Police Militarization and Civil Rights Act (Passed)

[Cranberry]

We do not have a centralized police system?

But anyway; I don't if this is really such a great idea. I'm in general very much against surveillance, just when it really serves a purpose of security; and as such I am not quite sure if we should survey our police force. Sure, it might help to clarify some cases of litigation and uncertainty, and maybe also have played a part in preventing the things that have occured in for example Ferguson; but on the other hand, such a camera may also lead to policemen always being the one in question, always the one that did wrong. For example, if a policeman has his camera on his chest, and he is hit by someone on the shoulders, maybe from the side, and he does something against it; the camera will notice that the policeman did something, but not that the other guy did something, leading automatically to the policeman being the one to do wrong here.

I guess this is the wrong way to deal with such things. As far as I know, Atlasia has some of the laxest laws and regulations when it comes to what policemen are allowed to do and what they are not. If we tightened those regulations and see that they are rigorously enforced, we maybe would be able to prevent incidents like in Ferguson, and don't have to have a total surveillance state for our policemen. I find such things nearly 1984-style...

[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.

[Cranberry]

Why shouldn't local taxpayers pay for local police equipment (assuming anyone should pay for it in the first place)? Handing out Federal goodies to local PD's just seems wasteful and makes officers less accountable to the local communities they're supposed to be serving.

Because such patchwork rugs of responsibilities and fundings in the end nearly always is more expensive. Having one Central authority to oversee the task is in general easier to handle and far easier to reform once such need arises. I can understand that you want police to be more accountable to the local communities, but I feel that would be very hazardous coming to the very force of our executive system. As, you know, being too accountable can easily turn into being too engaged and associated, which is fatal if we want a swift and fast and just executive force.

[Cranberry]

Nay

[Cranberry]

But the thing is, I doubt that we would destroy the weapons if we had found a buyer for it. And once no one needs it, I guess it's best to see it destroyed, as these things are fairly dangerous when getting into the wrong hands...

[Cranberry]

But the thing is, I doubt that we would destroy the weapons if we had found a buyer for it. And once no one needs it, I guess it's best to see it destroyed, as these things are fairly dangerous when getting into the wrong hands...

Atlasians can freely wear explosive bombs, so that wouldn't change a lot of things, regarding security.


I motion for a final vote

There is a point in that, but we all know "muh second amendment" far too good...

[Cranberry]

Aye