Police Militarization and Civil Rights Act (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, I think I have my answer. This isn't going to work.

What isn't going to work? You are being rather cryptic.

First, the cost of the obligations attached to the grant money could exceed the amount of the grant.

Second, we seem to have no idea how much money regional police departments receive from the federal government.

First off, we can address that problem rather simply. We go as far as we can with the funds allotted to bring as many departments into this system.

Second of all, I don't see the relevance unless those funds already go for this specific purpose and as far as I know most of the funding goes to anti-Terrorism and even if this surplus is not  direct money allotments, I know a large segment of those funding streams are.

I am confident there is a way to make this work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who is this for a new clause 1?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you have any recommedations for alternative clauses or texts for portions or all of the present text, go ahead and post them for review (don't offer them as amendments basically) and that way we can formulate an acceptable design more quickly possibly.

Unfortunately my work hours have been changed for today and for tomorrow so I will have some time tomorrow evening to work on this after I get off and then again probably on Saturday morning.

[bore]

Introducing an amendment:

Slot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

Something like this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lumine]

Sponsor?

[bore]

Ah, I get you now.

I think what's being proposed is basically a portable CCTV system, and, at least in the UK we have laws about disposing of that footage for privacy reasons.

I think ultimately being recorded is an invasion of your privacy, which is only OK if it protects some other right (the right of not being harassed by police officers, for instance). So unless we actually need the footage it shouldn't be looked at as that would be breaking people's right to privacy and I think after 6 months we know whether a crime has occurred.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I apologise for my lack of engagement in this Bill - I've been watching and waiting for this to get some more advanced form from those advocating.

I think Senator Bore's amendments are reasonable and I'd support the Bill as per the amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment is friendly.

I have another concern that should be addressed and that is ensuring review or of potential of review of policy footage by either Internal Affairs or some such to ensure that the desired effect is achieved. I mean if they know iti s not going to be taken seriously and that footage will never be reviewed, it decreasing the benefit in terms of reduced police violations of procedure/abuse as only a law suit will make such forthcoming and we know certain people, the poor and minorities, those with records, and illegal aliens would be reluctant to pursue action. Even on a randomized basis, a review by Internal Affairs or some such would provide the desired inducement.

[Lumine]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

bore, Polnut, Nixy baby, thoughts on my last point?

[bore]

Nothing in the bill at the moment precludes checks to ensure footage isn't looked at, in the same way that nothing in the environment bill outlawing trade in endangered species stops us from searching out offenders. In fact that there is a prohibition implies that checks would be put in place.

If you really think it's necessary (and it's certainly not harmful) then I suppose there could be an amendment, but I'm not sure it is necessary.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are there any other concerns remaining then?

[Cranberry]

This is still up?

Well, when first proposed I had my issues regarding privacy and surveillance state, but this latest version did get away with them. So I guess I can and will support this.
Regarding this last point of you, Yankee, I don't think it would be a good idea. Sure, you have a point saying that the need of ther ebeing a lawsuit somehow reduces the effectivity of it, yet I guess if you know that there is something that proves that you are in right, you normally would not hesitate to see your rights enforced. So personally I don't think that there is a need for such an amendment, but those are just my two cents.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we are ready to proceed to a final vote then.

[windjammer]

No, two seconds.

[windjammer]

Well,
I have a concern, this is with "military equipment will be destroyed".
I thank Bore and Yankee's concern for this bill, but there is a point I don't understand: if there is a surplus in term of military equipments, why destroying that? I mean, if there is a surplus, the best would be to reduce the amount of military equipment bought? That would be less expensive I guess???

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Indeed, but if we were to run out of "legitimate buyers", the last thing we want to do is have it wind up in the wrong hands. That sh**t is dangerous, scrap value can generate at least some income and ensure that it is not delivered into the wrong hands.

Are there text changes you want on this matter?

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Not a big change, I just don't like destroying weapons because of cost issues.

[bore]

What do we do with surplus weapons that we can't sell to NATO?

[windjammer]

What do we do with surplus weapons that we can't sell to NATO?

Well, we can accumulate it somewhere?

I mean, destroying weapons, that's nos fiscal responsible!

[Donerail]

What do we do with surplus weapons that we can't sell to NATO?

Well, we can accumulate it somewhere?

I mean, destroying weapons, that's nos fiscal responsible!

Since the President has tossed my name around as a candidate for a SecDef role, I assume it'd be appropriate to provide my input here: if there is surplus weaponry that cannot be sold to a foreign buyer (as a side note, if you wanted to get the most money you could for it, you could broaden the number of countries we can sell to - Australia and Japan, for example, aren't NATO members) and serves no foreseeable military purpose I'd assume the most fiscally prudent course would be to sell it for scrap and recoup at least some of its value.

I'd also warn the Senate more generally about adopting legislation with such broad language as this. There is no reasonable case of any sort against the vast majority of surplus military equipment that is sold at discounted prices to local police departments - 95% of all transfers are non-weapons. All the data is here, and as you can see most of it is things like "wet weather poncho", "flat panel monitor", "electric lighting fixtures", and "stethoscope". In the interests of minimizing taxpayer burdens I'd urge the Senate to reconsider its language in this case - perhaps spelling out what specifically is prohibited would be more helpful (automatic or .50+ caliber weapons, tactical vehicles, drones, combat aircraft, grenades, silencers, LRADs, etc.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I understand your concern windjammer, but if the weapons were to be stockpiled and or sold to the wrong people by a bueaucrat is only concerned about getting as much money as possible, those guns could be used to start a war or facilitate a terrorist attack and then the cost could be trillions.


And yes, I just wandered into the same argument used to defend gun control.

[windjammer]

Thank you for your concern Sjoyce!

Yankee: not really . I believe this stock would only be temporary.