We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Police Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Catholic Political Union
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 3267
Description[?]:
| It is time to take away the military machine guns etc. and get back to the proper business of professional policing. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers carry military-grade equipment.
Current: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:37:40, February 29, 2012 CET | From | Communist Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We disagree. Why on earth would you allow for the disarmament of police officers when criminals and crooks out there ARE armed? |
| Date | 22:26:24, February 29, 2012 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, We whole heartedly support this bill. Are police force should be exactly that, a police force, and not an alternative military force. Ordinary police officers should not be armed with guns, although we concede that there is a necessity for some armed units who have received the requisite training. John Russell ULA Leader |
| Date | 01:22:45, March 01, 2012 CET | From | Red Police Party | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, As much as we hate to do this, we strongly disagree with both the ULA and the CPU, and agree with the CPT. Also, this shows the inherent dislike of our Parliamentary system by the Catholic Political Union by submitting a bill over a proposal that was only recently passed in Parliament. This is a waste of taxpayer's dollars, and we strongly reprimand the CPU for bringing up this article so soon after it was passed. Additionally, we are utterly confused as to why our government is wanting to send unarmed individuals out there with the mandate to stop armed and dangerous criminals. Our police forces need to be equipped the best that they can in order for us to rein in crime and police deaths. How can we ask our brave officers to stand on the brink of criminality and unstability, armed with only "unlethal" weapons. An officer with a baton isn't going to be able to do anything against a criminal with a gun. We must support these pillars of our society, much like we support other pillars such as health and education. Law and order must be held, and we must out-arm our officers in dangerous situations against criminals. |
| Date | 01:33:03, March 01, 2012 CET | From | National Imperial Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | We stand by the RPP on this issue. |
| Date | 02:19:52, March 01, 2012 CET | From | Catholic Political Union | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, The RPP may have forgotten than an election took place between the last time the arming of the police was discussed and our introducing this proposal. After elections, the elected representatives of the people are entitled to review and revist the issues dealt with by the previous Parliament. This is what happens in a democracy. There is nothing anti-democratic about it; in fact, it is democracy in action! Once again, Telamon needs a professional civilian police force, not a brigade of military-style commandos. The military should do the job of a military and the police force should do the job of a police force. We wonder whether the people behind the RRP are just bitter and regretful at having commenced a career in the police instead of the army. Turning the police into an army might make the RRP feel better, but it is not what the citizens of Telamon need. Leroy Adams (Chairman of the CPU) |
| Date | 03:13:23, March 01, 2012 CET | From | Red Police Party | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Of course! How stupid we've been. Obviously the citizens of Telamon are going to need police officers protecting them with batons from criminals with deadly weapons. Who cares about the officers, they aren't the military right? Who cares that they put themselves in harms way? Let me tell you who cares Mr. Speaker, we do. We care not only about the police officers, but our citizens. I suppose that's a compassion the CPU and any other member of this great Parliament who agrees with this bill simply does not share. |
| Date | 11:36:03, March 01, 2012 CET | From | Catholic Political Union | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Telamon's internal security situation is not so severe as to justify handing machine guns to civilian police officers. The police can by and large do their job without guns. In extreme situations, the use of guns may be necessary, and this legislation makes appropriate provision for that. The risk is that if we arm the police like this, we will increase the number of accident and wrongful police shootings, and also that we will trigger an arms race with organised gangs. Leroy Adams (Chairman of the CPU) |
| Date | 14:35:58, March 01, 2012 CET | From | Red Police Party | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Guess what? I'm not afraid of the police shooting me, I'm afraid of the criminals shooting me. And I somewhat want my police to be able to respond to my calls for help with a little more than a baton. I ask the Parliament, are we really going to force some of our brave citizens out onto the streets unprotected? This isn't responsible government, this is madness. There is no reason on earth why we shouldn't arm our security forces, our police forces, the men and women we trust with our LIVES to the best of our ability. This is against our people, this is against the police and this is against morality. We ask you, are you willing to side with our brave officers and the safety of the public? Or should we take the firehoses away from the firefighters too? Should our priests have no bible? We cannot in good mental stability allow this bill to pass. We urge the Parliament to side with reason and vote nay on this bill. |
| Date | 17:52:53, March 01, 2012 CET | From | Catholic Political Union | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, Every year there is a case or two where primary school teachers are seriously injured after being assaulted by pupils. Should they, too, be armed with machine guns so that they can better protect themselves? Leroy Adams (Chairman of the CPU) |
| Date | 20:43:37, March 01, 2012 CET | From | National Imperial Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Yes, yes they should. |
| Date | 23:17:28, March 01, 2012 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Have I misread this bill? Those who oppose this reform suggest that with it enacted the police would be impotent to act against criminals as they would be completely unarmed. this is demonstrably not the case. the bill is clear the police will continue to have access to firearms, but that these will be restricted to units which have been properly trained and, indeed, are specifically trained to deal with armed criminals. There is no evidence that arming every single police officer would make our nation safer, indeed often the opposite effect is realised. |
| Date | 23:23:59, March 01, 2012 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Certainly, allowing our police to routinely carry military grade equipment is appealing in a democratic society. It essentially turns the police into a paramilitary force which under the wrong command could quite easily be turned against the population and democratically elected government - indeed they could quite easily be used to cause harm against those that they currently pledge to protect. Similarly, this simply encourages criminals to try to import weapons of their own to match the police leading effectively to an arms race which can only bring instability and fear to the country. We strongly believe that the police are a civilian service there to serve the public and not a quasi military organisation at the command of the state. Certainly we need to nature that where necessary properly trained units can access appropriate firearms to deal with specific incidents, but Rming every officer, and with no less than military grade equipment, is an unnecessary and quite frankly dangerous state of affairs. Charles Fox ULA Leader |
| Date | 01:17:39, March 02, 2012 CET | From | Catholic Political Union | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We hope other parties will pay close attention to the very wise words of Mr. Charles Fox. Handing military weapons to every police officer is a recipe for disaster, and many police officers themselves would be the first to argue this. Leroy Adams (Chairman of the CPU) |
| Date | 01:18:18, March 02, 2012 CET | From | Red Police Party | To | Debating the Police Reform Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, With regards to the comments by the CPU; we are not asking teachers to go fight off our criminals. We ask them to teach our students, in a fairly -and hopefully- safe environment. This is the complete opposite of our police who are told to go fight individuals with guns on a daily basis. Also, we wish to apologise for our manner in reprimanding the CPU over reputting this bill to debate. It was originally our idea to have this bill re-examined after every election, and we had forgot. However, we cannot support this bill. The honorable ULA leader says that arming our police is an "unnecessary and quite frankly dangerous state of affairs." I 100% disagree. You know what is a dangerous state of affairs? Having police officers killed because their government refused to respect their oath to our citizens and not put any trust in them. What does it say when our lawmakers have no trust in our officers? How can we ask any citizen to respect and obey the police when we ourselves refuse to? Hon. ULA leader also states that the police are "a civilian service there to serve the public." How can we ask them to serve and protect the public when they are not properly armed? It is simple, for the police to be able to do their jobs safely and effectively, they need to be able to combat the criminals with force. Additionally, if criminals are armed enough to be able to out fight our military, which is essentially what the ULA is implying, then we must have the police force strong enough to protect our citizens from this extremely dangerous criminal underworld. We must not only have better weapons and better equipped officers, but we will need better laws and regulations on the ownership of weapons. Actually, we tried that Mr. Speaker. But unfortunately the ULA and the CPU decided that the right for our citizens to own deadly weapons is more important than for our police to have those same weapons. How can we possibly say that our citizens should be armed, but our protectors of stability, safety and law and order cannot? We can't. We are very happy with the support against this bill and thank the CPT, Optimates and the IRP for standing with us on this very important issue. We hope the CPU and the ULA can understand our position, because we at the RPP cannot understand theirs. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 224 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 457 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 69 |
| Random fact: You can inactivate yourself on your User Page. You will then lose all your seats but your party account won't be deleted, and your party's Visibility ratings will not diminish. Reactivation can be requested in the "Reactivation Requests" thread in the Game Moderation section of the Particracy Forum. |
| Random quote: "Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that way they will taste better." - Niccolo Machiavelli |