Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:23:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
Author Topic: Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)  (Read 17954 times)
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: March 25, 2015, 08:42:58 PM »

NAY
Logged
Talleyrand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,517


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: March 25, 2015, 09:06:08 PM »

AYE

But I definitely think we may need to reincorporate some of the removed sections, such as the language on entrapment.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2015, 08:47:00 AM »

Aye

As said, I don't like the idea of the bill and there are still changes to make, but it's a step in the right direction.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2015, 09:16:32 AM »

Nay

It's not a step in the right direction. It's bullsh**t.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: March 26, 2015, 10:52:17 AM »

Well, I tend to think it's more bullsh**t to gallivant around the senate and call the people who risk their lives keeping our communities safe "pigs," but that's just me.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: March 26, 2015, 12:58:33 PM »

Well, I tend to think it's more bullsh**t to gallivant around the senate and call the people who risk their lives keeping our communities safe "pigs," but that's just me.

What it saddens me the most is to see how some members of the left far-left variety basically voted to forbide police officers the right to unionize.

Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: March 26, 2015, 01:05:04 PM »

The purpose of unions is to protect and empower workers. Police unions are reactionary organizations that exist to protect and empower enemies of workers. Unions are not an end, in and of themselves, but a means towards worker empowerment. If they are being used to protect the harassers of workers, then I don't see much point in them.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: March 26, 2015, 01:08:47 PM »

The purpose of unions is to protect and empower workers. Police unions are reactionary organizations that exist to protect and empower enemies of workers. Unions are not an end, in and of themselves, but a means towards worker empowerment. If they are being used to protect the harassers of workers, then I don't see much point in them.
Police officers are workers.

Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: March 26, 2015, 02:15:05 PM »

Yeah. Police unions, like doctors unions do need to be treated differently because of the importance of the job they do, but that's no reason for them not to have one.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: March 26, 2015, 02:40:00 PM »

TNF, you ought to just withdraw this bill. By the time the softcocks are done with it, it'll be named "The Strongly Worded But Useless Admonishment of Police Bad (Sort Of? I Mean We're Defending It) Behavior Act".
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: March 26, 2015, 02:45:39 PM »

TNF, you ought to just withdraw this bill. By the time the softcocks are done with it, it'll be named "The Strongly Worded But Useless Admonishment of Police Bad (Sort Of? I Mean We're Defending It) Behavior Act".
Would be a pretty good idea.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: March 26, 2015, 02:47:29 PM »

TNF, you ought to just withdraw this bill. By the time the softcocks are done with it, it'll be named "The Strongly Worded But Useless Admonishment of Police Bad (Sort Of? I Mean We're Defending It) Behavior Act".

Except this bill is not just about dealing with bad behaviour among our police forces. It's about punishing every Atlasian police officer just because they're cops.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: March 26, 2015, 02:55:27 PM »

TNF, you ought to just withdraw this bill. By the time the softcocks are done with it, it'll be named "The Strongly Worded But Useless Admonishment of Police Bad (Sort Of? I Mean We're Defending It) Behavior Act".

Except this bill is not just about dealing with bad behaviour among our police forces. It's about punishing every Atlasian police officer just because they're cops.


Yeah, no. A few provisions are, and I'd be fine with removing them. The fact that this Senate is OK with entrapment and nepotism has nothing to do with that. It's not "a step in the right direction", it's not "a more measured approach", and it's not any of the other flippant bullsh!t some of y'all will try to sell it as when you're removing provisions like these.

The hard-liners and those with personal bias are manipulating the softcocks (which isn't ever that difficult) into removing a bunch of things that shouldn't be removed under the guise of removing one or two that things that should be removed, by removing them all at the same time. "OMG look at that one thing in there, I'll vote to remove whatever as long as we get rid of that, lol".
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: March 26, 2015, 02:57:29 PM »

Griffin,
I have explained why I supported to remove all this clause not a long time ago.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: March 26, 2015, 02:58:21 PM »

How can we seriously argue that this bill has been "watered down" or whatever when the clause retaining police soviets still exists?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: March 26, 2015, 03:00:47 PM »

For the reasons mentioned earlier I can't see elected police commissioners ever being a good idea. People simply don't care about the position enough to vote, and even if they did you'd get police commissioners tailored to their area, so lots more Joe Arpaio's. But I do think that the police oversight board should be independent of the police, and thus close relations of officers should be banned.

Again though, I'm struggling to see why entrapment is bad in all circumstances. What about the example of using it to catch online predators?

Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: March 26, 2015, 03:03:09 PM »

Griffin,
I have explained why I supported to remove all this clause not a long time ago.

Explain which clause? As I can see it, we're on track to strike five clauses every couple of days until nothing is left and it looks like that embarrassingly awful Boko Haram bill.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: March 26, 2015, 03:10:38 PM »

Again though, I'm struggling to see why entrapment is bad in all circumstances. What about the example of using it to catch online predators?

Why don't we just allow mobs to lynch them if we're going to start pulling on heartstrings to justify an abhorrent tactic by mentioning an abhorrent crime?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: March 26, 2015, 03:50:25 PM »

Again though, I'm struggling to see why entrapment is bad in all circumstances. What about the example of using it to catch online predators?

Why don't we just allow mobs to lynch them if we're going to start pulling on heartstrings to justify an abhorrent tactic by mentioning an abhorrent crime?
I wasn't meaning to go all Why won't someone think of the children, it's just that is an area where this tactic is used.

I guess this is the difference. I don't think it's necessarily an abhorrent tactic. There's a difference between a police officer harassing a particular person into committing a crime and just throwing down some bait. Posting on a paedophilia board to lure them out into the open, or making clear to potential terrorists that they can pick up some bombs at a certain point doesn't seem to be morally wrong to me.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: March 26, 2015, 04:06:04 PM »

I would rather pass nothing at all than pass this current version implicitly endorsing entrapment.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: March 26, 2015, 04:10:10 PM »

Personally I like the conditions used to decide whether entrapment is legal in Britain, and I would support them being introduced here:

Whether the police acted in good faith;
Whether the police had good reason to suspect the accused of criminal activities;
Whether the police suspected that crime was particularly prevalent in the area in which the investigation took place (Williams v. DPP);
Whether pro-active investigatory techniques were necessary because of the secrecy and difficulty of detection of the criminal activity in question;
The defendant's circumstances and vulnerability; and
The nature of the offence.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: March 26, 2015, 04:22:22 PM »
« Edited: March 26, 2015, 05:35:16 PM by Senator Polnut »

The reality is, we've got two crowds here. Those who want to try to put something together that will actually be functional and those who are running around calling everyone biased soft-cocks, without offering an alternative. When people are picking and choosing which unions to believe (despite a view that all work forces should be able to unionize) should exist, because of their personal view of it, isn't consistent. When you've got people talking about "pigs", "class enemies" and other hyperbolic and emotional terms, it gets beyond reasonable. 

I support the conditions that the President recommended.

However, the reason why this Bill should be pulled by the sponsor will not have anything to do with those of us who are trying to make it reality-based.

Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: March 26, 2015, 08:45:11 PM »

The reality is, we've got two crowds here. Those who want to try to put something together that will actually be functional and those who are running around calling everyone biased soft-cocks, without offering an alternative. When people are picking and choosing which unions to believe (despite a view that all work forces should be able to unionize) should exist, because of their personal view of it, isn't consistent. When you've got people talking about "pigs", "class enemies" and other hyperbolic and emotional terms, it gets beyond reasonable.  

I support the conditions that the President recommended.

However, the reason why this Bill should be pulled by the sponsor will not have anything to do with those of us who are trying to make it reality-based.

First of all, let's stop mincing words and be clear - it's fun, I promise!

By "people talking about 'pigs', 'class enemies'", you mean TNF. Just say it.

By "those who are running around calling everyone biased soft-cocks", you mean me. Just say it.

These distinctions are important, and especially when you're trying to lump everyone who opposes the sum of these changes together. I voted FOR the amendment to eliminate annual elections of police commissioners because I too find it an ineffective proposition. I ABSTAINED on the amendment in regards to unionization of police forces, because frankly, I understand both sides of the argument (something I am sure you of all people can appreciate). Don't you dare try to lump me into a category that opposes "reality" for the sake of your own narrative.

Which sort of segues into...

What exactly is the problem here? If this bill were signed into law in anything even close to its present form, Atlasia would not have a functioning police force.

We who object to this bill have raised plenty of reasonable objections. Its supporters have barely responded, fits of outrage aside, and I doubt that any of them, aside from TNF (who might actually be fine with effectively disbanding all law enforcement), has actually thought the idea through. What's so unreasonable about refusing to support something this dramatic and extreme without a much better defense of it than we've seen so far? And why, Adam, are you attacking our character and motivations rather than responding to the substantive concerns that we've raised about the bill?

What else in terms of existing provisions of this bill would I support removing or modifying?

Section 4.1. We can put a delay on the content in question, as well as stipulate that it only be identified by badge number and time/date. This will allow for it to be identified when it is needed for an express purpose but would not necessarily expose day-to-day operations to targeted criminals under long-term investigation

Section 4.3. Requiring police officers to obtain consent in order to use lethal force is unworkable and dangerous. As such, I support its removal.

Section 2.2. I'm not sure why it has been altered in the current amendment to be three years, since that will create an irregular election cycle. It should be every four years to ensure maximum turnout for these elections and alleviate existing problems.


Section 2.3. I think this can and should be modified, in terms of the size of the councils - maybe use a formula that assigns x number of members for jurisdictions with less than y number of people, x number of members for jurisdictions between y and z number of people, and so forth.

Section 2.6. (in the proposed amendment) should be modified to apply only to those with no criminal record.




Now, why do I support the remainder?


Section 2.1 is perfectly workable. It's already in deployment throughout many jurisdictions in the US and quite necessary in today's information driven age. If anything, it ensures more protection for both civilians (who may otherwise be victimized when no one is looking) and police officers (from unverified claims of the former).

Section 2.2 shouldn't be controversial, either. Police departments have no need for excessive militarized equipment, with precedent being the strongest reinforcement. Information and technology being improved based on a changing world is a different story, but the nature of communities and criminals is not one in which arming local PDs with tanks, grenade launchers, special ops equipment or even necessarily SWAT teams is justified based on an evolving world.

Section 2.4 (in the proposed amendment) in regards to age has science backing it. Why on God's green earth would we want to put pubescent males in a position of utmost authority? The male body doesn't exit puberty until around age 26 or 27. Hormones, a lack of real-world understanding and so forth is not something that 20 year-old males possess, sorry.

Section 2.5 by many existing interpretations is actually the constitutional interpretation (while the practice of roadblocks itself is not). Notice how it applies to 'random checkpoints' and not those designed with a particular purpose (such as apprehending a fugitive).

Section 2.8 (which has been stricken in this amendment) relates to entrapment. Being able to purposefully catch someone committing a crime that they might not otherwise commit is immoral and wrong. The vast majority of these entrapment offenses relate to drug use and possession. Our laws have been heavily modified with respect to drug crimes, but I cannot imagine that PDs have not found ways to continue coercing what would normally be non-criminal drug offenders into committing criminal acts to meet their quotas. Whether or not you successfully coerce someone into committing a crime does not prove that the person would have committed the crime without said intervention, pure and simple. The fact that we continue to condone lying and manipulation of police officers as necessary elements of their job is below the standard we should be setting for them and speaks a lot about ourselves, quite frankly.

I still need to ramble on about nepotism and unmarked cars (and actually, I'll probably write an entire dissertation on entrapment later as well), but I think this is enough for now for me to not be labeled as "hyperbolic and emotional" by those who falsely equate moderation with reality, sensibility or seriousness (and by "those who falsely equate moderation with reality, sensibility or seriousness", I mean Polnut).
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: March 26, 2015, 09:31:27 PM »

The issue IS the definition of entrapment here. If the police actively encourage people to commit crimes they otherwise wouldn't, yes, that's inappropriate. But this creates two significant issues - the first being how do you know what a person would or would not do? the second being useful techniques, as has been mentioned, like finding paedophiles online or undercover work would be in serious jeopardy. If this secion is going to be retained, then I think its actually sensible to make the language as clear and unimpeachable as possible.
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: March 26, 2015, 10:18:39 PM »
« Edited: March 26, 2015, 10:20:17 PM by Senator Griffin »

The issue IS the definition of entrapment here. If the police actively encourage people to commit crimes they otherwise wouldn't, yes, that's inappropriate. But this creates two significant issues - the first being how do you know what a person would or would not do? the second being useful techniques, as has been mentioned, like finding paedophiles online or undercover work would be in serious jeopardy. If this secion is going to be retained, then I think its actually sensible to make the language as clear and unimpeachable as possible.

I think the definition is quite obvious. In regards to "the first being how do you know what a person would or would not do?", the answer is simple: they would never commit that specific act without the police proactively attempting to ensnare them in the first place. In no other aspect of our judicial system is someone convicted of a crime based on their proclivity to commit crimes of a similar nature in the future. I feel it's akin to "We made you steal this candy bar from the store? Well, based on that, you would have likely stolen 100 more candy bars in the future so we had the right to make you do it (and if we could get away with it, we'd charge you with 100 counts of theft)". In many instances, the whole notion of entrapment is "Well, they would have done this on their own anyway" is ludicrous, and in many cases, the person wouldn't commit a crime of a similar nature on their own. Take for instance of issue domestic terrorism: ever wonder why at the heart of almost every foiled terror plot do we read the line of "undercover authorities provided an inert bomb to the accomplices" and so forth?

Atlasia usually doesn't bother with many details in its legislation, so assuming we don't actually craft legislation that is of the same length and detail as real-life legislation, my opinion on the matter is simple: most crimes relating to entrapment a) wouldn't happen without pressure, and b) are not of a sensitive nature like the counter-examples being offered (pedophilia, for instance), therefore the rule is more important than the exception.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.