Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Senator Cris]

I obviously support the Senator Polnut's amendment.
Now, the bill is finally readable and not out of reality.

[Lief 🗽]

Can we please keep this slippery slope fallacy nonsense out of the senate chamber? If you want to grandstand against an imaginary strawman bill that bans left handed police officers, feel free to introduce a bill doing that so you can vote against it.

[DemPGH]

Yeah, I see no point whatsoever in stripping this to nothing and then giving the police money so hopefully maybe in the next couple of years they'll straighten out some of their problems.

^ 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...)

Hard to believe you could construe it that way. This is about prohibiting avowed racists and vigilante types from becoming cops! You want people like that walking the beat? There's a galaxy-sized difference between that and weeding out people for being left-handed or whatever.

[Blair]

Can I introduce an amendment on this?

[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...)

Hard to believe you could construe it that way. This is about prohibiting avowed racists and vigilante types from becoming cops! You want people like that walking the beat? There's a galaxy-sized difference between that and weeding out people for being left-handed or whatever.

Left-handed was obviously an exaggeration, but if we ban say Nazis from police service - the question who determines who falls into the "banned" groups shall here also not be ignored by the way - we set a precedent. Say in ten years, the ones in power in the nation have shifted, and you have a precedence that it's okay to ban certain groups from police service - what hinders the new government then from banning communists? What hinders some whacko-religious right people from banning gay people? What hinders xenophobic people from banning people with an immigration background from serving as policemen? All those groups view the examples mentioned the same way we view them. With a precedence in place, it is the easiest thing to go through with those measures.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A vote is now open. Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[Lief 🗽]

NAY

[TNF]

Nay

[Blair]

Nay

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Talleyrand]

Can I introduce an amendment on this?

Of course; I'd look forward to seeing it.

AYE

[DemPGH]

No.

Although, I look forward to Blair's amendment, assuming this passes.

Left-handed was obviously an exaggeration, but if we ban say Nazis from police service - the question who determines who falls into the "banned" groups shall here also not be ignored by the way - we set a precedent. Say in ten years, the ones in power in the nation have shifted, and you have a precedence that it's okay to ban certain groups from police service - what hinders the new government then from banning communists? What hinders some whacko-religious right people from banning gay people? What hinders xenophobic people from banning people with an immigration background from serving as policemen? All those groups view the examples mentioned the same way we view them. With a precedence in place, it is the easiest thing to go through with those measures.

Gay people, Communist Party members, and immigrants are not necessarily acting in a way that's threatening to other people. If you're in the KKK or are a vigilante, it's completely different. IMO.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[Cranberry]

Left-handed was obviously an exaggeration, but if we ban say Nazis from police service - the question who determines who falls into the "banned" groups shall here also not be ignored by the way - we set a precedent. Say in ten years, the ones in power in the nation have shifted, and you have a precedence that it's okay to ban certain groups from police service - what hinders the new government then from banning communists? What hinders some whacko-religious right people from banning gay people? What hinders xenophobic people from banning people with an immigration background from serving as policemen? All those groups view the examples mentioned the same way we view them. With a precedence in place, it is the easiest thing to go through with those measures.

Gay people, Communist Party members, and immigrants are not necessarily acting in a way that's threatening to other people. If you're in the KKK or are a vigilante, it's completely different. IMO.

Of course not in our point of view. But let's say in 2019 all Senators are KKK members. To them, gay people, communists, immigrants are threatening society. Do you see my point?

[windjammer]

Aye


Sorry, but, I don't want to vote for a bill that will likely be struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I would welcome Senator Blair's views on this, should this amendment pass.

[DemPGH]

Okay, I've had a chance to talk with polnut and Blair. I respect the fact that there are people who totally want to sink this, and will (i.e., a court case), and I think that polnut has made an honest effort to salvage it with this effort to focus it. The fact that most are at least open to what Blair and I have been saying about extremist groups is encouraging.

The badge cameras are minimally a big deal for me, and keep in mind, I see this whole thing through the filter of an American who reads every day through a variety of sources about deeply illegal and abusive police behavior.

So, I want to change my vote to Yes.

[Blair]

I'll wait until the amendment vote is over, to introduce my amendment

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[windjammer]

The result of the vote/
Aye (7): DemPGH, Talleyrand, Windjammer, Cranberry, Polnut, Cris, Hagrid
Nay (3): Lief, TNF, Blair

Polnut's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I withdraw sponsorship from this bill, as it's not what I introduced in the first place and will need to no 'greater transparency' in law enforcement activity. Gutting the oversight and review councils is tantamount to gutting the entire bill, and I won't be party to this liberal reformist bullsh**t.

[windjammer]

Does someone want to become the new sponsor?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Does someone want to become the new sponsor?

Considering the sponsor has decided to end his sponsorship, I'm prepared to take it on.

[windjammer]

Senators have 24 hours to object on Polnut becoming the new sponsor.