Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[windjammer]

If this is not already clear, I'm not going to make my father a 2nd class citizen. Wanting to forbide the right to unionize is a non starter for me.

[windjammer]

The result of the vote on Windjammer's amendment:
Aye (5): Talleyrand, Windjammer, Cris, Polnut, Hagrid
Nay (3): Griffin, TNF, Lief
Non voting (2): Cranberry, SWE

Windjammer's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[windjammer]

See my previous message Talleyrand

---------------

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.

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

[windjammer]

I need to think about it.

[windjammer]

How long do we have time here on? 72 hours, right?

72 hours. Unless someone else votes Aye or Abstain.

----------
Well, 4.8 is an improvement and I'm glad the police would still be able to go after pedophiles. If that was only this part, I would have voted Aye or Abstain.

However, I do not support 4.9. I don't see what's wrong with that and this is useful in order to arrest bandits etc.

So NAY

[windjammer]

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???

[windjammer]

Changing my vote to abstain.
Well, it appears that I misunderstood 4.9 and it makes more sense now. I would like to improve the language of both 4.8 and 4.9 but my opposition isn't enough to vote Nay.

So ABSTAIN

[windjammer]

This has enough votes to pass.
On Griffin's amendment, the result of the vote:
Aye (5): SWE, TNF, Griffin, Talleyrand, Lief
Nay (4): Cris, Hagrid, Polnut, Cranberry
Abstain (1): Windjammer


Griffin's amendmebt has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose this amendment.

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

[windjammer]

Aye.

This has enough votes to pass. I let 24 hours for the senator who haven't voted yet.

[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.

[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.

[windjammer]

Nay
(I will explain my reasons tomorrow)

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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???

I never said that, and you can do better than that.

Wooow,
I'm asking you a question, no need to answer aggressively because this is not an aggression. Believe it or not, but I definitely try to understand why this part would be unconstitutional. Because considering this is a critical issue for me not to let nazis become cops, the only reason I would support getting rid of it would be his unconstitutionality.

So, if I understand correctly, you seem to believe that you can't fire police officers for holding despicable views because it would violate their rights to assemble.

So my question is, if we simply fire them, with your logic, it would fire their right to assemble too, so it should be illegal too, right???


(and I tend to believe in Lief's interpretationà.

[windjammer]

Well,
I still don't believe this is unconstitutional, but I do understand your point.

I have an idea of compromise: why not specially barring police officers to have a homophobic and racist behaviour while at work? I mean, with the camera, it should be enough for protections for the jewish, gay black community?

[windjammer]

I would like to avoid court cases.

[windjammer]

Dear god,
I forgot the "local policies" in the US. Fine, I will support an amendment making this bill constitutional.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.
(Polnut, are you changing the 2 first clauses or this is the new bill?)

[windjammer]

Thank you for the clarification.

I do support the rewrite as well. The former bill was going to be struck down or something similar.
And Cranberry, no, I still don't see your point, I still fail to see how it would have violated he right to free assemble. But whatever .