Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

That's the point Duke, I strongly, strongly disagree with Senator Dem's interpretation about the scope of the Federal Government's authority. The  Bill, as it now stands, respects the rights of regions to operate as they see fit, in area in which they are supreme to the Federal Government. However, the Bill connects additional funding to a set of actions and measures. It's pretty simple, if the regions wish to have access to this on-going funding, they will undertake these actions, with penalties and consequences if they sign an agreement but to satisfy the requirements of the agreement.

[Blair]

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.

My amendment doesn't do that anymore than Polnut's one, his amendment establishes the PIC's. Not mine.My amendment simply puts some flesh on the bones, and makes sure that the police actually commit to community policing.

Can you highlight the part of my amendment that is unconstitutional 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My Bill gives the regions funding if they set up PICs, but respects that they cannot be compelled by other means. Although I am a little troubled with PICs having broad subpoena power. Beyond that I spport Senator Blair's amendment in general.

[Cranberry]

Senator Blair's amendment has my support. There is a typo in 3b though, it should be PICs not PIC's, shouldn't it?

[Blair]

Senator Blair's amendment has my support. There is a typo 3b though, it should be PICs not PIC's, shouldn't it?

ah yeah my shoddy english skills. Will fix it

[Cranberry]

Senator Blair's amendment has my support. There is a typo 3b though, it should be PICs not PIC's, shouldn't it?

ah yeah my shoddy english skills. Will fix it

I shouldn't be the one complaining, seeing how many errors I make

[DemPGH]

I support Blair's amendment and also feel that if we are giving regions money and/or equipment, then we can certainly attach oversight requirements to it. I'd also say that because federal laws trump regional laws, we can oversee whether or not local and regional police are respecting the rights of citizens if we feel local authorities cannot be trusted. I don't think that's meddling in regional affairs. But again, there's an honest philosophical difference in play here, and I'm just happy to see some progress.

[windjammer]

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

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

[Blair]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'll probably support this - and I know some will get jumpy because I'm talking about messaging. But it hardly assists with a functioning dialogue and buy-in necessary, if we're standing on high looking down and saying we're doing this because you can't be trusted.

I understand it helps on some fronts, but does risk the Bill's positive impacts.

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[Cranberry]

Aye

[DemPGH]

Yes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Lief 🗽]

AYE

[windjammer]

Aye

[TNF]

aye

[Senator Cris]

Why are we voting on this? Who objected?

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

It's not a huge change, though I suppose it does slightly blur the line between what we can and can't do as an arm of the federal government.

[windjammer]

Oooops, sorry, I misread Polnut's post (I believed he had objected)

The result of the vote:
Aye (9): every senator except Hagrid
Abstain (1): Hagrid

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

It's quite shameful to see the Senate remove most of the teeth from this piece of legislation as police engage in outright repression in Baltimore.

[Cranberry]

It's quite shameful to see the Senate remove most of the teeth from this piece of legislation as police engage in outright repression in Baltimore.

I believe these events in Baltimore occured just in a parallel universe hosting a country called "America", I have not heard anything from the GM saying otherwise.

[Blair]

I motion for a final vote

[windjammer]

Senators have 24 hours to object.