Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Blair]

Aye

The amendment looks good, the council idea looked good on paper but looked difficult to get working in practice. The amendment keeps in all the major parts of the bill

[Blair]

Voting Nay on the amendment,


gives too much power to police forces in controlling camera footage, and removes limits on police officers having offensive views

[Blair]

It wouldn't violate it for me. I mean the question is, police officers are public service officers. Would we let Teachers/Doctors go to online paedophile chats?

[Blair]

I second the objection.

[Blair]

Yeah I agree with that, Police officers should be held to the same standards as Teachers/Doctors in regards to extremist group membership, and or views

[Blair]

^ Yes, I'd be willing to do that.

I mean it just makes sense, given the obscene amount of power that police have, to prohibit individuals affiliated with certain kinds of organizations from becoming cops. That's the issue as I understand it.

And where do we end when we allow the fairy queen with the stick to come flying around "you may become a cop, you may not, you may, you may not..." This would be a terribly dangerous precedence we are setting here - first come nazis, what comes next? Left-handers? Blue-eyed-people? People that say uhm before any second word? I have before opposed such a clause, and I will continue to do so. (Notwithstanding that I hold it unconstitutional but I don't want to get on a second page-long debate about that...)

Quite Frankly Senator, you're going into the realms of fantasy.

Do you support teachers being paid up members of the KKK? The American Nazi Party?

[Blair]

Can I introduce an amendment on this?

[Blair]

Nay

[Blair]

I'll wait until the amendment vote is over, to introduce my amendment

[Blair]

Aye

[Blair]

Sorry it's taken so long for my amendment to come out, spend the last hour working on it only to realize that it needs more tinkering. Should be able to post it tomorrow morning/lunchtime for those interested

[Blair]

Here it is, I don't want this to be the final draft at all because it's my first attempt at writing major federal legislation, and there's likely to be holes in it. Other than that I feel it offers necessary protections for police officers whilst allowing civilian oversight. Any questions bout it, give me a shout

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blair]

Nay

[Blair]

Aye

[Blair]

I'm more than happy to make this a civil right matter, and give the Attorney General or who ever is required the power to make changes-this is a civil rights matter. Especially if incidents continue to happen where police officers are abusing their powers, only then to be let off.

I'm extremely upset that the senate has blocked this, only because I fear we're going to pass a bill that simply gives the police more funding without any form of regulation 

[Blair]

I'll wait for Polnuts amendment, but I think I speak for most labor senators in saying that we can actual reform-not just a re-arranging of deckchairs on the titantic

[Blair]

I object to the amendment, it leaves too much power to the regions in regulating themselves

[Blair]

Nay

[Blair]

I object to the amendment, it leaves too much power to the regions in regulating themselves

Respectfully, that's how it works when it's something within their purview.

We're the ones technically interferring here.

I suppose the senate was also interfering when it passed anti-lynching legislation

[Blair]

I'm proposing this amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I want to address three issues with this.

1) Local/state authorities can't be trusted fully, in my view with it you need an independent group to be able to look and control the footage. This is purely, because like in any regulation sense you want separation involved.
2) I want money to go towards community outreach. Specifically communities that need to open a dialogue with police forces. For example this could be anything from African-Americans, to LGBT Atlasians. Both these groups have suffered historic abuse from police forces, and both these groups can also help contribute to the overall debate.
3) I want the PIC's to actually have access to the stuff they need. There's no point spending all this money if they don't have the documents they need to make an informed decision

[Blair]

It's not about ideology or opposing the bill. It's about constitutionality. The federal government, legally, cannot set up an oversight agency to police, no pun intended, state or local police department. The senate can pass a law doing that, but the Court can and will overturn it, and then no progress will have been made.

You can put strings on funding and direct where it can go, but you can't directly meddle in regional affairs. The only way to accomplish that is to pass a federal amendment removing policing powers as a right left to regions/states.

Federal agencies already have access to state and local law enforcement documents and media through the subpoena power if the government brings a federal case against a state agency or actor.

My amendment doesn't do that anymore than Polnut's one, his amendment establishes the PIC's. Not mine.My amendment simply puts some flesh on the bones, and makes sure that the police actually commit to community policing.

Can you highlight the part of my amendment that is unconstitutional 

[Blair]

Senator Blair's amendment has my support. There is a typo 3b though, it should be PICs not PIC's, shouldn't it?

ah yeah my shoddy english skills. Will fix it

[Blair]

Aye

[Blair]

I motion for a final vote

[Blair]

what's the progress on this?