Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Lief 🗽]

The Senate should concern itself with passing the best legislation it can. If someone wants to challenge it after it becomes law, I have full confidence in our justice department to defend it.

[Cranberry]

The Senate should concern itself with passing the best legislation it can. If someone wants to challenge it after it becomes law, I have full confidence in our justice department to defend it.

The Senate should however equally concerns itself with passing legislation that does not violate our constitution.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

And, indeed, the "best" legislation would not be unconstitutional.

[Talleyrand]

The Senate should concern itself with passing the best legislation it can. If someone wants to challenge it after it becomes law, I have full confidence in our justice department to defend it.

I agree with Lief here; I haven't yet heard anything but a vague statement as to why exactly the provisions of the bill as it stands right now would be unconstitutional. If someone can give a coherent, specific argument on why this is out of bounds of the Senate's jurisdiction and proposes a viable alternative course of action, I would be up for that, but for now, I don't see why we can't keep this provision.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Senate should concern itself with passing the best legislation it can. If someone wants to challenge it after it becomes law, I have full confidence in our justice department to defend it.

I agree with Lief here; I haven't yet heard anything but a vague statement as to why exactly the provisions of the bill as it stands right now would be unconstitutional. If someone can give a coherent, specific argument on why this is out of bounds of the Senate's jurisdiction and proposes a viable alternative course of action, I would be up for that, but for now, I don't see why we can't keep this provision.

With respect Senator, the statements are not at all vague.

This is directing bodies over which we have no explicit jurisdiction, but another level of government explicitly does, to act and undertake their activities in a certain way. That is constitutionally questionable at best. If people wish to proceed down this path, that's your prerogative but I don't think our job should be about wish-fulfillment Bills that get struck down but people feel better for having tried. I want us to do something that is constitutionally valid and effective.

I will be providing amendments in the next 24 hours. I'm sure a few Senators will not like or support them, but I believe these will be the best way to get anywhere on this.

[windjammer]

Dear god,
I forgot the "local policies" in the US. Fine, I will support an amendment making this bill constitutional.

[Cranberry]

Dear god,
I forgot the "local policies" in the US. Fine, I will support an amendment making this bill constitutional.

I guess you can understand our points now?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

[quote]Amendment

Increasing Law-Enforcement Transparency Bill 2015

1. The Federal Government will allocate $50 million each year to the regions, divided on a population matrix, to increase measures to improve training and service provision by regional and local law enforcement bodies. In order to receive and retain this funding, the regions must acknowledge the following conditions.

1a. This funding cannot be directed toward the acquisition of equipment that are considered weapons of lethal force.
1b. This funding will be directed towards the provision of force-wide badge cameras for uniformed officers by the end of 2016. A further condition on the footage of these cameras is that while the relevant state and local authority will have ownership of said footage, the Federal Government will have full access to footage and the public will have the ability to view footage of direct relevance to themselves, after filing a freedom of information request through either their local jurisdiction, the regional government or the Federal Department of Internal Affairs.
1c. At least 20% of this funding must be directed towards increased training in non-lethal control techniques, community engagement and dispute resolution.
1d. At least 20% of this funding must be directed towards improvements in officer safety equipment (for example, stab-vests and improved body-armor).

2. An additional $20 million will be provided to the regions to enable them to institute full independent bodies to investigate alleged law enforcement misconduct.

2a. A condition of this funding being retained is that regions should institute clear definitions in legislation, of what is considered entrapment and what is considered valid engagement for the sake of law-enforcement.

[Talleyrand]

Glad to see you added a section about entrapment into the original amendment. I'll vote for it.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.
(Polnut, are you changing the 2 first clauses or this is the new bill?)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Senators have 36 hours to object.
(Polnut, are you changing the 2 first clauses or this is the new bill?)

This is a complete re-write and a standalone Bill.

[windjammer]

Thank you for the clarification.

I do support the rewrite as well. The former bill was going to be struck down or something similar.
And Cranberry, no, I still don't see your point, I still fail to see how it would have violated he right to free assemble. But whatever .

[TNF]

I obviously object.

If you want to introduce a different bill, do so in the queue.

[Cranberry]

Thank you for the clarification.

I do support the rewrite as well. The former bill was going to be struck down or something similar.
And Cranberry, no, I still don't see your point, I still fail to see how it would have violated he right to free assemble. But whatever .

I was not talking about the free assembling point, but that it would not be our responsibility to legislate local matters. Anyway, not a problem


I will obviously support this rewrite. Differently from the old bill, this is finally something that can and will work, and also is constitutional.

[Blair]

I second the objection.

[DemPGH]

I've been reading through this, and one thing I would throw in there is that if anyone is a member of a group being watched or which is considered a hate group or which the federal government considers threatening, I surely think you could bar someone like that from being a police officer. I think you could reasonably draw the line there and be in bounds.

As to the amended rewrite, it seems too much of an overhaul. I support the objections of Blair and TNF.

[Lief 🗽]

I object. I would support something like this amended in addition to the currently existing bill, but not this wholesale rewriting.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Considering that some Senators either don't acknowledge the constitutional issues or they do and they don't bother them. If they're prepared to test the support for this Bill with a final vote, I'll withdraw the amendment.

[Cranberry]

I frankly don't understand the Senators here in light of the evident, massive constitutional problems that would arise with the version of the bill currently in place.

[Talleyrand]

To my fellow Senators opposed to the newest amendment, I encourage you to propose another amendment after this one. Even if it isn't perfect, it provides a very strong foundation for us to build on.

[DemPGH]

^ 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.

[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

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I obviously support the amendment and encourage Senator Polnut to keep it in play and see where the chips fall. I believe we can find the votes to get this thing passed without doing damage to the lives and reputations of our first responders. So far, this is the most workable amendment to bring the bill back into the realm of reality.

[Cranberry]

^ 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...)

[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?