Talk:Resolution on Policing
Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/14/2023 11:11 AM
Tabled by Joshua Lopez, MGA, Independent, as an independent member's bill. Resolution on Policing, 649 A resolution to keep police forces accountable and prevent militarization of police forces. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Resolution_on_Policing,_649 Proposed by Joshua Lopez, MGA, Independent. Voting is presently set for 28 Jan 2023 Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/14/2023 11:12 AM
@Assembly Member Discussion is opened Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 01/14/2023 11:12 AM The Bicycle Act? I assume that was a mistake? Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 01/14/2023 11:13 AM I forgot about this to be honest Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/14/2023 11:13 AM
yes, sorry, I'm editing it. 😛 Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 01/14/2023 11:13 AM no worries 🙂 Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/14/2023 11:13 AM
thanks for keeping an eye out! I'll get the hang of it Patrick Barber
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 01/14/2023 4:58 PM
Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/14/2023 8:35 PM
Any thoughts on this one? Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 01/14/2023 8:39 PM I have a few suggestions, give me a few hours and I’ll get back to you. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/14/2023 8:39 PM
looking forward to it! 🙂 Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 01/14/2023 9:00 PM There are some parts that need more detail I feel that I've picked up on my first reading, and I look foward to what our Minister for Justice can add or provide his thoughts on too.
Some questions for the author, but open to the GA as a whole of course.
Article I: What do you mean by unworkable teamwork? Are you highlighting that there needs to be collaboration? Secondly - how? What structures would, or alternatively reworded so clarifying how isn't necessary.
Article 2 and 3 possibly combined. Is it normal to only require records only when a person is in custody? I'm not certain about the follow up as well, where it suggests only when questioning is likely to elicit incriminating responses - how would that be determined? It's a judgement call that could be declared that the officer didn't think it was likely, and was just asking questions. I believe records from say body cameras if used ought to be used before and during the use of appropriate police powers, or when force is intended to or is being used.
Article 4 - I'm not sure if this is borderline legislation internal procedures: In any case in the assumption that is is still at a higher level suitable for legislation, this may need some more clauses explaining - what happens if vulnerable behaviors are detected? Are we providing the officers with mandatory mental health counselling for instance? Should we not then extend this to potential mental health concerns such as PTSD, and others?
Article 8 - if we do this the data also needs to be anonymous. That said - should law enforcement agencies be the sole handlers of their own data provided to funding applications, there seems to be a conflict of interest here. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/14/2023 9:36 PM
article 2 is incredibly broad, article 3 requires some more in depth thought on who is going to pay for said cameras.
Also, for many departments that use cameras, as far as I know, they are supposed to be on any time they engage with a civilian, no matter the reason. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/14/2023 9:43 PM Article 4 has dangerous implications for the health of our police force. Why should we make their lives worse after they already experienced trauma and disaster by threatening their livelihood? Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 01/14/2023 9:46 PM I actually interpreted Article 4 about providing mental health support, which is pretty important and often ignored or seen as 'weak'. That said, if Article 4 is intended to be something else then I digress and completely believe that mental health support is important. This may be a sign that Article 4 is too ambiguous. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/14/2023 9:47 PM Yes it doesn’t really specify what will be done if an officer is deemed mentally unfit Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/17/2023 7:53 PM
Unfortunately this bill, while I believe it to be well intentioned, leaves a lot to be desired. And it leaves far too many questions and loopholes Patrick Barber — 01/18/2023 6:11 AM I would note that this is presented as a resolution of the assembly - I am not sure its meant to be a binding demand upon law enforcement, but more a statement of expectations. Broad and non-specific may be considered purposeful in such an interpretation. We would need to wait for more information from @Joshua Lopez - Slatium Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 01/18/2023 7:16 PM Sorry I’m only getting to this now, but I see a problem with this bill, specifically in article 7.
If we were to stop handing down weapons from our military to our police, the reform of our our riot police (or at least their re-equipment) would take much longer and would be much more expensive. Make no mistake, I am against the militarization of the police (we don’t need MRAPS, snipers, or tanks), however, if some of that equipment helps keep our people safe, I believe it should be allowed. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 01/18/2023 7:22 PM Plus if I might add when it comes to the Kodiak militia don’t they have military equipment that was left in the darrent not to mention any other equipment wale I’m also totally against the militarization of the police at this time it may do a bit more harm then good in my opinion Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 01/18/2023 8:05 PM Yes, possibly that there needs to be detail in what constitutes too much. For example handing down typical smallarms to the right police department/squad/group of trained specialist makes sense. Definitely. Handing down an armoured vehicle with a cannon mounted on top designed to fight a war, maybe not.
In general, even if a non-binding resolution (what is the purpose then, I'm a bit confused on that matter), there are plenty of parts that need more detail as highlighted so far in discussion. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/19/2023 1:16 PM
personally, with this being just a resolution, I don't see the need for it. if we're going to take action, we need to take real, effective action. a resolution does not do that Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/21/2023 3:55 PM While I think the intentions of this resolution are good, the contents of it are too vague. It would need to:
1. Be far more through in explaining what "unworkable teamwork between local authorities and immigration authorities" exactly is. 2. Explain how a police officer's ability to invoke qualified immunity would be limited in charges of excessive force and if they still retain the ability to invoke it if proven to be true, and how would they be proven to be true. 3. Detail how mentally unstable or problematic officers would be treated if found to be so. 4. Detail what a community-oriented approach to policing involves. 5. Define what equipment is "not suitable for law enforcement purposes". Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 01/21/2023 10:58 PM I'm unsure if community policing needs to be too detailed in the resolution, as it is simply a policing strategy - though perhaps I'm taking it for granted that this is just a thing police do anyway (the alternate can be seen as reactive or fire-brigade policing where they merely respond to crimes only). Potentially listing methods oversteps on the 'how' police should do this, better left to the police themselves. Agree otherwise in terms of details for everything raised so far. Patrick Barber — 01/22/2023 6:23 AM @Joshua Lopez - Slatium hasn't engaged in the debate for nearly 8 days. I might suggest that he either isn't invested or doesn't want to change the bill as it stands. Unless there is some movement from him about changes, I will have the bill be put to vote in 24 hours. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 01/22/2023 12:39 PM At its current state, I believe the NUP will have to vote against the resolution. Don't get me wrong, this resolution offers some really great protections, but the problems with article 7 and the general broadness of the resolution, if not amended, do not warrant it to be passed. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/22/2023 12:40 PM
resolution Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 01/22/2023 12:41 PM Thank you, it is fixed now Patrick Barber — 01/22/2023 11:27 PM Mr Lopez has stated he hopes to make some clarifications for his bill within the next 24 hours, so I will halt the call to vote until he has a chance to comment or at least 48 hours have passed Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 01/26/2023 9:29 PM
@Assembly President Seeing as how Mr. Lopez has still not returned and it has been nearly 4 full days, I motion to vote on the resolution. Belial Pandor — 01/26/2023 9:29 PM Is he ok ? Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 01/26/2023 9:32 PM I would hope so. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 01/26/2023 9:54 PM In its current state, the NUP will be voting against this resolution. Although it offers many great protections which I hope to be added to the roster of Kodiak protections and rights, the problems with the resolution in its current state do not warrant an “aye” vote. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 01/27/2023 7:42 AM I too do not believe this resolution provides enough clarity on a number of articles and it currently does not warrant a vote for. Perhaps at a later date an improved resolution may be resubmitted by Mr Lopez. Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 01/27/2023 7:43 AM I concur. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 01/27/2023 7:43 AM I second the motion. Belial Pandor — 01/27/2023 11:58 PM How much are officers paid in TKR Artillcle 6 may be a bit much I believe that the responsibility of recompense must be maintained by the Department, we must ensure our law enforcement departments are being held to the flame for recruiting standards. Patrick Barber — 01/28/2023 2:00 AM Given that the author has abandoned the topic and the house appears to be in agreement its not an effective resolution, I shall begin a vote to PULL the resolution off the floor. EasyPoll BOT
— 01/28/2023 2:00 AM
Question Do you believe the Resolution on Policing should be PULLED from the floor?
Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain
Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [16 • 76%] 🇧 ░░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 5%] 🇨 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [4 • 19%] 21 users voted
- alarm_clock: Poll already ended (a day ago)
- spy: Anonymous Poll
- one: allowed choice
- lock: No other votes allowed
Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 8e5f0dcf Patrick Barber — 01/28/2023 2:01 AM @Assembly Member Please vote to remove this resolution from debate. This poll shall stand for 72 hours. Please be sure to READ the question put. Debate is suspended Klaus Mikaelson OP
— Today at 1:42 PM
With 16 ayes, 1 nay and 4 abstentions, this resolution will be pulled from the floor.