Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[TNF]

Nix's first paragraph is indeed my reasoning.

At any rate, I'm going to have to object to the amendment. What's the point in having badge cameras if the footage they record is not accessible to the public?

[Cranberry]

My guess is that TNF will tell you that the point of Clause 3 is that officers should be representative of the areas where they work. They should have a stake in the community beyond their professional role and real, ongoing relationships with its members. I agree, and it's one of the few lines in this bill that I support. Many cities in the United States already require this, including the one that I live in now.

The trouble with this rule, as written, is that the unit across which the rule is enforced must be both clearly demarcated and large enough that police agencies can find qualified candidates. "Community" is both a vague term and frequently small enough that police agencies would have trouble recruiting new officers. The only way to make this work, I think, would be to require that agencies recruit from within their area of jurisdiction, whatever that happens to be (city, county, etc.).

Obviously there would not be a problem with bigger cities, I can see huge problems arising with small rural "communities", be they even counties - Loving County strikes me as the perfect example here. Still, if you all can come up with a solution to this, I see no reason to further oppose this clause.

Regarding Senator TNF's comments, I would not see that there is no public accessibility - a warrant is not that hard to get, if there is indeed a questionable situation, which I guess these cameras are intended for, to clear up any "mess", in lack of better words, that could arise between police officer or civilian. Otherwise however, this serves to protect both officers and civilians; I guess the discussion on the Civil Rights and Police Militarization Act last year came to the same or at least a similar solution as would be presented in my amendment.

[windjammer]

Talleyrand's amendment:
Aye: Cris, Polnut, Windjammer, TNF, Talleyrand, Cranberry, Blair
Nay: Lief
Non voting: SWE, Hagrid

Talleyrand's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Senators, a vote is now open on Cranberry's amendment.
Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I support this amendment, but will be providing an amendment once this one passes.

[Blair]

Voting Nay on the amendment,


gives too much power to police forces in controlling camera footage, and removes limits on police officers having offensive views

[Cranberry]

Aye

It gives the power you mention to judges, not to police officers; so I don't really see your point in here.
Secondly, as I said, I very much appreciate the sentiment of this clause regarding officers with offensive views, but it is simply unconstitutional, violating the right of free expression and free association and I don't know what all.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Talleyrand]

NAY

[TNF]

Nay

[Lief 🗽]

Nay

I continue to be disturbed by what some of my dear colleagues think the police should be able to get away with.

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

More thoughts to come when I'm back on my computer.

[windjammer]

Cranberry, could you explain me why it would be unconstitutionnal?

I mean, the gays were forbidden to join the army and it never was a constitutional problem before. So I do not understand why forbidding nazis to join the police would be unconstitutionnal.

[Cranberry]

I would think explicitly prohibiting gay people from joining the army is unconstitutional all the same, but that's not the point here, is it?

Article VI, Section 1 of our constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Important for us here is "freedom of assembly". Every Atlasian now has the right to assemble with others, form groups, clubs, whatever. This thus also protects groups of, let's name it, dubious ideology, like those mentioned in the bill. Now, if any given policeman were member of such a group, if he had taken his constitutional right for a freedom of assembly, he would once this bill is passed be fired immediately, because of membership in such a group. That is simply not freedom of assembly to me, if you have to fear to lose your job because of a membership in a group. What comes next? You're fired because you have brown eyes, one leg, three ears? (the last two are obviously just rhethorical questions)

[windjammer]

Nay
(I will explain my reasons tomorrow)

[bore]

This is a very difficult area. Obviously someone in the KKK should never be allowed to join the police, but if we ban everybody with questionable opinions then almost no one would be left to actually join. Even more scarily if we leave this decision up to local bodies we can have a conservative region banning left wingers and left wing regions doing the opposite.

[windjammer]

Why I voted Nay:
I'm sorry but I'm not going to let nazis be members of the police. And this is constitutional:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I fail to understand why it would violate the freedom of assembly. Atlasia has the right to hire anybody they want. It would be indeed illegal to forbide people not to hire "nazis" because it would violate their freedom of assembly, but I fail to see how forbidding the hiring of nazis violates the "freedom of assembly". Forbidding 14 years old to join the police should be unconstitutional too?

[Cranberry]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

[windjammer]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

In which way would it infringe their rights to assemble? They can still assemble.

[Cranberry]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

In which way would it infringe their rights to assemble? They can still assemble.

They can't freely, as they would loose their jobs in the process.

[windjammer]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

In which way would it infringe their rights to assemble? They can still assemble.

They can't freely, as they would loose their jobs in the process.

So firing any cop would be an infringement of this right???

[windjammer]

The result of the vote:
Aye (4): Cranberry, polnut, Cris, Hagrid
Nay (5): Windjammer, Talleyrand, TNF, Lief, Blair

Cranberry's amendment has failed to pass.

[windjammer]

And the other senators could you give your opinion please?
I really don't understand how it would violate this right to assemble.

[Lief 🗽]

Nazis are free to hold their rallies or meetings or whatever. But the government has a legitimate interest in making sure that its police officers are not ideological extremists who believe that certain classes of people are inherently inferior.