Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[DemPGH]

I've been reading through this, and one thing I would throw in there is that if anyone is a member of a group being watched or which is considered a hate group or which the federal government considers threatening, I surely think you could bar someone like that from being a police officer. I think you could reasonably draw the line there and be in bounds.

As to the amended rewrite, it seems too much of an overhaul. I support the objections of Blair and TNF.

[DemPGH]

^ Yes, I'd be willing to do that.

I mean it just makes sense, given the obscene amount of power that police have, to prohibit individuals affiliated with certain kinds of organizations from becoming cops. That's the issue as I understand it.

[DemPGH]

Yeah, I see no point whatsoever in stripping this to nothing and then giving the police money so hopefully maybe in the next couple of years they'll straighten out some of their problems.

^ Yes, I'd be willing to do that.

I mean it just makes sense, given the obscene amount of power that police have, to prohibit individuals affiliated with certain kinds of organizations from becoming cops. That's the issue as I understand it.

And where do we end when we allow the fairy queen with the stick to come flying around "you may become a cop, you may not, you may, you may not..." This would be a terribly dangerous precedence we are setting here - first come nazis, what comes next? Left-handers? Blue-eyed-people? People that say uhm before any second word? I have before opposed such a clause, and I will continue to do so. (Notwithstanding that I hold it unconstitutional but I don't want to get on a second page-long debate about that...)

Hard to believe you could construe it that way. This is about prohibiting avowed racists and vigilante types from becoming cops! You want people like that walking the beat? There's a galaxy-sized difference between that and weeding out people for being left-handed or whatever.

[DemPGH]

No.

Although, I look forward to Blair's amendment, assuming this passes.

Left-handed was obviously an exaggeration, but if we ban say Nazis from police service - the question who determines who falls into the "banned" groups shall here also not be ignored by the way - we set a precedent. Say in ten years, the ones in power in the nation have shifted, and you have a precedence that it's okay to ban certain groups from police service - what hinders the new government then from banning communists? What hinders some whacko-religious right people from banning gay people? What hinders xenophobic people from banning people with an immigration background from serving as policemen? All those groups view the examples mentioned the same way we view them. With a precedence in place, it is the easiest thing to go through with those measures.

Gay people, Communist Party members, and immigrants are not necessarily acting in a way that's threatening to other people. If you're in the KKK or are a vigilante, it's completely different. IMO.

[DemPGH]

Okay, I've had a chance to talk with polnut and Blair. I respect the fact that there are people who totally want to sink this, and will (i.e., a court case), and I think that polnut has made an honest effort to salvage it with this effort to focus it. The fact that most are at least open to what Blair and I have been saying about extremist groups is encouraging.

The badge cameras are minimally a big deal for me, and keep in mind, I see this whole thing through the filter of an American who reads every day through a variety of sources about deeply illegal and abusive police behavior.

So, I want to change my vote to Yes.

[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.

[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.

[DemPGH]

Cloture: No.

[DemPGH]

Yes.

[DemPGH]

Pathetic. I guess the Court is dictating to the legislature what it can and cannot do?

[DemPGH]

Okay, two things.

1. This is not unconstitutional. First, in the USA there are federal civil and criminal statutes that lay out police criteria and standards of behavior all the way down to the municipal level. Down to Barney Fife cops as well as thug cops who go around harassing people of color or whoever they decide they don't like (protesters, young people they decide to harass and strip search, etc.). That's ultimately who we're trying to protect our people from - thug cops and bully cops, and that people don't see that or want to call this unconstitutional leaves me almost speechless. What we also want to do is set minimal standards for who can become a cop. If you think that is unconstitutional, I really don't know what to say. It's just wrong, and you're defending thug cops.

2. We have a job to do, and we should not sit here afraid that the judiciary might do this or might do that. That means our hands are tied; let them do whatever they want to do. We have a job to do. So where we are is, if we can't get something that actually accomplishes something, then I say we bring up the polnut version and vote the thing down.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DemPGH]

Yes.