations either to do without at least some of the law enforcement officers whom they would otherwise employ or to disobey this resolution;

6. Noting also that the requirement for those cameras is rendered ineffective, anyway, by the fact that the resolution allows these devices to be turned off when "their recording capacity is fully utilised" but does not require that they possess at least any specific minimum amount of recording capacity, which is a loophole that nations hostile to this legislation could exploit easily -- by issuing cameras with only very small recording capacities -- to render the cameras effectively useless;

7. Hoping that if a replacement for G.A. Resolution #590 is considered necessary then the authors of that new legislation take these points into account;

Hereby repeals G.A. Resolution #590 'LEO Force Restrictions'.

And the second draft:

The World Assembly,

1. Recognising the good intentions behind G.A. Resolution #590 'LEO Force Restrictions';
   
   
2. Remembering, however, which road is said to be paved with good intentions;
   
   
3. Believing that the resolution's assertions that people's rights to life are "often infringed upon" by law enforcement officers' excessive use of force and that member nations contain "historically marginalised groups", although they might be correct in the case of some countries, are deeply insulting to the many member nations in which those situations do not exist;
   
   
4. Seriously concerned that the way in which this resolution requires member nations to criminalise the use by law enforcement officers of "significantly more force than is necessary in the situation to restrain and subsequently detain" a person and to "punish any entities that continue to employ LEOs that have administered force in contradiction of such Articles" apply not only when the decisions about how much force is necessary are made at the time of the incident concerned but also "in retrospect", combined with its requirement that the nations regularly review such matters, mean that such decisions sometimes must be made in retrospect and that this _
   
   1. Ignores the fact that the law enforcement officers typically will have had to make their decisions almost instantaneously, whereas people studying the evidence can take as long as they want about that before deciding, which is unbalanced and seems unfair;
   2. Effectively requires the people making those assessments to consider facts that the law enforcement officers involved had no way of knowing at the time, such as whether the perpetrator of a mass shooting had just run out of ammunition, instead of being able to consider only the facts that those law enforcement officers reasonably could have been expected to know;
   3. Lacks 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, which itself is excessive;
   
   
5. Noting the resolution's requirement that member nations equip every one of their law enforcement officers with "body-worn cameras linked to any official vehicles they may be associated with which automatically turn on when those vehicles' lights or sirens activate" does not take into account the fact that some member nations might well be insufficiently advanced in technology or simply too poor to do this, whether by allowing exceptions or by offering assistance, and thus forces those nations either to do without at least some of the law enforcement officers whom they would otherwise employ or to disobey this resolution;
   
   
6. Understanding that the legal requirement for law enforcement officers to carry "body-worn cameras" would hinder their ability to carry out undercover investigations;
   
   
7. Realizing that the requirement for those cameras' use is rendered ineffective, anyway, by the fact that the resolution allows these devices to be turned off when "their recording capacity is fully utilised" but does not require that they possess at least any specific minimum amount of recording capacity, which is a loophole that nations hostile to this legislation could exploit easily -- by issuing cameras with only very small recording capacities -- to render the cameras effectively useless;
   
   
8. Hoping that if a replacement for G.A. Resolution #590 is considered necessary then the authors of that new legislation take these points into account;

Hereby repeals G.A. Resolution #590 'LEO Force Restrictions'.

In addition to incorporating the "list" formatting, this version adds one extra clause which is now labelled "6".

Artorrios O Southwoods,
ChairBear,
Bears Armed Mission to the W.A. .

Link to the target resolution

Forget all the fluff and bullshit and just boil it down to these key points:

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)", is an unreasonable and life threatening mandate to place on peace officers. Situations are dynamic and ever changing and and in the heat of the moment they do not have the time nor the spare focus to continually reassess whether less force should be used, particularly when a subject is armed and acting in an unstable or irrational manner. (Please do not use that verbaitm)

2. "not use excessive force against any person", is an unreasonable burden as "excessive force is never defined".

3. "strongly recommends that entities that employ LEOs ensure that they are accompanied by at least one other LEO when on duty", is beyond the scope of reasonable and places a massive financial burden on smaller town police forces and county sheriffs.

[Bears Armed]

OOC quick note: I have read the posts since my last reply here, some points I agree with and some I don't.

The line about the road said to be paved with good intentions was, although I included it in the first draft, one that I expected probably to drop before the final, submitted version anyway: Consider it gone.

The point that "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)", is an unreasonable and life threatening mandate to place on peace officers is a good one, and a clause to that effect will be added.

The operative term "Recommends" -- even as "Strongly recommends" -- counts only as a hope by the Assembly, rather than as a binding mandate on the member nations: Therefore describing it as a burden on the member nations would be inaccurate enough to make this proposal illegal under the 'Honest Mistake' rule.

[WayNeacTia]

The operative term "Recommends" -- even as "Strongly recommends" -- counts only as a hope by the Assembly, rather than as a binding mandate on the member nations: Therefore describing it as a burden on the member nations would be inaccurate enough to make this proposal illegal under the 'Honest Mistake' rule.

Please explain how a recommendation can be binding enough to count as a sole operative clause in a mild resolution, but only count as an urging when it comes to a repeal?

[Tinfect]

Please explain how a recommendation can be binding enough to count as a sole operative clause in a mild resolution, but only count as an urging when it comes to a repeal?

OOC:
While this is neither the time nor place for this discussion, it has been long held that non-mandatory clauses still count as having an effect on Member-States. Think of it as the World Assembly formally pressuring members on an issue. This is not controversial or unique.

[Blind Squirrel]

OOC:
While this is neither the time nor place for this discussion, it has been long held that non-mandatory clauses still count as having an effect on Member-States. Think of it as the World Assembly formally pressuring members on an issue. This is not controversial or unique.

viewtopic.php?p=28105465#p28105465

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC:
While this is neither the time nor place for this discussion, it has been long held that non-mandatory clauses still count as having an effect on Member-States. Think of it as the World Assembly formally pressuring members on an issue. This is not controversial or unique.

viewtopic.php?p=28105465#p28105465

OOC: That is a deep cut, wow. I think a statement made in response to a discussion - which took place before GenSec was established - about modifying or replacing the former ruleset with a prospective new version that was never adopted, the particular piece of which I was arguing about having since been replaced anyway, is not a "gotcha" against the well-attested and in fact canonical claim that "non-mandatory clauses still count as having an effect on Member-States."

[Wallenburg]

OOC:
While this is neither the time nor place for this discussion, it has been long held that non-mandatory clauses still count as having an effect on Member-States. Think of it as the World Assembly formally pressuring members on an issue. This is not controversial or unique.

viewtopic.php?p=28105465#p28105465

Considering GenSec didn't even exist at the time of that post, it carries not even the shadow of the impression of legal precedent. You can argue that non-mandatory clauses do not satisfy the Optionality rule. That's fine and more power to you, I think it's stupid too. But you'll have to make a legality challenge, and I rather doubt GenSec will rule the way you want. The words of an individual player made so many years ago won't change the language of the Optionality rule:

Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all member nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed. However, for 'Mild' strength proposals, terminology such as "URGES", "RECOMMENDS" is acceptable.