[GA - PASSED] Repeal: "LEO Force Restrictions"

---

General Assembly Resolution #590 “LEO Force Restrictions” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

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.

Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

---

“Repeal: ‘LEO Force Restrictions’” has passed 12,551 votes (79.4%) to 3,261 (20.5%).

IFV

---

Overview
This proposal seeks to repeal GA Resolution #590 “LEO Force Restrictions”. The proposal makes three main arguments against its target. First, that LEO Force Restrictions criminalises uses of force that is only excessive in retrospect. Second, that its body-worn camera mandate relies on too many assumptions about available technology and the circumstances in which excessive uses of force occur. Third, that its requirement for law enforcement officers provide necessary first aid to people they fatally injure criminalises as murder any fatal use of force by an officer, even where necessary in self-defence.

Recommendation
We agree with the author that the target resolution has several issues that could justify its repeal. The proposal’s first criticism, that the target retrospectively criminalises law enforcement officers for actions that were reasonable on the information available to them, is a strong one. We also agree that the target proposal’s body-worn camera mandate, by linking activation of such cameras to the use of lights or sirens, allows many excessive force incidents to go unrecorded, such as those involving law enforcement officers not attached to a vehicle or even where an officer cynically avoids use of lights or sirens. We are not convinced by the proposal’s third argument, as we consider it to overstate the effect of the target resolution, which neither requires that a failure to provide first aid be deemed murder nor requires first aid to be successful to escape criminalisation. However, all things considered, we find that the proposal makes a sufficient case for repeal of the target resolution.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Repeal: LEO Force Restrictions".

---

Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!

For

Regardless of other points, Clause 1 makes a very strong argument, and that alone is sufficiently convincing.

(Still first)

For.

I think some of the arguments made for the repeal are overblown, in particular, I don’t think it is right in terms of the effect of clause d of the target being to make all fatal uses of force necessarily murder, the target does not require a fatal use of force to be criminalised as being murder as opposed to some lesser degree of homicide or even a lesser crime and I don’t think the mere fact that someone who is provided first aid then dies means that there is a breach of the resolution.

However, the argument in clause 1 is a very strong one. Retrospective criminalisation is a very concerning thing and the target expressly contemplates it. Such criminalisation of officers who do genuinely act in what, in the circumstances known to them, is self-defence is a major flaw with the target, to my mind.

Clause 2 is not as strong, but I do agree that it raises some valid concerns about how effective the body-warn camera mandate actually is.

For.

For

All clauses raise valid arguments regarding the bill, and all of which would likely have some substantial effect in the territories where the raised differences apply. Clause 2 seems less likely to apply to the majority of states, however still seems reasonable in its points.

For

For

For

For

For

For

For

This proposal has received the requisite approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, this proposal will proceed to a vote in approximately 7 hours at Major Update.

For

For.

Present

I don't have a strong opinion on this as I really think this should really be a local responsibility, so I guess I am For repeal but not necessarily in favour of a replacement.

For

For