Talk:The Crime Reduction Act

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/20/2024 5:28 PM

Tabled by Jack Williams, MGA, as an independent member's bill. An Act to help reduce crime in Kodiak. Voting is set for 25 February. The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Crime Reduction Act ACTION by the General Assembly on ## MONTH ###. ## AYES, ## NAYS, ## ABSTAINS. An Act to help reduce crime in Kodiak. Braughn F. G. Kryos


a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 02/20/2024 5:28 PM

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/20/2024 5:28 PM

@Assembly Member, debate for this bill is now open. Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/20/2024 5:37 PM Good Afternoon fellow General Assembly member, I come to you with this crime reduction bill that will help bring down the crime rate in Kodiak while also holding police officers accountable with body cameras. I disagree with the idea of allowing all officers to be armed in Kodiak but I do believe we need a division of Armed police within their respective departments to help quell difficult situations that permit the use of weapons. I add on speeding cameras due to high rates of speeding tickets being given on our roads, which is taking officers away from more important criminal activities going on. The speeding cameras will be able to catch drivers who are speeding without having an officer catch these speeders on their own. Rubber Bullet Riot control I believe is a good alternative to the armed police division and can be a good option before dispatching Armed police to quell any riots. Finally the bill establishes The Crime Database Department which will allow us to get a better understanding of the crime rates in Kodiak while also keeping track of it going up and down. I remove my motion and am looking forward for questions. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/20/2024 5:48 PM I think if you'd asked me three years ago, I'd have said having an armed police force was overkill but given circumstances at present, I think it may not be too far off the mark. This is approx 700 million in funding per annum, It is a large increase but probably reflects the current needs of the Republic Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/20/2024 5:52 PM

I have a number of problems with this bill.

Article One: Armed police? I find the idea of granting police additional lethal weapons that are incredibly inappropriate for their job as law enforcement. Handguns are appropriate for the general situations in which police officers might find themselves in. However, funding, intentionally, the equipment of police with powerful rifles and automatic weaponry would only create situations in which more violence might occur. In essence, the equipment of police officers with high-powered weaponry not available to citizens will only create situations in which such weapons might be used.

Article Two: Speeding Cameras. I feel like I see the intent of the author, but then it trails off at the end. There is certainly a question of if this is not an invasion of the privacy or deniability of our citizenry. On the other side, having police officers issuing tickets by hand feels like a clear opening for abuse. I can plausibly foresee citizenry speeding through speed traps knowing that those officers writing out tickets will be swamped in hundreds of other tickets. Again, I dislike the concept altogether, no matter the solution to the above problem.

Article Four: My only comment is why are the cameras being mounted on the shoulder? Is it not more traditional (and reasonable) to have the camera located on the chest?

Article Five: Again, every crime report goes to one person for review? That feels like a huge task to give to one person. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/20/2024 5:54 PM

I doubt that armed police would help the current issue. The police are not (and should not be) equipped for armed rebellion on the scale we are experiencing. That is the job for the military and reservists. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/20/2024 5:54 PM The police are the frontline for civil disturbance throughout the entire nation, which includes rabble rousing extremists It is a grave error to believe the rebellion ends at the border in Sjokolade Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/20/2024 5:56 PM

Mr. Marwood, I think we can both agree that this is not civil disturbance. This is rebellion. Arming civilians, police though they may be, with assault weapons in order to use them against fellow citizens is highly, highly questionable. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/20/2024 5:57 PM Citizens don't put on an "i'm a terrorist" hat when they decide to commit a terrorist act Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/20/2024 5:58 PM

Police lack the same training that our military officers and enlisted men have, by necessity. The police force should not act as a mini-army, but as police. Citizens surving citizens. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/20/2024 5:58 PM The reality is there are uncounted tonnes of unaccounted for illegal weapons in the nation - and the one section of the nation we should keep unarmed is the police force"? Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/20/2024 5:58 PM

Not unarmed. Appropriately armed. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/20/2024 5:59 PM The act explicitely states there will be an armed contingent - not that its arming every policeman under the sun Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/20/2024 6:01 PM

Arming any portion of law enforcement in a way that is conducive to killing dozens of people at a time, any portion, painfully blurs the line between soldier and policeman. Any blurring of this divide is necessarily going to result in dangerous and avoidable situations that could result in the unnecessary deaths of our fellow citizens. Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/20/2024 6:01 PM Once President Kryos is finished speaking, I will give a response to his statements above. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/20/2024 6:01 PM We quite demonstrably have large swaths of citizens who want to kill dozens of people at a time HelloIDied(First Peoples Con.) — 02/20/2024 6:05 PM If I may make a point, surely this debate should be on whether the measures themselves are appropriate, rather than whether they allow the police to act as a second military Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/20/2024 6:09 PM Article one: this is the main part of this act so an amendment to this article is difficult for me to budge on. To your response Mr. President, the Armed Police Division will only be a chosen division that is well trained and properly tested to do the job within this respective division. They will also only be sent out for certain dangerous situations that permits a use of an Armed Police Division which in my opinion is rare here in Kodiak.

Article Two: unlike the surveillance cameras that have been brought up before in previous legislation, the Speeding cameras will only be in the proposed speed traps. Now the only concerning part that I understand is residential zones which can then where you would ask the privacy question, however I do not think what you are worried about is significant in my opinion. The speeding Cameras will free law enforcement to be able to focus on more important criminal activity, not saying speeding isn’t an important criminal act as it does cause many deaths.

Article four: I can make a change to make it where the body cameras are situated in the middle of the chest. I felt on the shoulder would be more comfortable on the police officers but if that’s such a concern, I can amend it to where the cameras are on the chest.

Article Five: I completely understand your concern of having it only reviewed by one person, in fact I would amend this article to require for 4 individuals to be reviewing the Crime Database and updating it to the system if that quells your concern. President Kryos, I do understand where you are coming from but with crime rates only slowing turn over here in Kodiak, I feel there is a need for this crime reduction package Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/20/2024 6:25 PM

If I might respond, those are one and the same in this debate. Bernard Glocke [I] — 02/21/2024 6:49 AM Gentlemen, I do believe we are getting off point here. Arming a Special Division within the Police to combat violent crime is hardly a state-run militia. rather if we look at the facts, we can see a country that is reeling with instability. Crime has been high since the end of the Kodiak Flu. But during the von Guelderlaan administration we introduced armed police as one of the first massive overhauls of the legal code. It might not have been popular given all the other issues but it did serve to control the instability within the nation. We can not have a police force that it is passive in the face of gang/terrorist violence. Additionally we can not have a military stressing its resources to combat external and internal threats.

The point is, Article 1 is a proven effective measure in the situation Kodiak is in. We do not have crime levels of some 1st World nations that allow such liberal policies.

However it needs some language work: I do take offense to point 1.4.1 which does not capitalize police in the code.

The language of 2.3 is speculation. should be removed from the bill.

3.1.2 - The Rubber bullets will be within the Armed Police Division and its allocated budget. This is oddly specific.

4.1 "To assure citizens that accountability goes both ways" is an opening statement or clarification. Should be in a non-numbered paragraph. that introduces the article. A preamble of sorts.

4.1.1 - When used correctly, can provide unalterable video and audio recordings of the commission of crime, a police-citizen interaction, or a use-of-force incident. 4.1.2 - The technology works using a simple forward-facing camera, which will be worn on the shoulder lapel of the police officer

These should be reworded to be more direct as a command. Its a law not a handbook Geo — 02/21/2024 1:34 PM I believe article 3 should be removed in its entirety. While rubber bullets are supposed to be less than lethal it is proven that they kill 3% of people due to injuries caused and causes permanent harm/injury to around 15% of people, due to kinetic trauma. Shooting rubber bullets into crowds is reckless and dangerous, and it serves to escalate the tensions and entice the mob or protest.

The rubber bullets may be useful if shot at legs of a dangerous person in stopping them but at close ranges it can penetrate the skin, break bones, fracture the skull and explode the eyeball. Firing them from distance means the shots are less accurate and can easily hit people in eye, throat, head, abdomen and other sensitive areas. Maiming civilians or using overwhelming force on them will not solve the problems that lead people into lives of criminal conduct.

We must consider these things into perspective here and rightfully prohibit the use of rubber bullets on civilians. Rather than lethal force, we must strengthen our communication and outreach if faced with protests or threat of riots and quell the crowd before things escalate. Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/21/2024 2:42 PM So there is major language issues for you? I see what you mean, I can make those changes easily. Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/21/2024 2:43 PM Rubber bullets would be a good buffer option between using Armed police and their weapons. I understand your concern but I believe they are needed. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/22/2024 6:32 AM I believe that for the present, any options we have that include less-than-lethal responses are necessary when we are also talking about lethal responses in some circumstances. A gradient of options is required and we should be prepared to have access to whatever strategies we can use on the basis of need and not just ideological preference. Rubber bullets provide a necessary option. Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/23/2024 7:50 AM I will be making slight amending to the language for the President’s suggestions which I outlined above, however the bill for the most part will stay the same Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/23/2024 7:50 AM

And I will have time to reply to your response soon. Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/23/2024 3:44 PM @Bernard Glocke [I] I included changes that you suggested regarding the language in the bill. For you Mr. @Braughn F. G. Kryos I rewrote Article 5 to make more sense for our provinces and also changed the body camera to be placed on the chest than shoulder. thats it though. However I believe that is all the changes needed for this piece of legislation. If everyone is ready, I'd like to motion this to a vote. EasyPoll BOT

— 02/24/2024 8:41 PM

Question Does the General Assembly approve the Crime Reduction Act?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [8 • 44%] 🇧 ▓▓▓░░░░░░░ [5 • 28%] 🇨 ▓▓▓░░░░░░░ [5 • 28%] 18 users voted


alarm_clock: Poll already ended (20 hours ago)
spy: Anonymous Poll
one: allowed choice
lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 8785c99f Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/24/2024 8:41 PM

@Assembly Member, voting for this bill has begun and will remain open for 72 hours. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/26/2024 12:18 PM

@Assembly Member, only one day left to vote on this proposal. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— Today at 5:05 PM

With 8 ayes, 5 nays, and 5 abstains, the Crime Reduction Act is passed by the General Assembly. This debate will be archived shortly. Josef Kovac — Today at 5:08 PM See, if the abstains had voted nay, this would have been better. Absolute worst way to vote. Jack Williams (DPPK) — Today at 5:08 PM Thank you Mr. President

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.