FT 16.19 - Frémont Safer Policing Act (DEBATING)

[OBD]

A BILL
To standardize, clarify, and reform policing standards throughout the Commonwealth of Frémont

Be it enacted by Parliament:

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Frémont Safer Policing Act.

Section 2. Procedures for Smart, Safe, and Responsible Policing and De-escalation

1. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from choking, strangling, or imposing any form of neck restraint on civilians.

2. Law enforcement officials must de-escalate conflicts, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and exhausting all means including non-force and less lethal force options, prior to using lethal force.  De-escalation means and guidelines are established in Section 3 of this Act.

3. Law enforcement officials must give verbal warning in all situations before using deadly force.

4. Law enforcement officials must intervene and stop excessive force used by other officers and report misconduct, including violations of procedures as established by this Act and the Peaceful Streets Act, immediately to a supervisor.  Failure to deter or report clear observances of police conduct shall result in liability for officers for injury caused to civilians and property in instances where such might have been prevented.

5. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from firing weaponry at moving vehicles in all circumstances.

6. Comprehensive reporting to the appropriate department shall be required whenever use of force is threatened or used, including instances when a firearm is pointed at someone, in addition to all other types of force.

7. In the event that a civilian requests or expresses need for medical attention, law enforcement shall be compelled to provide aid or transportation to an incapacitated subject.  Under no circumstance may physical force be applied to an individual requiring emergency medical care.

Section 3. Use of Force Continuum

In compliance with this Act, all law enforcement officials must be trained in identifying the appropriate level of force in one's response as dictated by a given situation:

Level 1 - Officer Presence.  The mere presence of a police officer in uniform or in a marked vehicle is often enough to stop a crime in progress or prevent situations from escalating.  This "zero" level of force, including simple use of body language and gestures, shall be the preferred way to resolve any situation if possible.

Level 2 - Verbal Commands.  Used in combination with a visible presence, the use of verbal direction (including demands to display one's ID or a clear, verbal indication that the subject is under detainment or arrest) will almost always deter further conflict.  Officers are encouraged to use their demeanor in a way that is calm but firm and non-threatening, but choice of words and intensity can be increased as necessary or used in short commands in more serious situations.

Level 3 - Empty Hand Control.  In certain situations where words alone will not reduce aggression or conflict, law enforcement may engage physically.  These two levels of control, which do not require the aid of equipment or weapons, are separated into two categories called "sot empty hand techniques" and "hard empty hand techniques".

Soft Empty Hand Techniques. - This level of minimal force may involve the use of bare hands to guide, hold, and restrain, applying pressure points, and take down techniques that have a minimum chance of injury.

Hard Empty Hand Techniques. - At this level use of force includes kicks, punches, or other striking techniques such as the brachial stun or other strikes to key motor point that have a moderate chance of injury.

Level 4 - Pepper Spray, Baton, Taser.  When a suspect is violent or threatening, the use of non or minimally lethal weapons including the aforementioned equipment may be used to bring the suspect under control or affect an arrest.  Before moving to this level of force, it should be assumed that less physical measures have already been tried.

Level 5 - Less Lethal.  Less-lethal weapons may be employed when (a) lethal force is not appropriate, (b) lethal force is available as backup but lesser force may subdue the aggressor, or (c) lethal force is justified but its use could cause serious collateral effects, such as injury to bystanders or damage to environment and property.  These weapons may be used to temporarily incapacitate, confuse, delay, or restrain an adversary, but the prohibition of "rubber bullets" and "stun grenades", as prescribed by the Safer Crowd Control Act, shall remain in place.

Level 6 - Deadly Force.  Only if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to an officer or others may the use of deadly force be applied.

Section 4. Ending Qualified Immunity

It shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought against a Regional, State, or local government official that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when a Fremonter's rights secured by the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Atlasia have not been appropriately protected.

Sponsor: Scott (Beauty and Bread/Labor, Wyoming)

Sponsor, speak!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The promised, long-awaited police reform bill is finally here!

So, unlike previous criminal justice reform bills that have been passed, this is, I believe, the first bill to directly address police procedures.  Most of the reforms in this bill are based on Campaign Zero's #8CantWait platform, which makes region-wide use of force policies enacted in Atlasia's 100 largest cities since the killing of George Floyd in Minnesota.  Most of the changes to the procedure should be fairly straightforward, and while various forms of these policies have already been enacted in a number of localities, loopholes are frequently exploited to let rogue cops off the hook.

One of these is the total ban on shooting at moving vehicles, which I would assume to be the least understood change.  To explain this one simply, shooting at any moving vehicle is inherently dangerous, especially to bystanders, other drivers, and destroys local property.  Although most departments restrict this to some extent, it is one example where loopholes are used to justify the practice when unintended consequences ensue.

In addition, this bill establishes a right to emergency medical care for all suspects and individuals who demand or indicate a need for it.  Those three words we are all too familiar with, "I can't breathe", uttered by the likes of George Floyd and Eric Garner and countless other men, predominantly men of color, who have died at the hands of police, shall be treated as a demand for immediate medical aid regardless of what the suspect has been accused of.

Lastly, this bill ends the policy of qualified immunity.  This particular change revokes what the RL Supreme Court has wrongly created and expanded in multiple cases to create a general good faith defense for officers accused of excessive force so long as the officials did not violate "clearly established" law - a vague and obscure standard which has absolved countless officers of inappropriate use of force.

By passing this bill, we are sending a message that law enforcement works exclusively for the safety of the people and not themselves or members of their department, free of racial bias and directed by a new standard that shall de-escalate situations with no or as little use of force as possible.

[OBD]

Bumping for the new Parli.

This is a commonsense bill that I wholeheartedly support.

[Saint Milei]

Before I address this bill, are no knock warrants banned? If not, it needs to be added.


Now for my issues with this bill:

Section 2:

2.4: Part of the issue with police holding their own accountable is there are no protections for policeblowing. How can we ensure police officers who hold their own accountable won't be penalized by police departments? Especially new recruits who learn more from watching how officers work in the field.

2.5: Under any circumstance? What are they supposed to do then? Ram into the car? There should be some heavy restrictions, not outright abolition of firing weapons at moving cars.

Section 3:
Physical force: While deadly force should be restricted, I don't see why we can't increase the training in hand to hand combat for officers. I don't want an officer knocking the wind out of a suspect, but I'd rather a busted lip than the death of an unarmed suspect.





A few suggestions I would add:

-Expanding the database to get more information on police encounters. Specifically areas at high risk of encounters.
-If no knock warrants are legal, remove this
-Remove all limits on body cameras. Let's make it so that when a police officer steps out of his car, the camera is already on and the camera continues to be on until the suspect is in custody.
-Mandate the use of beanbag guns for officers who encounter unarmed suspects (suspects without a gun)
-Mandate departments in local communities to have townhall meetings with citizens to create a better relationship. Officers and local communities ought to know and trust each other

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I obviously support this bill and look forward to signing it into law. I don't recall if we have banned no-knock warrants already, but if not I agree with the member from Colorado that this should be expanded accordingly. I would likewise support an amendment to protect whistleblowers from retribution, official or otherwise.

[PSOL]

If not national law already, I would like to prohibit weaponry and vehicles coming from the Armed Forces from being given to regular law enforcement and even most SWAT teams. There’s very little good reason why weapons of war should be warranted in dealing with crime.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If not national law already, I would like to prohibit weaponry and vehicles coming from the Armed Forces from being given to regular law enforcement and even most SWAT teams. There’s very little good reason why weapons of war should be warranted in dealing with crime.

We demilitarized the police in 2017.

[Saint Milei]

I'm going to put forth some amendments in the future to strengthen the bill

[Saint Milei]

I propose the following amendment:

Section 2.8:
No knock warrants are completely outlawed in all cases except in uses for suspects on a terrorist watch list, Atlasia Most Wanted list, sex traffickers, and highly profiled drug traffickers.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Could we define "highly profiled?"

[Saint Milei]

Could we define "highly profiled?"

Sure. I was thinking more like traffickers who move enough weight to have 7 figures in revenue+

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Could we define "highly profiled?"

Sure. I was thinking more like traffickers who move enough weight to have 7 figures in revenue+

That should probably be in the amendment.

[Anna Komnene]

This is a great bill that I'm happy to support.

The first thing that comes to mind is maybe adding an official certification requirement for officers in the field to train and stay up to date on the procedures for use of force with a certain number of training hours. I think periodic re-certification highlights the importance of compliance and will also foster better instincts since a lot of times people are acting on instinct in high stress situations. We could create a commission to oversee the certifications and require officers to re-certify, maybe every 2-3 years?

[OBD]

A BILL
To standardize, clarify, and reform policing standards throughout the Commonwealth of Frémont

Be it enacted by Parliament:

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Frémont Safer Policing Act.

Section 2. Procedures for Smart, Safe, and Responsible Policing and De-escalation

1. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from choking, strangling, or imposing any form of neck restraint on civilians.

2. Law enforcement officials must de-escalate conflicts, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and exhausting all means including non-force and less lethal force options, prior to using lethal force.  De-escalation means and guidelines are established in Section 3 of this Act.

3. Law enforcement officials must give verbal warning in all situations before using deadly force.

4. Law enforcement officials must intervene and stop excessive force used by other officers and report misconduct, including violations of procedures as established by this Act and the Peaceful Streets Act, immediately to a supervisor.  Failure to deter or report clear observances of police conduct shall result in liability for officers for injury caused to civilians and property in instances where such might have been prevented. Additionally, police departments are prohibited from prosecuting reporters of misconduct, or using threat of retribution to dissuade officials from reporting observances of misconduct.

5. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from firing weaponry at moving vehicles in all circumstances.

6. Comprehensive reporting to the appropriate department shall be required whenever use of force is threatened or used, including instances when a firearm is pointed at someone, in addition to all other types of force.

7. In the event that a civilian requests or expresses need for medical attention, law enforcement shall be compelled to provide aid or transportation to an incapacitated subject.  Under no circumstance may physical force be applied to an individual requiring emergency medical care.

8. No knock warrants are completely outlawed in all cases except in uses for suspects on a terrorist watch list, Atlasia Most Wanted list, sex traffickers, and highly profiled drug traffickers.

9. "Highly profiled drug traffickers" are defined as drug traffickers with estimated profits per annum exceeding $1,000,000.

Section 3. Use of Force Continuum

In compliance with this Act, all law enforcement officials must be trained in identifying the appropriate level of force in one's response as dictated by a given situation:

Level 1 - Officer Presence.  The mere presence of a police officer in uniform or in a marked vehicle is often enough to stop a crime in progress or prevent situations from escalating.  This "zero" level of force, including simple use of body language and gestures, shall be the preferred way to resolve any situation if possible.

Level 2 - Verbal Commands.  Used in combination with a visible presence, the use of verbal direction (including demands to display one's ID or a clear, verbal indication that the subject is under detainment or arrest) will almost always deter further conflict.  Officers are encouraged to use their demeanor in a way that is calm but firm and non-threatening, but choice of words and intensity can be increased as necessary or used in short commands in more serious situations.

Level 3 - Empty Hand Control.  In certain situations where words alone will not reduce aggression or conflict, law enforcement may engage physically.  These two levels of control, which do not require the aid of equipment or weapons, are separated into two categories called "sot empty hand techniques" and "hard empty hand techniques".

Soft Empty Hand Techniques. - This level of minimal force may involve the use of bare hands to guide, hold, and restrain, applying pressure points, and take down techniques that have a minimum chance of injury.

Hard Empty Hand Techniques. - At this level use of force includes kicks, punches, or other striking techniques such as the brachial stun or other strikes to key motor point that have a moderate chance of injury.

Level 4 - Pepper Spray, Baton, Taser.  When a suspect is violent or threatening, the use of non or minimally lethal weapons including the aforementioned equipment may be used to bring the suspect under control or affect an arrest.  Before moving to this level of force, it should be assumed that less physical measures have already been tried.

Level 5 - Less Lethal.  Less-lethal weapons may be employed when (a) lethal force is not appropriate, (b) lethal force is available as backup but lesser force may subdue the aggressor, or (c) lethal force is justified but its use could cause serious collateral effects, such as injury to bystanders or damage to environment and property.  These weapons may be used to temporarily incapacitate, confuse, delay, or restrain an adversary, but the prohibition of "rubber bullets" and "stun grenades", as prescribed by the Safer Crowd Control Act, shall remain in place.

Level 6 - Deadly Force.  Only if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to an officer or others may the use of deadly force be applied.

Section 4. Ending Qualified Immunity

It shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought against a Regional, State, or local government official that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when a Fremonter's rights secured by the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Atlasia have not been appropriately protected.

Section 5. Frémont Law Enforcement Certification Commission

1. A Frémont Law Enforcement Certification Bureau shall be founded to oversee and manage the certification of law enforcement officials.

2. All law enforcement officials operating under Frémont jurisdiction shall be required to undergo a comprehensive certification process, with recertification required every 3 years. The certification process will be designed by the Frémont Law Enforcement Certification Bureau, and will include a minimum of X hours of training on up-to-date use of force procedures.

I've taken the liberty to compile some proposed amendments. The amendment Mr. Deadprez already proposed is in blue. Obviously this is incomplete so more input is appreciated.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Both the amendments offered by MPs DeadPrez and OBD are friendly and Members have 24 hours to object.

As far as shooting at moving vehicles, admittedly I've moved towards being on the fence for this one. I am not a police officer, but I still can't imagine a scenario where firing at a moving vehicle is actually good for the public safety, given how doing so can very easily endanger innocent people and bystanders. It also rather negates the ability of the police to give verbal warning prior to using lethal force. So I would like to hear some justification for not banning a practice that can so easily result in collateral damage.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Point of style, §2(9) should become §2(8-a).

[Saint Milei]

I don't think anyone will object to the amendments but we should discuss shooting at moving vehicles

[Anna Komnene]

I don't think anyone will object to the amendments but we should discuss shooting at moving vehicles

What exceptions did you have in mind? I would support an exception for things like the terrorist attack in Nice where the truck was driving through crowds of people. The problem is making it narrow enough to officers don't get trigger happy when they don't need to.

[OBD]

A BILL
To standardize, clarify, and reform policing standards throughout the Commonwealth of Frémont

Be it enacted by Parliament:

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Frémont Safer Policing Act.

Section 2. Procedures for Smart, Safe, and Responsible Policing and De-escalation

1. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from choking, strangling, or imposing any form of neck restraint on civilians.

2. Law enforcement officials must de-escalate conflicts, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and exhausting all means including non-force and less lethal force options, prior to using lethal force.  De-escalation means and guidelines are established in Section 3 of this Act.

3. Law enforcement officials must give verbal warning in all situations before using deadly force.

4. Law enforcement officials must intervene and stop excessive force used by other officers and report misconduct, including violations of procedures as established by this Act and the Peaceful Streets Act, immediately to a supervisor.  Failure to deter or report clear observances of police conduct shall result in liability for officers for injury caused to civilians and property in instances where such might have been prevented. Additionally, police departments are prohibited from prosecuting reporters of misconduct, or using threat of retribution to dissuade officials from reporting observances of misconduct.

5. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from firing weaponry at moving vehicles in all circumstances.

6. Comprehensive reporting to the appropriate department shall be required whenever use of force is threatened or used, including instances when a firearm is pointed at someone, in addition to all other types of force.

7. In the event that a civilian requests or expresses need for medical attention, law enforcement shall be compelled to provide aid or transportation to an incapacitated subject.  Under no circumstance may physical force be applied to an individual requiring emergency medical care.

8. No knock warrants are completely outlawed in all cases except in uses for suspects on a terrorist watch list, Atlasia Most Wanted list, sex traffickers, and highly profiled drug traffickers.
a. "Highly profiled drug traffickers" are defined as drug traffickers with estimated profits per annum exceeding $1,000,000.

Section 3. Use of Force Continuum

In compliance with this Act, all law enforcement officials must be trained in identifying the appropriate level of force in one's response as dictated by a given situation:

Level 1 - Officer Presence.  The mere presence of a police officer in uniform or in a marked vehicle is often enough to stop a crime in progress or prevent situations from escalating.  This "zero" level of force, including simple use of body language and gestures, shall be the preferred way to resolve any situation if possible.

Level 2 - Verbal Commands.  Used in combination with a visible presence, the use of verbal direction (including demands to display one's ID or a clear, verbal indication that the subject is under detainment or arrest) will almost always deter further conflict.  Officers are encouraged to use their demeanor in a way that is calm but firm and non-threatening, but choice of words and intensity can be increased as necessary or used in short commands in more serious situations.

Level 3 - Empty Hand Control.  In certain situations where words alone will not reduce aggression or conflict, law enforcement may engage physically.  These two levels of control, which do not require the aid of equipment or weapons, are separated into two categories called "sot empty hand techniques" and "hard empty hand techniques".

Soft Empty Hand Techniques. - This level of minimal force may involve the use of bare hands to guide, hold, and restrain, applying pressure points, and take down techniques that have a minimum chance of injury.

Hard Empty Hand Techniques. - At this level use of force includes kicks, punches, or other striking techniques such as the brachial stun or other strikes to key motor point that have a moderate chance of injury.

Level 4 - Pepper Spray, Baton, Taser.  When a suspect is violent or threatening, the use of non or minimally lethal weapons including the aforementioned equipment may be used to bring the suspect under control or affect an arrest.  Before moving to this level of force, it should be assumed that less physical measures have already been tried.

Level 5 - Less Lethal.  Less-lethal weapons may be employed when (a) lethal force is not appropriate, (b) lethal force is available as backup but lesser force may subdue the aggressor, or (c) lethal force is justified but its use could cause serious collateral effects, such as injury to bystanders or damage to environment and property.  These weapons may be used to temporarily incapacitate, confuse, delay, or restrain an adversary, but the prohibition of "rubber bullets" and "stun grenades", as prescribed by the Safer Crowd Control Act, shall remain in place.

Level 6 - Deadly Force.  Only if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to an officer or others may the use of deadly force be applied.

Section 4. Ending Qualified Immunity

It shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought against a Regional, State, or local government official that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when a Fremonter's rights secured by the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Atlasia have not been appropriately protected.

Section 5. Frémont Law Enforcement Certification Commission

1. A Frémont Law Enforcement Certification Bureau shall be founded to oversee and manage the certification of law enforcement officials.

2. All law enforcement officials operating under Frémont jurisdiction shall be required to undergo a comprehensive certification process, with recertification required every 3 years. The certification process will be designed by the Frémont Law Enforcement Certification Bureau, and will include a minimum of X hours of training on up-to-date use of force procedures.

Over 24 hours so the amendment should be adopted. Proposing another to address the First Minister's style concerns.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

MPs have 24 hours to object.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Amendment for a minor change in section 4, based on a discussion with Tmth: I am changing the word "Fremonter's" to "person's" because specifying it to the region could allow officers to argue qualified immunity would still apply to people visiting from out of the region or country.

Section 4. Ending Qualified Immunity

It shall not be a defense or immunity to any action brought against a Regional, State, or local government official that the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when a Fremonter's person's rights secured by the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Atlasia have not been appropriately protected.

24 hours to object.

Also, both previous amendments are adopted.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hearing no objection, both amendments are adopted.

If DeadPrez or anyone else would like to make a case for why shooting at moving vehicles should be permitted, or if there are any other changes MPs would like to submit to improve the bill, please do so now otherwise we will move to a final vote.

[Anna Komnene]

I agree that officers shouldn't shoot at moving vehicles in the vast majority of cases, but I can't help but think of situations like the Nice attack where the vehicle is being used as a weapon where I think I'd want officers to be able to shoot if they had to. I mean... they would probably do it anyway in such an extreme case, but I wouldn't want them to hesitate if it could help. I'm not sure about the language. This is what I came up with. I am hoping that the imminent danger part would be enough to make clear not to do it unless people are likely going to die without action to prevent it.

Section 2.5

5. Law enforcement officials are prohibited from firing weaponry at moving vehicles in all circumstances except in cases where the vehicle or armed passengers pose an imminent danger to the lives of pedestrians.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Nice example actually would probably be a good reason to allow shooting at moving vehicles in very limited circumstances. I will accept the amendment as friendly.

Members have 24 hours to object.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hearing no objection, the amendment is adopted.

Debate resumes.