Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm more than happy to make this a civil right matter, and give the Attorney General or who ever is required the power to make changes-this is a civil rights matter. Especially if incidents continue to happen where police officers are abusing their powers, only then to be let off.

I'm extremely upset that the senate has blocked this, only because I fear we're going to pass a bill that simply gives the police more funding without any form of regulation 

The fact that our very reasonable concerns seem to not be taken seriously or ignored is equally troubling Senator.

I will be providing an amendment in the next couple of hours.

Dem, can you please provide examples of statute that you're alluding to in your comments above. Because this Bill isn't just about conduct its about governance.

[Adam Griffin]

Well, time to nationalize the combined police forces of the country then!

[Blair]

I'll wait for Polnuts amendment, but I think I speak for most labor senators in saying that we can actual reform-not just a re-arranging of deckchairs on the titantic

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'll wait for Polnuts amendment, but I think I speak for most labor senators in saying that we can actual reform-not just a re-arranging of deckchairs on the titantic

Bit melodramatic...

Anyhoo...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'll wait for Polnuts amendment, but I think I speak for most labor senators in saying that we can actual reform-not just a re-arranging of deckchairs on the titantic

To do what you want to do, you'll need to pass a federal amendment nationalizing law enforcement because right now, policing powers are left to the regions.

Otherwise, Polnut's bill will need to be passed because it's actually constitutional and would survive a court challenge.

[Blair]

I object to the amendment, it leaves too much power to the regions in regulating themselves

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Cranberry]

AYE

[Lief 🗽]

NAY, for the same reasons as Comrade Blair has elaborated.

[Blair]

Nay

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I object to the amendment, it leaves too much power to the regions in regulating themselves

Respectfully, that's how it works when it's something within their purview.

We're the ones technically interferring here.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Blair]

I object to the amendment, it leaves too much power to the regions in regulating themselves

Respectfully, that's how it works when it's something within their purview.

We're the ones technically interferring here.

I suppose the senate was also interfering when it passed anti-lynching legislation

[Talleyrand]

I would like it we put punitive measures if the regions failed to meet certain standards, such as a heavy fine.

For now, Reluctant AYE, but I think this still needs work...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I object to the amendment, it leaves too much power to the regions in regulating themselves

Respectfully, that's how it works when it's something within their purview.

We're the ones technically interferring here.

I suppose the senate was also interfering when it passed anti-lynching legislation

Senator, that's completely unnecessary and not becoming of you.

The anti-lynching laws were about one horrendous crime which was made a Federal Crime and therefore could be prosecuted and punished through the Federal Court system. That IS a constitutionally valid process.

And Talley, section 5 speaks to the consequences but I'm happy for tighter and more explicit language.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

[windjammer]

Aye,
I honestly don't understand the problem with this amendment. It doesn't give too much flexibility according to me.

[TNF]

Nay

[Senator Cris]

Abstain

[DemPGH]

I'll vote soon. I'm just of a very, very mixed opinion, and I'd prefer that the footage be public domain, but whatever. And that section 5 be more specific and direct.

Does anybody know if it's specifically legal for citizens to film police officers? It obviously should be, and if that's not part of this, then I would be happy to propose it as a stand-alone law before I leave office.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It is legal for a citizen to film a police officer, yes, so long as you are not interfering unreasonably.

[DemPGH]

Okay, Duke. Thanks for the info.

Alright, guys, here's the deal: I believe we have the authority to at least enact a statute like what Blair had written, if not what TNF had written. I believe we can do that. But the reality is that we're not going to get it, so I think we need to think in terms of getting something as reasonably close to it as we can. I care very deeply about this issue, it's very disturbing to me - and I feel that abusive police behavior is perhaps the greatest threat to a free society. This is not just another "political issue" to me.

So I'm going to go with Talleyrand on this one. There are a couple things here we could fine tune. There's too much work that's been done to just chuck this. Nobody is going to get everything they want on this, and a lot of people are passionate about it, obviously. So let's get what we can.

We're moving at a snail's pace here, yes, but I guess upon reflection, let's keep inching forward since there is willingness on the part of some to do that. If there was no willingness to do that, I would vote no.

Yes.

[windjammer]

Aye (5): Talleyrand, DemPGH, Cranberry, Polnut, Windjammer
Nay (3): Lief, Blair, TNF
Abstain (2): Cris, Hagrid

Polnut's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Blair]

I'm proposing this amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I want to address three issues with this.

1) Local/state authorities can't be trusted fully, in my view with it you need an independent group to be able to look and control the footage. This is purely, because like in any regulation sense you want separation involved.
2) I want money to go towards community outreach. Specifically communities that need to open a dialogue with police forces. For example this could be anything from African-Americans, to LGBT Atlasians. Both these groups have suffered historic abuse from police forces, and both these groups can also help contribute to the overall debate.
3) I want the PIC's to actually have access to the stuff they need. There's no point spending all this money if they don't have the documents they need to make an informed decision

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It's not about ideology or opposing the bill. It's about constitutionality. The federal government, legally, cannot set up an oversight agency to police, no pun intended, state or local police department. The senate can pass a law doing that, but the Court can and will overturn it, and then no progress will have been made.

You can put strings on funding and direct where it can go, but you can't directly meddle in regional affairs. The only way to accomplish that is to pass a federal amendment removing policing powers as a right left to regions/states.

Federal agencies already have access to state and local law enforcement documents and media through the subpoena power if the government brings a federal case against a state agency or actor.