Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Adam Griffin]

I support this almost entirely, but I think a couple of modifications will need to be made to Section 4 for it to be truly workable. In addition, I understand what the Senator wishes to accomplish by having elections as often as possible, but annual elections may prove to be on the other side of the bell curve in terms of intent and effectiveness.

I'll wait to elaborate until the Senator has spoken on behalf of the bill.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators, you have 36 hours to object to Senator Lief's amendment.

[Adam Griffin]

Senators, a vote is now open on Senator Lief's amendment. Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

[Adam Griffin]

Aye

[Adam Griffin]

Abstain

[Adam Griffin]

NAY

Getting rid of entrapment, promoting nepotism, hiring police officers who haven't finished hormonal pubescence, allowing police officers to pretend like they're not police officers and giving the cops the ability to reject any regulatory decisions placed on them by the community (we all know it's a hivemind in there) are all non-starters.

[Adam Griffin]

I object. This amendment basically only removes the least offensive of the former proposals...

[Adam Griffin]

NAY

[Adam Griffin]

TNF, you ought to just withdraw this bill. By the time the softcocks are done with it, it'll be named "The Strongly Worded But Useless Admonishment of Police Bad (Sort Of? I Mean We're Defending It) Behavior Act".

[Adam Griffin]

TNF, you ought to just withdraw this bill. By the time the softcocks are done with it, it'll be named "The Strongly Worded But Useless Admonishment of Police Bad (Sort Of? I Mean We're Defending It) Behavior Act".

Except this bill is not just about dealing with bad behaviour among our police forces. It's about punishing every Atlasian police officer just because they're cops.

Yeah, no. A few provisions are, and I'd be fine with removing them. The fact that this Senate is OK with entrapment and nepotism has nothing to do with that. It's not "a step in the right direction", it's not "a more measured approach", and it's not any of the other flippant bullsh!t some of y'all will try to sell it as when you're removing provisions like these.

The hard-liners and those with personal bias are manipulating the softcocks (which isn't ever that difficult) into removing a bunch of things that shouldn't be removed under the guise of removing one or two that things that should be removed, by removing them all at the same time. "OMG look at that one thing in there, I'll vote to remove whatever as long as we get rid of that, lol".

[Adam Griffin]

Griffin,
I have explained why I supported to remove all this clause not a long time ago.

Explain which clause? As I can see it, we're on track to strike five clauses every couple of days until nothing is left and it looks like that embarrassingly awful Boko Haram bill.

[Adam Griffin]

Again though, I'm struggling to see why entrapment is bad in all circumstances. What about the example of using it to catch online predators?

Why don't we just allow mobs to lynch them if we're going to start pulling on heartstrings to justify an abhorrent tactic by mentioning an abhorrent crime?

[Adam Griffin]

The reality is, we've got two crowds here. Those who want to try to put something together that will actually be functional and those who are running around calling everyone biased soft-cocks, without offering an alternative. When people are picking and choosing which unions to believe (despite a view that all work forces should be able to unionize) should exist, because of their personal view of it, isn't consistent. When you've got people talking about "pigs", "class enemies" and other hyperbolic and emotional terms, it gets beyond reasonable.  

I support the conditions that the President recommended.

However, the reason why this Bill should be pulled by the sponsor will not have anything to do with those of us who are trying to make it reality-based.

First of all, let's stop mincing words and be clear - it's fun, I promise!

By "people talking about 'pigs', 'class enemies'", you mean TNF. Just say it.

By "those who are running around calling everyone biased soft-cocks", you mean me. Just say it.

These distinctions are important, and especially when you're trying to lump everyone who opposes the sum of these changes together. I voted FOR the amendment to eliminate annual elections of police commissioners because I too find it an ineffective proposition. I ABSTAINED on the amendment in regards to unionization of police forces, because frankly, I understand both sides of the argument (something I am sure you of all people can appreciate). Don't you dare try to lump me into a category that opposes "reality" for the sake of your own narrative.

Which sort of segues into...

What exactly is the problem here? If this bill were signed into law in anything even close to its present form, Atlasia would not have a functioning police force.

We who object to this bill have raised plenty of reasonable objections. Its supporters have barely responded, fits of outrage aside, and I doubt that any of them, aside from TNF (who might actually be fine with effectively disbanding all law enforcement), has actually thought the idea through. What's so unreasonable about refusing to support something this dramatic and extreme without a much better defense of it than we've seen so far? And why, Adam, are you attacking our character and motivations rather than responding to the substantive concerns that we've raised about the bill?

What else in terms of existing provisions of this bill would I support removing or modifying?

Section 4.1. We can put a delay on the content in question, as well as stipulate that it only be identified by badge number and time/date. This will allow for it to be identified when it is needed for an express purpose but would not necessarily expose day-to-day operations to targeted criminals under long-term investigation

Section 4.3. Requiring police officers to obtain consent in order to use lethal force is unworkable and dangerous. As such, I support its removal.

Section 2.2. I'm not sure why it has been altered in the current amendment to be three years, since that will create an irregular election cycle. It should be every four years to ensure maximum turnout for these elections and alleviate existing problems.

Section 2.3. I think this can and should be modified, in terms of the size of the councils - maybe use a formula that assigns x number of members for jurisdictions with less than y number of people, x number of members for jurisdictions between y and z number of people, and so forth.

Section 2.6. (in the proposed amendment) should be modified to apply only to those with no criminal record.


Now, why do I support the remainder?


Section 2.1 is perfectly workable. It's already in deployment throughout many jurisdictions in the US and quite necessary in today's information driven age. If anything, it ensures more protection for both civilians (who may otherwise be victimized when no one is looking) and police officers (from unverified claims of the former).

Section 2.2 shouldn't be controversial, either. Police departments have no need for excessive militarized equipment, with precedent being the strongest reinforcement. Information and technology being improved based on a changing world is a different story, but the nature of communities and criminals is not one in which arming local PDs with tanks, grenade launchers, special ops equipment or even necessarily SWAT teams is justified based on an evolving world.

Section 2.4 (in the proposed amendment) in regards to age has science backing it. Why on God's green earth would we want to put pubescent males in a position of utmost authority? The male body doesn't exit puberty until around age 26 or 27. Hormones, a lack of real-world understanding and so forth is not something that 20 year-old males possess, sorry.

Section 2.5 by many existing interpretations is actually the constitutional interpretation (while the practice of roadblocks itself is not). Notice how it applies to 'random checkpoints' and not those designed with a particular purpose (such as apprehending a fugitive).

Section 2.8 (which has been stricken in this amendment) relates to entrapment. Being able to purposefully catch someone committing a crime that they might not otherwise commit is immoral and wrong. The vast majority of these entrapment offenses relate to drug use and possession. Our laws have been heavily modified with respect to drug crimes, but I cannot imagine that PDs have not found ways to continue coercing what would normally be non-criminal drug offenders into committing criminal acts to meet their quotas. Whether or not you successfully coerce someone into committing a crime does not prove that the person would have committed the crime without said intervention, pure and simple. The fact that we continue to condone lying and manipulation of police officers as necessary elements of their job is below the standard we should be setting for them and speaks a lot about ourselves, quite frankly.

I still need to ramble on about nepotism and unmarked cars (and actually, I'll probably write an entire dissertation on entrapment later as well), but I think this is enough for now for me to not be labeled as "hyperbolic and emotional" by those who falsely equate moderation with reality, sensibility or seriousness (and by "those who falsely equate moderation with reality, sensibility or seriousness", I mean Polnut).

[Adam Griffin]

The issue IS the definition of entrapment here. If the police actively encourage people to commit crimes they otherwise wouldn't, yes, that's inappropriate. But this creates two significant issues - the first being how do you know what a person would or would not do? the second being useful techniques, as has been mentioned, like finding paedophiles online or undercover work would be in serious jeopardy. If this secion is going to be retained, then I think its actually sensible to make the language as clear and unimpeachable as possible.

I think the definition is quite obvious. In regards to "the first being how do you know what a person would or would not do?", the answer is simple: they would never commit that specific act without the police proactively attempting to ensnare them in the first place. In no other aspect of our judicial system is someone convicted of a crime based on their proclivity to commit crimes of a similar nature in the future. I feel it's akin to "We made you steal this candy bar from the store? Well, based on that, you would have likely stolen 100 more candy bars in the future so we had the right to make you do it (and if we could get away with it, we'd charge you with 100 counts of theft)". In many instances, the whole notion of entrapment is "Well, they would have done this on their own anyway" is ludicrous, and in many cases, the person wouldn't commit a crime of a similar nature on their own. Take for instance of issue domestic terrorism: ever wonder why at the heart of almost every foiled terror plot do we read the line of "undercover authorities provided an inert bomb to the accomplices" and so forth?

Atlasia usually doesn't bother with many details in its legislation, so assuming we don't actually craft legislation that is of the same length and detail as real-life legislation, my opinion on the matter is simple: most crimes relating to entrapment a) wouldn't happen without pressure, and b) are not of a sensitive nature like the counter-examples being offered (pedophilia, for instance), therefore the rule is more important than the exception.

[Adam Griffin]

Alright, this is a serious question. Would you consider a pedophile contacting an under-cover officer online to be entrapment? Because personally, this is kind of the greyest area.

That's sort of what I tried to outline in my last paragraph. If the undercover officer is pretending to be a child and proactively trying to get that person to solicit them for sex, then yes, that is entrapment just as much as any other situation. The fact that it is viewed with much more emotion and passion in terms of the crime being committed does not change the overarching theme, nor does it change the notion that the person in question wouldn't have been capable of committing that specific offense without the authorities interacting in such a manner.

If we really want to draft this law out and add exceptions and provisions that permit this particular type of entrapment while forbidding others, then I am open to that. If, however, we follow Atlasian Senate precedent and don't (and therefore make this an all-or-nothing proposition), then I will continue to oppose allowing any sort of entrapment due to the fact that the vast majority of entrapment scenarios are not "grey areas" as you described.

[Adam Griffin]

I offer the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its purpose is relatively simple.

Section 4.8 begins the process of identifying which forms of "entrapment" are allowed and which ones are not.

For instance, no police officer nor civilian operative via proxy would be able to entrap someone for the solicitation of drugs, sex or other potential crimes that do not result in direct and involuntary bodily harm.

Convincing someone to steal specific goods would be prohibited, as the specific act of stealing property would not result in involuntary bodily harm to another individual (excluding separate acts of violence that could occur during such a crime, which could still be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law; however, these auxiliary actions would not occur in these specifically-outlined cases because police forces would be prohibited from putting multiple individuals in this specific situation in the first place).

In the case of potentially still-illegal sex-for-hire cases, both partners are voluntarily consenting to the act and any potential for bodily harm would be voluntary (excluding acts of rape or unconsenting violence, which could still be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law; again, however, these auxiliary actions would not occur in these specifically-outlined cases because police forces would be prohibited from putting multiple individuals in this specific situation in the first place).

In the case of drug use, bodily harm from the consumption of drugs is possible, but not involuntary on the part of the purchaser.

And so on...only crimes in which direct, involuntary bodily harm would inevitably occur (the inability for a child to consent to sexual encounters with an adult, for instance; murder-for-hire; terrorism; etc) would it remain permissible for police forces to engage in such tactics.


Section 4.9 begins the process of outlining under which measures police forces may use unmarked vehicles in their line of work.

Under the proposed amendment, police officers who might decide, "Hey, I'm going to go sit by the side of the road, perform radar checks on people, pull them over in my unmarked car and give them citations" would no longer be permitted to do so.

Police officers who might "want to go sit around at a public park in an unmarked vehicle so they can look for troublemakers or those breaking the law without being detected" would no longer be permitted to do so.

Police officers who are working cases that target a specific individual or individuals for specific crimes (monitoring the movements and actions of John H. Smith of 14732 Main Street, Boulder, CO, who is suspected of running an underground crime syndicate) would be permitted to use unmarked vehicles to track, pursue, gather intelligence on and if necessary, apprehend the specific individual(s) in question without otherwise being detected during the investigation.

[Adam Griffin]

Aye

[Adam Griffin]

Changing vote to NAY

...When did you vote AYE?

[Adam Griffin]

Hmmmmm,
After some thought, I might have not clearly 4.9. Could someone explain me exactly the goal of 4.9? Why it should be prohibited???

The goal is to ensure that unmarked car use has a specific and prior outlined purpose. You could almost compare it to a warrant, except the process wouldn't be that formal or require any hoop-jumping to that degree - just a designated purpose. I imagine that a police officer would simply need to fill out a short form prior to taking the vehicle, listing who the target is, where they live and so forth.

There are public safety issues that come into play when police forces regularly use these unmarked cars. For starters, a police officer is no good to the public if a citizen needs help, a cop is nearby but nobody can identify them. In addition, continuous and prolonged use of these vehicles - particularly for "traffic enforcement" - creates a dangerous precedent in which citizens are placed in a situation in which they must either disobey the unmarked car's orders to pull over or risk being attacked, robbed, raped or murdered by someone pretending to be a cop. When and if entire forces regularly use this tactic, citizens will have no choice but to pull over every time a VW Beetle or whatever with a couple of flashy lights pulls up behind them (only to find out it's retromike). Separately from all of that, I'm just generally of the persuasion that cops should have to identify themselves to the public unless there is a situation in which their anonymity is absolutely required.  

[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.  

[Adam Griffin]

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.

Don't act like you care. Way to be a Serious Senator ("BUT MUH FEELINGS"): this is exactly why I'm against any Laborites acquiescing to watering down legislation to appease the "center" (lol).

Hagrid's demonstrated the primary attitude of what several Senators in this chamber have but don't have the balls to say: they never had any intention for voting for this legislation in any form because of a combination of intangible rhetoric that supposedly "offended" them, and their tendency to want to please everyone while doing nothing, so to hell with what they think - no more concessions.

Kill the bill, let it fail or let it pass, but make them vote on it and don't give them any more opportunities to screw it up so that they can grandstand in PMs and in their campaign booths. You're 60% of the Senate, Laborites, and you were given that mandate by the voters: start fycking acting like it.

[Adam Griffin]

Poor Griffin.

My intentions haven't exactly been secret. You want it clear? I'll make it clear: I believe in our law enforcement officials. I would like the final version of the bill to be as friendly to them as possible. If we're going to open the can of worms where we're regulating the beliefs cops hold in their personal lives or exposing them to dangerous situations by limiting the selection of tools at their disposal (see Section 4, Clause 1C), I'm not okay with it. That's what this amendment does. I prefer Polnut's. Since I see where things are going, I'd rather stop with what we've got. Whether Senator Polnut's version of the bill fails or passes, I can rest easy knowing that these people will have our respect and support, not our evil eye. I don't know whether I'd support Polnut's version if it reaches a final vote; I do know I'd have a ton of trouble supporting Senator Blair's.

There you go. Read it and weep. And then grow up.

No need to write out some supposedly moral tripe when you've already said all that needs to be said: you're an obstructionist, pure and simple.

[Adam Griffin]

No


I said clearly out from the beginning that I would under no circumstances support the bill unless severely amended, and I believe every other non Labor-Senator did as well.

It has been severely amended...


Laborites, you know what you have to do...6-6-6.

[Adam Griffin]

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

[Adam Griffin]

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.

GM policy works the other way around: unless the GM specifies otherwise or there is in-game policy that explicitly makes it impossible to occur here, everything occurring in real-life is assumed to have happened in Atlasia.

Also, yes: deeply disturbing and very disappointing, but also very predictable. Not a goddamn thing of relevance in here other than badge cameras. The rest is either suggestive or more tax dollars/handouts to reinforce a police state- laughable, if not so pathetic.