Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Senator Cris]

I'm ok with Polnut as the new sponsor and considered that he presented the amendment that changed it, it's the right thing.

[Lief 🗽]

I object.

[windjammer]

So, senators a vote is now open. Do you want Polnut to be the new sponsor? If so, please vote AYE. If not, please vote Nay.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[Talleyrand]

Aye.

I want to work with Senator Lief and TNF to elaborate on the oversight councils in this bill, however.

[Blair]

Aye

[Lief 🗽]

Nay

[DemPGH]

I'm not terribly concerned about who sponsors a bill - I think if we have one, that's good.

I also hope that there is some more work to do.

Yes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As I've said to other Senators - this amendment was never meant to be a final version. It was meant to focus on elements we know we have the constitutional authority to do and I was always happy to see further amendments to tighten areas and cover others.

AYE

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[Adam Griffin]

...



It doesn't really matter is this is a rough draft or a final version - the basic components of it are terrible and ineffective; "building a house on a foundation of shit" and all that. Is there even a single piece of text from the original bill remaining in this lukewarm glass of piss? How does this even constitute an amendment? To introduce something like this, one ought to have to put it in the queue and wait like anyone else introducing an entirely new and wholly different piece of legislation. It doesn't even retain the fycking name of the original bill.

$2780. That's the per capita amount for police forces outlined in this memorandum "to increase measures to improve training and service provision", whatever the fyck that is supposed to mean.

$1112. That's the per capita amount for police forces outlined in this white paper "to enable them to institute full independent bodies to investigate alleged law enforcement misconduct"; again, whatever that means.

Oh, but fear not, for perhaps some police departments will be able to get even more of that dough! Because in order for these "reforms" to go through, this weakly-worded suggestion masquerading as legislation requires that the regions actually play ball; "In order to receive and retain this funding, the regions must acknowledge the following conditions". Heh, good luck with that one. Or maybe they can snag a bigger piece of the pie by being a highly-populated region with relatively few police jurisdictions!

But the obstacles don't end there: for the regions have another prime opportunity to obstruct if they find the notion of political pressure over not choosing to implement badge cameras to be unacceptable, for they now will get to decide what entails entrapment. Rather than overtly refusing to implement any of the other "reforms" outlined in the bill, they can simply choose not to "institute clear definitions in legislation, of what is considered entrapment and what is considered valid engagement for the sake of law-enforcement".


But let's get back to the first two items I quoted, as they are absolute barometers of this wish-list of wishy-washy, non-offensive and completely noneffective, gap-bridging babble.

First, "to increase measures to improve training and service provision by regional and local law enforcement bodies" - I just have an aesthetic and/or subliminal issue with the first six words. I often refer to this as "Bushie speak". Like we're trying to be as non-confrontational as possible by saying "to try to do something to do something". Unnecessary both in substance and in style.

Second, "to enable them to institute full independent bodies to investigate alleged law enforcement misconduct" - this isn't even a mandate: it's a polite request/offer! The regions can take that money all they want after/even if they follow these bland requirements, but that doesn't in any way, shape or form require individual police departments to actually follow through with these measures. Again, we see that double-base verb usage here: "to enable...to institute". Reforms like these can't be voluntary; how many police departments are going to stand up and say, "You know what we need? More accountability and oversight, because we're so terrible at our jobs!"?  

And that first per capita figure I quoted above? That's not necessarily even accurate because 20% of the funding is a welfare handout to police forces who in many cases already consume 30% or more of their local governments' revenue, buying up all sorts of redundant equipment at the same time that they've been given (in the distant past) plenty of militarized surplus equipment. Instead of buying "weapons of lethal force", they'll just use it to buy LRADs, more communications and privacy-invading equipment under the ridiculously large umbrella of "officer safety equipment".

This is a terrible series of developments. This bill previously had concrete provisions to protect civil liberties and reform meaningful aspects of the way law enforcement operates in this country, and you all have let all of that go to shit for a do-nothing medley of moderation that won't accomplish a single thing (in the hopes of adding structure back to it later, when it was already there in the first place). Congrats, Senate.

In the spirit of this legislation, I am going to try to start considering ways in which to enable freedom-loving citizens of this country the ability to start formulating rough ideas in order to begin planning action to begin to reverse this nonsense.  

[windjammer]

Aye

[TNF]

Nay

I encourage the Senate to defeat this bill in the event that Polnut becomes sponsor, as it will be utterly meaningless without the oversight and review component embedded in the original bill.

[Cranberry]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Perhaps these are all wishy-washy suggestions that deviate so much from the original bill because the entire spirit of the original bill was an unfortunate insult to public heroes.

Just maybe.

To be totally frank, I don't think we should pass anything. But this version is much better than what we were working with before. And I was happy to play even a small part in getting the original version off the table.

[windjammer]

It appears that every senator voted.
So;
Aye: Hagrid, Cris, Polnut, Cranberry, Talleyrand, Blair, Windjammer, DemPGH
Nay: Lief, TNF

Polnut is now the new sponsor.

[Blair]

Sorry it's taken so long for my amendment to come out, spend the last hour working on it only to realize that it needs more tinkering. Should be able to post it tomorrow morning/lunchtime for those interested

[Cranberry]

To be outright honest alright now, I doubt I can support much more than the current version. Just saying, please don't feel discouraged to post the amendment.

[TNF]

I motion for a final vote.

Also lol at 'public heroes'. Police are scabs.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I object

[bore]

I'm looking forward to seeing what Blair proposes

[Blair]

Here it is, I don't want this to be the final draft at all because it's my first attempt at writing major federal legislation, and there's likely to be holes in it. Other than that I feel it offers necessary protections for police officers whilst allowing civilian oversight. Any questions bout it, give me a shout

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I object to the amendment.

Mostly just because it's a complete re-write. There's some stuff in there I like and other stuff I don't, but I believe all big changes like these should go through a vote.

[DemPGH]

I support the amendment.

It needs to be remembered that police are public servants, and that we give them a great deal of power as well as pay them. It only makes sense in light of that that their activities while on duty be monitored to the fullest possible extent, and that we select among the very best and brightest of our citizenry the folks who shall enforce our laws.

Assuming that police are "heroes" who protect society, and therefore require minimal oversight, is quite frankly missing the point. The point is the amount of power police have to enforce laws and detain citizens. And! They are human.

[Lief 🗽]

I will support this amendment. I'd like to commend Comrade Blair for drafting it, and I think it is very close to being something that I could support. It's certainly a huge improvement over what this bill has presently become.