Talk:The Riot Control Act, 649

The Riot Control Act, 649 Klaus Mikaelson OP — 02/01/2023 1:50 PM Tabled by Símôn Kalimeno, MGA, NUP, as an independent member's bill. The Riot Control Act, 649 A resolution to establish a system of Riot Control to better protect the citizens of Kodiak. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_Riot_Control_Act,_649 Proposed by Símôn Kalimeno, MGA, NUP. Voting is presently set for 15 Feb 2023 The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Riot Control Act, 649 Over the last decade, violent civil unrest has become commonplace and it is a destructive habit, which, if not properly contained, can lead to situations where many Kodiakers are injured and/or killed. This bill is designed to prevent that. It will authorize the utilization of crowd control weapons in riot situations. It will also ensure that of... Klaus Mikaelson OP — 02/01/2023 1:50 PM @Assembly Member Debate is now opened. Klaus Mikaelson changed the post title: The Riot Control Act, 649 — 02/01/2023 1:51 PM Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 02/01/2023 2:11 PM I have a concern regarding clause 1.3: “1.3 - Prevalent use CCW are to be deployed into riots involving 12+ violent individuals, moderate use CCW are to be deployed into riots involving 100+ violent individuals, and minimal use CCW are to be deployed into riots involving 1000+ violent individuals.” I feel like there should be some leeway established. It would be pretty difficult to come up with an accurate headcount of the rioters. I feel like maybe a 100 individual margin of error should be given to minimum use CCW and 10 individual margin of error given to moderate use CCW. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 02/01/2023 2:22 PM Of course there’s always the difficulty of how are you supposed to even collect that information afterwards Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 02/01/2023 5:46 PM My main issue with this is that there (at least from what I can tell) is no accountability for the police officers and use of excessive/unnecessary force. While clause 2.4 does provide some measures of accountability, it only does so for the higher-ups. This is concerning to say the least. While police accountability deserves its own law cough cough Resolution on Policing cough cough, some basic parameters on what actions are permissible for police officers to take, and the punishments for cops that violate those restrictions, are necessary.

I understand that policing is hard and important, but there is a fine line between keeping citizens safe vs. repressing and hurting them, and a lack of accountability for police officers is a step towards the latter. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/01/2023 7:28 PM I shall amend it to include both of your suggestions soon. Erich’s amendment will be relatively easy, but give me a bit and I’ll come up with a few accountability ideas and I’ll present them here. Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 02/01/2023 7:40 PM I'm also not sure I agree with tear gas being categorized as prevalent use. Maybe a separate category that lets it be used in 30-50+ people? Belial Pandor — 02/01/2023 8:02 PM I am against water cannons And Sound Cannons Everything else is fine Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/01/2023 8:39 PM I don’t see how sound and water cannons are any less humane than, for example, tear gas. Of course, police would be rigorously trained in the use of these weapons. If the assembly would like, I can move water cannons to limited use, but I’m not willing to remove these two extremely effective peace’s of equipment from the bill. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/01/2023 8:39 PM Will do Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 02/01/2023 9:32 PM Also, in reality, the goal of riot police is to break up a riot, not turn it into a war zone. A section should be added that states that the goal is to disperse the riot and provide guidelines for when force is allowed. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/01/2023 9:33 PM You're right, I'll add that too. Just a side note to anyone who has or will suggest edits, can't promise any edits will be made until Friday. Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 02/01/2023 9:38 PM Final suggestion (for now), was there a reason behind the 1/4 outfitted clause or was it arbitrary? If it was arbitrary, I would suggest reducing it to avoid overly militarizing the police. Maybe have the police be a dispersal and containment unit, and have a military QRF for breaking up truly violent riots? Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/01/2023 9:39 PM It was atbitrary, I had no idea what to put, figured we’d debate it here. Thanks for bringing it up! Wow don’t know how “wow” autocorrected to “dead” Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/01/2023 9:44 PM I was going to mention that intent or purpose of riot police should be added in but Mivod got there, thanks! No problem Simon RE time.

2.3 - A riot can be declared if both the mayor and police chief of the city in which the riot is

occurring designate the riot as it is. Then, the police chief is authorized to mobilize riot police armed with CCW and RPE in numbers that the police chief finds appropriate for the situation in order to disperse the mob.

I know what you're saying here, the first sentence is odd. Probably needs a reword, A riot must be declared by both the Mayor and the Police Chief of the city is it occurring in. Then the Police Chief is authorized...

This is assuming I got your intentions right.

Agreed with Luik's comments about accountability to officers as well.

I'll have a think about Article 3 too. Though I disagree with military QRF being involved in a domestic matter, typically trained police are actually better at dispersing riots than the military, due to the specialist training involved. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/01/2023 9:45 PM OOC: Phone pranked you Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/01/2023 9:47 PM Yeah that is worded pretty weirdly. I’ll fix that soon. Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 02/01/2023 9:49 PM The QRF was just an example, I was thinking a regional unit to break up truly violent riots instead of arming municipal police to the teeth. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/01/2023 9:52 PM The only problem with that is in the case of widespread violent riots, like in the case of… every recent election. A good mix of both might be our best bet. Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 02/01/2023 9:53 PM That does change things. Have the 1/4 be only for prevalent use items, and the other two tiers on the provincial and constituency levels, respectively. And add an "including, but not limited to" to 1.4. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/02/2023 2:39 AM As time has shown, such means as tear gas, water cannons, sound cannons, etc. are not only ineffective, but also cause IRREPARABLE damage to health. Therefore, I see the use of these means as unjustified cruelty. But it is necessary to suppress radical measures somehow. For this, ordinary policemen with ordinary handcuffs with ordinary shields, walking in a single impenetrable row, are quite enough. The police bring down all the protesters in one pile, and then, with a clean onslaught, without violence, they break up a large group into smaller groups, and then into even smaller groups, and again, and again, until it becomes possible to arrest everyone. Then the relatively innocent are released, and a criminal case is initiated against the guilty. Simple and without blood. And it seems to me that the order to disperse the rally can only be given by the chancellor in order to avoid abuse of power on the ground. Tom Westbrook — 02/02/2023 6:20 AM I am shocked and appalled by 1.1 of this bill. These weapons should in no circumstances be mobilised by the police force against the populace. Are we a country that resorts to chemical attacks against its own citizens in order to maintain the monopoly of the state? It is abhorrent and an affront to the values of our republic Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/02/2023 6:23 AM If severe violence breaks out, it has to be stopped. If someone is burning homes, businesses, and buildings, who’s going to stop them? They’re obviously not going to listen by police just yelling at them. This is a matter of public safety. 1.1 is necessary for the bill. And to my understanding, the use of such weapons would be very rare, and would have to be checked off by multiple officials. Tom Westbrook — 02/02/2023 6:26 AM I cannot and will not sanction the use of chemical warfare and barbaric authoritarian devices by non military personnel against our citizenry. John Edwards [KWP] — 02/02/2023 6:28 AM We have deployed riot police successfully without these weapons. Standard riot armour, shields, etc. are all currently available to our police forces. This bill would be an escalation to the next level of riot control. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/02/2023 6:30 AM Again, from my interpretation, those weapons would only be used to protect the lives of other people, and wouldn’t be used until multiple officials deem necessary. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/02/2023 6:32 AM Slender and dense ranks of armored police, quickly and methodically surrounding the rebels, will cope with any unrest using only handcuffs, shields and, in the worst case, ordinary batons. There is no need to mutilate citizens unnecessarily Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/02/2023 6:35 AM Let me remind you that the tools of struggle listed in the bill can make you deaf, blind and break all the bones. This will definitely not make the rebels any kinder. Moreover, because of our brutality, the ranks of the rebels may be replenished. Tom Westbrook — 02/02/2023 6:36 AM If the police cannot contain a riot of 12 individuals without teargas and rubber bullets we may as well give up now. W. Magnus Ward — 02/02/2023 6:38 AM I am particularly concerned with 2.2 if 1000 people are peacefully protesting, and 50 break out into violence, are we to expect the entire mass to be water cannon'd or just the people in front get battoned John Edwards [KWP] — 02/02/2023 6:40 AM Agreed. The last time this discussion came up, they were described as less than lethal but still very capable of serious injury and lethality. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 02/02/2023 7:40 AM Riot Police’s strongest weapon has always been fear. While these proposed weapons are definitely effective, they anger more than instill fear in the rioters. A highly disciplined and organized wave of riot police would be incredibly demoralizing to any normal person. Perhaps we could also look into using vehicles with loudspeakers to play music to demoralize them? Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/02/2023 8:20 AM You raise a fair point actually, the definition of riot may also need to be tightened then in the sense that as written it might be unintentionally read as an entire protest is/can be classified as a riot. I would assume most sane people would not, but I suppose as lawmakers we have to guard against the worst too. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/02/2023 8:52 AM It seems unnecessary to me. But it is worth prescribing that the police, before starting to pack up the protesters at police stations, should offer to disperse a socially dangerous rally three times with an interval of 5 minutes. This will give peaceful demonstrators an opportunity to leave the rally. The rest, for example, looters and militant persons, will spend the next few days in police stations wonderfully (no). Although it will be necessary to prescribe precise and easily verifiable criteria on the spot when the rally ceases to be peaceful. Still, wringing the hands of ordinary citizens is cruel, and it is not worth making mistakes in this matter. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/02/2023 10:07 AM Water cannons have proved their effectiveness in places like Hong Kong, Peru, Venezuela, etc. They are easily one of the most effective crowd dispensers on the market. And I’m not sure I agree with the “inhumane” aspect of tear gas, water cannons, etc. Tear gas is one of if not the most effective crowd dispersers and is used by many RL countries with great effectiveness. I don’t really understand how the KWP can tolerate violent riots but not the tear gas used to quell them… However, Mr. Barbers point is valid. I’ll think about that and get back to you. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/02/2023 10:20 AM I'm going to note that Mr Westbrook and Mr von Zeppelin are independents.

That said tear gas is rightfully a controversial topic. Many things are effective in 'RL' but are not necessarily the perfect option so I say let's not discount their arguments offhand. That is simply what debate is. Doesn't make their points any less valid because they disagree. Just as your points aren't any less valid because it's simply a different view point.

I think in the case of Hong Kong, that actually escalated tensions further (even if you remove the western media lens on anything China does). Though I suppose in terms of dispersal at different points of the protest and marches it did the job. I don't know much about what happened in Peru or Venezuela to comment.

On the topic of tear gas though, other points have already been made but just thinking on if it were used I wonder - is it really meant for 'prevalent' use (where it is currently described as 12+ violent individuals)? Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/02/2023 10:21 AM My apologies, didn’t realize Vz and Westbrook are independents 😬 Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/02/2023 10:24 AM No problem I figured it best to correct it for the record to avoid confusion is all! Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/02/2023 10:27 AM Overall, I understand everyone’s points, but I will not be removing tear gas or water cannons from the bill; they are too effective to be forfeited. However, I am open to suggestions about further regulation of their use in riot situations. And I will move tear gas from prevalent to moderate. Miriam Blanket Frothingham — 02/02/2023 10:37 AM Is the Minister aware that the use of tear gas and water cannons can lead to permanent injury and in some cases death? Furthermore, the gaseous and liquid nature of both of these means that there is no way to ensure only those who are targeted will be the ones who suffer its effects. As the public safety and wellbeing of our citizens are of utmost importance, how can we keep the peace while using such unreliable, dangerous methods? John Edwards [KWP] — 02/02/2023 10:43 AM The KWP are not tolerating violent riots. We have encountered rioting recently and dealt with it effectively with the tools already at our disposal. Armour, shields and batons. Non lethal methods to break up the crowds and keep groups apart. You may remember I went myself to talk to the rioters and support the police. That was the worst we have experienced recently. I'm not convinced that this is a necessary escalation. I know we have a history of limited rioting post election, but there was none at the last election and our police forces have expanded dramatically since the last incident. I feel this expansion of equipment will fuel discontent rather than quell it. Tom Westbrook — 02/02/2023 10:50 AM Please find some compelling information on the dangers of these methods of "crowd dispersal" given from a neutral medical human rights advocacy group https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_other/PHR_INCLO_Fact_Sheets_Chemical_Irritants.pdf https://phr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/PHR_INCLO_Fact_Sheets_Water_Cannons.pdf Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/02/2023 11:12 AM If this cannot be decided upon, both sides need to work to find a solution to target large, violent riots. Doesn’t appear we will agree on a compromise, but we need to come up with weapons and tactics that can be used to disperse the rioting crowds. The bill has very successful weapons and tactics, which work very well. But, if the opposition wants to remove them from the bill, they would have to be replaced with other forms. Riots don’t go away themselves. And frankly, riots aren’t tamed just by police presence. John Edwards [KWP] — 02/02/2023 11:43 AM Currently batons are already in use, but not rubber bullets or tear gas. I would recommend moving rubber bullets and tear gas to moderate use as the danger of serious injury is considered comperable (I would recommend taking them out altogether but I suspect that's not an option).

I would increase the number for prevalent use from 12 to something more appropriate like 30 - 50 (point 1.3). If police need to break out the riot gear for the numbers from a xmas party, they're overusing it.

2.2 as per Patrick's question.

We'll also need a cost estimate for this upgrade.

All that said, The moderate use and minimal use equipment is going to be the sticking point for many. There are some other points in the bill that need discussing. Most recently the deployment of riot police had to be approved by the Chancellor. This bill takes that onus away and puts it in the hands of local law enforcement. Whilst that speeds up the local response, it can also escalate without approval. Do we want to take that away? 2.4 covers this in part but it indicates that the assessment occurs after the event. John Edwards [KWP] — 02/02/2023 11:54 AM A potential compromise could be that moderate and minimal use CCW can only be deployed with approval from Cabinet (L&O Minister/Chancellor). Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/02/2023 11:58 AM I'll get back to this soon Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/02/2023 8:27 PM Alright, here's the deal. This bill is obviously not going to pass at its current state. What concessions does everyone need me to make for you to support it? Anything else than what has already been laid out? Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/02/2023 8:31 PM It would be fair to classify tear gas and sound/water canons as rare use, as well as making the authorization process more stern To me, that compromises both sides of the table Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/02/2023 9:13 PM If there isn't a compromise, riots can classify as a pool party too... Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 02/02/2023 9:19 PM If there isn't a compromise, the bill won't get passed... Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/02/2023 9:34 PM Which is why it’s important to find common ground. Can’t wait to hear thoughts and opinions! Tom Westbrook — 02/02/2023 9:35 PM I have my clinic with my constituents tomorrow and will look for feedback and suggestions on this bill Miriam Blanket Frothingham — 02/03/2023 7:43 PM I personally believe this bill needs explicit safeguards before it is even worth consideration. The categories seem to be rather ephemeral, and are liable to grotesque interpretations. What does minimal use actually mean? Is just the destruction of property really enough to qualify a protest as a riot, where the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons are permissible? If an otherwise peaceful protest is interrupted by a handful of violent, possibly unrelated individuals, is the bill then permitting the use of these controls upon the whole crowd? These are the questions at my mind and the minds of my constituents. I also still do not think we are taking the potential lethality or grave injury of these control measures seriously enough, nor their lack of precise targeted control. Why are we ignoring these concerns? Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/03/2023 9:02 PM According to my interpretation, minimal/moderate/frequent use would be based on the local government's definition of said terms, based on how many riots there are. Also, the bill would target riots, not peaceful protests. I have proposed compromises strengthening the authorization process. And note that rubber bullets are already in use John Edwards [KWP] — 02/03/2023 9:17 PM Are they? Not to my understanding. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that we haven't passed anything that authorises rubber bullets. W. Magnus Ward — 02/03/2023 9:18 PM yeah I don't see that anywhere Image Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/03/2023 9:20 PM Sorry, I was referring to your post above. Batons, not bullets. Apologies John Edwards [KWP] — 02/03/2023 9:39 PM It's an option that would be put in place with this legislation I think but not currently in use. W. Magnus Ward — 02/03/2023 9:58 PM As a unionist, as someone who's held the picket line, as someone tasked with defending workers rights by physically holding back the scabs and private police, I cannot vote to empower the use of bullets, cannons, horns, on the basis of the say so of a handful of politicians and political appointments. People have a right to protest, the downtrodden a right to riot. Much of the social change in this country was won by the effort of the common citizen, not the proaction of this legislature Immanuel von Zeppelin — 02/03/2023 10:50 PM Prohibit any other weapons except batons for dispersing rallies, and give clear and fair criteria for when a rally (or rather a gathering of looters) can be arrested. Klaus Mikaelson OP — 02/04/2023 3:44 PM Other discussion or proposed amendments? Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 02/04/2023 4:13 PM Am I able to just pull the bill from the floor? Everything you guys want removed defeats the purpose of the bill. Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 02/04/2023 4:15 PM I am inclined to agree with @Símôn Kalimeno (NUP). While this is an important issue facing Kodiak, I don't think this bill is the way to go about solving it. I do not envy the job of the politician who writes a bill like this; however, I think that the best way forward is to pull to bill from the floor. Thank you @Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) for your time and effort spent on this proposal, but, again, I think the best way forward is to pull the bill from the floor and start anew. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 02/04/2023 4:23 PM I would rather sponsor the bill than it to be pulled from the floor completely Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/04/2023 7:07 PM It is the authors prerogative I think, but I'm inclined to think this bill is important and something can be made of it. Klaus Mikaelson OP — 02/04/2023 7:10 PM I agree, if a way can be found to compromise in the right ways so that the author doesn’t feel the bill no longer reflects what he wanted John Edwards [KWP] — 02/04/2023 7:51 PM Feels like there's two aspects to the bill. One is the introduction of ranged anti riot equipment, the other is the make up and operation of riot police. The first is what is getting so much push back. There is an interesting discussion to be had on the second but it's hard to get past the first point. Klaus Mikaelson OP — 02/04/2023 9:05 PM Would it be better to split them into two bills, potentially? Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 02/04/2023 9:25 PM I understand the idea especially as one part of the debate is certainly potentially more likely to approach satisfactory to all involved in this debate but my opinion is that it is best they are in one bill, as they tie into each other. This I'll acquiesce to what the GA believes though. Klaus Mikaelson OP — 02/06/2023 10:58 AM I am happy to hear any thoughts or proposals on how this bill can be passed. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 02/06/2023 11:09 AM I’d like more focus on police doctrine, tactics, and training rather than just authorizing higher levels of escalation. But I personally will be fine with this bill if all of new riot control equipment were moved to either moderate or rare use. John Edwards [KWP] — 02/06/2023 11:47 AM Given the push back on the escalation CCW, I think the introduced ranged CCW, would have to be removed. Maybe put under ministerial/cabinet approval (current circumstance for standard riot deployment). Klaus Mikaelson OP — 02/06/2023 12:01 PM I'll be curious to hear what the author thinks of that idea Klaus Mikaelson OP — 02/07/2023 9:04 PM @Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) does anyone else want to add to the discussion? W. Magnus Ward — Yesterday at 12:31 AM Many may disagree with me and that is their prerogative - but I simply believe that there is an innate human right to be heard and any attempt to put the needs of property over the rights of citizens is a perversion of our democracy. police should be empowered to manage contact between rival groups, but I do not believe we should be empowering them to disperse - especially if we're going to use violent ranged tools to do so. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 8:11 AM not even if those protesting turn violent themselves? You might not feel that damaged property is so easily overlooked if it was your property being damaged/destroyed. Miriam Blanket Frothingham — Yesterday at 8:51 AM If that is the case, then would it not be more appropriate for the affected parties to receive compensation for said property damage at the equivalent value, rather than inflict pain and injury on a random selection of people within a large crowd in which some people (not necessarily them) have committed property damage? Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 8:57 AM police can be trained to know when they need to restrict themselves, but if police aren't there to help protect a person or their belongings, it seems like there isn't much use to having police at all Miriam Blanket Frothingham — Yesterday at 8:58 AM Are we treating crowds as singular parties now? I stand in opposition to the unbelievable amounts of cruelty this bill enables, and until it is amended or even at least acknowledged, I see no path forward for this bill. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 8:58 AM I was referencing individuals whose property could be damaged in these hypothetical situations Miriam Blanket Frothingham — Yesterday at 9:05 AM I don’t know about you, but I don’t think the job of a policeman in Kodiak should be tantamount to being a mad guarddog, and I believe, or at least certainly hope, that our police force takes more pride in their work than to spray pepper gas or water cannons at petty vandals. I am starting to believe there is a fundamental philosophical difference between the proponents of the bull versus its detractors. Some seem to believe property is worth the equivalent of or even more than the human life, and that any damage to property must be reciprocated in the damage to humans. I ask you, honorable assembly, people of Kodiak, is this really the precedent we want to set for our country? Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — Yesterday at 10:04 AM But, in reality, should people have the ability to damage public and private property? At this point, what’s stopping them? And, is dispersing criminals more important than saving lives and property during riots? Additionally, I support adding increased polic fundin too. We need to reduce the number of lives lost in riots. But the bill must pass in order to protect everyone. Our cities, our property, our livelihood, our safety, and more importantly, life on both sides (citizens, officers, and rioters) Also, note the difference between a protest and a riot. A riot is a a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd, meaning that they are breaking the law and putting others in danger. The police serve and protect the safety of the people, and frankly, if we have a bunch of criminals burning cities and looting stores, the police serve no purpose on our nation. Like Klaus said. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 10:27 AM You're making several incredibly large leaps. For example, you assume people are going to just be killed by the police, or that gas and water cannons are the first tool used in situations. police can be trained to handle situations and to know what to do, but if de-escalation fails or a group of people fails to obey a lawful order, police should have the ability to act. And again, it's easy to say that property is worth little or that it shouldn't be protected when it isn't your property being damaged or destroyed. John Edwards [KWP] — Yesterday at 10:32 AM We currently have one of the most heavily funded police in existence. At current funding rates it's probably one of our biggest national employers. There are almost enough police to diffuse a riot by sheer force of numbers. The effectiveness of our current police force has been demonstrated again and again. adding another level of potential lethality to riot dispersion is not going to reduce lives lost, it will increase them. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — Yesterday at 10:33 AM But then again, riots shouldn’t be happening in the first place. Tear gas and other lethal courses if actions should be of use when absolutely needed, given permission to use through various authorities. Some people lose their entire livelihoods by rioters looting, burning, and destroying businesses property and lives. It’s not fair for them that riots keep happening. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 10:35 AM and police can be trained in when to use such measures and when not to John Edwards [KWP] — Yesterday at 10:35 AM Agreed. But stomping on them has proved fruitless. We should be looking at the causes of the riots, not looking for a bigger boot. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 10:51 AM and training. 😛 Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — Yesterday at 10:53 AM I agree. We need to treat the underlying root. But we don’t live in the future, and steps to test the root take years, if not decades. We need to also treat the problem now. Safely, but also swiftly. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — Yesterday at 11:09 AM We already have the ability to safely and swiftly deal with riots. The police is already very well-funded, an escalation seems unnecessary. Miriam Blanket Frothingham — Yesterday at 2:28 PM These are not leaps or assumptions I am making. These would be uncommon but very possible occurrences that will now be allowed and condoned should this bill come to pass. There have been cases where people have died from the use of these techniques. Miriam Blanket Frothingham — Yesterday at 2:32 PM You will find, Pres. Mikaelson, that I am not cruel and sadistic enough to want bodily harm on someone just because they intentionally destroyed my property. And I don’t know what it means for the future of Kodiak that there are members of the assembly who do not share this sentiment. Miriam Blanket Frothingham — Yesterday at 2:40 PM Tear gas, as of yet, is still categorized under prevalent usage. Even putting aside the issue of how dangerous these techniques are, may I reiterate that these are techniques that lack control and accuracy, regardless of training, simply by their physical operating means. Collateral damage, the potential injury of people unrelated to any violent or destructive acts, but who happen to just be standing nearby, in a potentially packed crowd, where they have no avenue of escape. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 2:45 PM there are absolutely some things there worth discussing and debating Miriam Blanket Frothingham — Yesterday at 3:04 PM Very well, then holding my reservations on the bill as I have stated thus far, if I may suggest some specific changes, so that should it pass, it will at least limit the amount of innocents harmed through collateral damage.

A riot should be defined as a discrete group of people who all have violent and/or destructive tendencies. At the moment, 1.3 and 2.2 leave open a very problematic definition of a crowd of any number of people, so long as at least 12 people among them can be argued to be violent and/or destructive.

2.4 is a decent safeguard against part of my concerns, but it is not enough to leave it to after the fact. 2.3 does not explicitly require that the requirements of a riot as per 2.2 are met for the approving parties to recognize a mob as a riot. I believe it would be ideal for an independent party to be involved in the decision process, probably a strategist or specialist trained in the physics of ballistics and gas/aerosol dispersals. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 3:06 PM "discrete group"? Miriam Blanket Frothingham — Yesterday at 3:07 PM A group which can be judged to be clearly separate from another, that is the boundaries of that group can be defined spatially without difficulty Put simply, if you are able to rope off that group from any other individuals without any large dips and bumps in the shape If the body mentioned in 2.3 are not able to do so, then the target should either be a smaller group, or conditions at the time are not safe enough to employ riot control techniques without risk of unintended, innocent victims. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 3:41 PM understood, I wasn't sure of the meaning behind the term Miriam Blanket Frothingham — Yesterday at 4:16 PM Certainly, I just wanted avoid all doubt, and expound on why I think it is necessary. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — Yesterday at 4:23 PM I suggest moving 1.2.1.2 - rubber bullets to moderate use and 1.2.1.3 - tear gas 1.2.2.1 - water cannons 1.2.2.2 - stun grenades to minimal use Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — Yesterday at 4:32 PM Maybe also amending 2.3 to something like: “A riot can be declared if both the mayor and police chief of the city in which the riot is occurring, the minister of Law and Order, and Chancellor agree that the riot meets all qualifications to be deemed a riot (see 2.2). Then, the police chief is authorized to mobilize riot police armed with CCW and RPE in numbers that the police chief finds appropriate for the situation in order to disperse the mob.” We could also discuss amending 1.3 to: “Prevalent use CCW are to be deployed into riots involving 12+ violent individuals, moderate use CCW are to be deployed into riots involving 100+ violent individuals, and minimal use CCW are to be deployed into riots involving 1000+ violent individuals. Law enforcement officers must be required to attend mandatory training to ensure all tactics in 1.1 are used properly to minimize abuse of power and excessive force.” Adding sub-articles as needed. But just a general idea Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — Yesterday at 4:42 PM To me, that compromises on both sides. Keeping the tactics available if needed, but making them minimal use to prevent lethality. Also, is strengthens the authorization process, which the opposition was concerned about. Also, why would we need an independent party if we can train the police to do so? Sounds like it would be too complex and expensive. Anyways, I’d like to hear thoughts and hopefully find a reasonable compromise. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — Yesterday at 6:06 PM So it's not forgotten, we ough to also revise 2.4 to include accountability for police that breach or are found to have unjustly acted with excessive force. I think it fair that moving towards minimal use for the aforementioned CCW would be the least that is required if this bill is even to go to vote.

Definitely a good suggestion to better improve the definition of a riot, identifying such a riot and it being discrete from the larger protest.

Training has been mentioned a number of times, this seems valid - at the very least police shouldn't be deployed as riot police without any training. My initial thought here is that the existing police budget probably can cover this - and riot policing can be seen to be an additional specialisation that not all police need participate. Something we should think about including in this bill to make it more comprehensive. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — Yesterday at 7:40 PM @Klaus Mikaelson I believe I will be removing this bill from the docket as the suggested edits will make it so that the bill will not accomplish its originally intended goal anymore. If anyone would like to use this as a basis for their own bill (as I’ve seen many great suggestions in here), then be my guest. Klaus Mikaelson OP — Yesterday at 9:22 PM Understood, sir. I will leave it here for another day or so, so that assembly members can review it if they so choose. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — Yesterday at 9:29 PM Thank you.