Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Cranberry]

I echo Senator Polnut's comments. There are certainly a few points in this bill that I don't oppose, but the spirit and nature of the bill are just so fundamentally different from my point of view that I don't think the sponsor would support an amended version of this bill I would support.

[Cranberry]

I am certainly willing to modify aspects of this bill if it ill ensure its passage.

I doubt that this would produce a result we would both agree on...

[Cranberry]

As Senator Polnut implied, yes this is a first step in the right direction. If the sponsor should however be hostile to any intentions to improve this - similar to this one here - then I don't really see a point in doing further work here, and it would save a lot of time if the Senator could just say so.

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

Again, this is a sensible step in the right direction; though much more will have to be done here.

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

Well, it seems this is the bill I missed the most of discussion going on, and many of my points have already been made. Thus, I will retain my input here until after the vote on Senator Griffin's amendment, whereafter I will as well offer an amendment.

I will have to consider Senator Griffin's amendment. The points he makes sure are persuading, yet I am unsure whether or not this does go to far for my taste...

[Cranberry]

How long do we have time here on? 72 hours, right?

[Cranberry]

Yes, I support Talleyrand's amendment as well.

Regarding the amendment we are still voting on, NAY, I guess...

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose the following.

The change to Clause 1 is to protect the privacy not only of police forces but also of civilians appearing on the respective material.
Clause 3 is in my eyes simply not workable in today's Atlasia, and could especially in rural areas create more problems than it tries to solve (which problem does this clause adress by the way, Senator TNF?), regarding nepotism or corruption related themes.
While clause 4 certainly has a good sentiment behind it, it does violate the right to free association in my eyes, secondly will it be near impossible to determine exactly these aforementioned groups...
The measure adressed in Clause 5 helped tackle the PMA in recent history, hence why I find this not so bad an idea...

[Cranberry]

My guess is that TNF will tell you that the point of Clause 3 is that officers should be representative of the areas where they work. They should have a stake in the community beyond their professional role and real, ongoing relationships with its members. I agree, and it's one of the few lines in this bill that I support. Many cities in the United States already require this, including the one that I live in now.

The trouble with this rule, as written, is that the unit across which the rule is enforced must be both clearly demarcated and large enough that police agencies can find qualified candidates. "Community" is both a vague term and frequently small enough that police agencies would have trouble recruiting new officers. The only way to make this work, I think, would be to require that agencies recruit from within their area of jurisdiction, whatever that happens to be (city, county, etc.).

Obviously there would not be a problem with bigger cities, I can see huge problems arising with small rural "communities", be they even counties - Loving County strikes me as the perfect example here. Still, if you all can come up with a solution to this, I see no reason to further oppose this clause.

Regarding Senator TNF's comments, I would not see that there is no public accessibility - a warrant is not that hard to get, if there is indeed a questionable situation, which I guess these cameras are intended for, to clear up any "mess", in lack of better words, that could arise between police officer or civilian. Otherwise however, this serves to protect both officers and civilians; I guess the discussion on the Civil Rights and Police Militarization Act last year came to the same or at least a similar solution as would be presented in my amendment.

[Cranberry]

Aye

It gives the power you mention to judges, not to police officers; so I don't really see your point in here.
Secondly, as I said, I very much appreciate the sentiment of this clause regarding officers with offensive views, but it is simply unconstitutional, violating the right of free expression and free association and I don't know what all.

[Cranberry]

I would think explicitly prohibiting gay people from joining the army is unconstitutional all the same, but that's not the point here, is it?

Article VI, Section 1 of our constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Important for us here is "freedom of assembly". Every Atlasian now has the right to assemble with others, form groups, clubs, whatever. This thus also protects groups of, let's name it, dubious ideology, like those mentioned in the bill. Now, if any given policeman were member of such a group, if he had taken his constitutional right for a freedom of assembly, he would once this bill is passed be fired immediately, because of membership in such a group. That is simply not freedom of assembly to me, if you have to fear to lose your job because of a membership in a group. What comes next? You're fired because you have brown eyes, one leg, three ears? (the last two are obviously just rhethorical questions)

[Cranberry]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

[Cranberry]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

In which way would it infringe their rights to assemble? They can still assemble.

They can't freely, as they would loose their jobs in the process.

[Cranberry]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

In which way would it infringe their rights to assemble? They can still assemble.

They can't freely, as they would loose their jobs in the process.

So firing any cop would be an infringement of this right???

I never said that, and you can do better than that.

[Cranberry]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

In which way would it infringe their rights to assemble? They can still assemble.

They can't freely, as they would loose their jobs in the process.

So firing any cop would be an infringement of this right???

I never said that, and you can do better than that.

Wooow,
I'm asking you a question, no need to answer aggressively because this is not an aggression. Believe it or not, but I definitely try to understand why this part would be unconstitutional. Because considering this is a critical issue for me not to let nazis become cops, the only reason I would support getting rid of it would be his unconstitutionality.

So, if I understand correctly, you seem to believe that you can't fire police officers for holding despicable views because it would violate their rights to assemble.

So my question is, if we simply fire them, with your logic, it would fire their right to assemble too, so it should be illegal too, right???


(and I tend to believe in Lief's interpretationà.

I did not intend to act aggressively, and I apologize if I did, in fact, towards you; but I just believed that this statement was a bit too far-fetched. But anyway.

No, I don't believe that if we fired for any reason, this would infringe their right to freely assemble. I do believe however, that if we take their practice of assembling - which they are constitutionally allowed to do freely - as a reason for firing them, then that's illegal and unconstitutional. It doesn't matter for me then if it's a neo-nazi group or a church choir, if we take their assembling to a group as reason to fire them, for me that's unconstitutional.

[Cranberry]

Is there a provision in the constitution that prevents us from enacting this?

In fact, there even is, thank you again to a constituent for pointing this out.
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 7 of the constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is, I believe, beyond obvious that this bill will force Regions to take actions, and I can not find any provisions of the bill that preserve the rights of the Senate or the people. In fact, it is blalantly unconstitutional to instate a national reign of criminal justice, according to this clause of the constitution. Here we are again with my concerns of constitutionality, this time I hope to get more of you towards my side of the argument.

[Cranberry]

Is there a provision in the constitution that prevents us from enacting this?

In fact, there even is, thank you again to a constituent for pointing this out.
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 7 of the constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is, I believe, beyond obvious that this bill will force Regions to take actions, and I can not find any provisions of the bill that preserve the rights of the Senate or the people. In fact, it is blalantly unconstitutional to instate a national reign of criminal justice, according to this clause of the constitution. Here we are again with my concerns of constitutionality, this time I hope to get more of you towards my side of the argument.

[Cranberry]

Is there a provision in the constitution that prevents us from enacting this?

In fact, there even is, thank you again to a constituent for pointing this out.
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 7 of the constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is, I believe, beyond obvious that this bill will force Regions to take actions, and I can not find any provisions of the bill that preserve the rights of the Senate or the people. In fact, it is blalantly unconstitutional to instate a national reign of criminal justice, according to this clause of the constitution. Here we are again with my concerns of constitutionality, this time I hope to get more of you towards my side of the argument.

[Cranberry]

This preserves the rights of the people in many ways, so it does not run afoul of Art. 1, Sec. 6, Clause 7.

Even if it does in some clauses, the clauses in which it does not are still unconstitutional.

[Cranberry]

I would like to avoid court cases.

I doubt that will be possible unless this bill is fundamentally altered so that there is no doubt this does not overreach the Senate's powers and rights. As Polnut and I pointed out, we do not have the constitutional authority to force local police departments to follow our rules, rather, the only way to get something similar as this passed is via collaboration with the regions. I am afraid everything more will inevitably trigger a lengthy court procedure.

[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.

[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?